User talk:Reddytrivikram

This sockpuppetry crap is an extraordinary waste of everybody's time. The standard offer is always a possibility for you, but every time you violate our sockpuppetry policy, particularly with such a callous disregard for everybody's time, and seemingly an attitude that you have a right to edit here, which you do not, you only prolong your status of being unwelcome here and increase the number of users that would balk at any suggestion that you be unblocked, mostly out of spite. I've unblocked sock operators before, but only when I get the sense that they are regretful for the time suck they've become on the community, and only when I believe that they want to change and that they are capable of changing. You've never indicated that you are apologetic, and even after 5 years of editing you keep making inexcusable rookie mistakes.

Like here where you, for some reason, think that mentioning India in the lead is unnecessary (it's necessary) and linking to Telugu cinema instead of the language (you know, the primary topic). Or in the same edit where you summarize critical response without attributing that summary to a specific voice, which is required per MOS:FILM, or describing the film's finances as "decent" as if that subjective terminology has any academic value. (It's also unsourced...) So it shows some completely unearned balls to make this plea, apparently still unaware of how problematic your basic editing is. I genuinely don't know what you expect the community to do about you? Welcome you back? You don't even have the basics down. Very frustrating. You really should meditate about this, because only you have the power to change your experience around here. Any consideration to ever unblock you would require you to really come to grips with your editing behavior, and until then, anything you create will be deleted and anything you add will be revered. Your call, dude. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

hello cyphoidbomb - Regarding your accusations of Padmalakshmisx sock puppetry

regarding standard offer - what guarantee you can provide that after giving editing privileges after six months ? some other editor wont accuse me of sockpupptery ?

firstly, please provide your email address, so that I can communicate with you.

Secondly, please direct me wherever I make mistakes in citing an article, I will correct them. I dont have any issues with that, I want to help wikipedia in which ever way possible.

further, you Being a wikipedia administrator from the western part of the world, how do you know the history of Andhra Pradesh in India, and how do you know whether Vangaveeti is a biographical of vangaveeti mohana ranga ? all wikipedia administrators are not subject matter experts right ?

In addition, If mentioning Indian Telugu language film is essential, I will mention, I am an Indian, why would I have a problem in mentioning India film in an article ? If adding references is important I will definitely add upon your direction, provided you give me an opportunity to do so.

There is no meditation required for me, all I want from you is to provide me a username (a username of your choice), and monitor my edits (I am willing to provide identity proof including my home address, real name etc) using your administrator powers, if i do mistakes in citing references, categories, genres.

I am here to help wikipedia free of URL's by using reflinks template, how many users are sincere like me, putting their man hours, and internet expenses to edit wikipedia ? do you know how much data charges I am paying from my pocket to edit wikipedia ? you have no idea how much content I have contributed to wikipedia since 2011.

On the other hand, I strongly believe that this padmalakshmisx is a complete conspiracy of western wikipedia administrators whose aim is to restrict the development of Indian articles. I am far more better than so many other Indian editors, in my editing capabilities.

I have significant content to develop Indian films at cannes film festival ? Is there any editor available to replace my intellectual capability ? This is not the way wikipedia should function, if required ask editors to provide their identity proofs only to the arbitration committee, and further develop a mechanism so that administrators can view a person's IP address, and physical location. Reddytrivikram (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This request mentions, but does not address, the sockpuppetry. Cyphoidbomb can speak for himself, but I suspect that he will not choose to tutor you, as you appear to request. Your apparent inability to use e-mail illustrates the competence aspect mentioned above. Your assertion that the sockpuppetry problem posed by padmalakshmisx is an admin conspiracy can only be dismissed either a demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the way in which Wikipedia works, or as a clumsy attempt to demonstrate you alleged lack of association with it. You suggestion that admins should be given near-checkuser ability is an obviously bad idea; the arbitration committee can, in certaibn circumstances, require proof of identity, but to do so routinely would be wholly against the ethos of the project. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:30, 1 January 2017 (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.

I don't even know where to begin in responding, since the above is mostly a jumble of random thoughts.

"I strongly believe that this padmalakshmisx is a complete conspiracy of western wikipedia administrators whose aim is to restrict the development of Indian articles." What does that even mean? Conspiracy of western Wikipedia editors? If there's a conspiracy, you're complicit in that conspiracy, since you have been abusing multiple accounts and violating our policies since at least 2011. No conspiracy forced you to be using six accounts simultaneously in January 2011. You act like you're not even a participant here. The entirety of this years-long time suck has been directly because you continue to violate policy and consider yourself above the rules. Nobody has time for that crap.

"There is no meditation required for me, all I want from you is to provide me a username (a username of your choice)" You're not in a position to make demands. The only plan available to you is the standard offer, which requires you to stop editing for 6 months, then make a compelling unblock request at your first account, which I assume is Padmalakshmisx. And no, there are no guarantees.

