User talk:SubGeniusFan1979

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).

SubGeniusFan1979 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock this account right now! I didn't do anything wrong with this account! I didn't vandalize or anything like that. All I was doing on it was adding some new people on to the American SubGenii category, fixing SubGenius references on the Gary Panter, Ken Kesey, and Timothy Leary Wikipedia articles, and fixing a mistake on the Curious George Learns the Alphabet Wikipedia article, which have all now been reverted. I didn't mean to pretend like I was SleepyHollowGuy1999, the guy who messed around with the American SubGenii Wikipedia category last year, and yes that is me and I am not a vandal anymore. Can you please unblock this account right now? I promise I won't vandalize anymore, And no I am not SleepyHollowGuy1999 anymore at all! OK? Thanks! Goodbye!

Decline reason:

I didn't vandalize ... I won't vandalize anymore? You're not SleepyHollowGuy1999 anymore ? Created page with 'Guess who's back once again bitches? It's me, SleepyHollowGuy1999!' Decline-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2022 (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.

Deepfriedokra (your username makes me hungry), how about giving him a chance. It wasn't like he was hiding, and when he says "I didn't vandalize..." he meant he didn't vandalize as his new username, which is a pretty good one. Seems sincere and didn't edit war when I reverted his Leary edit. Sure, he may enter vandal-mode again at some point, but he may also be a very good editor with a caring and endearing attitude towards the project. The second option is maybe worth letting him loose and trust his words (and don't editors get to ask to come back after six months, which his appeal seems to be doing). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Longer ago than I thought, he was banned in January 2021. Long time ago, in both maturing years and covid years. He broke his ban in February and March, 2021, and not since, so that's a pretty long time to sit in the penalty box. His March 2021 sock were a series of principled and maybe unique edits putting sock tags on his other socks, which seems Wikipedian-worthy in a vandally way. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: Yes, thanks, I did take all those points in. Not a policy based argument, I'm afraid. Certainly this is not a decision I could make on my own. Blocked by @Explicit: for sock puppetry, and the Community has usually frowned upon these "oops, I did it again" fresh starts when unblock requests have been brought to them. Obviously, he had resumed the same edits he had made under previous accounts, so he cannot say he has fresh-started. These account's edits were all disruptive. Apparently you missed the edit summaries that read, "replaced content with 'Fuck you Wikipedia bitches for not answering my unblock and reverting all of my edits!" So I do not see this as a constructive, collaborative editor who has turned over a new leaf. Also, you are asking me to, on my own, unblock a sock of someone who is globally locked and Community banned. My colleagues feel I'm overly WP:AGF in unblock requests to begin with, but I cannot go so far as you are asking me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]