User talk:Googlean

This account has been confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Avineshjose (talk · contribs · logs), and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

This is Googlean's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Orissa

Hiya. Thank you for your good faith edit to Orissa religious violence. There has been a seemingly endless series of accusations of POV from various editors to the article, which is why the tag was there. We are (I only became involved due to seeing the issue via Huggle) inching closer and closer to resolution. I hope you won't be offended, but I will restore the tag to the article; removing it, I think, will serve only to fan the flames on both sides. I hope that is okay with you? Prince of Canada^{t | c} 05:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comments to the article (titled Neutrality) and replied. --Googlean ^Results 06:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you put back the fake pic of the fake burned girl? I suggest that we put in pics of the raped nuns as well. Rapes were done according to sections of the media. Without pics [as graphic as the girl's], it may not come across strong enough. Thank you.

Jobxavier (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell lies. --Googlean ^Results 04:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need for sympathy towards the too many anti-Christian violence articles

There is a question of garnering donations from America and Europe with sob stories of anti-Christian violence, involved in the large number of articles being posted on anti-Christian violence in India, with seperate articles for each and every incident for whatever reason on anyone bearing a seemingly Christian name. This is good for India also because it brings in foreign direct investment. I have therefore, decided not to induce any more NPOV in this and similar articles because they are only belly-filling exercises by resourceful missionaries; and as such deserve sympathy.Jobxavier (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Christian violence

Since violence against Christians in India has become a major issue, the article can be restored. I do not have any strong opinion here. Both Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka and Religious violence in Orissa are significant events, and these two articles can be merged under a single title Anti-Christian violence in India. However I'm not sure which is the better option, i.e. to mention these events under a single title or under two different titles. There are articles for separate incidents. The events can also be mentioned briefly under the title Anti-Christian violence in India with details in separate articles. But you have to fight with a pro-RSS/pro-Bajrang Dal cabal to restore the article. Unfortunately I'm too tired to counter them. If you have the time or energy to restore the article, then go ahead. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's much to be said for the big article, then subarticles. Religious violence in Orissa describes three largely distinct incidents, and could probably be broken into three separate articles if there was an appropriate main article. Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More suspected sockpuppets by Goingoveredge

Please check talkpage of Goingoveredge as I've added 2 more sockpuppet accounts that he has uses. He's been deleting my messages and concerns from his talkpage earlier so he may delete them again. Regards, --Roadahead (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to this, there is an ongoing RFC HERE on Goingoveredge where you can provide your feedback on your experience with this editor. --Roadahead (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Hey, I'm trying to get the protection lifted. If you want to give your two cents, by all means: WP:RPP, under "Current requests for unprotection". Best, Gabrielthursday (talk) 11:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008 attacks on Christians in Mangalore‎

Replied at Talk:Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka#Merger proposal? Kensplanet (talk) 10:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"When it becomes more notable and broaden, a separate article can be created under the new title Anti-Christian violence in Kerala, not at this time. --Googlean ." This is truly hilarious!

Jobxavier (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jobxavier, What is wrong with it? --Googlean ^Results 04:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your proselytisation attempts in WP are just hilarious!

Jobxavier (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING ON UNDISCUSSED DELETIONS/UNDOINGS

I warn you that your undoing of sourced NPOV material in Religious Violence in Orissa page, without discussion is being reported.

Jobxavier (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who are removing and pushing your pov after back from blockings. You are not interested to build any consensus. You are there only to push your pov. If you need any particular point to be included, raise the issue at article talk page. Thank you. --Googlean ^Results 03:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for inclusion of each detail is given in edits. When unsourced data is removed, it is also explained in edits. You are mindlessly undo-ing whatever is NPOV. As you always say, 'don't tell lies'. Read the edits.

