User talk:Arnasus56

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/Saiph121, 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.

SummerPhD^v2.0 04:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked from editing. Edits you make in defiance of that block can be reverted by any editor without further explantion. Additionally, you are making it all the more likely that you will not be unblocked. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My account is not related to this Saiph121. Arnasus56 (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Saiph121 and explain the remarkable coincidences. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the Beast (2017 film)

Regarding your revert, please see the Box Office section of WP:MOSFILM, which deals with the issue specifically. MapReader (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting my corrections and read the MOS. MapReader (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the application of your corrections was applied to Beauty and the Beast (2017 film), shouldn't this action be applied as well to the The Jungle Book (2016 film)? Already applied that correction there. Arnasus56 (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arnasus56 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of Saiph121. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Saiph121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) 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 sock puppet, 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2018 (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).

Arnasus56 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There's seems to be major misunderstanding. My account is absolutely not a sock puppet to Saiph121. I've mentioned "independent" in my earlier explanation within my talk page. Furthermore, my edit are not illegal nor illegitimate. Arnasus56 (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clearly a violation of WP:MEAT at the very least, though I'm pretty sure you are actually the same person. Yamla (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2018 (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).

Arnasus56 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My account is truly not related to Saiph121, nor the same person committing it that type of action. I am different person being mistaken for this banned user. Furthermore, this account is no sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Please, the blocking is a major misunderstanding in which i did not commit any wrong action. Arnasus56 (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The behavioural evidence is quite strong. Just saying "no" won't help. Huon (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2018 (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.