User talk:Naadapriya

As per my CheckUser findings (which have been corroborated by two other CUs), I have found that you have evaded your topic ban on Carnatic music by employing the following sockpuppet accounts: Wkicln, Vadyar and Wkireader. Based on behavioral evidence alone, it appears extremely likely that you are the same person as Wkicln. Through CheckUser, I determined that Wkicln = Vadyar, and that Wkireader was also highly likely of being the same person as the two. Furthermore, based on geographical, checkuser, behavioral evidence, editing patterns, it looks certain that you are the sockpuppeteer, or meatpuppeteer, behind these accounts. Since this is not your first time violating WP:SOCK or your community sanction, I have decided to block this account indefinitely. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a unreasonable assumption based on possibly taking the lead from an user who is trying to eliminate my account from day one I joined wikipedia. Naadapriya is nothing to do with users quoted above. I come from a geographical area where there are more than about 15,000 IT Carnatic Music fans within about 10-15 miles radius possibly reading the article frequently. Since wikipedia is open to all I do discuss the contents of the article with many fans of CM. Looking into their edits they have not done anything to support my NPOV edits or against the framed sanction. I have explained how my account got for the first time got tainted as sock puppeteer due to multi-user system and it was resolved with an Admn later.Please withdraw your decision. Otherwise this is setting an extremely wrong precedence to wikipedia's open editing policy and encouraging editors protecting their POV.Naadapriya (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't deny using sock accounts when you are, because it isn't fair to those innocent users who may come after you and find administrators less likely to believe their claims of innocence. Checkuser is quite reliable, but the fact that those 'brand new' editors all want the exact same edits that you do, and are already familiar with Wikipedia rules and terminology, and are using your ip? I don't find that at all plausible. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the first tainted sock puppeteer I have made all edits using a single user system with dynamic IP ISP. I am not sure how others could mimic my IP address. However my system is not as secured as it should be. I still consider above is a wrong decision that too when I am singlehandedly defending to NULL the framed sanction. Naadapriya (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition please note that editing on wikipedia is not a rocket science. Thanks to the founders who have made it easy for new comers to join. Also one cannot conclude all who oppose the slanderous [[POV] of a single user are as sockpuppeteers. Today another Sr respected editor also revert the same which others blocked users did because it was absolutely needed for the article. Finally I checked with my systems manager. There are no signs that anyone else has used my IP address to edit wikipedia articles. Naadapriya (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sanction was approved by members of the community. Through the aforementioned list of accounts, you violated this sanction. These new SPAs all trace back to your geographical location. In addition to the fact that all SPAs edited Carnatic music, they share several similarities in editing patterns and behavior (usage of words like "Admn" or "mod", for example) with you. For clarification, you were never vindicated for the sockpuppetry block earlier this year. You were never unblocked and there's no record that you resolved this matter with an administrator. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you read the whole sequence of events. Can a group that formed just to ban a user be called ‘community’? All most none of the member had any history of editing CM article except the one who proposed the sanction. The rest instantaneously joined regarding a longest argued content dispute Ugaboga acknowledging their lack of knowledge about the article and then became inactive immediately after my ban. It is unfortunate I never got a chance to defend against the framed sanction and looks like I never will with this unjustified blocking. Possibly you or some other Admn prevent me even editing my talk page. In spite it being a framed sanction I have restrained my self from doing related editing.

As I said earlier, I come from a geographic area where there are almost 15000 CM fans with in a radius of 15 miles. It is a small world and we interact intimately. Editing wikipedia is not a rocket science. One can follow previous examples. It is great that Wikipedia has made it easy for new comers to join. By reading the previous discussions many including me tend to use the abbreviations, words and even sentences used by others. For e.g. I took ‘CM’ from some other user. I also saw an e.g. on Vadyar’s talk page posted by one who framed the topic ban on me. Use of common words or sentences should not be a reason for blocking.

Type of edits made by new comers are similar to even what a one of highly respected Sr. editor made today which was again reverted. When people see slanderous reverts (possibly with a hidden agenda such as those seen with edits to suppress the credits for a specific language) like that happened for ugaboga and now for 'padhya', others tend to react fast. The users you named have neither made any comments to support naadapriya nor followed-up any of earlier discussions.

It may not matter much whether I will be able to edit wikipedia article or not, since I am confident that they are many other honest editors out there. But one still needs follow-up on:

1)An Admn inadvertently initiated the attack on me by blocking without even reading the comments to know that mine was not a revert. It was pointed out by Admn in ANI that it was to allow other user (with whom he had intimate transaction just before and almost instantaneously followed hint from ANI with in 38 minutes) to edit in ‘ peace ’. First he posted the reason as 3RR then contradicted stating he responded to ANI. Finally acknowledged that he did not read the comments before concluding but still defended his unjustified rapid blocking.

2)Conflict-of-interest acts of an Admn who participated and significantly influenced the framed ‘topic-ban’ as a user then rapidly concluded and served a final notice with out even giving a single chance to defend. An Admn in ANI indicated that he will follow-up then suddenly closed it as a dead horse.

3)A framed sanction by a self-declared community led by a user with a long block history(here) (who is also trying to block me for long time) with all either false or misleading statements ( e.g. community agrees on accusation that I harassed a user by reminding him to withdraw his use of abusive word ‘sucks’ otherwise I will report) that was formed in ad hoc without any guidelines To the best of my knowledge except for the user[(here) who framed the sanction none of the other members of so called community had any history of editing related article Carnatic Music. All who acknowledged lack of knowledge abruptly joined Ugaboga content dispute just before framing a sanction.

4) Repeated blocked twice for editing an independent article. None of the Admn gave a warning that I was not supposed to edit it though it was independent of Carnatic Music. They acted instantaneously taking lead from a user (here) who had a history of repeatedly biting the newcomers(here)

Above are not dead horse yet and they will be alive in wikipedia till they are completely resolved. If unanswered it will set a wrong precedence.

Finally to clarify I did not request for unblocking of my first block (only 10 days) a year ago since I recognized that my account was tainted due to multi-user system. The Admn did not have objection for my explanation of the situation.

During my tenure of making 100s of editing I neither misused system, used bad words, harassed, solicited, requested to block others nor knowingly/deliberately violated any rules. I know that I was persistent on arguing on issues with support of strong objective evidences even knowing that there is no band wagon of cheer-leaders behind me. I am strong follower of WP:Be Bold in editing policy of Wikipedia but with extreme care. Having said all this I may as well leave it here and take a long walk if that's what wikipedia wants. Thanks. Naadapriya (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SPAs on Carnatic music criticized the state of the article (which, since you were indisposed by a topic ban, would be in Ncm's POV I suppose) and displayed intimate knowledge of Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS and terminology such as revert, vandalism and tag. Two of the users (Vadyar and Wkicln) edited from the same exact home IP address; why would they feel the need to use sockpuppets? Again, as I mentioned before, all three SPAs immediately started using terminology that only you have used on Wikipedia (search through Wikipedia on Google and you won't find anyone else who uses "Admn"). Ncmvocalist aside, if you felt your topic ban was inappropriate, you could have argued against it by going through the proper channels (AN/I, contacting ArbCom, etc.). Instead, you chose to evade this topic ban by using sockpuppets. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further thorough system investigation reveals that none of the named SPAs have used Naadapriya's IP address. Also search on 'Admn' yields about 1 million links on Goggle in 19 seconds. Use of 'Admn' is common in English world. Naadapriya (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kanaka.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 14:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kanaka.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]