User talk:Marklmarklmarkl

I've not vandalised a thing.

Whatever. You've been reported. Recess is over. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I hardly think updating information, correcting clumsy wording, adding periods to the ends of abbreviations, and writing numbers in words counts as vandalism. I was correcting the page, and the user Paul Foord insisted upon reverting my efforts, despite my attempts to explain that the information I was adding was correct. And then, suddenly, "Whatever. You've been reported. Recess is over." as though I'm some kind of misbehaving student? Next thing I know I'm indefinitely blocked from editing, when all I did was make a correction or two, and make the page more presentable. Perhaps Paul Foord's activities need to be reviewed.

Decline reason:

All of which was fine, except for you repeatedly changing the word leadership to brown-nosing Jac16888 ^Talk 12:44, 26 August 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I only did that once.

Decline reason:

(1) You have done it at least twice, here and here. (2) "Minna Sora no Shita kept reverting my legitimate edits" tells me that you openly admit to making destructive edits as acts of revenge. (3) At the time of your vandalism to Minna Sora no Shita's user page, none of the edits by this account had been reverted by anyone, and Minna Sora no Shita has never reverted any of your edits. In fact Minna Sora no Shita has not edited since several hours before the creation of this account. So you are telling us that this is a sockpuppet account. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

How about bots? Yes, I openly admit to wronging a wrongdoer. My apologies for that. However, this account is not a sockpuppet, and clearly not a "vandalism-only" account, as if that were the case I would simply have made another one and been on my merry way vandalising and whatnot, rather than trying to appeal the ban here.

Decline reason:

I accept that "vandalism only" is not accurate, and if the only problem were a couple of minor pieces of vandalism I would consider unblocking. However, you have given no answer to the other points. In addition, "wronging a wrongdoer" explains nothing, as you have not indicated what wrong the user has done, nor explained why you falsely claimed they had been reverting edits by this account. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

What other points? I did not find that user page by accident. I can't recall how I came to it, but I'm sure it was through some tomfoolery of his that I decided a vendetta was due.

Decline reason:

Have you read the guide to appealing blocks, as suggested above? If you had you would know that accusing other editors of wrongdoing is not a way to do it. And when your accusation is "I'm sure it was through some tomfoolery" without even specifying what you are accusing them of it becomes even less appropriate. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I certainly did read the guide, but I don't really have anything else I can add. Perhaps it was a mistake, but it was an honest one, just as I honestly can't recall the nature of any conflict I had with Minna Sora no Shita.

Decline reason:

Sorry, this does not explain your "vendetta" editing. As this is your fifth request with no viable argument for unblock, I've disabled your access to this page. You will need to work through the unblock e-mail list hereafter. Kuru (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2010 (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.

I suspect that if one were to cross-reference Nicholas Egan and Minna there would be some correlation. (Nicholas Egan, BTW, is the sneaky vandalism that was happening on the school page, so even those edits, disguised as "helpful," were vandalism.) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it vandalism? He is a notable alumnus.

"Nicholas Egan, Ministry of Magic and veteran Wikipedian." As Stan Lee would say, Nuff said. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your block

Would you then please explain this and this. Favonian (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Nicholas Egan is a notable alumnus, and Minna Sora no Shita kept reverting my legitimate edits.

Hmmm, this is beginning to sound like a sock account. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Minna has never edited that school article. Well, I thank Markl₃ for confirming that the block was appropriate. Favonian (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give 'em enough rope... 69.181.249.92 (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't just pull the page from nowhere. He must have censored something I was doing somewhere, or I wouldn't have responded.

I don't know what to say. It's not a sockpuppet.

Having declined three unblock requests I will leave your latest (fifth) request to another administrator. However, if I were dealing with this request then I would also consider revoking your talk page access, as I think these continual unblock requests with no serious reason are a waste of everybody's time. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]