Jobxavier (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing it alone, pushing your own pov's after block expired. Previously you have been using ip and sock ids to push it. --Googlean ^Results 03:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googlean, after Job dropped a message on my talk page regarding the edit warring, I've gone over the recent edits and the supporting refs, and found lots of problems. As I stated on Job's page, I'm getting very close to locking down the article until the situation is discussed calmly and resolved. I have told him that I expect no further mass edits, and instead I expect any changes to be proposed first on the talk page and discussed in a neutral and non-accusative fashion by all involved. Specifically what needs to be discussed is whether the proposed text accurately reflects the ref, and whether the ref meets the standard of reliability. As a regular here, I ask that you participate in a calm, civil fashion, and if others make accusations, that you don't respond. I'll take care of that. Thanks and good luck. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@googlean - Please go through the previous 13 edits of mine in 'Anti-Christian Violence in Kernataka' , which you have arbitrarily deleted at one strike. PLease tell me if you disagree with the sources cited in all the edits. Please discuss.

Jobxavier (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your edits have gone beyond the reference. However, you see that I edited it and fixed it with another reference per NPOV. --Googlean ^Results 06:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links on Orissa

I have reverted the additions to External links. However, I do believe there are some useful ones that I will include at a later stage. This was a dump from the links I have been adding on the discussion page of the article. Thanks for your work. Recordfreenow (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply

Have fun trolling.Pectore^talk 03:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean this? --Googlean ^Results 04:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request, biased block

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).

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

Request reason:

I do believe this block was motivated by bad faith and biased move by User:YellowMonkey. The involving admin were kept calling me sock ever since I posted this ANI thread against him and he started deviating others comment against building a consensus in the aforesaid ANI and instead, accused me as sock puppet. When I posted that thread he misused his CheckUser privilege and started calling me sock. As per CU policy, the tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects. He seems misused it as there is no allegations against this id (googlean) as sock complaint by anybody. A clear case of misusing WP privileges, He seems involved in WP:ABF, it is not good calling someone as a ‘Sock’. But he did that too 1, 2 because of a too old sockpuppeting case, although he knew about it. Moreover, I want to say that I’m not co-editing in any articles with this (Googlean) id with my knowledge (even though it is a shared network, I verified with others that nobody is using WP in my office other than me). Any check users may verify it. I already replied to him here.
Let me come to his (YellowMonkey) grounds on blocking me i.e (I see this message when I click on edit any page persistent reverting on a variety of pages despite consensus at WT:INB). Where is the consensus we have here here in the INB? It seems that User: Shyam started the thread and ended-up with his comments. There are many editors (1 . The moment I reverted 1 this edit by a possible sock User:Blondlottswires, I was blocked. I was reverting only properly sourced material which was already reverted by many users despite YeloowMonkeys comment and Moreover, see another users comment about YellowMonkeys decision here. It is hilarious and biased move of blocking me, a clear case of violating WP privileges, policies and I would also like to bring this up to ARbCom later about this biased admin, if I am not getting a convinced reply. Also note that YellowMonkey has not placed any courteous message in my talk page too. Thank you. --Googlean ^Results 07:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have reviewed the block and agree with the YellowMonkey. You have editwarred on a number of pages against a clear consensus reached (four regular editors against one). Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please look at my contribs. I was not edit-warring anywhere. I am always with sourced content per WP:RS and in fact, that too, was not edit warring. I AGF, believe me, I actually was reverting a possible sock’s edit here who already violated 3RR. Additionally, I did not see that we have reached into any consensus here. The thread user who started the thread himself have claimed that we've reached into a consensus against this (Please check both date & time of each postings especially YellowMonkey's). If I knew that we’ve reached, I would not have reverted it. Also note that another editor's comment on this blocking here.--Googlean ^Results 08:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The editor you were reverting only reverted twice, so I don't see how that is violating 3RR. Regardless of your opinion of consensus at the page, edit-warring is not permitted. Advance your position by discussion at the relevant talkpages, not by engaging in content wars. I am most definitely a neutral administrator in this matter, and I endorse the block as it stands. — Fritzpoll (talk) 13:06, 20 October 2008 (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.

