User talk:Marktherufftheryder
Sockpuppetry case
[edit]
|
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/James brown1605 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Marktherufftheryder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I think it is hugely unfair that i was blocked without being given a chance to mount a defence. I am not a 'sockpuppet' of james brown1605 however i am his friend who he told about his wikipedia page which he felt was being unjustly listed for deletion which i went and viewed and then after seeing what i thought was other users refusing to look objectively at the page after it had been updated i spoke in favour of the page in question which has now been removed from the articles for deletion list. the article deletion page was a discussion not a vote so i do not see how lending my opinion to the matter can reasonably considered to be illegal. it was not up to me or james brown1605 whether the article was allowed to remain or not so i dont understand how raising issues to be looked at by the other members of the discussion is breaking wikipedia rules. the allegation that i am an 'experienced wikipedia editor' is ridiculous as i have only ever once before edited a page and that was just to delete vandalism, i have also tried to edit a couple of other pages but have not been allowed as i dont have the experience.
Decline reason:
If what you say is true, then you are not a sockpuppet but a meatpuppet, and since you are acting as that user's proxy, you get blocked when he does. I cannot see why you need an account, since your only edits are in this area; you don't seem to have any interest in making constructive edits, based on your edit history. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:31, 21 December 2007 (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.
Marktherufftheryder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
(continuing from below) But i do have an interest in constructive edits, i have made a small number before on other pages just not with an actual account since i have never needed one because i have never entered any of the discussion pages before. Also i didnt just wade into the discussion and give my two cents and leave, i took an active role in updating the page with the relevant information that was requested by the other wikipedia users in order to get the page up to scratch as you can see form the edit history
Decline reason:
Can you please tell us which IP address you used to make your productive edits? Also, have you read and understood WP:SOCK and do you now understand why your edits were inappropriate? — Yamla (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2007 (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.
no sorry i dont know the ip address but yes i do understand that they were against the rules although im not sure i think they were inappropriate as they were constructive to the page but i do understand they were against the rules