"I am far more better than so many other Indian editors, in my editing capabilities." Oh? And yet it was so easy to quickly find a single edit with four unique rookie mistakes. How about this edit? Misuse of |known_for=; incorrect presentation of occupation (should be {{hlist}} only the first occupation should be capitalised...); Bollywood is incorrectly capitalized; instead of three or four examples of his notable works in the lead you added seventeen frickin' examples, apparently oblivious to how problematic list cruft is and how such an obnoxious list only inspires other editors to keep adding to it. All of these things ultimately require fixing, which is why your edits continue to be problematic. So it takes work to chase you around the project, it takes work to fix your mistakes, it takes work to lecture you, and you seem to think you're an asset here?

Anyhow, I don't have time to go through each one of your points. The only plan open to you is the standard offer. Stop editing for six months, and you may open an unblock request as Padmalakshmisx. You will absolutely need to be able to articulate that you understand why you were blocked, you will need to articulate why you believe the behavior was wrong, and you'll need to articulate a coherent plan for avoiding these issues going forward. There are absolutely zero guarantees that you will be unblocked, because it's totally possible you've already irritated so many people that nobody will unblock you. Maybe that's something you should have been thinking about for the last 5 years. And just to reiterate, if you can't stay away from editing Wikipedia for six months, the clock is just going to keep resetting, so... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cyphoidbomb Please look at the following queries:

• Option 1 - I want guarantee from you that after giving editing privileges after six months ? some other editor should not accuse me of sockpuppetry ?

• Option 2 - provide me a username (a username of your choice), and monitor my edits (I am willing to provide identity proof including my home address, real name etc) using your administrator powers, you kindly monitor my edits.

• Option 3 - Kindly restore the article Indian cinema at Cannes Film Festival extensively created by me or you take time and create that article.Reddytrivikram (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I did not send you any jumble of random thoughts, you dont even know how to separate information in a message ?

This is the second time you've used odd phrasing that you've been "accused" of sockpuppetry as if it's some nebulous and erroneous accusation. This suggests you don't know what sockpuppetry is, which is absolutely unfathomable to me. Before we go any further, and before I address any of the "options" above, I need you to explain in your own words what sockpuppetry is, because I'm not about to feed any delusion you might be operating under. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Cyphoidbomb I request you to please show little patience in reading the following essential Information. I am not a native English speaker, I may not be able to use a better phrasing than below, please co-operate. This is my sincere request to you.

Essential Information:

Sockpuppetry is using multiple accounts to deliberately vandalise wikipedia. I completely accept the accusation on me:

But, In the case of padmalskshmisx, I was initially blocked for edit warring, then immediately I have created a different account to continue editing (Unfortunately, at that time, I was new to wikipedia, and was not aware of the wikipedia's policy against using multiple accounts by the same editor). Secondly, no administrator has indicated me about the standard offer option at that time. You are the first administrator on wikipedia to do so. However, Only recently, I have emailed to wikipedia arbitration lists explaining my situation to them.

I accept the fact that I have created multiple accounts, but my aim was not to abuse wikipedia, but to contribute my share. (as an example, pls check the deleted article Indian cinema at Cannes Film Festival, which shows my responsibility towards wikipedia. I can quote several articles like this.

Unfortunately, I went on contibuting significantly to South Indian cinema with different accounts. However, as far as my knowledge and abilities, I have expanded so many orphan articles, references, and gathered so much information on articles such as 1950' films Mayabazar, Devadasu, which are now Good articles. For example, I have created extremely tough articles such as 27th National Film Awards which still lack the primary source from Directorate of Film Festivals, India. I hold significant experience in editing Telugu, Hindi, and Bengali language films.

A special request:

I completely understand sockpuppetry, but since mine is an extremely rare case, and since I am willing to provide my identity to wikipedia arbitration committee, and considering my experience on wikipedia, and overall contribution(s) to wikipedia since the past five years, and also being indirectly instrumental for the development of several articles on wikipedia.

Finally, I request your kindself to combine all the sockpuppet accounts of padmalskhmisx into a single account, provide me a username of your choice, which you recognize, and every 1-2 days check my behavior & edits on wikipedia, and then if you still dont see any change in my behavior, permanently ban my account, and dont even provide me with the standard offer option ever.Reddytrivikram (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

One thing I need to correct about your understanding of sockpuppetry: sockpuppetry is the use of multiple accounts for any disruptive purpose. That could include stacking votes at deletion discussions, participating in an edit-war, for harassment, to engage in ethnic/caste/cultural warring, to evade a previous block, etc. Vandalism is certainly included, but using multiple accounts to submit constructive information is still sockpuppetry if you are doing so in violation of a previous block. This is exactly the situation you are embroiled in, and that's why your edits keep getting tossed out.