I also wish to inform other admins that this is a clear case of bad faith attack of blocking me ever since I posted an ANI thread complaint against the blocking admin User:YellowMonkey HERE and explained to him here). --Googlean ^Results 08:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is what another involved admin replied to YellowMonkey about the Issue I posted at ANI. Ever since that posting, YellowMonkey did feel a kind of 'irk' and waiting for a chance to block me. Today, he did it, without any discussion, no contacts in my page and not even informing as courteous block message in my talk page. Furthermore, he hasn't posted any opinion at INB until he blocked me. Note that he left his opinion at INB soon after he blocked me, to mislead others. Evidence: He blocked me here (at06:05) and he commented this at INB (at 06:08) on above "section break" section, which I'd created before as I couldn't see any consensus. Yellow Monkey's motive was clear as he wants to mislead others that I'm editing against consensus in WP:INB. --Googlean ^Results 09:40, 20 October 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

About the 3RR violation that is in the case is here the link (I'd put wrong link before). This is the reason why my block, A revert by Sock editor who hardly edited 4 edits in WP. Unblock request: A neutral admin can see that YellowMonkey’s biased action of this block, inappropriate editing behavior and retribution was questioned by many established users. The discussion is going on HERE AT INB and the Blocking admins talk page. Also, I have a request that a neutral admin may please look into this issue. Furthermore, this is my last unblock request and I know what shall I do after this. --Googlean ^Results 04:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Claims of vindictiveness by YM don't overshadow the edit warring. Block is coming off shortly; I recommend you don't leap back into the lion's den. Tan | 39 16:53, 21 October 2008 (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.

YellowMonkey blocked me because of the reason persistent reverting on a variety of pages despite consensus at WT:INB. However, I did not see that we had reached into a 'consensus'. Please note that another User:Soman who participated in the INB discussion had commented finally that Please don't include me in this 'consensus', and again no consensus yet. This is truly enough speaking about the biased admin YellowMonkey who stupidly blocked me. Any Neutral Admins, could you now see that my argument was somewhat sensible as me too was not seen any consensus there which YellowMonkey blindly ? --Googlean ^Results 05:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave the unblock request for a different admin to respond to; however your arguement seems flawed. You admit to a lack of consensus at the relevent talk pages; I will make no statement on the veracity of that. Lets assume that to be true however. A lack of consensus does not then allow everybody to do whatever they want to the articles. A lack of consensus means that all editing should cease until said consensus is reached. Editing while under a state of indeterminate consensus leads to edit warring. Just because others can't agree on what the articles in question should say does not give you the personal right to do whatever you wish to the articles. I am not fully familiar with the entire conflict, but if your only arguement is "The was no consensus so I should be able to do whatever I want", well, that seems to be a faulty attitude to hold, and I can understand why the block exists if you believe that to be true. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. While Yellowmonkey was clearly out of line due to blocking while participating in the discussion, and failure to follow policy (which requires that the blocked user be notified), Googlean was also clearly edit warring. Goodlean, back when I was intervening in the JobXavier situation, I urged all involved to step back and discuss the issues on the talk page, work it out there before editing. I, too, am going to leave this block in place, but it will expire soon enough, and when it does, please consider discussing on the talk page rather than just editing controversial areas without consensus behind your edits. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jayron32: That was not any edit warring as the issue was not very serious and it is true that I reverted some edits (especially socks and anon ips who purposely removing the sourced term militant from those articles) in a couple of times or something…. Look at the history of those:: 1 2 3

Yellowmonkey is not out of line in any way that I can see (though you have not cited any diffs so I might be missing something). They are also a checkuser who has access to information that you do not. It would be very foolhardy for any admin to lift this block without first contacting the blocking admin/checkuser. Jehochman ^Talk 16:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, Please inspect the entire issue properly (Check my three unblock request above). YellowMonkey was clearly out of line and abused his admin power. Evidence: a prior ANI complaint I posted against YellowMonkey. Instead of replying, he started deceptive and accused me as sock and deviated the entire discussion at INB and ANI, commented this: Heh, I see two proponents of the "militant" termiology who have engaged in sockpuppetry. He purposely misused his CU policy CheckUser privilege against checking my id although there is no sock accusation with anybody with me (User:googlean) & deviated the entire discussion in both ANI & INB. I tried to discuss the issue with him later here (Yesterday, 21 October, he removed my comment from his user talk page and not placed to any archive pages to making my comment further flawed) & another User:Soman had asked for more clarification about his so-called sock accusation against me. In short, this block is a clear case of abusing admin power, and engaged in WP:ABF.

