User talk:Ragnarkhorrangor

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).

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

Request reason:

Who the hell is this person that I'm accused of being? I simply revert an issue of a person who has been blocked knows for what reason and automatically I am blocked and accused of being someone I am not without any proof? The person may have been blocked, but if the edit was correct and added information, I don't understand the point in undoing it. Is it some kind of childish tantrum? Besides, I'm not this person!

Decline reason:

As your block message says, you are believed to be Arthur Brum (talk · contribs). Yamla (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2018 (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.

New editor just happens across an obscure article and performs the exact same edit as the sock master and his puppet: [1][2][3] and is somehow familiar with the previous discussion? New editor just happens to edit the same obscure article [4] as numerous former sock puppets[5][6][7][8] and the master[9]? WP:DUCK. DrKay (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did it ever occur to you that I might have been asked to do this? Or that I may simply have, as I said, seen the previous editions and agreed with their content, because after all they are correct, regardless of whether or not your publisher is blocked? If he used sock puppets it's his problem, not mine. I saw an undone edit that I agreed to and re-edited. Simple. Ragnarkhorrangor (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm believed to be Arthur Brum (talk · contribs) based on have agreed to one of his edits and redone it? Okay, then. Nice politics wikipedia has. Very accurate.

Decline reason:

Checkuser Confirmed. You're either the blocked editor socking again, or you're editing the same topics from the same city using the same device on behalf of the blocked editor. Wikipedia could care less which scenario is the correct one as they both violate WP:SOCK. Talk page access revoked to prevent more of the same. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:36, 11 May 2018 (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 blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21501 was submitted on May 11, 2018 17:05:01. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]