User talk:Guran223

February 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:55, 12 February 2023 (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).

Guran223 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What the hell? I haven't used any other account! Guran223 (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed violations of WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2023 (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.

Per WP:SOCK:

Sockpuppetry takes various forms:

Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address
Creating new accounts to avoid detection or sanctions
Using another person's account (piggybacking)
Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users
Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)

You are doing at least one of the above regularly, and have in fact been blocked previously for your disruptive edits. This account is no different. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ponyo I didn't "log out" to avoid detection. My account automatically got logged out while I was writing my text. In fact, I was writing a comment to make sure it was clear that the message was left by me when you blocked me. Im not going to accuse you of malicious intent. But it is very strange behavior on your behalf. Guran223 (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo or Yamla could one of you please respond? This is not a way to treat members of the community. Guran223 (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla There is no confirmed violations of sock. Its ridiculous! I statted a conversation as an IP, I decided to create an account to continue it. And got logged out while writing an answer. There is no sockpuppetry involved. It happens to people all the time on Wikipedia. What craziness is this?Guran223 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2023 (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).

Guran223 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is completely insane. I was not engaging in any type of sockpuppetry. I was having a discussion in a talk page an an IP address. Eventually I decided to open an account and continue to the discussion. As I was writing a longish comment my account got disconnected and it was signed again as an IP address. Ponyo came out of nowhere and blocked my account as I was writing a message clarifying the IP was me. There was no evidence of me trying to conceal my identity or pretend I was a different person. It was obvious I wasn't. I don't know what is going on here but its very abnormal. Have policies changed on Wikipedia? I don't remember things being like this in the past. Guran223 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. As this is your third request and it doesn't look like this is going to get anywhere, and since as noted below you are using this page to harass administrators, I am revoking your access to it. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2023 (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 ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bons mots I was blocked for one week for a very strange reason related to the Ukraine conflict where an admin said I was in violation of WP:BIO. You probably don't know what it was because he deleted my edits on talk page. I was going to take this block to ANI since I didn't really do anything beyond mention the content of a Washington Post article on the talk page. I think he mistook me for a pro-Russian troll or something - which Im not. Guran223 (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been edit warring and treating Wikipedia as a battleground for months. Even now you're outright denying your previous block was legitimate and that your editing is unproblematic. I don't agree. This edit is not an edit made by someone editing civilly and collaboratively, both of which are required by policy. There is no reason to ping me again.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo I don't know, it seems like a malicious block without a warning based on an accusation you know to be false. I guess its enjoyable for you to abuse your online position this way. Its people like you who are killing Wikipedia. Guran223 (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]