User talk:Bambifan111: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Latest revision as of 22:05, 13 September 2025

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).

Bambifan111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’m confused about what happened here. I’m just trying to create a golf article, and then it got moved to the draft stage, and then when I tried undoing that action because I’m just following the style of other golf articles, that article got deleted and I get blocked for abusing multiple accounts.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2025 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

Bambifan111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason stated for my block is that I was abusively using multiple accounts to violate Wikipedia policy. Both are completely untrue. I have not been using multiple accounts and I do not understand why I was violating Wikipedia policy. The actions I did the led up to my block are:

Create the golf article Constellation Furyk and Friends
Move the article from a Draft page without the Draft prefix after I saw it got moved to a Draft because I felt it was ready to be an article
Undid an edit from the blocking admin with a few formatting changes because I disagreed with their edits and cited another golf article with similar formatting changes as example

The block is not necessary because I have not been doing disruption in the first place as mentioned above. I would just continue doing what I’ve been doing, making useful contributions to my articles of interest, including but not including to golf articles such as creating articles for golf tournament pages that didn’t exist like this one.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing “blocking administrator” with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The reason stated for my block is that I was abusively using multiple accounts to violate Wikipedia policy. Both are completely untrue. I have not been using multiple accounts and I do not understand why I was violating Wikipedia policy. The actions I did the led up to my block are:

* Create the golf article [[Constellation Furyk and Friends]]

* Move the article from a Draft page without the Draft prefix after I saw it got moved to a Draft because I felt it was ready to be an article

* Undid an edit from the blocking admin with a few formatting changes because I disagreed with their edits and cited another golf article with similar formatting changes as example

The block is not necessary because I have not been doing disruption in the first place as mentioned above. I would just continue doing what I've been doing, making useful contributions to my articles of interest, including but not including to golf articles such as creating articles for golf tournament pages that didn't exist like this one. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=The reason stated for my block is that I was abusively using multiple accounts to violate Wikipedia policy. Both are completely untrue. I have not been using multiple accounts and I do not understand why I was violating Wikipedia policy. The actions I did the led up to my block are:

* Create the golf article [[Constellation Furyk and Friends]]

* Move the article from a Draft page without the Draft prefix after I saw it got moved to a Draft because I felt it was ready to be an article

* Undid an edit from the blocking admin with a few formatting changes because I disagreed with their edits and cited another golf article with similar formatting changes as example

The block is not necessary because I have not been doing disruption in the first place as mentioned above. I would just continue doing what I've been doing, making useful contributions to my articles of interest, including but not including to golf articles such as creating articles for golf tournament pages that didn't exist like this one. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=The reason stated for my block is that I was abusively using multiple accounts to violate Wikipedia policy. Both are completely untrue. I have not been using multiple accounts and I do not understand why I was violating Wikipedia policy. The actions I did the led up to my block are:

* Create the golf article [[Constellation Furyk and Friends]]

* Move the article from a Draft page without the Draft prefix after I saw it got moved to a Draft because I felt it was ready to be an article

* Undid an edit from the blocking admin with a few formatting changes because I disagreed with their edits and cited another golf article with similar formatting changes as example

The block is not necessary because I have not been doing disruption in the first place as mentioned above. I would just continue doing what I've been doing, making useful contributions to my articles of interest, including but not including to golf articles such as creating articles for golf tournament pages that didn't exist like this one. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@Drmies: Would you like to explain who they are suspected to be a sock of? That doesn’t seem immediately clear to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 01:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be the same as User talk:Bambifan103. PhilKnight (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And all the other ones. Bambifan wants to be caught and loves the attention. Drmies (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bambifan101. —Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but, @Drmies, what’s the behavioural match here? “Bambifan111” isn’t exactly an implausibly unique username. Alternatively, @PhilKnight, if you wanted to get out the goggles, looks like the LTA would be pretty easy to spot. — asilvering (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used CheckUser and found they geolocate to a different country than the one stated in Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bambifan101. PhilKnight (talk) 09:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight, do what you think is right: the name, and the complete fluency that allowed them to produce a flawless draft including infobox and tables at their first attempt at article writing (including the correct little edits to get autoconfirmed) seemed suggestive enough to me. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Bambifan101 nor Bambifan103 and have never been to Atlanta, Georgia, nor Mobile, Alabama as it says in the long term abuse page, and I hope PhilKnight’s check confirmed this statement. Bambifan111 (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bambifan111, have you edited Wikipedia before as an IP editor or under another account name? — asilvering (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ::::::::[[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]], do what you think is right: the name, and the complete fluency that allowed them to produce a flawless draft including infobox and tables at their first attempt at article writing (including the correct little edits to get autoconfirmed) seemed suggestive enough to me. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 21:58, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
 :::::::: I am not Bambifan101 nor Bambifan103 and have never been to Atlanta, Georgia, nor Mobile, Alabama as it says in the long term abuse page, and I hope PhilKnight’s check confirmed this statement. [[User:Bambifan111|Bambifan111]] ([[User talk:Bambifan111#top|talk]]) 15:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
+:::::::::@[[User:Bambifan111|Bambifan111]], have you edited Wikipedia before as an IP editor or under another account name? — [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:05, 13 September 2025

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply