User talk: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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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

 * 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 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&amp;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 &#38; 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)