User talk:Evater

September 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,I just want to edit something that I know about Evater (talk) 10:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is very wrong, it is my only account which i created 5 day ago and i am not using any other account u can check. A user blocked me without knowing that I didn't do anything and i only done 11 edits u can also check this. Is this really fair anybody block me because he/she is doubting me. He/She blocked me without any proof or not even asked me once about it.Is that how Wikipedia works where anybody can block anybody without any reason. Evater (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why[edit]

{unblock | reason=I don't know who blocked me and why? I have created my account 5 days ago and it is not fairEvater (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know who block me and why? I have created my account 5 days ago and it is not fair

Decline reason:

This is explained to you literally right on this page. Yamla (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2020 (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.

But this is my first account Evater (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not using any other account[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

This is very wrong, it is my only account which i created 5 day ago and i am not using any other account u can check. A user blocked me without knowing that I didn't do anything and i only done 11 edits u can also check this. Is this really fair anybody block me because he/she is doubting me. He/She blocked me without any proof or not even asked me once about it.Is that how Wikipedia works where anybody can block anybody without any reason.Evater (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's pretty clear that this is a sock purely based on your writing style and subject matter you have edited about. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2020 (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.

What subject matter? i have done edit only on that Wikipedia pages that I already knew little bit to edit the page to i last did it because it was a protected. Also u and the person who block me didn't give any proof,u just decline my unblock request for because u have power to do it. Right! Evater (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not a sock(or a meatpuppet) you will have to explain why you aren't. It isn't enough to just deny it, as every sockpuppeteer denies doing so, since that is the whole point. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is my first account which i created to edit the page,i last did it. And i am getting punished for anybody's else mistake. I'm not getting this,that nobody warned me once they just block me and without any proof. Evater (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Why I'm getting punished for the thing i did not do.The people who block me and who decline my request did not provide any proof,they just block me because they doubting on me but i am not getting without any further warning or asking how can anyone block anybody. But trust me this is my first account and i did not use any accept this one, I not even properly started edit and i get block. Please unblock me once, because i get block without any warning or something that i can tell my opinion as well that i didn't do anything. PLEASE once because it is not fair, PleaseEvater (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the analysis below, pretty clear case of socking. only (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2020 (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.

Please Evater (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your account was created at roughly the same time as other blocked accounts and is editing in the same subject matter and in similar writing style. It is difficult to accept this as a coincidence. 331dot (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the information is little wrong so may be they also want to correct it. I don't know whom u talking about iam not in there favour but iam talking about myself and I'm not a sock please trust me Evater (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me once

Account registered, ten edits to gain autoconfirmed status, and then straight on to making exactly the same kind of edits to all three of the same contentious semi-protected articles. Three articles that have been edited repeatedly by multiple socks. That kind of coincidence would need some explaining. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After my explanation if still doubting me than i don't care about your opinion. Evater (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history is not an opinion- but if you don't care, then no one else needs to review your requests. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ultimate survi, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]