User talk:ScienceGolfFanatic

Welcome!

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).

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

Request reason:

It seems unfair and very penal for the main account of many sock puppets to be blocked indefinitely. And this account isn't even used for vandalism only, since most of the edits made in this account are completely constructive and useful. Knowing that Wikipedia blocks are meant to stop vandalism rather than punishment, this account should be unblocked.

Decline reason:

Since there's no evidence that you intend to stop creating sock puppets, or to stop vandalizing (indeed, you don't seem to be saying any such thing), I can't justify undoing this block. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:10, 17 June 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

The guide to appealing blocks indicates that blocking is to prevent damage or further disruption to Wikipedia. This account itself isn't doing anything to disrupt Wikipedia because the edits made here are very constructive, so it's not, and longer necessary for this account to be blocked. And blocking wouldn't make a big difference because even if I don't have this account, sock puppets can still be created.

Decline reason:

Humans are blocked, not accounts. No need to argue this; you're hardly the first person to create multiple accounts and then complain when the non-vandalizing ones are blocked along with the vandalizing ones. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:31, 17 June 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've understood that I've been blocked because I've abusively used multiple accounts to vandalize Wikipedia. I'm willing to stop using sock puppets disruptively if my account is able to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

Per Jpgordon. You're clearly not welcome here. Spellcast (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2009 (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.

Note to reviewing admin: he's been creating disruptive socks as recently as today. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Jpgordon: Just to let you know, I did NOT create sock puppets today. Just because you don't welcome me here doesn't mean you should give false information so that they would decline my request. ScienceGolfFanatic (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm not welcome here, eh? Well, thanks very much, you've just encouraged me to do more vandalism around the site. You can block a thousand of my sock puppets and I can still create 1001 of sockpuppets. Good day to you all. ScienceGolfFanatic (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not create a sock puppet today. I've created sock puppets yesterday, but today's different now. I think that every puppet master, including me, should be given a second chance to prove that they are willing to stop vandalizing Wikipedia behind multiple accounts.

Decline reason:

If you created sockpuppets yesterday, then today is too early to give you a second chance. Please read our guide for appealing blocks - especially the end of this section. I would say that 1 month is an absolute minimum time you should wait before making an other request (some admins may allow for less) - or else your ability to edit this page will be disabled. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:30, 1 July 2009 (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.

With this edit, you pretty much guaranteed that you won't be unblocked. You see, people who are here for a productive purpose, with the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart, don't behave in this way. It's pretty clear that you're simply using unblock templates in the same way you used your many accounts- to entertain yourself at the expense of other people. No one here is interested in amusing you further, so I'm removing your ability to use this talk page for a good long while. The protection will expire in three months; if, at the end of that time, you have left Wikipedia alone and not created any additional accounts- or problems- maybe someone will be more open to hearing what you have to say. For now, since no one is going to unblock you, you're merely wasting your own time and ours. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ScienceGolfFanatic, I have created a new account for you. Your username is "Funny110" and your password is "a4571". Please change this password once you logged in. The reason I'm doing this is because you are banned and I am giving you a second chance. And please do not create sockpuppet accounts anymore. If you can get away from this ban, please leave a message on my talk page. CoolMatt18 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)CoolMatt18[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceGolfFanatic for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 15:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceGolfFanatic for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 22:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]