User talk:Scifilover386

Hello! Returning to editing after a long sabbatical. You can message me here. Thanks!

Hello, Scifilover386. You have new messages at EBY3221's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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).

Scifilover386 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am appealing this ban due to "sock puppetry" because the accusations are false, and the proof is inconclusive and inferential. An inference has been drawn from a syntax error that two accounts are one and the same person. It is based on one conversation that does not prove anything. A single interaction between two accounts cannot be conclusive evidence of sock puppetry. As stated, there was no disruption that occurred, and the conclusion that sock puppetry did occur is based on "instinct." There is no actual technological evidence that links both accounts. I am not linked to Nestle and do not engage in sock puppetry as you accuse. Again, I am appealing the ban and ask you to reconsider my case and restore my editing privileges.

Decline reason:

The evidence, both technical and behavioural, does not support your claim.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:15, 1 May 2013 (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.