Other questionable actions by User:YellowMonkey, which I want to later challenge, not now:

1) Editwarring here & Misusing rollback privileges (I guess the rbk tool is to be used only for reverting vandalism, and nonsense not for edit warring)

2) Page protecting issues Here

3) Result of another inappropriate admin action

I know, since YellowMonkey is an arbitrator-cum-admin, any other admins does not speak a single word against YellowMonkey nor they unblock me as they too are in fear that be blocked by YellowMonkey. --Googlean ^Results 04:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Soman's comment I've copied from INB: To be brief: at 04:22, 20 Oct, YM says that he/she considers that there "seems to be a consensus". at 05:18 Googlean responds rejecting the notion of a consensus. At 06:05 Googlean is blocked by YM with the motivation "persistent reverting on a variety of pages despite consensus at WT:INB". Three minutes later YM responds to Googlean's comment at this talk page. No other user endorsed the proclamation of the consensus and Googlean was blocked before given a response to his comment on the consensus issue. A difference between a kangaroo court and a real court is that the rules of a kangaroo court are arbitrary, and i feel that the consensus was not properly established to warrant a blocking on the grounds of breaking it. I'm not opposed to consensus-building as a measure of conflict resolution, but this type of block is not favourable for creating a consensual environment.. Thanks. --Googlean ^Results 05:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:

thanks. I posted a query on YM's talk page, asking for a clarification on the sockpuppetry-accusations. If YM won't provide a reasonable argument for the accusations, i could support such a move. --Soman (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I was again shocked this morning while noticed this admin error too. --Googlean ^Results 04:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for both Nishkid and myself for that mistake. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the inconvenience, Googlean. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Could you join a discussion in Talk:Persecution_of_Christians#Violence_in_India_photo_shock_value.2FPOV.3F. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SSP

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Avineshjose (3rd). Thank you. vi5in^[talk] 20:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

block

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

--Tznkai (talk)

ANI

Another user has now made some valid points on my block at ANI (I am really thankful to User:Tinucherian for bringing out all those points). Discussion link: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive492#User:Avinesh_.28Gentleman_Account.29_and_User:Googlean_.28Enforcer_account.29 . --Googlean ^Results 05:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also reporting this link to where I asked for a clarification from User:YellowMonkey who was the reason behind this latest block, tarnished my privacy and spoiled my WP image & everything. However, I notice that User:YellowMonkey did not comment/comeback thereafter. I am also thankful to User:Soman, User:Relata refero, & User:Tinucherian all others who have participated in the above & previous discussion. I am now finishing some personal work after from an extended weekend. ~~I may request for an unblock in a later stage, based on some other inputs. Thanks.~~ ^{Let the admins look at my contribs & decide whether to unblock me.}. --Googlean ^Results 06:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, let me know that where I had violated which policy? User:avinesh & User:Googlean, both have two different watchlisted items and both are solely developing in two separate areas, which cannot be consider as good hand/bad hand accounts. On the other hand, I humbly challenge anyone to give any single evidence against me for warranting this block. --Googlean ^Results 06:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Comment from blocking admin

The admin Tznkai, (who already denied my edit protect request at YellowMonkey’s protected article) blocked me as a sockpuppet with the following reason at ANI: I am completely and totally uninterested in accusations about evil cabals and the related defense that poor behavior is justified by fighting a cabal. No excuses. Try again.

Well, I need the following points to be clarified from the blocking admin:

You said Evil cabals? Please provide some evidences that I was editing as an evil cabal in Wikipedia?, Please explain it with diffs & evidences?
You said defense? As can be seen from my contributions, I was associated with some articles which was subjected to heavy POV vandalism and doing lots cleanup and reverting vandalism against some other pov cabals and was reverting & tagging sock puppet edits. In your point of view, is fighting & tagging with vandals are defense? Or show me evidences that I am fighting as a defender to push POV or violated any WP policies, explain with evidences.
You have to further explain that what was the real reason behind this indefinite block with evidences should be provided from my contributions?

