User talk:Tishreen07

unbloc reviewd1

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).

Tishreen07 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello admins, I know I've wrong editing before and I want to back for create page with sources Thank you if you unbloacked me Tishreen07 (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that you were just lying at User talk:Pamorak and User talk:Chillele about not being a sock puppet, no. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2025 (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.

UTRS appeal #102464

Standard offer made. Noting blocked on SIMPLE. No call on current unblock request here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting 3X ban. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah iknow i was wrong in before but know i understan that bro how i can be unblocked or unbanned? Tishreen07 (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please don't call me bro. Thank you. Second of all, go back and reread all the messages you were left that you blanked. You can find them in the history of this page. For what it's worth, you have not ever come close to describing what you did to get blocked and what you would do different. You were told before to wait six months before seeking another unblock request. As you are community banned now, any request to be unblocked will need to go to the community. So far, what you have written has been wholly inadequate. Please carefully review the guide to appealing blocks, and be prepared to apply the knowledge you have gained thereby. Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know I have reviewed before and no one has responded, so I have resorted to this request Tishreen07 (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be grateful if you could help me get back. There are many things I want to do I want to create a new page and I don't want to repeat the old mistakes Tishreen07 (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tishreen07, your best hopes of being unblocked are following WP:OFFER as mentioned above. Now that this is a WP:3X ban, because of repeated block evasion, the community would have to discuss and approve any unblock request.

I would be very surprised if there was even a chance that you would be unblocked without following WP:OFFER. Even then, given that you're also indefinitely blocked from Simple Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia, your best chance of someday being able to return to Wikipedia and do any of the many things you want to do is to forget about Wikipedia for now and spend the next few years working on other hobbies and interests apart from Wikipedia. Then come back in 2027 or 2028 or 2029 or whenever with a block request that owns up to your conduct and details how you will contribute in the future. I do not believe there is any realistic path for you to edit Wikipedia in the near future, and if you continue to evade your block, it will just be that much harder to ever be unblocked.

You are absolutely free to ignore this advice, of course, but I firmly believe that this is the approach that is most likely to result in the community giving you another chance. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So they'll unblocked me three years?Well, why don't you think this is too much? Tishreen07 (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I now understand that because I know that in the past, I had many accounts because of the sock pupps, many accounts were put on my shoulders that I had nothing to do Tishreen07 (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But now I understand that I made a mistake in the past and I don't want mistakesto repeat these if you help me for unbloacked me I would be grateful if you could help me here are many things I want to do iwant creat to article page Tishreen07 (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I return with WP:OFFER now? Tishreen07 (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't "return with WP:OFFER" if you haven't actually followed WP:OFFER. I laid out what I believe your options are, and I don't think there's any realistic chance of you being allowed to edit any time in the near future. You didn't make "a mistake." Forgetting to close the refrigerator or picking up the dry cleaning is a mistake. You repeatedly violated Wikipedia's rules, and these actions have consequences, whether or not you like facing them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia at first, so I made a lot of mistakes, so I can never go back for editing؟But now I know because I want to go back if I have the opportunity because I'm know familiar with Wikipedia Tishreen07 (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please. What were your mistakes. Please describe them. Please describe what you would do differently. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been blocked in the past because I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia at first. because I editing alot and created of several accounts to hide myself. That's why I was blocked from Wikipedia And I haven't made any adjustments to get back for two months Tishreen07 (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Chillele and Pamorak it was me but I said that I was wrong Tishreen07 (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were literally lying on both those user pages this month. That's not being new and being unfamiliar with the rules or making a "mistake." That's deceit. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the need to go at least six months without editing and without evading your block and without using an IP and without creating a new account before attempting to request unblocking. At that time, you will need to convincingly address all the reasons for your block, and in a manner sufficiently convincing to carry to the community. Any attempt to request unblocking before then will be unsuccessful. Every time you evade your block, edit with an IP, or with a new account, the six months timer resets, and you'll need to go another six months from that time. Thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I wait for another six months, can you unblock me? Tishreen07 (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bro But SaarTheGreat،Hamaa330،SAFAR.KURD those three people are not me I think these people should be checked. I have nothing to do with them Tishreen07 (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention that while this discussion is happening, on User talk:Pamorak that account, being one of this user's socks, is claiming to have nothing to do with Tishreen07, although here Tishreen07 admits they are a sock. Which not only is pretty bizarre (!) but also casts doubt on this individual's intent to actually abide by the SO terms. Because why appeal today for a sock to be unblocked, if two days ago you've received the SO for the master? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pamorak My uncle's son once taught me how to edit at my house and he is still with me so he was banned because he edited with the same IP as me that’s why he was banned Tishreen07 (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I told him to put this. He has nothing to do with me Tishreen07 (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BUT I swear I don’t know who are SaarTheGreat،Hamaa330،SAFAR.KURD please check this account I have nothing to do with them Tishreen07 (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.=SaarTheGreat،Hamaa330،SAFAR.KURD those three people are not me I think these people should be checked. I have nothing to do with them

three of accounts of sockpups it was not me

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).

Tishreen07 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe the block is based on a mistaken sockpuppet accusation. The accounts [SAFAR.KURD], [Hamaa330], and [SaarTheGreat] are not mine. I understand Wikipedia’s policies . I respectfully request a checkuser review or further investigation. Tishreen07 (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a complete red herring, whether or not those three accounts were your socks is irrelevant. And whether or not they are CU'd is neither here nor there. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2025 (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 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).

Tishreen07 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for the response. I understand that the main issue may go beyond those three accounts, but I want to clarify that I have always edited in good faith. If there is another basis for the block, I would appreciate the opportunity to address it directly. I am committed to following Wikipedia policies and contributing constructively. Tishreen07 (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. PhilKnight (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2025 (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.

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).

Tishreen07 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I understand that I was blocked for violating Wikipedia policies. I now recognize the importance of using reliable sources, maintaining a neutral point of view, and following Wikipedia’s guidelines, especially regarding conflict-related topics. I sincerely apologize for my past actions and for any disruption I caused.

I’ve taken time to review Wikipedia’s core content policies, and I am committed to constructive, rule-abiding editing if given another chance. I respectfully request that my block be reconsidered. Thank you for your time.

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. PhilKnight (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2025 (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've moved your latest appeals to the bottom of the place so they stay in approximate chronological order. Please do the same with any further appeals.

Do not open more than one appeal at a time.

Do not edit this page unnecessarily, just wait for an admin to come and review your open appeal.

If you wish to take up the standard offer, say so clearly, and then stop editing for six months. Each time you fiddle with this page, your six months countdown restarts.

As I already said when I reverted your blanking of this page, you're not allowed to do that.

Any failure to comply with these and other relevant instructions may result in you being blocked, without further warning, from editing this page as well.

I hope I've made all this clear. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I understand now that I must keep only one open appeal, avoid editing this page unnecessarily, and follow all instructions carefully. I will wait for an admin review. I appreciate the opportunity to appeal and will cooperate fully. Tishreen07 (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And then you went right ahead and opened yet another unblock request. In the wrong place. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There 2 accounts are not me

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).

Tishreen07 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

for Dear [PhilKnight] and [MarioGom] I believe the block is based on a mistaken sockpuppet accusation. The accounts [EwwyCat], [IijSigma] are not mine. I understand Wikipedia’s policies . I respectfully request a checkuser review or further investigation. Tishreen07 (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

My use of the checkuser tool confirms that you have abused multiple accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2025 (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.