User talk:Treveyor

Talk page guidelines - please read!

Please do not:

Insult, attack, or otherwise disrupt myself or other editors on this page
Leave undescriptive messages or headings (i.e. headings like "month year")
Derail the overall thread of a topic
Repost messages that have been removed
Edit the talk page archives
Delete this content from the page

Please do the following:

Contact me on this page
Reply to threads that you have started
Use this page as a method of getting my attention
Ask me nicely to do something or do stop doing something
Anything else that would qualify as "civil discussion"

Recent CSD

Hi, Treveyor, and welcome! Thanks for patrolling new pages. Please note that just because an article isn't in English isn't enough on its own to tag it for speedy deletion. Please read the valid criteria as listed here. (You could simply use the {{Not english}} tag to mark material not in English.) If you have other questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page; if you reply here, please use {{ping|MereTechnicality}} to let me know that you did. Thanks! MereTechnicality ⚙ 21:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. Trevor! --- (talk - contribs - email) 21:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I'd also recommend the use of Twinkle, it makes it a lot easier to revert vandalism, mark things for deletion, and a lot of other neat little things. You can activate it in Preferences -> Gadgets. Thanks for helping out! MereTechnicality ⚙ 21:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am already using Twinkle, but I removed the TW from my edit summaries because I didn't want it to be obvious. Trevor! --- (talk - contribs - email) 21:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. MereTechnicality ⚙ 21:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous account(s)

Hi Treveyor, on your userpage you declare you started editing the English Wikipedia in February 2017, but you know how things work around here pretty well already. If you don't mind me asking, could you disclose your previous username(s)? It just doesn't seem like you're new. If this is a WP:CLEANSTART then I can respect that, as long as you're not evading any blocks or something like that. Sro23 (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sro23: I have had no other previous accounts. If you read my userpage, you'll see that I mention that I've been an IP editor for quite a while. That's how I already know how things work. Trevor! --- (talk - contribs - email) 01:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: Huh? Trevor! --- (talk - contribs - email) 11:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weird

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).

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

Request reason:

I do not know why I have been blocked. I find it a bit odd that at the same time I was opening a discussion about the accuracy of CheckUser, my account has been CheckUsered and blocked for some strange reason. The reason

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.

doesn't tell me anything, and therefore this block isn't really fair because I don't know the deeper reasons behind it. I am guessing that this is one of the reasons that I presented at VPP where CheckUser can be inaccurate and the data can lead to unjustified blocks, but I am still unsure. @DeltaQuad: I do expect an answer from you. This is really ridiculous and frustrating as I have never done anything to break the rules. Help!!

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; you appear to be looking for an explanation for your block, and that's not what the unblock template is for. Yamla (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2017 (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.

Help

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I do not know why I have been blocked. I find it a bit odd that at the same time I was opening a discussion about the accuracy of CheckUser, my account has been CheckUsered and blocked for some strange reason. The reason

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.

doesn't tell me anything, and therefore this block isn't really fair because I don't know the deeper reasons behind it. I am guessing that this is one of the reasons that I presented at VPP where CheckUser can be inaccurate and the data can lead to unjustified blocks, but I am still unsure. @DeltaQuad: I do expect an answer from you. This is really ridiculous and frustrating as I have never done anything to break the rules. Help! Trevor! --- (talk - contribs - email) 15:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned the blocking admin here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is irrefuatable evidence you are User:I Love Bridges. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

Okay, I admit that I am User:I Love Bridges. However, as can be seen here, I was eligible for a WP:OFFER return on February 19th. I cannot use my original account because it is globally locked, and I have forgotten the password to many of my other sock puppet accounts. This account was created just before that time (within 1 week), and therefore I would now like it to become my WP:CLEANSTART account so that my previous history doesn't have to constantly follow me everywhere around the site. I herby request unblock per WP:OFFER and/or WP:ROPE.

Decline reason:

You are not eligible for unblock coonsideration under WP:OFFER until you have spent six months without sockpuppetry or block evasion. You have not done so. Yamla (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2017 (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.

I have revoked your talk page access as a result of deceptive appeals. Just Chilling (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]