On the other hand, my explanation on creating googlean id was as per WP:SOCK#LEGIT, out of 5 points, No. 1, A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area. Point No.2, A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family…, legitimate account to keep off from the controversial subjects to protect my privacy and protect my personal and family security, under the right of privacy policy.

Additionally, in my first edit as googlean, I did not even have any holdup telling on this legitimate sock and the rest of other CU admins also knew about it.

If you are not giving a satisfactory to my raised above points, I am going to take this issue to ArbCom with all starting spark of this recent block and past blocks. If you/any other admins need to clarify anything from me, please leave a note here, I will reply. I request somebody to leave a notification at User:Tznkai (blocking admin) on this issue. (I hope he watch-listed my pg). Thanks. --Googlean ^Results 05:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the statements of Googlean/ Avinesh , which is further explained by me at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Section_break_2 . I request the blocking admin and other neutral admins to look into the matter without any prejudice or bias. Also to be noted that many CU admins already knew the Avinesh and Googlean are related and didnt block them, bcoz there were no evidences of any kind of disruptive editing or wrong intentions. The reasons and circumstances of the previous block were also explained by me at the ANI discussion. This block is a huge blow to those trying to keep the NPOV aganist lots of POV vandals and socks. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much User:Tinucherian for pointing out those facts and valid points. Please scroll up & see User_talk:Googlean#re:, apologies message from User:Nishkid64 & User:Wknight94 + YellowMonkey knew about the issue of my legitimate account. But they did not (not YM-he blocked me for other reasons, scroll lil more up) find any reasons to warrant a block on any policy violations. --Googlean ^Results 05:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just watchlisted this page, and need to sleep, but I will review in the morning--Tznkai (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment though about the evil cabals. I was linked to an ANI thread that held the following logic: Googlean was editing pages controled by Anti Christian cabals (these are the evil cabals). Googlean's behavior was therefor justified, (this would be a defense of an action) because of having to fight off the cabal. It is to that which I referred.--Tznkai (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tznkai, I did not get what are you speaking about at all? Please reply to the above raised three points by me and make it clear that what the actual reason behind this indefinite block was? --Googlean ^Results 05:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am just bringing some more points in the issue. (You said I was linked to an ANI thread.) Please understand the actual situation that before posted that ANI thread, User:Vivin whom had a history of harassing me & my contribs have posted this AN thread regarding another issue. Later, that issue was over and User:Vivin had suggested to close that AN thread. When the AN issue was about to be archived, User:YellowMonkey landed into the scene, revealing googlean’s identity to Vivin in bad faith (because of my prior issues with YM (Scroll up), resulting in Vivin to form the new ANI thread. Also note that until YellowMonkey revealed it to User:vivin, the latter did not know anything about googlean. Apart from that, there aren’t any co-edits or policy violations from avinesh/googlean. The block reason of avinesh & googlean you believed was abusing multiple accounts and good hand/bad hand which cannot be applicable here. If not, please prove it with diffs & evidences that I have co-edited with avinesh or what any other bad hand action from me. Please prove it with diffs & evidences. --Googlean ^Results 10:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What it comes down to is the following:

Avinesh and Googlean have been established to be the same user, by a user with Checkuser and related access: in this case Yellow Monkey.
Both accounts thus share responsibility for the edits of both, they are the same person.
Googlean has been determined by community consensus to be making disruptive edits.
Since Googlean's behavior is markedly different than Avinesh's, Googlean falls under the functional definition of a "bad hand account" - an alternate account acting outside of acceptable Wikipedia behavior, which leads to an immediate indefinite ban.
Avinesh is tagged the master account, Googlean the Sock, Avinesh warrants in administrator discretion (that would be me) a one week block for the combination of Googlean's behavior and the behavior upon being blocked:

I've gone through Googlean's contribution log briefly, and a number of the edits are certainly fair, the overall effect is troublesome. The account is aggressive and rude, creating a hostile environment, needly combative with other users and administrators as well. Furthermore, the nearly singleminded focus on controversial areas without caution does not help.

