User talk:Arsi786

Arain

Hi, I noticed your edits were paticularly against the arab origin stuff. Personally i tried to present both the arab and rajput origins objectively and together. inluding in the origins section as well as the infobox. Ive written about it in the talk section of the page and would appreciate it if you took a look and saw my position and possible contributed your own opinion as to why you removed the arab stuff.

Other than that you also removed my comment on the types of arain which i based entirely from the works of H.A.Rose, so i don't understand why you removed that especially as it didn't have anything to do with the arab origin stuff but instead based primarily to clear up the market gardening association with arain.

Thanks -flyingsimurgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingSimurgh (talk • contribs) 11:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mandarese people, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. If you disagree, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. SummerPhD^v2.0 23:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars

While I agreed with the stands you have recently taken against edits by a new IP editor (109.226.103.42), I have to warn you about the issue of WP:edit warring, which can lead to an administrator issuing sanctions against your WP account. It's best to bring up the dispute/discrepancy on the Talk page of the article involved, so that other editors who may be watching the page can weigh in, and achieve consensus, which, in these recent cases, would likely have been in your favor.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarese people

Hello, I object against your adding a headcount on muslims by a source noted for its "deep" christian beliefs. Wakari07 (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hhkohh (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on List of countries and dependencies by population

Hello. I have reverted your edits since there's nothing on the site you gave as reference that supports the population numbers for Pakistan that you entered in the list. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of countries and dependencies by population, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC) (Continued on Thomas.W talk page)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Arsi786. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Arsi786. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sial tribe

Please do not violate the article. It is not in a very good shape but let it be in its present form and let more learned person take care of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirtimaansyal (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyz article

Hi,

You asked for the source on Christianity among ethnic Kyrgyz. It is accessible from Google Books, https://books.google.com/books?id=HZbOBPoTGfUC&q=christianity#v=snippet&q=christianity&f=false . The reference is on page 24.

Cheers, Abstrakt (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Americans

Hello, Arsi786,

Your recent edits to this article have been reverted by several different editors. It would be a good idea to start proposing your changes on the article talk page to avoid having any future edit wars since your changes are meeting with resistance. Let me know if you have any questions or I suggest visiting the Teahouse, a resource for editors to ask questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Your recent editing history at Bais Rajput shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaoJungTar (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Your addition to Islamic sexual jurisprudence has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — 🎄 Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Guinea-Bissau, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unaffiliated (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Anupam^Talk 08:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Shina people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Islam and domestic violence

There is currently a discussion at [1] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Koreangauteng (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020: Soon your account will be blocked for edit warring. I guarantee it.

There is little time left for your editing style, as you have been reported for persistent abuse of Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Quisqualis: Who are you exactly and why are threatening me? I follow the rules and I stop if I am told to stop and you even reported me to which we will see the outcome. Arsi786 (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is now a discussion at WP:DRN and Arsi786 has not continued to edit other pages before the conflict is properly resolved, I have declined the report at WP:AIV. As long as discussion happens instead of edit warring, there is probably no need for a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on Islamic law

Thank you for your edits on Rape in Islamic law. I am managing to get sources that I find helpful. If you enable your email, I can send the PDFs to you. I normally find it hard to get access to academic sources.VR _talk 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading?

According to the source here: "data from the General Social Survey in the United States show that 32 percent of those raised Muslim no longer embrace Islam in adulthood, and 18 percent hold no religious identification".--Hugitt (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Growth of religion

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Orientls (talk) 05:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute was settled Arsi786 (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Demographics of Bangladesh

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

LegacyVisual, should we take this guy to ANI? Not only does he add incorrect material to articles but he also stalks edits.Eliko007 (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eliko007 Excuse me how do I stalk edits you stalked me If you checked the edit history of arain I have been there before and its on my watch-list and so is the religion in bangladesh which you took a estimation over census data targeting and reducing the muslim population [User:arsi786|arsi786]] (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2020

