User talk:AHindocha

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Lane99 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) 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.

Blocked per WP:DUCK. See also WP:MEAT Bishonen | talk 08:40, 27 January 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

1)I am not a sock puppet. And you couldn't possibly have evidence for that lie. 2) Everything I have written is factually correct, and neutral, consensus based, and advanced the articles according to stated Wikipedia standards. Therefore, please unblock me, and stop allowing lies to be told in the Anni Hindocha article simply to curry favour with the paid PR agent (the actual sock puppet here) who wrote them. AHindocha (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

1). Per WP:DUCK, we don't need evidence to block for strongly suspected sock/meatpuppetry. This isn't a court of law. 2). We also don't need single-purpose-POV-pushing accounts on Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:07, 27 January 2016 (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.

[[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|^Talk] I am not a single purpose account. I am also not pushing POV. As MULTIPLE people have attested. Your reason for declinging to unblock me is an obvious pretense. For the single purpose, POV pushing account is Dewanifacts. Which I an others have attempted to correct, and you are blocking our efforts.// Your name is now in our file. Please tell me your superior at Wikipedia so we can contact them. We intend to make sure there can be no later claim that Wikipedia was not aware of the deceit in the Anni Dewani article.AHindocha (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the very strong behavioural evidence, the user is a Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) match to ForbesHighland based on geolocation. The block is solid.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Forbeshighland. You are mistaken. And if you are endorsing this block, please also tell me the name of your superior. We need to keep a record of how we attempted to get Wikipedia to do the right thing, and that Wikipedia was well aware that the article on Anni Dewani fails upon multiple ostensible standards published by Wikipedia.AHindocha (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a superior. Except maybe this guy, though I think He has bigger fish to fry these days than SPA disruption on a Wikipedia article. I see you admit that there is a "we", which Wikipedia editors knowledgeable in policy have known all along. Please don't ping me here again, I have nothing more to add.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"More" seems to be superfluous here. You have ignored the issue. However thank you for replying. It is noted.AHindocha (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AHindocha/Lane99/Factsnotlies/Forbeshighland/Noanon. You have been blocked and topic banned from the Anni Dewani article for a reason. You have attempted to insert your own rhetoric without consensus on more occasions than can be counted on two hands. If you perceived there to be problems with the article then you should have outlined the problems with specifics on the talk page and then waited to see if other editors formed a consensus that agreed with your view. Note that "other editors" does not mean sockpuppet accounts controlled by you, anonymous IP accounts who have never edited wiki before, or meat-puppet accounts solicited by you on social media. The reason why you are finding yourself in an uphill battle to nowhere is that there is no support or evidence for the claims that you make. You continue to insist that I am a PR agent, yet you cannot produce a shred of proof or evidence to substantiate this claim. I can assure you that I am nothing of the sort. Unless you have some evidence to prove otherwise, please desist from making false allegations. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates. It is a collaborative effort. There are no superiors or tribunals. If your views have merit and are supported by evidence then they carry weight. If they aren't, then they don't. Its as simple as that. Kind regards. Dewanifacts (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to attack Dewanifacts and to puff yourself up with declarations like "Your name is now in our file", I will revoke your privilege of editing this page. Bishonen | talk 23:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonenu might want to grow up. He attacked me first, which of course you ignored. Dewanifacts is a PR agent for Shrien Dewani, and he has repeatedly attacked, mocked, and taunted Anni Hindocha's family throughout the internet. Your kind of guy apparently. The lies being told in the Anni "Dewani" article, which you have already admitted that, acting on behalf on Wikipedia, you are indifferent to, may well be actionable on a variety of issues. And your admission that you didn't care whether the article was accurate, for fear that Wikipedia may invite a frivolous lawsuit, is Exhibit A in the file. It appears someone independent of Wikipedia will have to be asked whether it can ignore it's standards, and the court record, in its articles on murder victims. p.s. When you ban me, and allow PR agents to, unopposed, print further lies on this page, it will not be detrimental to our attempts to show Wikipedia is indifferent to the proven facts of Anni Hindocha's murder. Which, as you know, but pretend you don't, has been proven to be a prearranged murder conspiracy.AHindocha (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Bishonen | talk 23:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]