User talk:Dralgos

Welcome![edit]

No relation to Melleke Voss

Notice[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal#Suspected_perpetrators

MartinezMD (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 27 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I believe other factors need to be taken into consideration for my appeal. I spent alot of time on the talk page discussing with users MartinezMD,Nicoljaus,Burrobert,Hzh,Mock wurzel soup and when a dispute arose we repectfully we to mediation. However 2 users My very best wishes and Endymion.12 kept editing the content in mediation:

Mediation Filed by MartinezMD on 14:27, 23 July 2018 here

User restored the content even though they was part of the mediation 23:45, 23 July 2018 here and 15:11, 27 July 2018 here I found this to be unfair to the other editors and restored the content to its original position.

The a second editor named Endymion.12 who has never edited this article before began editing the same content without engaging in talk. This is why I raised the puppetry concern as the two editors were behaving the same whilst the other were discussing and they both had poetry on their user pages which I took with a pinch of salt. I don't think I deserve an indefinate ban I do believe I got caught up in the "warring" however I strongly believe editors Endymion.12 and My Very Best Wishes behaved equally the same as me though I see My Very Best Wishes behaviour on edits of material in mediation for worse. DRALGOS ^♕ 17:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I find it rather difficult to believe that you could be on the same ISP, both be obsessed with removing content on Tommy Coster ([1] and [2]), and have no relationship to that editor. Sorry. If you can come up with a better explanation for this than "no who's that", maybe I'll reconsider. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:21, 27 July 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.

The appeal was for a ban against "disruptive editing" but you declined it on the basis of sock puppetry. Your decision is misconstrued. DRALGOS ^♕ 19:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

"I am allowed to edit this page right?" Yes, for now. I fixed your unblock request because you put it in the wrong place and it wasn't visible. I was doing you a favor. --Tarage (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarage: Thanks, I was wondering where it went, it was there, but it wasn't. DRALGOS ^♕ 18:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dralgos, are you related to Melleke voos (talk · contribs)? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @NinjaRobotPirate: No who's that? DRALGOS ^♕ 19:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- @NinjaRobotPirate: Why have I been blocked as a sockpuppet to |Melleke voos? You honestly have got it wrong please re-check whatever it is your looking at. DRALGOS ^♕ 20:16, 27 July 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).

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

Request reason:

NO way am I a sock puppet to Melleke voos, sorry but accusing me of that is nonsense DRALGOS ^♕ 20:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not plausible. Yamla (talk) 21:04, 27 July 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 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).

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

Request reason:

Melleke voos was the username name of an editor who previously shared these flats. I was never aware of their username until I asked recently. The reason I began to edit TC page is due to a poster on the wall and his relation to Eminem and thorough conversation (i'd rather not go into too much detail in public however am willing to do so via email) I have read the rules and there is a six month gap between the edit (though this is not the basis of my appeal). If the ban remains in place it will forever mean anyone who lives here can never edit wikipedia because they will always unknowingly become sockpuppets. Also why is the sockpuppet block not listed here ? DRALGOS ^♕ 10:27, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What a bunch of baloney. You are clearly the same editor (see this compared to this). Despite being an admin and checkuser for years, it's still surprising what socks expect knowledgeable editors to believe when denying obvious cases of sockpuppetry. At this point your best bet is the standard offer. I will be revoking talk page access to prevent further spurious appeals. WP:UTRS is available, but I would suggest you be more forthcoming about your history of accounts if you appeal through that venue. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:14, 1 August 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:

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

UTRS appeal #22261 was submitted on Aug 02, 2018 23:18:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]