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of source

No, the source given in the Javanese people article mentions that "Only 5-10 per cent follow Agami Islam Santri", so your claims are false. Eliko007 (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree sorry I didn't see only later I saw it Arsi786 (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So DON'T make any edits before reading the source well, this is not the first time that you are misrepresenting sources.Eliko007 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the source given in article List of countries by Zoroastrian population gave estimates of 1,000 Zoroastrians in Europe & Cen. Asia, and between 111,691-121,962 Zoroastrians around the world. Where did you get the figures of 10,000 and 121,691-131,962? Please STOP misrepresenting sources.Eliko007 (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The figure was taken from 7,000 uzbeks the source you gave Arsi786 (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then add 1,000 - 7,000 with the new source.Eliko007 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to add it later but I see your point Arsi786 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the number 131,962?.Eliko007 (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added 10,000 to the total population Arsi786 (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WHY 10,000? Since when 1.000 + 7.000 = 10.000?.Eliko007 (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source is old assumed it would of grown my bad Arsi786 (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SO CHECK THE SOURCES before editing any further. This NOT your first time.Eliko007 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Arsi786 (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T remove other studies or estimates as you have done here [2].Eliko007 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was made in 2009 the pew is updated plus perdicts the population in 2020 and 2050 Arsi786 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK.Eliko007 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chechens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification regarding sanction

Per community consensus, you are indefinitely banned from making any edits related to India, Pakistan and religion (including atheism). --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a violation of your topic ban, as was this edit. Leave those subject areas alone. Don't solicit others to edit them. Stop monitoring these pages, as they are obviously tempting you to edit them. Although you are permitted to revert obvious vandalism under WP:BANEX, the second of these two edits didn't qualify and in general, you need to be exceptionally careful of taking advantage of this exception. Please, please, go build up a solid edit history outside of this subject area. --Yamla (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait I cant revert vandalism? I thought I couldnt edit in these places? Plus its a talk page I cant leave a comment either? Arsi786 (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways I will take the advice thanks for clearing it up. Arsi786 (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Yamla. I know you're banned from India/Pakistan, but maybe you can make edits in Middle East? Maybe you can edit history related articles that are not related to religion and India/Pakistan? There is so much good you can do. Then later you can come back to this area after your ban is lifted.VR _talk 22:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will try it out Arsi786 (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You were warned and have continued violating your WP:TOPICBAN. This edit was not a candidate under WP:BANEX. I warned you about this and you indicated you would take the advice. Your very next edit showed this to be untrue. This block is for one week, to give you a chance to consider how to contribute to Wikipedia appropriately and in accordance with your topic ban. Please consider this your final opportunity. If you violate your topic ban again, I'll impose an indefinite block. --Yamla (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: It was a revert and its not like I made a edit the user deleted information without a reason that is vandalism I assumed plus he was the who kind of instigated my topic ban and it seems he was reverting my old edits I made. But I do see the point as you did warn me and I have stayed away from making edits regarding religion/atheism and pakistan/india topics but a weeks ban really kinda of harsh but I will take your warning in hand @Yamla: Arsi786 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2020

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arsi786. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note specifically that the sockpuppet account, Azeriking55, was specifically violating the topic ban. Hard to see a path forward for such an abusive editor. --Yamla (talk) 13:03, 30 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).

Arsi786 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know I am banned and I am not asking to get unbanned right away, I wanted to ask can I ever be unbanned after a certain time period like 4 or 6 months or am I banned forever?

Decline reason:

If you follow the terms of the Standard Offer and go at least six months without socking, you can then make an unblock appeal. There's no guarantee of success, but it's usually the recommended approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:12, 30 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.

Your appeal is more likely to be accepted if you agree to adhere to your topic ban from edits in the subject areas of India, Pakistan and religion (including atheism). Eliko007 (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eliko007: Its going to be hard not to edit in those feilds as they are the ones that interest me the most and was the reason why I made my account but I will see what they say after 6 months.Arsi786 (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd argue you're not here to write an encyclopedia. You ought to be indifferent to which tasks you take on here. If you only want to make edits to certain subjects, ask yourself if you are objectively editing with consideration to all the sources out there, or if you're actually just trying to push your point of view. Come back in six months and if you're unblocked, spend a year working with WP:GOCE, obeying your topic ban. It's still meaningful contribution to the encyclopedia, just as countervandalism is. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: Yeah after 6 months I will still obey the topic ban until I can get rid of that mindset.Arsi786 (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note just saying you'll adhere to your topic ban is unlikely to work. You've repeatedly agreed to do so and repeatedly broken your word. Most recently, you set up an account to evade your topic ban, demonstrating you hadn't the slightest intention of keeping your word. You'll need to specifically address this when you apply under WP:SO and this will be difficult (but not impossible) to do. --Yamla (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Yeah I understand after all of this but I rather have a topic banned than permanently banned on here and in the mean time I will not create another account and be a sockpuppet in those 6 months or ever just to make myself more clear and I think that would be enough to say that I am being genuine because I stayed away for 6 months and I will obey to the topic ban if I am unblocked/unbanned. .Arsi786 17:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admins may leave comments or asks questions only now. Arsi786 04:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my question instead of answering it: [3]. Sorry, no, that's not the way things work, see WP:OWNTALK and WP:NOBAN. There is an active SPI report, this is a legitimate question and it's also relevant to your unblock request, so I'm asking again: is the CircassianBilyal (talk · contribs) account also yours? Do you have any others? Please think carefully about how you respond. Continuing to be deceptive and uncooperative in complying with your topic ban is not going to look good on you. Thanks. --IamNotU (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are accusing me of more sockpupperty your not even a admin how dare you?

