User talk:SMBMovieFan

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} 22:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't expect to be unblocked, but yes i do admit i am TzarN64. However, i did learn my lesson and improved Wikipedia for the better. For an example, i made articles Tomb of the Mask Bendgate, and Antennagate. I apologize for my past actions as TzarN64, and TheSecondComing10. SMBMovieFan (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block evasion just digs a deeper hole, and resets any potential WP:STANDARDOFFER. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:55, 2 November 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.

This sucks.

My articles that is notable for WikiPedia is now being deleted for no reason. SMBMovieFan (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're being deleted because they were created while you were evading your block. You cannot edit here, under any account or IP, while your original block is in place. Your edits under this account continued to be misguided as is evidenced by the messages on your talk page. This is just blatant disruption. The standard offer is your only option for a potential unblock, but is only applicable if you stop evading your block.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tzar, if you want to be unblocked then you have to log in to your original account and make the unblock request there. I don't remember what you did prior to getting blocked for WP:NOTHERE, however your edits on this account aren't bad (you have some great ideas, including that Wikiproject which I might propose a little later myself), it's just that you're socking. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf @Ponyo I logged into TzarN64 and submitted a unblock request. SMBMovieFan (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The standard offer still applies. You need to go at least 6 months without socking. Today is Day #1. Can you make it 6 more months? If so, you might have the opportunity to edit here again. But creating another sock just sets the clock back to 0 and more page deletions and reversions of your edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze Wolf: I don't know how you can say "your edits on this account aren't bad" when we have this and this. Also, a whole series of edits like this shows a severe WP:COMPETENCE issue. SpinningSpark 09:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I see the good in people instead of the bad. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 11:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to be providing advice to other editors, you should be able to see both the good and the bad or else you're providing false hope to someone who should not be unblocked. I immediately permablock editors for edits such as this, socking or not. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, however not all of their edits were bad. I do not wish to continue this conversation further. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]