User talk:Svenard

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Oh, of course. I got blocked as a sock once again. This time, I was actually making positive contributions to Wikipedia. But I guess being good after you've already been blocked several times is a sin here. I've tried to apologize on multiple occasions, and sworn to never vandalize ever again. And I upheld it. But now that I've been blocked, the admins have decided to revert almost all of my edits! All of which were positive! Oh, I'd like to see the look on their face when they realize I had done nothing wrong with those edits, and they have to revert themselves. I thought I had an opportunity to do good on wikipedia, and even though I had evaded my blocks, I had made sure to NEVER vandalize ever again. What's even the point of requesting an unblock anyway? 99% sure it'll get rejected anyway. Svenard (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Let me be blunt here. YOU are blocked from editing. Not the account, the person behind the accounts. At this point, to be honest, you are banned anyway due to the number of socks you have created to get around your block. DO NOT create another account to edit. If you want to edit here, go to your main account and try to get unblocked. The more accounts you create, the more likely it is you will never be allowed to edit again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2023 (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.

It might have helped if your first edit with this account had been a list of all the accounts you've ever used. CityOfSilver 16:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CityofSilver I suppose so. Also, can you unrevert those edits I made? None of them were disruptive or controversial. Svenard (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits were reverted because they were made by a sockpuppet, not because they were problematic. Speaking of which, your last sock before today was active six days ago. Why did you say "It's been a few years since I've left Wikipedia" on your userpage? CityOfSilver 16:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CityOfSilver well, I was just trying to get the admins off my back, so I just claimed I had done so. I shouldn't have, but I was just desperate to not get blocked again. Svenard (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there had never been an SPI done on me, but I guess you don't have to do one. Would've been nice to do one since I could've explained myself. Svenard (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And it still took them less than five days to uncover it so it looks like this dishonest method will always, eventually, end up with you getting blocked. If you can, make an unblock request from Nestofbirdnests that also includes a list of every single account you've ever made. I'm not confident that will work but I'm very confident there's no other way you'll be able to edit here. CityOfSilver 16:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could try, but I'm afraid I'll get blocked from appeals to UTRS too, but I'll give it a shot.

But they were all positive. I think reverting my edits is more harmful than leaving them. Svenard (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to happen. You can't even message like this since you're not allowed to do anything except try to get unblocked. CityOfSilver 17:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had already made 2 unblock requests, one to appeal my global lock, and another on UTRS. So I had already appealed on User:Nestofbirdnests. Svenard (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is you less than a week ago. You are banned on en-wikipedia and globally-locked project wide. Banned means banned, and you will need to address the block via your main account on Meta, not UTRS, if you will be appealing. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had appealed my lock directly to the stewards. Svenard (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did that out of anger, because I thought that this whole thing was unfair. Svenard (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]