User talk:Bluespeakers

October 2013[edit]

Stop edit warring at Swaminarayan, if you have some suggestion, you can discuss it in the talk page, instead of enforcing the change on which no one has agreed yet. Or else if you continued edit warring, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one making the changes, you are the one with the burden of proof, YOU are the one that needs to discuss. I am merely enforcing policy by keeping the article at a stable version while the issues are discussed.

Bluespeakers (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Let us know, if you are involved in this issue or not and what you think about it, here's the link. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done nothing wrong. You just don't like someone disagreeing with you. There are a lot of people according to your history that have had issues with you. If I have done anything wrong, let me know.

Bluespeakers (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I went back and change them.

Bluespeakers (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be wary of[edit]

Please do not attack other editors as you did here: [1], [2], [3]. Comment on content, not on contributors. Wikipedia is built on community effort. Personal attacks damage both the collaborative spirit and the community. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Kapil.xerox (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to attack personally anybody but I saw what you did and I though that was wrong. I understand that you are told to make sure that all swaminarayan articles are only in a positive manner but based on what I have read, Wikipedia does not work that way. I will completely still to the talk pages in a civil way. I am frustrated that you would report me like that, because I used to think that when these guy posted their findings on Wiki and they fought for it they ended up getting blocked. Now people are systematically doing it to me and I have done nothing wrong. I will remove anything that is considered personal attacks. Please look at know. I understand when your religious group gets a huge scandal underway and you want to protect what you feel like is yours. Let's discuss and then revert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kapil.xerox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bluespeakers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha

Bluespeakers (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:India topics[edit]

That page is for discussing the template, so I'm reverting this edit of yours. These type of questions should be posted at WP:BLPN (since you're asking about WP:BLPCRIME) or WP:RSN if you want to check the quality of a source or WP:NPOVN if you want to see if some content is neutral or not. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thank you I didn't know. Thank you for pointing me in the right direction.

Bluespeakers (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't post at multiple locations, leave it at one notice board, in this case BLPN should suffice as the issue involved is related to BLP. Since you've already done it, I'd suggest you just leave a note asking participants to join the BLPN discussion and not at the other two boards. —SpacemanSpiff 14:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will do that. My rationale was that the more places I place it, the more people will respond to the discussion. I will add to join the discussion. If you can, could you personally take a look at the issues too. I think your reaching out to me is a sign that you can help Wikipedia out a lot and these articles. Thank you.

Bluespeakers (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This account has 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, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Not even surprised. This user blocked me without even reading one work that I said. Seriously, not one word. They literally blocked me because they wanted to. Not one word regarding what I said. In fact, this user did not even do a check user. I believe this is abuse. My goodness. Watch all the work and effort put in be reverted without contention. This is so wrong and I knew this was going to happen and stated this. If this user removed any of my discussions, it is genuinely true abuse because they are support conflict of interest users. I wish someone just read my case out looked at my edits. Nothing I have done makes the work invalid. I have not harmed any users, I have not attacked anybody and I have not vandalized any articles. I have read policies, conversed with users, and reached out to many people for help. I apologized to every administrator that I contacted for using their time because there are more important things on this site that need attention. This person even said on the sockpupper page where I am lumped in with people that "Regardless of whether they are in fact a sock or a meat puppet (as they acknowledge), the amount of disruption they are doing to articles, notice boards, and user talk pages is enormous." This user block me without even researching or looking into the matter. They did not discuss anything or tell me. I am not a meat puppet and I said that I learned about this subject at WSU and explained it all but if you are not going to listen what is the point. I think this administrator is abusing their powers and needs to be reported because this is crazy. On top of that, this person is accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia. These charges are absolutely preposterous as my history will show that I have not done anything wrong and followed and learned as many Wikipedia Policies. I said this and I will repeat it here I believe that anyone who engages in discussion or simply posts a controversial subject regarding this group will be systematically removed as the they will group up, report them, get the blocked and then revert all the changes. I want other administrators to look at my case because this is not right. I am extremely upset that there are people like this. If my discussions are removed, then there are much more serious problems on this site then this user. I would like to call on all the administrators who have taken a look at my case to assist in this matter. Someone who actually can reason and guide me rather than block people over and over again. Users such as User:Redtigerxyz, User:Gamaliel and User:Mark Arsten. I am not sure what to do. I need some one to hear my case out. Please Help.