I only created azeriking to bypass my topic ban which didnt work at for me at the end. Arsi786 (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether I'm an admin. All users may help to identify and correct disruptive editing, sock puppetry, and block evasion. The evidence shows that CircassianBilyal is also a sock puppet of yours. Like you and your admitted sock Azeriking55, CircassianBilyal consistently uses the same misspelling of "arab brometer" (not found anywhere else) and the same non sequitur that the source is about not being religious, and not about being irreligious:

Arsi786, 16 June: [4] arabbrometer was on about being religious or not its not about being irreligious and atheist
CircassianBilyal, 24 July: [5] The arabrometer bbc poll is talking about religious and less religious statistics and changes in the Arab world not irreligious and many very similar ones
Azeriking55, 26-29 July: [6] Updated to a 2010 religious survey conducted by pew and removed the arab brometer survey as its about religiosity of people in the country rather than irreligion. also many very similar ones

Since you've denied that CircassianBilyal is you, I spent even more time looking at the evidence. You were topic-banned on 18 June. On 23 June, CircassianBilyal was created and immediately continued a long edit war of yours in Concubinage in Islam, and then started the "arab brometer" edits. Due to edit-warring, CircassianBilyal was indeffed on 24 July. On 26 July, you created Azeriking55, immediately continuing the identical "arab brometer" edit-warring of CircassianBilyal and the older Arsi786 edits. Furthermore, a checkuser (a very senior admin) has investigated the private system logs and the technical evidence shows that it's possible/likely you are CircassianBilyal.

According to the evidence, there is no other explanation, and no reasonable doubt. Your denial of being CircassianBilyal isn't credible, I don't believe you're telling the truth. If you would come clean and admit all of your socks, it might improve your chances of getting a "standard offer" unblock in six months. Otherwise I think it will not be possible, as it would be clear that you can't be trusted. --IamNotU (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through the edit history I was the first one who use to remove tge ip edits that would add the survey the same Ip keeps popping up and even created accounts to put in the survey.

I don't know why circassian bilal used my spelling maybe he was going through the edit history. My azeri account was created because a lot of muslim countries started to get edited and there percentages being decreased.

If you are certain I am circassian then thats fine I don't care.

Banned

This user is now banned under WP:3X. No administrator is free to lift the ban unilaterally. WP:CBAN go into more details. --Yamla (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Am I banned forever as I didn't make any major contribution to get unbanned prior to the ban if so does that mean the standard offer is off the table?Arsi786 (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNBAN answers your questions. Given your extensive and malicious abuse, it will be extremely challenging for you to get your ban lifted. --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I deserve it. Arsi786 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t sock for 6 months. You aren’t very good at it anyway. Edit on another Wikimedia project for 6 months (I suggest commons). Then if you’ve been productive there, you can request an unban here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. Arsi786 (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unban 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).

Arsi786 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Its been 2 years can my account on here be unbanned Arsi786 (talk)?

Decline reason:

Confirmed logged out block evasion within the last 90 days. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2022 (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.

Arsi786 (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By my count it's been a year and seven months since your last sock. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry my last edit was 2 years ago my bad Arsi786 (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not truthful. Arsi78612345664 made an edit 1 year and 7 months ago, not two years ago. I concur with TonyBallioni's findings, too; block evasion. On top of that, WP:SNOWBALL would apply to this request. You may reapply no sooner than 2022-11-18, and only if you refrain from all edits until then. You should read WP:UNBAN before doing so, so you can avoid pointless requests like this. --Yamla (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]