User talk:WAL209

Notice of sockpuppetry block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Pedro Henrique Coelho per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pedro Henrique Coelho. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Please ensure that you use one account—the Pedro Henrique Coelho (talk · contribs) account—for all future editing. Mz7 (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell?????? 1: that is not my account. 2: I did not edit anything, I only used the talk page to discuss some information of some articles, which is totally the point of a talk page. WAL209 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using the talk page is not something forbidden. I’m here to ask you nicely to unblock me. Instead of blocking me, you could easily have spoken to me on the talk page if you didn’t agree with me. I created this account right after I entered one article and saw some information that I did not agree with, and that’s why I was using the talk page. And the fact that you blocked my account accusing me of being someone else only because the other account used the same talk page as I did is delusional. Please, I ask you to reconsider your thoughts on my account. WAL209 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 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).

WAL209 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. I do not own another account, that account pointed as mine is not mine. 2. Once I edited one article without using the talk page and I was warned that I should not not do that, so I haven’t done it since then, so I used the talk page to the article to clarify my point of view and someone blocked me. I don’t understand. 3. I created this account as soon as I found information that I did not agree with on the article I used the talk page, I do not own another account.

Decline reason:

Entirely unambiguous checkuser verified abuse of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:45, 14 July 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.

WAL209 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unacceptable. I don’t own another account, and I don’t understand blocking me after using a talk page, I didn’t do anything wrong. WAL209 (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And adding one more point, I searched this user you’re taking about and I know who they are, we both added things to the same talk page since we’re fans of the same person and we knew what we were talking about, and I used some of their arguments on my review. The administrator that asked to block me did not agree with my point of view, given that on the voting created on the talk page, they voted for an option not chosen by me. I’m sorry if I created some misunderstanding, but it’s not ok to block me when the evidence is not factual. WAL209 (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]