User talk:Januarythe18th

I'd like to politely ask you not to stalk me around as per WP:HOUND. Also, as per WP:Talk_page_guidelines, the talk page of an article is meant for discussion about the article, not personal opinions about users. You polluted a clean page of an article: outline_of_chess, with content unrelated to the article, while also ignoring that the users there carry a civilized process of WP:BRD. You could at least use my talk page to speak about me personally. Thank you. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 


 * The Brahma Kumari Brahmin concept of caste style "Pollution" is not a concept we have on the Wikipedia. --Januarythe18th (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Allow me to be honest here. There is absolutely no reasonable basis for the misuse of article talk pages and violation of WP:TPG that are contained in this edit. We do not misuse article talk pages to insult and belittle others, or to indicate without evidence that we are somehow more knowledgable about topics than others, or any number of other things which you seem to do in your recent history of this article. I believe you very much should review talk page guidelines and make a more visible effort to conduct yourself in accord with them, particularly as there is a very real chance that ArbCom involvement will be sought as per the prior ruling. I believe you should regard this as a warning, and, possibly, as the final one you might receive regarding this sort of conduct. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing Behavioural concerns
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for posting other people's private information and violating our privacy policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be very very useful for any admin looking to lift this block to also review the history of the editor's edits to Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed | 1=Request for clarification : Could you clarify why?
 * At 16:04 on 3 October 2013 (UTC), John Carter himself (above) requested that I present evidence that Dan and others were active Brahma Kumaris and working as a tagteam. Further more, my accuser Danh108 and other BKs requested on numerous occasions that I did so. I voiced my reluctance to do so, because as I was sure the BKs would use it against me.
 * And when I do and refer to information published in the public domain, Dan then does precisely that and reports me "scoring" a win by having me blocked.
 * Does that seem correct?
 * Can you ask someone for evidence many times, and then when they give it, report and ban them for giving it?
 * It seem to be an extreme block for a first offence, especially considering the extenuating circumstances. It would also be good if admin also compares my positive contributions to the Wikipedia which include new pages and many reliable sources, in comparison to my SPA accusers.

Brahma Kumari Single Purpose Accounts

 * I drew the Wikipedia's attention a long term pattern of Brahma Kumari Single Purpose Accounts. My accuser Danh108 (talk · contribs) not only specifically asked me on several occasions to post evidence that he was acting as a "servant" of their religion (the technical term in many North Indian religions is "sevadhari". "Seva" means service, ""Dhari" mean "practitioner"). He had also previous attempted to outed who they believed I was - by name - on both the mainspace and talk pages, e.g.


 * 18:46, 14 March 2013, again at
 * 08:14, 15 March 2013, again at
 * 21:55, 13 August 2013, again at
 * 10:57, 28 September 2013, again at
 * 18:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC), and again at
 * 07:49, 8 October 2013

My reluctance voiced

 * At 13:58 on 6 October 2013 (UTC) I stated my reluctance to present my evidence of the BK tagteam because I did not want "to be drawn into making accusations that will then be used against me" ... which is precisely what Danh108 has now done. I would have thought was evidence of my goodfaith?
 * As the talk page appears to redacted, it's very hard for me to present all my evidence and I have still not presented the evidence of the tagteam coordination as it's not in my nature to waste admins' time with such complaints and accusations.

Brahma Kumari Single Purpose Accounts report removed

 * The report of the Brahma Kumari Single Purpose Accounts was then removed by one of the other Brahma Kumaris, GreyWinterOwl (talk · contribs), here. Please note, only 3 clearly incorrect edits, we were supposed to expect new user GreyWinterOwl knew where to and was able to place 3 complex admins complaints immediately after joining.
 * Does that seem normal?
 * If you are asking me to reflect on my conduct, I would say that it has to be viewed within the extremely stressful and unusual context. I've never outed anyone by name on the Wikipedia nor used private or unsubstantiated material to do.
 * My accuser has, and yet they and the rest of the BK tagteam are free to edit.

Further evidence offered

 * Out of fairness, if you are ready to look at the evidence which supports the accusation that members of the Brahma Kumaris are acting as a well coordinated tagteam and to a degree unusual even for the Wikipedia, and this is all part of their strategy, please let me know where to publish it. Thank you --Januarythe18th (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC) | decline=At first, reading your unblock request, I had a good deal of sympathy, and was inclined to consider an unblock. Although you took actions which were inconsistent with the way the policy on "outing" is commonly interpreted, it looked as though you did so in good faith, as a response to requests for evidence, not realising that the particular type of evidence you offered was considered inadmissible. (My personal sympathy was no doubt increased by the fact that I strongly disagree with the way the "outing" policy is commonly interpreted, but as an administrator I try to put such personal opinions aside, and consider cases on the basis of consensus, rather than my own view.) However, I never unblock on the basis only of reading an unblock request, without looking at the general history of an editor. When I did so, I found a disturbing history of disruptive and contentious editing, and a battleground approach to editing Wikipedia. I also found rather persuasive evidence that you have used at least one other account as a sockpuppet, and evidence that this account itself may well be a sockpuppet of an earlier blocked account that is known to have used many sockpuppets. Consequently, my conclusion is that there are ample reasons for maintaining the block, irrespective of the merits of the "outing" case. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)}}

Is it possible for someone to review this block? I am being accused of other sins by the BKs which are nothing to do with me and I'd like them to stop. Or at least be able to respond to them. --Januarythe18th (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I very much believe that the statement regarding my own statement above indicates errors. There are ways to present such evidence around here, and outing people on talk pages is not among them. Discussions at noticeboards, or requesting input at ArbCom, or elsewhere are the ways to present such evidence without violating WP:OUT, which I suggest you read. I acknowledge that there are concerns regarding your possible use of sockpuppets raised elsewhere, but it seems to me that you could deal with them at this point by presenting the appropriate evidence here, which could then be linked to in on the noticeboard discussion. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You must mean, WP:OUTING, which I have just found. It does not tell how or where to report.