On the whole, Googlean's behavior would earn a severe trouting and a handful of short blocks under normal circumstances, although surely many of the other editors on those pages would as well. Using it as an undeclared alternate account however, has the effect of deceiving the userbase and magnifying the disruption. I suggest, as you are interested and knowledgeable about the subject, that the master account edits or a declared alternate account does, but does so with an extra heaping of caution and civility.--Tznkai (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: in case you or a watcher wishes to point out other trouble some users to me, please do so in as few words as possible. I prefer parsimony in my complaints.---Tznkai (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tznkai: Sorry I am not happy with your explanation & I request any neutral admin/users to look into the subject & comment. Furthermore, I asked the blocking admin to give some evidences (give the exact different links where I acted as a bad hand or abused).

Reply to your listed points below:

(1&2)Avinesh and Googlean have been established to be the same user, by a user with Checkuser and related access: in this case Yellow Monkey. False. Not only by YellowMonkey, there are two check user cases already done against me. (1, (2) and reached unrelated and those CU admins & YellowMonkey knew that both accounts are the same, but did not find any reason to block me. About a month back, I sent an Email to YellowMonkey (after he knew the issue & started attacking me) using my old name & requested him not to reveal this case due to privacy issues. But he did not care it.
(3)community consensus? against Me? - Could you please show me the link that you are talking about that I have been determined as a disruptive editor by community? (Pl don’t show any comment from vandals/other cabals) Which is the link you are talking about?
(4) googlean's behavior is markedly different than Avinesh'...falls under the functional definition of a "bad hand account"? – See the created controversy sections by avinesh in the following articles: P. J. Joseph‎, T. U. Kuruvilla, High Court of Kerala, V. S. Achuthanandan, Pinarayi Vijayan, Oommen Chandy, Sister Abhaya murder case‎ and Makara Jyothi etc (check the history). See these too by avinesh: 1, 2. There are still more & I have to really sit and dig it out. Since I am lil busy in the morning, it would take more time.

Additionally, you commented that googlean’s overall effect was troublesome. Please give some evidences regarding it, as a minimum 2-3 such. I already commented above that the reason why this legitimate account created for solely developing controversial subjects due to privacy & other issues. Sometimes we need to be bold in such areas, that cannot be consider as bad hand action. If not, list out the evidence links that I was editing as a disruptive one. --Googlean ^Results 05:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't perceive a well-formed unblock request here. See WP:GAB. Sock accounts that want their blocks to be undone because of (what they believe) are the misdeeds of others do have a uphill task to face. (Indignant sock accounts might fit under the definition of chutzpah). The ANI discussion here shows that admins have already spent plenty of time on your case. My feeling is that multiple accounts need intense scrutiny, and they have few legitimate uses. I see nothing to disagree with in the summary given above by Tznkai, which he dated 14:45 (UTC) 19 November 2008. You do appear to have another account, User:Avinesh, that was only blocked one week, so it's unclear that there is any real problem here for you that would limit your future editing of the encyclopedia. If you were using the Googlean account to achieve secrecy, it is not a secret any more, so unblocking would seem pointless. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with EdJohnstone generally, and specifically in respect that these "unblock requests" are not formulated per {{unblock|''your reasons here''}} template and therefore those admins who have the skills and aptitude in reviewing blocks may be unaware that there is such a request. I suggest that, if you are intent in challenging your block, that you use the procedures provided - it goes some way to indicating you are sincere in wishing to remain within the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have had three unblock requests denied already, as far as I can tell. Is there any reason not to protect this page and be done with the matter? Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your call - I would prefer them to exercise the unblock template option, but if the consensus is that they have already been properly reviewed then lock down the page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel the need for action, but if they post another unblock request, it will probably be declined and the page will probably be protected. Perhaps they can appeal to ArbCom if there is any substantial matter that needs further review. Jehochman ^Talk 22:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed this block and find that it is appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me the reason why you think that? This is my simple points needs to be answered: The reason for this block was abusing multiple accounts.. But I asked the blocking admin to give evidences (different links of co-edition/WP:SOCK policy violation of abusing multiple accounts). Can anyone show any evidences of SOCK policy violation here? I also thought of discussing the issue with the blocking admin before making any {{unblock} as suggested by others here.Instead of replying to that and protect this page, you may go ahead & do it. I have said everything above and nothing more to comment. --Googlean ^Results 08:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]