I've blocked this account indefinitely for sockpuppetry per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smauritius. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The reason i was block, was sock puppets, i didn't exercised them to make any disruptive edits on wiki, i had failed the policy of copyright violations, i know i was stupid, the reason behind this misbehaving act was personal aggression believe me. Ooonoon and Xxxxxpppppxxxxppppmmmm were not disruptive, as well as Rockpartyanimal and Smauritius. The fact, that i copy paste a copyright website content in my master usertalk. It was harmful i guess as Wikipedia do take copyright issued seriously. I am still a inferior user so far, facing a lot of problem, as i am not addicted/fully updated by this site, but yeah i do try my best to contribute. Problem arise when actually i saw many in-categorized issued in pages, i want to solve but i couldn't. I had been blocked for three times each time with different issued. But now i had redeem myself, trust me, i will try my level best to not give any complains in near future.

Decline reason:

Your blocks were all for disruption and two were for sock puppetry which shows that your unblock request is dishonest and that you can't be trusted if unblocked. Your first block was for sockpuppetry and you betrayed the blocking admin's and community's trust by socking again. The edits were disruptive as you can see from the page history of Vaani Kapoor (they needed to be reverted). I would suggest that moving forward from here you consider following the WP:Standard offer possibly using Template:2nd chance if necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 21 February 2014 (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.

There are many things you can do on your talk page, but removing block notices/ appeals/ denials while the block is in place is not one of the things allowed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: User can remove everything they want from the talk page, they can also request deletion for the user page(but not talk page if position is not good). OccultZone (Talk) 06:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: uh, no, as is very clear from the wording on the block notices themselves: "Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Indeed how simple it was! But there are users who have removed the whole, and nothing happened, for example, Darkness Shines, LanguageXpert, etc.(Shines had consensus, months ago, that they can be removed, I think..) OccultZone (Talk) 11:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: once the block has expired, it may be removed, but not while the block is in effect.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom: I have this page watchlisted.. So yes, you should read this section, we had recently discussed it. Check this out. OccultZone (Talk) 11:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LanguageXpert is indeffed though. It might be disputed, whether a user should remove active sanctions or not.. Check Wikipedia talk:User pages#Can block notices be removed while the user is still blocked.3F. OccultZone (Talk) 11:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following this discussion, you have been banned from editing en.wikipedia. It's recommended you take advantage of the WP:STANDARDOFFER, and when a year has passed (per its terms) request unbanning, with evidence of the issues that led to the ban being resolved, either here or through the Ban Appeals Subcomittee. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While you are banned, you may not edit Wikipedia by any means, including this message on my talk page left from IP address 197.226.74.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —C.Fred (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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/Smauritius, 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.

KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]