Decline reason:

"This person even said on the sockpupper page where I am lumped in with people that 'Regardless of whether they are in fact a sock or a meat puppet (as they acknowledge), the amount of disruption they are doing to articles, notice boards, and user talk pages is enormous.' This user block me without even researching or looking into the matter." I think that statement contradicts itself, and that to me is enough to sustain the block. — Daniel Case (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2013 (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.

I requested cancellation of your block to Bbb23, because

1. I do not think that the right procedure has been followed to the end.

2 not all of your contributions were unconstructive

Andries (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it's clear to Bluespeakers, I am not unblocking you.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is

Confirmed sock puppetry. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an editor camouflage? See deletion of warning title by clicking here Kapil.xerox (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defending myself[edit]

I will be working on my case throughout this weekend and making sure that my name is cleared. I was just checking everything that was done so far and I noticed that User:Anastomoses wrote on User:Bbb23's talk page:

< Hello again, I wanted to seek your guidance on what the appropriate course of action is for cleaning up vandalism by sockpuppets on articles, talk pages, etc. I tried looking for the policy but wasn't able to find it. Also, the most recent sock that I have encountered (Bluespeakers) has made allegations against me regarding COI in a frenzy of disruptive posts after the SPI was filed; should I post defending myself there or will the content be removed since he was blocked? Thanks! Anastomoses (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC) >

User:Bbb23 @Anastomoses: replied Generally speaking, you can revert edits made to articles by socks. So, to the extent Bluespeakers made article edits that you think are incorrect, you can revert them with impunity. I noticed the amount of disruption he made to noticeboards, and that's a bit harder. I don't have time to review them all tonight. If you are willing, you can post here a list of things you'd like to see removed, and I'll try to deal with it either tomorrow or Friday at the latest.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are using sock case as a way to remove any information and avoid dealing with any of the conflict of interest. Just like that. Anything regarding BAPS and their rape allegation response erased and it will continue because any one who wants to mention it will be reported and then blocked. I thank User:Andries for pointing out the correct literature and wiki policies regarding this issue or else no body would have helped me. I reported the Conflict of interest on user User:Kapil.xerox and User:Anastomoses. Watch that be erased too. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha) Here are the three articles that I guarantee will be reverted and changed to how a few conflict of interest users may see fit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#Allegation_Edits_violate_BLPCRIME

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pramukh_Swami_Maharaj

Even this morning User:Redtigerxyz received severe pushback on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan and had to revert edits before the other user came to a consensus. That is crazy because User:Redtigerxyz has been a user for such a long time and was accused of edit warring and he had to comment "here has been edit warring from both sides: anti-Swaminarayan (adding excessive criticism) and pro-Swaminarayan (whitewashing criticism and adding excessive praise)."

I am so tempted to say "lets say I am a sock puppet, am I lying about what is being discussed?" but that is not the case. User:Andries tried to help out but even he got push back. Since User:Andries helped me out with the exact information that I was looking for, until I am done fight my case would you mind, if you have time to look at the two articles and their talk pages from above. You don't have to agree with anything either sides say at all. I just know that the literature that you provided me with was exactly the information I needed to prove my case. I know that User:Anastomoses is itching to get the discussions on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha#Allegation_Edits_violate_BLPCRIME and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pramukh_Swami_Maharaj

removed. There is no way that their is no conflict of interest there because Pramukh Swami was recently accused of rape and no one can be this dedicated to getting that information removed.

At the end of the day, that is not my battle. Wikipedia, as long as it exists, will have to deal with all sorts of people. They know that. User:Andries and User:Redtigerxyz, if you can talk a look at those articles and at least see if I was valid in my points about the conflict of interest and discussions, it would show all users that there is some appeal process where you are not shunned and ignored and mainly help the article. That's why we are here. Not to push our agendas.

