User talk:Talikarni
|
Blocked for sockpuppetry
[edit]![]() | This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Talikarni. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. Mike V • Talk 23:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Talikarni (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This block is invalid by Wikipedias own Terms of Use as this is a single user account, created and used by one person, with no other accounts. There were not multiple accounts created nor used from this user, IP, account, address, associated email address, nor location. Furthermore, the block is invalid as the originating editor that reported or recommended the block (I am NOT referring to Mike V but another editor, unless the other editor AND Mike V are the same person, which is a much more serious problem) has been the subject of multiple third party reviews as being racist against whites (refusing to allow correction of racist anti-white articles with verifiable and reputable sources), commonly reverts and locks articles whenever there is facts that editor (NOT Mike V) disagrees with, and has been a problematic editor as reported on various social media sites and forums. Due to the forced reporting and blocks instigated by the originating editor, the people (like myself) attempting to request lifting the block are typically denied. As so many social media comments most commonly and so bluntly puts it, "the wikipedia admins are protecting their editors instead of admitting certain editors need to have their elevated status revoked". They institute bogus blocks such as sockpuppet in order to give reason behind their blocks, instead of looking at the originating editor that reported the issue in the first place. As a police officer and fellow editor of Wikipedia put it[1], "There are lots of good editors on Wikipedia but there’s a bad group of admins. . . They make it hard.” If the site owners wish to contact me outside of this site, I can give the name of the originating and problematic editor that caused me and so many others these problems. (Talikarni (talk) 01:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC))
Decline reason:
Firstly, I accept that this may be the result of meat puppetry instead of sock puppetry, but the block is still justified. Secondly, I suggest you look at WP:NOTTHEM. PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2016 (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.
- ^ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f726eba-bb6f-11e4-b95c-00144feab7de.html#axzz3zomvF6NK.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)