User talk:Podimaladusthill

August 2013[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Benedictdilton (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiderolls 04:49, 19 August 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Reason for my blocking is beyond my understanding. I used the name podimaladusthill, there may be other users by that name as it is a family title

Decline reason:

There cannot be other users of the same name - all usernames are different. Peridon (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have no relationship whatsoever with Benedictdilton. I had edited a document of this man K P YOhannan based on extremely credible news report. I was banned only to protect this individual. This goes everything against the concept of wikipedia. For SHAME

Decline reason:

I am not prepared to believe that you could come here and, within seven minutes of an edit being posted, re-insert exactly the same edit, as your first ever edit here.

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).

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

Request reason:

"I am not prepared to believe that you could come here and, within seven minutes of an edit being posted, re-insert exactly the same edit, as your first ever edit here" Maybe it was because it was big breaking news in a lot of major Indian newspapers and I had copied a sentence from one of the prominent papers. If I was trying to sock bot someone I would do the opposite of that. I think there should be an IQ test for Wikipedia Admins in the least. Seriously screwed up or some people are manipulating the system to keep certain information out. This is how it is done, you create a huge IT team and create full time wikipedia contributors in good standing, some of them elevated to admins and then filter out any opposing or inconvenient data. If this is how wikipedia works, it is even less credible than official government propaganda. Yes, I joined wikipedia that day because I could sense a concerted effort to filter out information from the internet by this guy. What next with wikiepdia, you contribute more money and you get to edit anything?

Decline reason:

Wikipedia's huge paid team consists of about 10 people who work in various fields of activity, and I would doubt that there are any full time editing contributors - none that are paid, anyway. Copying a sentence from a newspaper, unless it was duly acknowledges and put in quotation marks, is a violation of copyright. No-one gets any special rights by contributing money. Anyone who follows the rules and isn't blocked or banned can edit Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2013 (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.

"and I would doubt that there are any full time editing contributors " I am talking about organizations like the one headed by Mr K P Yohannan, with over $175 Million to spare hiring full time wikipedia contributors and employees who get elevated to admins to block any attempt to include any disparaging news reporting or data against them. This is certainly an organized effort in that direction. I was initially blocked because I posted a news report 7 minutes after someone else posted a news report of an Indian Rupee 105 crore illegal currency haul by the brother of the afore mentioned individual and an office bearer of the organization , now I am told my post was removed because of missing quotations? what is this nonsense? Shame on you. Shame on you— Preceding unsigned comment added by Podimaladusthill (talk • contribs)

All I can say as the last word here is, there is NOTHING, no tangible shred of evidence linking me and the other user who I am accused of being 'sock puppet'. If admin decisions are taken based on pure speculation and circumstantial evidence, then wikipedia has little credibilty left. The admin is resorting to vandalism and doing to bidding of someone powerful— Preceding unsigned comment added by Podimaladusthill (talk • contribs)

I have removed the multiple unblock templates you have open. The templates are only to be used to request an unblock (preferably one compliant with the Guide to Appealing Blocks). You were using the templates to post messages and to continue to push your point of view. Note that inappropriate use of the unblock template will result in your talk page access being revoked.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]