User talk:Ramesay67

November 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

-- ferret (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock

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).

Ramesay67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This account is not an evading account: it is its own separate entity. This one has not even made any edits. Therefore, I request to be unblocked. Ramesay67 (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to Dinoboyaz, others. Yamla (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2021 (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.

Stop

You won't get another warning. Do not edit or remove declined unblock requests for your currently active block. --Yamla (talk) 22:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What choice did I have? You’re confirming something without actually showing proof. What you’re doing is jumping to conclusions before knowing the truth. If you have proof, then by all means provide it: it’s that simple. Ramesay67 (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Ramesay67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don’t understand why you even think dinoboyaz and I are the same. We have different emails. What proof do you have that we are the same? Ramesay67 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

CU-verified and self admitted sock. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:50, 21 November 2021 (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.

Over at User talk:Dinoboyaz, the sock master has admitted this is a lie, that in fact they control all the identified sockpuppet accounts. --Yamla (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]