On top of that User:Bbb23 said to Andries "If you revert another editor's reversion of one of Bluespeakers's edits, you should do so only if you wish to accept responsibility for the edit yourself, not simply as a reaction to what you perceive as an incorrect block by me." ARE YOU KIDDING ME? That is crazy that an administrator would attack a long term user like that. I was shocked reading that.

User:Andries wrote in their talk page: I have grown a bit tired of so many unintentionally bad edits that I see, but let he, who is without sin cast the first stone. I concur.

Bluespeakers (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can be also blocked from editing your own talk page, if you continued this. Just advising. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help request[edit]

I wanted to know if User:Andries could help me out. I am not sure if there is any other way of contacting you. Please respond if you time.

Bluespeakers (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saving a report for once block request is lifted[edit]

I had made this report earlier in conflict of interests but it was removed by a user because I was accused of sock puppeting but regardless if I was, it was a legitimate report and I am simply saving it on my talk page so that I can use it if and when my block is lifted. I am currently working on my appeal and if any users can reach out here, it would be helpful. Thank you

Hello, After concluding my own investigation, I have come to the conclusion that users User:Kapil.xerox|Kapil.xerox and User:Anastomoses|Anastomoses have been editing certain articles explicitly violating nearly all Wikipedia:Conflict of interest rules. Background: According to Conflict of interest and advocacy, "While both critics and adherents of a movement may be drawn to an article on that movement, both should realize that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy in favor of or in opposition to a movement. Editors should not attempt to turn the Wikipedia article on a new religious movement into a glowing tribute, or a cutting-edge critique, but attempt to create a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature on the movement. The same applies to articles on groups and individuals opposing new religious movements." Problem: Based on the edit histories of these two users, comments left on each others works and discussions and belonging to a group solely that has advocates not improves Swaminarayan sect articles. Some of these include: BAPS, Pramukh Swami, Gunatitanand Swami, Jay Sadguru Swami, Swaminarayan and Swamini Vato. They contentiously edit any controversy and criticism regard BAPS and Swaminarayan. They seems to work together to agree on removing all cited work that may being "negative" press to this sect of Hinduism particularly BAPS. Also according to Biographies of founders: "In general, the private life of a person is not described in detail in Wikipedia, because it is often considered not very relevant. However founders of new religious movements may be believed by followers to be saints, gurus, prophets etc or claim to be so implicitly or explicitly. In these cases, depending on the beliefs of the followers and the claims by the founder, the private life of the founder can be very relevant and described in more detail in Wikpedia." After explaining this in specific detail on the BAPS talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ABAPS, not one response came from these users. Instead both users quietly reported me individual ways rather than engage in any discussion. They know that they have certain administrators that blocked my research partners and once, I am blocked, it will be simple to revert all the changes. After reading and spending nearly 24 hours learning Wikipedia's Policies, there is no possible way that these editors have any good faith intention of presenting Swaminarayan articles unbiasedly (if that is a word) as they never allow any discussion regarding this topic and block users who have spend years researching this matter from a neutral standpoint. They promote these articles in ways that violate WP:NPOV. They team up with members from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Swaminarayan and constantly group together to make sure that their sect of this religion is portrayed in a positive only manner. User:Sacredsea|Sacredsea and User:Rooneywayne17|Rooneywayne17 have never disagreed with these two users are are culprits in this matter as well, but to a less extent. I personally have not had any interactions with them but based on the accounts that my partners created and they responded to, they remove all and any critical information from the sites and systematically agree with the above users to remove all controversial information. By doing this, they never allow any body with new information to present their case. I have never done anything malicious on this website nor do I intend to. "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." I believe that these people are members of BAPS because they only edit BAPS related articles but rarely to never do they edit any articles about: Swaminarayan Sampraday, Koshalendraprasad Pande, Rakeshprasad Pande, Gopalanand Swami, Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi and Nar Narayan Dev Gadi. This is significant to point out because Swaminarayan Sampraday branch of Hinduism-Swaminarayan is the main organization. BAPS is a group that was legally excommunicated from the parent organization based on different philosophies. After spending months gathering