User talk:Ivanravin

Ivanravin (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Gurjeshwar (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #19841 was submitted on Nov 23, 2017 09:48:33. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

User is not sock puppet of any user. I just made a account on wiki to rectify the edit with proper citation and edit which that user was not doing. But i have not done anything wrong and provided genuine references and citation as per guidelines. Even i had not given time to explain my work. I had some information about that topic and just contributed by editing. I was not fully agree with both editors involved in edit war. The said user was also not doing wrong but had not any citation and reasons to explain. After reading the reasons in minor edit i knew that some utter words were written for that community. I personally read the books which was produced for citation, from which some sentences has been taken. I am very much surprised that editor has taken only those word which do character assassination of some social groups but forget to mention good words also written in book. Then i provided authentic information to stop edit war of users. In my opinion we should respect all social and communal groups and should be maintained refined information rather than blame game to write everything written offensive in any book. Everything written in the books are not right like written in wiki pages. But the difference is that written offensive words of a book can't be reached to everyone but information whether wrong or right written in wiki available by using internet. That is the reason i never tried to write in wiki but always read articles of world history. I have recently completed the Gazetteer written by Mr. H.R. Nevil, I.C.S in 1904. This is the only reason i have corrected wiki page information by creating the account as wiki norms. I simply request you to unblock me. Regards

Decline reason:

To be honest, I could not parse your unblock request. IT went into irrelevancies that have no bearing. Frankly, sock puppets generally categorically deny being sock puppets. I will say that some of edit summaries were puzzling. There are, apparently, striking similarities between your edits and those of the sock master. I would suggest that you refrain from editing for six months and then request unblock with your original account. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:15, 24 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.

PS- I see that your UTRS request has been closed. You probably have an email about the outcome of that appeal. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is really not fare. Probably, you have not considered the clarification which i explained you above.I still not understand that what wrong information i have provided that you have directly blocked me by giving the reason for sock puppets of other user. I again request you to unblock me, I want to contribute authentic information which i earned. You can not find anything wrong on my recent post nor in future. If i am wrong then why i applied on UTRS. I again say that do not associate with other user, This is my last request to unblock otherwise first experience with wiki admin is not good. I will say good bye to wiki. Good luck and well done job for nothing. regards, Ivanravin (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on editing patterns, you're clearly the same user avoiding blocks on the other account. I'd suggest you follow Dlohcierekim's advice as well. Wait 6 months, then request unblock on your original account, not this one. only (talk) 11:43, 24 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting you to unblock this account not others account. Please stop to say others account as original and my account as sock puppet. Thank you very much once again for decline of unblock request. Ivanravin (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is going nowhere. Talk page access revoked. Yamla (talk) 13:08, 24 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.

How do you explain, in that case, the fact that you showed up about 14 hours after the other account got blocked making the same edits he was making on that article? Using the same style of writing in your edit summaries, too. Seems like a pretty obvious sockpuppetry case to me; far too similar to be mere coincidence. only (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again-- and bluntly[edit]

The problem is you used a sockpuppet. Of course the sock is blocked. Will stay blocked. Forever. You have lost the trust of the community. This account will stay blocked too. Please read about the WP:standard offer. We really don't want to hear from you for at least 6 months. At the end of six months, you may try to convince us that you will not again sock, that you will edit constructively. You may then offer examples of the constructive work you wish to do here. Other restrictions may apply. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS This account showed up after the older account. So that makes this account the sock puppet. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]