User talk:AdnanAliAfzal

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Because I made more accounts when one of my accounts was blocked, then I made another account. For this reason, I got sock [1] and I wanted to write my autograph [2]. That's why you have a request from me to unblock my account.From now on I will follow Wikipedia's Guidelines and rule completely and I will take care of Wikipedia: Sock puppetry AdnanAliAfzal 01:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your request confesses to the sockpuppetry, but goes no further. In this context, I have no confidence you won't re-offend. Consequently, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 2 May 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.

Note that the final sentence was added after my decline. PhilKnight (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

conditions

As I recall, the conditions set forth here require user to wait 6 months from today before seeking unblock. Dloh cierekim 01:32, 2 May 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm probably blocked because I did not behave well on Wikipedia as you can see here. That's why I created a lot of accounts and it got blocked due to which the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry came in and the investigation [3] started on me. You can see here. You request from me. I will never behave like this and will not behave with the pormotional [4], so you have to believe that I am unblocked. This too And that too account User:Enaya Afzal and User:Enaya Afzal Siddiqui.AdnanAliAfzal 3:14 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

It was explained to you yesterday on the page of one of your sockpuppets (see the link above) that the only avenue available to you is the standard offer, which requires you to not edit Wikipedia in any manner, with any account (IP or registered), for six months. Every time you make an unblock request like this one, the clock is reset. This means you should not make another unblock request until at least November 2, 2017. At that time, you can try to explain the abuse and bad behavior, and the community may discuss it. Katie^talk 13:44, 2 May 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.

Talk to user

@PhilKnight: You mean that November 2, after unblock request sent to be AdnanAliAfzal 15:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: Please tell me how my account will be unblock. Please help me when it will be unblocked. How will my account open? Tell something brother.AdnanAliAfzal 01:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you have edited today, your six month timer has been reset. On November 3rd, you may request an unblock here, with this account. Any further editing between now and then resets the timer again. You are not welcome here, not for the next six months. Then, make sure you read and understand WP:SO. --Yamla (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reset again. Six months from now is November 4th. --Yamla (talk) 12:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has refused to stop evading their block. As such, there's no reasonable possibility of WP:SO in the foreseeable future. --Yamla (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. 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/AdnanAliAfzal, 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.

Cabayi (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have waited for six months, without sockpuppetry or block. Therefore I promised that no one would do wrong, unblock my User:Enaya Afzal account and with his other account. AdnanAliAfzal 05:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request doesn't address all the other issues with your conduct. There also seem to be language issues; "I promised that no one would do wrong" - that's not a promise you can keep. Huon (talk) 13:30, 5 November 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I had promised, that I will not do any wrong thing, it was a promise that I could see my account, I did not do anything wrong in 6 months, I've been waiting for 6 months, my Unblock this account "User: Enaya Afzal". AdnanAliAfzal 03:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see any benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking this account. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:58, 18 December 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.

Checkuser needed. Thanks, GAB^gab 01:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the sockmaster or a puppet? Also, I remember there were some WP:CIR issues. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: The device(s) he's using is/are unique to the range(s) he's on. Katie^talk 14:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: The master. I am opposed to an unblock for many reasons. First, although it may have been six months since the last sock was discovered, have you seen the list of socks created by this master (plus a few more in the suspected category)? Second, as others have mentioned, WP:CIR. Third, as others have mentioned, language issues. Finally, I don't trust this person's judgment on Wikipedia and believe them to be a net detriment to the project. Just because the condition of not socking for six months may be met doesn't mean we have to unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AdnanAliAfzal: Then how did people promise you that you have to wait for six months, when I am not blocking you, then how is this your justice? AdnanAliAfzal 16:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one ever promised that you would be unblocked. All they said was that you had to wait at least six months before requesting an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AdnanAliAfzal: Sir! Is not my account un-blocking, I liked to contribute to Wikipedia, so just I was connected, and you guys are not letting me do anything. AdnanAliAfzal 16:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:No, I' with you. I ran into him earlier this year. Just couldn't remember if this were the earliest account. Looking through the SPI cases, I do not think the SO applies. I think we are past that now. Then, as I mentioned, there are the CIR issues. I just do not see any reason to unblock this user, ever. And while he likes to contribute, we come back to the CIR and the other issues apart from socking. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/AdnanAliAfzal, 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.

Cabayi (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]