User talk:Iambarky789

Hello????
Did user:Jpgordon leave a message on my talk page? When I click the zero next to my user name is says you left me a message on my talk page. I was having problems with leaving my blocked request and then maybe you left a message while I was working on it. I am not sure why I am blocked out and unable to use my log in to do anything. Some one help. I see no message from user:Jpgordon. Please help.

Iambarky789 (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I just corrected your unblock request to make it readable, that's all. I don't have any other comment on your request. Someone other volunteer will come along and process it, though. --jpgordon:==( o ) 05:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Well actually, user:Jpgordon, could you please help me out. I was reading all the literature on Wikipedia and I have not done anything wrong. Please would you help me and take a look at what I am trying to convey. Thanks a lot for responding. Iambarky789 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed most of your unblock request. You are not permitted to repeat the WP:BLP violations that in part led to your block. If you do this again, access to your talk page will be revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

 * I was the administrator who sent you the email from the UTRS tool. A checkuser has confirmed that you are not the same person as User:Swamifraud. To move forward from here I need a couple of things from you:


 * 1) The comment in your unblock request suggests you me that you may have engaged in meatpuppetry, would you please review the meatpuppetry policy and tell me if you think you have been engaged in meatpuppetry and if so what you intend to do differently.
 * 2) Please read our policy on the biographies of living people and tell me why and how you have violated it (the verifiability policy might also help).
 * Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Callanecc

After I reviewed the meat puppetry policy and I did not engage in that since I was not called in my any other user. I followed the dispute about this group from multiple editors and saved the material posted and reused it when the members of that page refused even the discussion of it from other users. I used the large list of sites that showed the allegations exist as well. I read the Biographies of living persons page and it says all the core policies about adding information should be Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR). You said to look at Verifiability Policy and that states “In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.” I copied and pasted over a half dozen sources that are reliable and one source that is included that includes a response from the group itself. I felt the burden of evidence was met. The notice board may have been the wrong place to bring this up and instead should have been on the talk page but even recently I observed a discussion started the talk page by an a non-member user on Pramukh Swami and was reverted and no one has undid that and that bothers me because any talk on the discussion page is even removed. Things like that before was why I repeated on the BLP noticeboard that “Many people have tried to add this information on his wikipedia page and organization page but there are a group of users that constantly monitor those particular articles and removed any of these allegations because of reasons unknown. One can assume that they want to keep these pages clean because they are a part of the organization.” The people that I copied the sources from said the same thing. If you can look into this matter further, it would help me understand. I read the article on Person accused of crime and it says” for people who are not known, editors should not include it and if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.” I stated on the BLP noticeboard that he is a public/religious figure and the head of the organization. I want to make sure that I understand these policies correctly. I did not make any edits other than that. I am not sure if I am misreading something but I reviewed your requests thoroughly.

68.47.31.182 (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith that your statement about not being a sockpuppet is the truth that leaves the BLP violations as the only reason for the block. The section of the BLP policy primarily related is WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The other issue is that consensus is needed, there isn't consensus to include something then it shouldn't be included.
 * In any case, I'm inclined to give you another go with the understanding that anything which resembles edits like Swamifraud or which look like BLP violations will probably result in an indefinite block and the unlikelihood of an unblock. I've left the admin who blocked you and ping and  if they'd like to comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , as I understand it from your comment above, a check user has already been performed and shown that Iambarky's account is technically unrelated. So, when you preface your latest comment with assuming good faith about sock puppetry, I'm assuming you mean meat puppetry. Based on Iambarky's latest post addressing meat puppetry and WP:BLP, I do not believe he's not a meat puppet. It strikes me as very odd that a new editor, on his own, would dig that deeply into this controversy and then effectively wish to repeat the precise same points that Swamifraud and his socks have made ad nauseam in the past. Additionally, the comment about other editors being part of some conspiracy because "they part of the organization" is the usual nonsense raised by editors with an agenda and who wish to defy the consensus of long-standing, experienced Wikipedians. My recommendation is that he remain blocked. If there is a consensus among administrators that he be unblocked, I would defer to that consensus. Alternatively, if you feel very strongly that the block is unfair, then you should unblock him on your own. I recognize that you're more disinterested than I am, although that cuts both ways. It makes you more objective but potentially less knowledgeable. In any event, I trust your judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I meant meat puppetry sorry, I agree with "I do not believe he's not a meat puppet" however was willing to disregard it given their statement. However the further explanation from you makes it pretty clear that there are issues Iambarky789 has still not addressed, so I have declined the unblock request. I think disinterested is the right word to an extent, in that I was disinterested to give Iambarky789 another go, but your comments convince me (with the extra knowledge provided) that there is still reason to keep Iambarky789 blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)