User talk:Hiwatl

Your submission at Articles for creation: Swami Shantanand Saraswati (November 10)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Swami Shantanand Saraswati and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David. moreno 72   09:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Swami Shantanand Saraswati


Hello, Hiwatl. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Swami Shantanand Saraswati".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 16:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Veuveclicquot1

Hello, It is not a coincidence, I have been watching the page since I first tried to edit it 2.5 years ago. I saw hundreds of edits being removed by a conflicted user and tried to raise the alarm. That has not happened in the entire time I have been watching and I was trying to flag the destruction of the page. Before I consider applying for unban again could you please clarify, is the problem here only that you think I am a proxy for another user or we’re my actions also considered some kind of violation? If there is a problem with what I did (revert the mass deletions), I would respect the rule, but getting the account back or not would be of less importance. The only thing I want to do is that, if it’s not allowed the account would just be dormant again. If the problem is not with my actions but then because you think I am associated with MillandHouse33, I would appeal again. Thanks Hiwatl (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There's also the obvious partisan nature of your edis (no, you didn't just re-add content, you also happily removed well-sourced content that didn't support the right point of view) and the accusations against another editor without evidence. Roberthall declared a COI? Diff or it didn't happen. I checked the talk page rather thoroughly and cannot find that COI declaration. Huon (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, The result of my action is slightly more nuanced, most the POVs still exist on the page, just in a different place. The talk on this page has not been about what should be on the page, but where it should be on the page and how much importance it should get. There are talk discussions on all of these edits, I saw Roberthall7 editing against consensus and raised the alarm. Here are the things I deleted along with the talk discussion: Removal 1 1, RobertHall7 accepted the change 2 and then changed after he got everyone banned. Removal 23 Roberthall7 did not take part in the discussion but then reverted it later 4. Removal 35, Roberthall7 was against the change but could not provide reasoning for his position6. I saw this as admission of COI Mill: "COI- This has been a problem on the page for a very long time. See discussions involving user roberthall here and here, which he did not respond to"7, Rob:"tag was neutral and applied to all involved editors equally, including myself"8. Here are recent example of him removing wrong well sourced content that did not support the right POV9, line 111 removal of "he article called SES a cult and contained a lot of pejorative claims about the organisation. The authors lost credibility when multiple errors were identified in their work and", line 224 "SES do not claim to have a monopoly on the truth, there are some for which it is appropriate and some for whom another method is appropriate." is removed. Thanks Hiwatl (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to try and convince another admin that this is not part of a concerted effort. My opinion remains unchanged. The "admission of COI" is nothing of the sort and the first quote isn't even by Roberthall7. Huon (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I’m asking this in a constructive spirit as I think your response will help me understand the administrators POV on this issue when considering what to do next. You described my actions as obviously partisan for removing sources of POV A and adding sources of POV B. It would also be partisan to do the opposite, add B and remove A, as Roberthall7 did. I’m struggling to understand why one is seen as obviously COI and not the other. Similarly with consensus, can one user just override it when the others either are not looking and one is banned? If I can go back to my original question, if you didn’t think I was connected to other users would I still be in breach of some rules or is that the only issue? It would make a difference to any other appeal. Thanks Hiwatl (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Roberthall7 may or may not be partisan; that's not the issue here since you are not blocked for what Roberthall7 did or didn't do, but for your own actions. See WP:NOTTHEM. You claimed that Roberthall7 disclosed a conflict of interest. That claim is false. You misrepresented Roberthall7's actions in the talk page message right above. You're in violation of multiple rules beyond the tag-teaming, but you'll need to address that, too. Huon (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your honesty. I can see how I may have misread his statement, and that changes the outcome of my action. I'll look at the guidelines again and consider a response. I'm not sure how I can explain that but I'll consider it over the weekend. Hiwatl (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)