This is Uricnobel.Contrib2 (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Padmalakshmisx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC) |
Contrib2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I watch every Indian film, I am a movie buff. I think you have problem with Indian articles, getting expanded. A strong editor would hamper your agenda to make all Indian articles low in quality ? The only thing you are doing is semi protecting all articles wasting internet resources spent by editors such as me. Lot of data download, and in return what I get is your red tape and abuse. There has to be some mechanism. Dont get into this rut. The sock puppet concept in wikipedia itself is wrong. Why dont we use a mechanism such asfacebook, and ask users to provide ID proofs and mobile OTP verification ? This is Uricnobel. Could you please tell me why you are doing this even after six months. Time and again I have proved my self that I am a loyal wikipedian. Why are you doing this ? There is no legal mechanism for this ? Can I pay any fine and provide some ID proof. If that works. Why dont you discuss my case with arbitration committee. Stop discouraging me. I am here to help wikipedia, I am here to share some of your responsibilities. Take my issue on humanitarian grounds Contrib2 (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Account is ineligible for unblock. Only the first account can be unblocked, but in this case, that's super-unlikely, since the editor has been violating sockpuppetry policy for 8 years. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
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.
Contrib2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not violating, since 8 years I have been relentlessly editing wikipedia and made good contributions when it comes to gathering missed information. AS a warrior I have tackled many IP vandals. As a administrator it is your responsibility to give an editor one opportunity. Policy change is very important for an organization such as wikipedia to grow. Legal methods can be employed which can exclude bias both from administrator as well as from the sock puppetry of editor. Proper identification of editor mechanism must be established by wikipedia arbitration committee. The sockpuppetry mechanism is a failed mechanism. A kind of editor identification mechanism must be established asap. Contrib2 (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Yeah, no. Not a chance. Talk page access revoked. This is one of the worst abuses of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE I've ever seen. Yamla (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
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.