Marstarbartion

Messages left here will be read, replied to on your own talk page and then deleted.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

December 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Toddst1 (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Marstarbartion (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is hardly surprising, given the sincere and calculated attempts to force me off this site. You claim sockpuppetry, so prove it. You can't, because it is not true. Edit warring? Not true, I was reverting damage done by a user to an article. There is absolutely no justification for this block whatsoever, and it should be lifted at once

Decline reason:

First, your username is inappropriate, and will not be unblocked for editing. Second, you have been edit-warring. Third, you have labelled some of the edits you remove as vandalism which are clearly not meeting that definition, which is therefore incredibly disruptive. Instead of following dispute resolution, you're trying to force your way into at least one article. Those are all valid reasons for a block (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:56, 29 December 2012 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Marstarbartion (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you for proving that a vendetta against me exists. If the username is inappropriate, then I request it to be changed (it blatantly isn't, but you are part of a clique that seeks to force me off) to Mistirbition. Secondly, if I was edit warring, it would be a 24hr block and a warning, however, this admin went into an indefinite block proving that the temptation to finally get rid of me was too much to bear. I consider this a brazen act of persecution against myself. Thirdly, yes labelling them as vandalism was wrong, but I am totally surprised that this is supposed justification for an indef block, and I would like to see other incidents of indef being used against people who do so.

Decline reason:

If you wish to be unblocked to change your username, use {{unblock-un}}. Any name which sounds auto-erotic will not be accepted, so that both your current name and your suggested one are not acceptable. Your block is justified, for all reasons stated, and it is a requirement that you accept this and modify your behaviour accordingly. Making unjustifiable accusations of sockpuppetry (for which you were in fact not blocked) is also a potentially blockable offence and is best avoided. Your belief in a vendetta does not appear to be supported by facts.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:10, 29 December 2012 (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.

Yet another attempt to get myself unblocked by the clique blatantly out to remove me from wikipedia.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Marstarbartion (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

Victimised. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

see below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Marstarbartion (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Here we go again! This will obviously fail, without even the slightest hint of doubt. I feel I have been treated completely unfairly by this community. I have done absolutely nothing to warrant an indef, and both listed "reasons" for it are completely falsive. However, I have come here, and I refuse to be bullied out. I do not know what I am supposed to do at this point, I cannot understand why I have been treated the way I have, really I cannot. I have never been exposed to such hostility in all my life, and now I have to jump through hoops - no doubt a source of great ammusement to my tormentors. What am I supposed to say at this point?

Decline reason:

My money says this is a sock of User:Iamthemuffinman, who was indef blocked shortly before this account was created and who threatened to sock. I shall raise an SPI shortly. (I won't provide my evidence here, but any admin is welcome to email me to ask.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2012 (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.

When it comes back negative, which I absolutely assure you it will, I fully expect you to retract that statement and accusation and then unblock me. I have never heard such utter nonsense in my life. Marstarbartion (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I was beaten to it - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marstarbartion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Quack quack! --Biker Biker (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I cannot wait to see this fail. Meanwhile, would you like me to get you some juice or something? I figured it would be hard for you to swallow your own words without it. :) Marstarbartion (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Your recent test edit to Montmorency County, Michigan was not constructive. It was vandalism and was reverted. Entry of false information is not helpful. If you want to experiment or make a test edit, please use the sandbox. These pages are patrolled by robots and human editors like me. When you make an edit please leave an accurate edit summary, and not a misleading one. Further vandalism will get you blocked from editing. Administrators can block you without further warning. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Utter, utter rubbish. It was not even close to "vandalism". Marstarbartion (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice little discussion you got going

On the SPI page. Sadly none of it is true, I am not a sockpuppet, which is why I can be so confident. Because I have nothing to fear, and imposing a block for something that turns out to be completely untrue would be outragous, allowing me to submit another unblock request with proof that I have not engaged in sockpuppetry. If you declined then, it would be down to a definite desire to keep me off the site and not due to any rule breaking, though a 24 hr 3RR ban would be acceptable (with time spent banned deducted, obviously). Marstarbartion (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out at the SPI, a negative CU result does not prove innocence, as there are plenty of ways of defeating technical checks - in fact, at this moment I could simultaneously operate two accounts from different computers, different ISPs, and different countries, without any real difficulty (and with a bit more effort I could manage 3 accounts, 3 computers, 3 ISPs, 2 countries). What happens if no technical match is made is that the SPI is judged based on behavioural evidence - and the relevant people are in possession of that evidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure they are, but I am no technical wizard, I have no understanding of how your systems work, other than the fact that they clearly do work according to the archives of its use. As I said, the reason why I am so cocky is because I have not engaged in sock puppetry, keeping any block for sockpuppetry after it has been put through SPI processes and come back negative is purely a manifestation of your own personal opinion of me and/or a simple desire to persecute me. Using your logic, Stalin and Hitler would be the same person based around similar dictatorial and genocidal behavior patterns. Marstarbartion (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Y'know, I was sorta expecting the CU to come back negative... what, you just figured the request would get rejected or something? If you want to explain what it is you tried to do to outsmart CheckUser, I'm sure Salvio can tell you where you went wrong. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No darling, I don't. I find it absolutely hillarious that you have come to this result, especially given that you seem to think I operate that IP which is patently nonsense. Marstarbartion (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Given that CheckUser has confirmed the link to Iamthemuffinman (and *not* the IP as you claim), I have removed your ability to edit this talk page and to use the email facility - if you wish to make further unblock requests, please contact WP:BASC or WP:UTRS from your original account. (And I'm sure Salvio won't spill the beans - he's far too smart for that) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)