User talk:Sedativebritto

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Unblock request declined

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.

Sedativebritto
block logipblocklistcrossblockluxo'sunblockremove gblock • contribs: +/-

Request reason:
I understand my mistake and i will adhere to it. Disable all my account. Just Unblock Tanzir Islam Britto account.
Decline reason:
For procedural reasons per Bovlb, and also the fact that you may only request unblock from your main account, Tanzir Islam Britto. Even if you successfully appeal your global lock, you will need to demonstrate you can edit here without misusing multiple accounts or promotional editing. Lastly, accounts cannot be deleted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


@EPIC:

@Bovlb: Sedativebritto (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will abstain from this as I am the blocking admin. For all the information needed, I refer to Wikidata:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tanzir_Islam_Britto. EPIC (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also meta:Steward_requests/Global#Global_lock_for_Tanzir_Islam_Britto_and_socks. Your persistent abuse across multiple projects appears to be about to lead to a global lock, which would make this unblock request is moot. You should probably be appealing that first. Bovlb (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add that, even if the other issues described above were resolved, given the scale of the abuse, the above unblock request would not have been adequate. You have repeatedly created new accounts to evade blocks and scrutiny and repeatedly recreated previously-deleted items despite all warnings not to do so. You have done similar things across multiple WMF projects. This substantial evidence of deceit on your part makes it hard for us to take your words at face value. You show no real understanding that your actions were abusive and wasted substantial volunteer time. You give no assurance that you would edit non-abusively in the future. Bovlb (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]