User talk:PuttumKadalayum

Welcome!

Hello, PuttumKadalayum and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DileepKS69 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't understand why I'am blocked. I don't even know DileepKS69 , but I do admit that I'd edited Kochi, Trivandrum as well as few other articles. You can see, I've not added anything malicious and have only removed some false information. I request you to review the case.

Decline reason:

Based on the review by Hersfold and a short investigation on my part, I decline because of a faint quacking in the edits and more importantly, the fact that these two accounts have never been active within the same time (the old "has anyone ever seen them together?" test). Let me guess ... you use one at work and the other one at home or the Internet cafe you frequent? You're not the first one to think that would work. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (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.

It will have to be done by another administrator with CheckUser. You may need to be patient. Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say much more than what Tnxman already has - it's

Possible, same geographic area, but I can't confirm or deny anything. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that this is done only on assumptions and not on any irrefutable evidence/proof. I know its not fair but so is life. Anyway let me thank you for reviewing my case and arriving at a decision quickly.PuttumKadalayum

September 2011

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Admin Daniel Case had reviewed my unblock request and declined, but the reasons he gave was not based on any solid proof/evidence rather some assumptions. I kindly request you to review my case again.

Decline reason:

To request a second chance, see WP:Standard offer, but kindly stop claiming that you have not abusively socked. AGK [•] 21:15, 9 October 2011 (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.

Hersfold pegged you as a possible. With the behavioral evidence, that's solid enough to support a block. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 14:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling checkuser data of my own, I'm inclined to say a link is Possible, but not bordering on any stronger adjectives, such as Likely. The accounts do indeed edit from the same region of the same nation, but the nation is huge, and also ISPs there are notoriously funky. In my view, there are not many other indicators either—technically, at least. I'll let another administrator review this unblock request from a behavioural perspective, but would welcome Hersfold or Tnxman's input on the technical evidence. AGK [•] 23:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, technical data has limited value in many situations. The behavioural evidence is difficult to discern, but on balance this does seem like a DileepKS69 sock… Recommend declining the unblock. AGK [•] 23:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]