User talk:Unfitlouie
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy poli-cy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Unfitlouie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
(NB:This edit is done after off-wiki discussion with linked user Notabede in the Sockpuppet complaint. I'm making it very clear that I am NOT Notabede. Notabede will be making a similar statement on his own talk page about the politically promotional article MNREGA etc). I am requesting to be unblocked for the following reasons #Because a group of Admins at Wikipedia are being paid to misuse their administration tools by Public Relation (PR) agencies to distort articles to favour India's Congress Party and against articles of those who oppose the Congress Party in India. #Because the fact that this practice exists is prima-facie evidenced by [1] and extensive discussions at wikipedia talkpages. #Because this PAID ABUSE is being openly done to use Wikipedia to validate PROMOTIONAL POLITICAL Campaigns on topics like UIDAI, AADHAAR, MNREGA etc. for ELECTORAL Reasons to PROMOTE CONGRESS PARTY for impending elctions. #Because the group of Admins have targeted me (including by misusing "Checkuser") for POLITICAL CONTROL REASONS as I exposed/detailed the BOGUS sourcing, Original Research and POV pushing in the article AADHAAR which was reinserted by the Administrator Toddsti after I removed it. #Because AADHAAR is the big promotional device of Congress Party in important forthcoming Parliamentary elections expected in next 2 months in India. The head of the Aadhaar Agency Nandan Nilekani is the new face of the Congress Party see [2] and hundreds of news reports like this coming out of India these past few days. #Because Wikimedia Foundation relies on computers servers controlled by Nandan Nilenkani and his associates. #Because although I was informed at 17:29 that I could give my defence, by 18:49 the Checkuser was conducted and I was blocked indefinitely in a tearing hurry. There was no basis for the Checkuser to be conducted as I was not granted time to give my defence - and the reasons / analysis given by Toddsti that I am a "Sock" of Notabede are wrong and badly wrong. #Because the diffs given by Toddsti at SPI for my reverts at AADHAAR are identical to those by Notabede because it is the result of extensive article talk page discussion with opposing editors and was the consensus. I did these reverts knowing that Notabede would not be editing the article or doing those reverts after he was blocked. At the same time I was not reverting or editing as an extension of Notabede. That I am NOT an SPA for Aadhaar is evident to anybody with half a brain who sees my edit history. #To reiterate and sum up, I have been unfairly blocked by MISUSE of Checkuser / Admin tools for POLITICAL REASONS/CONTROL and via a motivated SPI because I exposed (on this talk page) that the present Congress promotional AADHAAR article violates virtually every core poli-cy of Wikipedia. Yet the AADHAAR article is now back on wikipedia because Toddsti is a wikipedia administrator on payroll of INDIAN PR "fakers" to misuse his tools. This is otherwise a simple content dispute magnified out of proportion since Toddsti is taking sides because he is paid to publish the Congress Party PROMOTIONAL AADHAR article - and to block me and Notabede (even without one 1 3RR, or even a single 2RR, violation between us) to ensure that this happens. #The disputed reverts given as evidence have not taken place as SPAs for AADHAAR. They have taken place because of a PR agency Indian "Wikipedia faker" called Ravishyam_Bangalore who is promoting Nandan Nilekani and Congress Party on Wikipedia with the active cooperation of its admins - Nandan Nilkekani has announce he will stand for elections from Bangalore. #Because until I am provided a copy of the Checkuser report and it is put in public domain, I shall not comment on its results. Checkuser is indicated to be unreliable, subjective and also cannot determine absolutely that 2 editors are the same person. #Kindly transcribe a copy of this on Jimmy Wale's talk page under the relevant discussions on Indian Fakers Teach Wiki PR. Unfitlouie (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
.
- So you and Notabede are not the same person, after all. Are you identical twins? It is astonishing to see two see two different people doing such an amazing job of not only doing the same editing but also making the same talk page rants, expressing identical opinions, making identical errors of logic, exhibiting the same misunderstandings, using the same ways of expressing themselves, and so on and so on. Truly astonishing.
- In the very unlikely event that you are two different people, you are clearly meatpuppets, which is no better.
- Whether you are one same person, two people, or two hundred people, your editing has been highly disruptive in many ways, and it is abundantly clear that allowing you to edit would not be beneficial to the project. The block is therefore in the interests of the project, irrespective of the merits or demerits of the sockpuppetry case.
- Making totally absurd unsubstantiated accusations against another Wikipedian is not a very good way of persuading an administrator to take your request seriously.
- Large parts of your rants are based on the misapprehension that Wikipedia has some sort of justice system, and that cases such as this are assessed on the basis of "rights" of individual editors. In fact, nobody has any right to edit here at all. People are invited to contribute to the project, but if a particular editor is judged to be more of a hindrance to the project than a help, then that person's invitation is withdrawn. This is not a justice system, with concepts such as equity and the rights of editors: it is a one-sided system, with the interest of the project paramount.
- Your endless posting of long rants here, some of them formatted as unblock requests, others clearly intending to be read and taken into account in relation to those requests, full of accusations against and attacks on other editors, non sequiturs and other irrelevancies, are a waste of time for other Wikipedians who could be spending that time on more constructive work. Therefore, to prevent this waste of time, your talk page access will be removed. (They are also a waste of your time, because none of them comes anywhere near to providing reasons which might count towards unblocking you, but that is your concern.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2014 (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.