User talk:The Tortfeasor

Articles for deletion nominations[edit]

When you submit an article for deletion, please make sure to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. If you don't include the line that looks like this:

{{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~

your AfD will be misformatted. I have gone back and fixed your two submissions for you already. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks very much for the links. I was literally just about to start a discussion on your talk page to ask you about that. I'd signed up from my IP so I could nominate these pages, and thought I knew how to nominate a page for deletion, but apparently I did not. Thanks for fixing it for me. Anyway, neither of these pages has been edited since 2009, or has any references, and there is no proof that either exists. The Tortfeasor (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free the Tortfeasor![edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 17 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Not a "duck," whatever that means. My edits have been superb. What is the meaning of this intrusion? If this is because I commented on the attacks against me on Dr. Eppstein's page, I was pinged. Was I supposed to sit there silently while this user attacked me? Please show me which of my edits deserved a block. I would say I deserve a Best-new-editor award, not a block. Free the Tortfeasor!

Decline reason:

Obvious violations of WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2017 (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.

The Duck Test. "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, there's good odds it's a duck." Your behavior indicates that you are User:Infamia, as you appeared and instantly picked up the crusade he and his socks had been carrying. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia policies or guidelines. The duck test does not apply in non-obvious cases. Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others." You have not met this heavy burden, as you have not shown "clear and convincing evidence" of anything. Clear and convincing evidence is a high evidentiary standard. Take it from an old Tortfeasor. The Tortfeasor (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

What "crusade"? I only made good edits. Isn't that what this place is about? Seems that the above admins aren't adhering to policy.

Decline reason:

Talk page access revoked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2017 (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.