information about BAPS by attending their centers and temples, we learned that BAPS members are not taught in detail about the original group and spiritually they do not view themselves as the break off group because of their philosophy. This is extremely important to note because users User:Kapil.xerox|Kapil.xerox and User:Anastomoses|Anastomoses have only expanded and "improved" BAPS articles and slowly manipulated them to be in favor and on terms with what they believe rather than Neutral. They do not know anything about the original group. In both sects, Gopalanand Swami and Gunatitanand Swami is considered very important and highly revered in different ways. BAPS believes in Gunatitanand Swami as a part of their iconography and idolatry and the Swaminarayan Sampraday does not. Compare the two articles and see the difference. Gunatitanand Swami is written like a book and Gopalanand swami article could be nominated for deletion. I know my friends constantly asked for that article to be updated. There is no possible way that these users are not apart of the group. I do not believe they are paid members of BAPS because in religious groups you have to be a devotee and you get "spiritually paid" also know as seva, for doing work. This means doing work to make sure that your organization is only postively portrayed in the media. I conclude that these users belong to a team or group that advocates for BAPS online. "COI editing is strongly discouraged." They are Campaigning and not Declaring an interest. They are violating Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing. In all the articles above the users know that they are "very strongly discouraged from editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral." I do not think they get that "Note that you do not control articles and others may delete them, keep them, or add information that would have remained little-known" They need to read: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press, or forum for advertising or self-promotion. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict of interest COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors. If you have a conflict of interest, any changes you would like to propose that might be seen as non-neutral should be suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard. Example: Recently, last week, BAPS head and four other Sadhus were accused of raping former sadhus and over a dozen news sources broke the story. When my group member attempted to add this information to the BAPS Wikipedia article under controversy, they were systematically attacked, blocked and removed without any further discussion about explosive allegation. The users even attempted to say "For the issue about "relatively unknown" I would assert, that is relative. Outside of the state of Gujarat, Pramukh Swami is relatively unknown. To say it another way, for Enlgish wikipedia users, Pramukh Swami is relatively unknown. Thus, WP:BLPCRIME should apply. That argument, of course, is open to debate, and I would like to see what other editors think about this. So, if a consensus of editors do feel that this should go into the article, then I think we need to make sure that it is correct before putting it up. Would love to hear what others think. User:Sacredsea|Sacredsea" This makes no sense as it states on Pramukh swami's wiki page about global growth and BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha is a charitable Non-governmental organization affiliated with the United Nations. The organization is recognized as a Non-Governmental Organization that holds General Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. From BAPS.ORG Under Pramukh Swami Maharaj’s leadership, BAPS has rapidly grown into a global Hindu organization and has witnessed a significant expansion in many measurable parameters. Currently, BAPS encompasses over one million devotees, more than 900 sadhus, 3,300 mandirs and congregations, over 7,200 weekly assemblies, and a host of humanitarian and charitable activities. Futhermore BAPS responded to the allegations: On 22 Oct 2013, BAPS responded to the allegations made by two former sadhus, Sanjay Shah (Priyadarshandas) and Rakesh Bhavsar (Nishkamsevadas), that the claims made against Pramukh Swami and his sadhus are utterly baseless and false. http://www.baps.org/Announcement/2013/Message-for-All-5347.aspx The Indian Express reported that “Pramukh Swami, who heads BAPS, and four other top swamis, of alleged assault dating back to the 1970s when they were students at the gurukul.” As soon as they put this information originally on wiki, User:priyadswami was blocked within hours. I am going to help my friends clear their names and I am willing to meet with any administrators to work this out. When I reposted the allegations after doing strenuous research, User:Kapil.xerox|Kapil.xerox spend their time find out ways to build a case to block me and User:Anastomoses|Anastomoses reported me to three administrators rather than discuss any issues or policies that all have clearly stated that this kind of incident does belong on Wikipedia. Just because they belong to the group does not mean they can control it. I believe that anyone who engages in discussion or simply posts a controversial subject regarding this group will be systematically removed as the they will group up, report them, get the blocked and then revert all the changes. This in turn will never allow any user to make appropriate change due their their mob patrolling.

Bluespeakers (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]