User talk:Markanthony101
The pages you have listed for deletion have not been listed properly, and are not appearing on the main WP:Articles for deletion page. Please read WP:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. Thank you. —Salmar (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mickylynch101 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- You have been indef blocked per above. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Markanthony101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
What??? I have looked over the case and it seems to have been made with close consultation with a few friends of a particular admin. There was no discussion and no external debate. And all the evidence in circumstantial. Unblock me and at least give me the chance of a fair hearing.
Decline reason:
Fairly straight-forward case of WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK violations, apparently. You do not need to be unblocked to state your case here. — Yamla (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Markanthony101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is no evidence to support the claim. This is a travesty of an injustice, and you all violated WP:CIVIL by not even giving me a fair chance to defend myself. Also, you violated WP:Assume Good Faith. I have nothing to say other than I think the accusation is absurd, and the only evidence linking me to this other use is similarity of name and the fact we nominated certain articles for deletion from a certain user. The fact is that I was looking through some users pages randomly clicking on links to articles they created. When I saw he made some truly terrible articles, I decided to nominate a few for deletion, just doing a little to improve the free exchange of knowledge wikipedia has spearheaded. The way you have ruthlessly stamped on a newcomer is completely unfair and I will be following this matter up.
P.S- 101 is a common end to a name. Markanthony101 is my name because I am a classicist buff, with a particular fascination with Anthony. 101 would intend that I intend to take you to 'school' over him. It was an ironic, self deprecating joke that none of you seemed to have got. Please consider this case logically and respond with a fair response, free of the needless and pointless template talk that dominates your day to day discussion.
Decline reason:
I see sufficient evidence to merit a block here. — Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Who owes who
[edit]- See Wikipedia:RFCU#Markanthony101, I think you owe me an apology. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)