User talk:MissBryan

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Mykungfu (talk • contribs • block log • creation log). As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All your edits have been reverted.

If you believe this block to be unjustified, you can contest it by adding {{unblock|reason}} to the bottom of this page and replacing reason with an explanation of why you think this is an unjust block. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.
Mr. Darcy talk 17:46, 8 January 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

No Basis for this block. MrDarcy is simply abusing his power as an administrator. I reiterated a POV expressed by Kevin Murray on and Articles for deletion Charles C. Poindexter that MrDarcy was unduly prejudicial toward the author of the article Charles C. Poindexter. I also questioned the dates cited. MrDarcy is the creator of the AFD and I made a notation that he appeared to be wiki-stalking me which was noted with links on AFD for CC Poindexter on Revision as of 0645 8 January 2007. Please review my edit history so that you may get a further understanding. Please see below for further information and links

Decline reason:

Seems fairly clear to me that this is the same person as CarmenBryan (talk · contribs). -- Yamla 18:47, 8 January 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked by MrDarcy on my other SN and created this account to argue for reinstatement of my other account. No Basis for this block. MrDarcy is simply abusing his power as an administrator. I reiterated a POV expressed by Kevin Murray on and Articles for deletion Charles C. Poindexter that MrDarcy was unduly prejudicial toward the author of the article Charles C. Poindexter. I also questioned the dates cited. MrDarcy is the creator of the AFD and I made a notation that he appeared to be wiki-stalking me which was noted with links on AFD for CC Poindexter on Revision as of 0645 8 January 2007. Please review my edit history so that you may get a further understanding. Please see below for further information and links

Decline reason:

reason Please see our sockpuppets policy. You have abused it and been permanently banned from Wikipedia. I'm protecting this page to prevent you wasting more time -- Robdurbar 19:39, 8 January 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.

Further information and links on admistrative abuse

"Please keep an eye on this user User talk:2Cold06, who was created about the same time as GrandWizard in October 2006 and basically unused until now, since McGrandWizard is blocked. He has one edit to the Alpha Phi Alpha article, and today posted a request on the talk page for help on an article for C.C. Poindexter. Mr. Poindexter was never a member the actual fraternity and although he participated in early formation, he was not given a founder status. I feel the only reason this user wants Poindexter's article and the others he mentions is similar to the article on Sigma Pi Phi and the deleted article Alpha Kappa Nu; to disparage Alpha Phi Alpha, but I can't think of any Alpha who would want to devote time to persons that the fraternity doesn't venerate. Thanks--Ccson 04:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)" I caught that one edit earlier. I'll keep an eye on him, but let me know if he picks up where MKF last left off. Thanks. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC) This user User talk:CarmenBryan has made an opinion to the AFD for C.C. Poindexter after only joining wikipedia on Jan 7, 2007. The user just happens to have a copy of the book that MyKungFu references to refute my dates. This can only be another sockpuppet of Mykungfu. I dissatisified that he's trying to rig the AFD request and once again not acting in good faith.--Ccson 05:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC) " at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrDarcy#MyKungFu

and

"Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles C. Poindexter Have a look. I believe that 2Cold06 is playing fast and loose with sources, but you're far more familiar with the subject matter. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC) I think I was mistaken about Poindexter's notability. If I close the AfD early (as keep), do you think that you (or others) can make the article a legitimate stand-alone entry, rather than just a POV fork from Alpha Phi Alpha? I'm just not familiar enough with the subject matter to handle the content. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ccson#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FCharles_C._Poindexter

I'm going to assume that forming an AFD and recruiting someone to argue its points is questionable for an administrator. I am also going to assume that blocking someone with no basis if they reitterate a point that was already stated about the obvious bias of an AFD is admistrative abuse. CarmenBryan 17:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]