User talk:Archibald16

I replied on my talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I declined to delete the page on John C. Banbenek, as the previous deletion was for copyvio , which this page does not share, but I alert you that it is quite possible that someone will send it to AfD. As his online bio says he has written books, mention of them--with outside reviews cited -- would not be amiss.DGG (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What multiple accounts?

Exactly what multiple accounts? I've only been using one and only from this same wireless connection here. -- Archibald16 04:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind... it's clear this admin banned me simply for defending the wrong article and has no proof at all for sockpuppetry... oh well, guess you win since I'm banned forever...

The only person who ever wrote about John Bambenek was himself. You are the one who authored the article, once, again, despite it being deleted more than 10 times under three separate names.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who did or did not write about John Bambenek in the past, but you offer no proof than I am him, other than I like his stuff and I think he is at least as notable as some of the other bios the slide here... just be honest about it, people stormed that page with animosity and instead of actually trying to prove me as a sockpuppet, you simply claim it so, sans proof, ban me, and you win the debate...

Hey congrats, you're an admin, so I lose. Just awfully convenient that instead of say, salting the article and deleting it, you simply ban me instead... and in retrospect, it seems anyone who has ever spoken up for bambenek's article has been banned too. Convenient, eh? -- Archibald16 04:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to appeal this block, there are means to do so. There's using {{unblock|your reason here}} or an e-mail to the unblock mailing list. I only can ID this as a gut feeling based on previous experience. If you are not John Bambenek, then this will be resolved.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine.

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).

Archibald16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No evidence given for sockpuppetry, I'm simply not a sock, no evidence is given for me as such, and I don't know how else to prove it... even admin admits there is only a "gut feeling"

Decline reason:

Let's see, an article with a history of COI issues and sockpuppet supporters, re-created and vigourously defended by a brand new user with no other edits? Doesn't take Hercule Poirot to figure this one out. — Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Well, that was a helpful exercise in futility... seems like anyone who supports John Bambenek is outright banned with no questions asked... anyone see how this can be a self-serving POV tool? Especially when reviewing admin also voted for deletion? Oh well, the cabal has spoken... no evidence needed.