User talk:Bargo69

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).

Bargo69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

3 seperate students working on this project and are not sock puppets! Valid ID is available on request for the 3 falsely accused. If necessary only one will work on the project the block needs to be removed. If someone wants to be a sock puppet they would use different IP addresses. Your identification process needs to be adjusted to something that works not one that falsely accuses future editors. --Bargo69 (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:MEAT, then; no matter. Sandstein 20:53, 18 March 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).

Bargo69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

All 3 users were unaware of this policy and will never perform this action again. There was no warning of WP:MEAT future contributions from all 3 users will make up for this violation

Decline reason:

First of all, I have a hard time believing there are 3 different users. From reviewing your edits, you seem to think as one; I don't see any idiosynchratic distinctions between you, your accounts' emergence fits a likely sockpuppetry profile, and you all edit from the same IP address. If you really are three different people we need to get a full story from you about how the three of you came to get involved in this discussion and what happened off of Wikipedia, before an unblock could even be considered. Mango juice^talk 13:45, 19 March 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.

--Bargo69 (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this for a school progject?— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Sasquatch2 and Ben1985 about this prior to you being blocked, after I discovered those accounts may have been being controlled by the same person. Sasquatch2 responded prior to being blocked here. He did not acknowledge that you were working together. Perhaps he didn't know about Wikipedia's policy on meatpuppets but when asked if there was a more mundane explanation than sock puppetry he did not bring this up. —Fiziker ^t c 01:58, 19 March 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).

Bargo69 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Students working together on local news story project. Valid ID's can be sent in for all three. Sasquatch2 is a female. None of us reallized we had to reveal our personal identity and always try to keep it private when working online. Fiziker is a stranger and will not receive our personal ID's. We didn't feel obligated to answer his questions in a manner that would compromise our safe identity or feel he needed to know we were working together, but the administrator can get all three if kept confidential. From this point on only one of us will work on single articles at a time.

Decline reason:

We do not ask for your real life identity. All contributions are to Bigfoot and the talk page. All the accounts appear to be controlled by one person with a specific agenda. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sasquatch2/Archive. Nothing in your unblock request convinces me that will change. Sandahl (talk) 01:36, 20 March 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.

{unblock|do not bite}}--Bargo69 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not bite The new editors!

Your request for unblocking has now been reviewed fairly by several independent administrators. However, you do not need an infinite number of reviews; it is time to accept that your block is valid, and is unlikely to be overturned by any administrator. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]