User talk:Dortana

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Ezidishingali per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali. 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 ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:13, 22 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have only this account and I don’t use sockpuppets. Dortana (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Simple denial is insufficient. You must address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ezidishingali. Yamla (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2022 (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.

@Yamla: I can’t write a comment in the case because I am currently blocked but I am not connected to the other users in the case. regards Dortana (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should address the concerns raised there in any future unblock request. Again, simple denial is insufficient. --Yamla (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've looked into the case and I have to tell you that I had nothing to do with it. I don't know the other users either. But I can see that one person uses two accounts there. The accounts Semsûrî and KurdeEzidi are the same person. Both accounts are single purpose accounts (SPA). Furthermore, the user insulted me[1] and also started two editwars on two days in a row in the same article.[2] Dortana (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I know you are, but what am I?" has never worked as an unblock rationale for anyone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2022 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The checkuser made an obvious mistake. I am not related to the accounts mentioned. I'm only interested in Yazidism and Yazidi culture. The users who reported these accounts are obviously Kurdish nationalists and are anti-Yazidis. Dortana (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I would say that CheckUsers are very through in their research, and that no mistake was made here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

CheckUsers are human too and make mistakes. Dortana (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request, and the unblock template is not for back-and-forth discussion.

Continued misuse of that template may result in a loss of access to edit this page. SQL ^{Query Me!} 17:16, 24 June 2022 (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.