As for Option 1, no, there will be no such guarantee. If you were to start editing again, and an editor suspected that you were engaging in disruptive editing from another account, they would absolutely have a right to investigate that and accuse you. I mean, you have a years-long history of this. Why would you think that it's reasonable to ask the entire community to not accuse you of something that you've been doing for 86 years? EIGHT SIX YEARS. Holy crap that's a huge chunk of life that's been wasted to this pointless practice.

As for Option 2, no, the only account you would have an opportunity to get unblocked is Padmalakshmisx, assuming that is your first account. You would probably have the option to have your account renamed if it were unblocked.

As for Option 3, no, the article will remain in the state that it is. I've no interest in restoring an article that was created in violation of an indefinite block. And it would kind of make me a meatpuppet. Maybe having that article restored will be a motivating goal for you? If you can figure out how to get your Padmalakshmisx account unblocked, then maybe we'll talk about doing something constructive with that article.

As for your request to merge accounts, I'm aware of no such technical option to do that. Not even sure what the benefit would be. For bragging rights, so that you could see how many edits you've made across the 200 or so various sockpuppet accounts you've created? No, you'd pretty much be starting from scratch. Hypothetically. After all, we have no idea how a proposed unblock would be received. The entire success of a proposed unblock will hinge upon how you word your request, and I've given you fairly clear instructions above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank You for the information, I will email you on July 4th 2017 after six months. I believe since you are an administrator, u have the authority to consider unbanning padmalakshmisx. In my personal opinion, I believe the benefit of merging accounts would help restore the eight years of my effort. Since I was indirectly responsible for the expansion and development of 100s of articles. I am a master editor.Reddytrivikram (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I reserve the right to recuse myself from participating in your unblock request. It'll depend on how I feel in 6 months. As for your claim that you are a master editor, that sort of self-inflation is only bound to irritate other editors who have been cleaning up after you for years. A few thoughts on that:

1. Based on those edits I pointed out above,[1][2] you still lack a handle on basic editing concepts that any real "master editor" would have mastered a long time ago, so let's not get too cocky, eh? You still have a lot to learn and you will be held to the same rules that any new (or established) user is held to. Submit enough unsourced content, you'll wind up blocked. Submit enough promotional content or descriptions of a film's critical response as "mixed" when that claim isn't sourced, you will wind up blocked. Edit against community consensus enough times, you'll wind up blocked.
2. The service awards are for service. I don't think that anyone would consider the hundreds of hours wasted each year chasing you around to be a "service". You have yet to acknowledge the enormous inconvenience you've created over the last few years, and you will need to do that in your unblock request.
3. There's nothing masterful about persistently editing against consensus, arrogantly thumbing your nose at the community, and considering Wikipedia your own private playground. Ruminate on this scenario:

Every week for six years you found someone sleeping in your home. You kept telling him to leave and he kept coming back week after week and for years. Finally you confront him and say, "Look, dude, you've been a major pain in the ass, trespassing at my house for years. I'm sick of that crap. So I'll tell you what, if you behave yourself by staying away for six months, and if you can convincingly express that you understand why sleeping at my house without permission is wrong, maybe in six months I'll rent you a room, depending on whether or not I think you understand the problem." Now imagine if he turned around and said, "But since I'm an esteemed resident, I can have access to the food in the refrigerator, right?"

Lastly, remember that any editing in violation of your block will reset the clock, meaning you'll have to wait another six months from that point. I know that any sympathy I might feel will disappear if you sock in the next 6 months. This will be an exercise in discipline for you. Make sure you read and understand WP:APPEAL. I've told you exactly what you will need to do in 6 months. If you fill out some flimsy unblock request like, "Please unblock my account. I understand what I did was wrong." you will not be unblocked. You need to convince a reviewing admin that you understand why you were blocked, why the behavior was wrong, that you understand what the policies are, as well as provide an assurance that you won't continue the problematic behavior going forward. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Cyphoidbomb, Thank You for your message. I am not going to visit Wikipedia for the next six months. But please be vigilant of these 3 wikipedia editors vensatry, kailash and pavanjandhyala predominant on Tamil, Telugu and Bollywood film articles, who were successful in blocking one innocent editor who was NOT CONNECTED to my account - padmalakshmisx.Reddytrivikram (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

There's not enough information here for me to do anything about this, and I'd lay the responsibility squarely on your shoulders anyway. Had you not been evading your block for the past 6 years, there would have been no reason for an innocent user, whoever they are, to get tangled up in your web. Action: Sockpuppetry, deceit. Reaction: Suspicion, impatience, confirmation bias. Totally preventable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. Below is the Indian cinema at Cannes Film Festival article, that I was talking about. Some one copied it from deleted wikipedia article, (created by me) and pasted it over this site. http://www.self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/List_of_Indian_film_selections_and_winners_at_the_Cannes_Film_Festival. I dont wish to waste your time, I will contact u after 6 months. Reddytrivikram (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)