User talk:ArticlesForRedemption

Question[edit]

Have you edited in the past or are currently editing under any other accounts? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Do we really need to ask? I just stumbled across this amusingly-named brand spanking new user as well. More proof that wikipedia is a social network.--Milowent (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed the first and so far all edits from this account consist of nominating articles for deletion, which you just do not see from a new editor. But before starting an ANI thread or trying to identify a connection with someone else, I figure I might as well ask first, no? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in asking, maybe its Peterbrowndancin again, which was a nifty name as well.--Milowent (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this account could just be blocked under the duck test. Quantpole (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Hi AFR. May I invite you to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of published lists? I started the article in response to your AfD's of 100 greatest and worst Britons articles. Others are welcome too. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is welcome, fer sure.--Milowent (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

It is pretty clear that this account is controlled by a disgruntled editor or former editor who is here to make a point and/or stir up trouble. Personally I suspect a bad-hand sockpuppet, but I have no proof of that, and that is not, repeat not, the reason I have blocked this account. I have blocked this account because it is disruptive. Hesperian 03:18, 24 February 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).

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

Request reason:

I was not given a formal warning about being blocked. This has come totally out of the blue. Where are my disruptive edits? I want my case to be seen to by another admin. That is totally false and you've blocked me on a deranged suspicion.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. TN X Man 14:53, 24 February 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've merged your two unblock requests into the one above. In the meantime, please be sure that you've reviewed WP:SOCK. In particular, the section regarding inappropriate uses of alternate accounts. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive[edit]

Wow - a new user getting an unblock template up before the blocking admin had even commented. --Merbabu (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, i'm crying croc tears for him now.--Milowent (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed your unblock request and had a look at your contributions, but it isn't possible for me to really develop an opinion about your block without a little more information. What is the name of your primary account? What is the purpose of this account, and why did you decide to do it this way instead of nominating articles for deletion using your primary account? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been in mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwanyewest for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. A Nobody^{My talk} 16:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]