 * You asked for evidence and offered to investigate. You did not tell me how or where. I, naturally, thought it was part of an ongoing discussion and was as discrete as possible. Unlike Danh108, I have never written personal names on the Wikipedia nor accused anyone of being what they are not, nor exposed private information.


 * Has Dan been blocked for doing so? If not, why not? He himself clearly asked for the evidence.


 * I think the only way I could put in that report, given that it includes personal information, was if it was done privately, e.g. via email. But I still don't know to whom or where.


 * I am sorry, but it's a bit too much to expect everyone know every rule and how the bureaucracy works. I don't like wasting admin time with complaints.


 * We were discussing the meaning of sevadhari which means a servant of a god or religion. All I did was simple Google search. --Januarythe18th (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you were blocked for posting a link, don't post that link here, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are ever unblocked, if you have a concern about someone's editing and their real life identity, that concern should be sent to Arbcom privately over email.--v/r - TP 22:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * TP, until proven, can you remove this edit. It's highly prejudicial and it's got nothing to do with me.
 * As you are new to this, the issue in question what not a simple concern over someone's identity. It was to do with a highly coordinated off wiki coordination of a tagteam of followers working the BKWSU page. What you are seeing here is just a further extension of this. --Januarythe18th (talk) 13:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The template rightly says 'suspected' and I've annotated your concern already at the SPI.--v/r - TP 13:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you doing a checkuser check or presenting your evidence of who else they might be? Presumably someone has some evidence one way or the other? --Januarythe18th (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I was not blocked for posting that link. That was just a link to Google.

Honestly, this is just more distraction from what is really going on here. I have never mentioned anyone by name on Wikipedia, whereas my accuser, one of the BK tagteam, has both on multiple occasions (mainspace and talk page), and demanded that I post evidence, (as above).

Something does not seem right here.

The sockpuppet business below has nothing to do with me either. For all I know, it's another part of the BK tagteam's strategy to build up a case against me. --Januarythe18th (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In the conversation January is referring too above, he was directly advised to report any evidence to arbcom. It was never suggested the evidence for his allegations related to an outing, but even if they did, if he followed the advice of John Carter and Greame, this would never have happened. The diff is affected by the OS, so I quote: "As this article has been subject to ArbCom perhaps you could try and communicate with the committee and see if your concerns are addressable. Or you could ask for advice at the Adminstrator noticeboard about the correct processes or routes for your concerns. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)"
 * This is also a concern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Januarythe18th


 * Regards Danh108 (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It continues
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh108 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request
I am moving your latest unblock request to the bottom of the page. Putting it above other messages which were already there risks confusing people about the order of postings, with a danger that people might get the impression that comments below this request were posted after it, and refer to it, when in fact they were here before the unblock request. I will also offer you the advice that unblock requests that consist largely of attacks on other editors very rarely succeed, as you will know if you took the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before posting an unblock request. There are at least two reasons for this: (1) your unblock request will be assessed on the basis of what you have done, and whether it seems that you will edit constructively within Wikipedia's accepted standards, and what other people have done provides no evidence on that question; (2) the very fact of using an unblock request to attack others is an example of the battleground approach which is one of the reasons you have not already been unblocked, so this unblock request actually goes a good way towards confirming that you should remain blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am clearly not attacking my accuser here.


 * I am questioning the system where someone who has outed using names and position on more than one occasion, my accuser, is rewarded for his gaming of the it and allowed to continue to edit; and someone who has not outed using names, myself, is blocked for "egregious" misuse.


 * Clearly something is wrong that you can see.


 * I also note that his sockpuppet accusation against me is still open and unproven and, as there is only one computer attached to my router, I am confident will exonerated me and then this situation can be seen in an entirely different light.


 * It's not my habit to accuse and complain and run to the admins all the time in order to disable other contributors whose opinions are different from mine. By allowing this situation, you are encouraging a state where those who have no moral qualms in doing so are empowered, merely for doing so, and those who don't are penalised.


 * Unlike the entire BKWSU tagteam, which this experience teaches me that I should have invested more time accusing and complaining to admins rather than starting new referenced and unchallenged pages, at least I have offered some good to the rest of the Wikipedia.  --Januarythe18th (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, you may not think that "attack" is the right word, but the fact remains is that the focus of your unblock request is explaining what you think is wrong with other people's editing, whereas any unblock must be made on the basis of how you have acted, and how you seem likely to act in the future. For that reason, your unblock request is very unlikely to succeed. You may or may not be right about the editing of the others whom you criticise, but whether you are or not, the way you have gone about trying to deal with the problems is what got you blocked, and only evidence that you are likely to change your approach to dealing with such matters is likely to get you unblocked. Please note that this is the second time I have taken time and trouble to offer you advice on why your unblock request is unlikely to be accepted. Both times, I could much more easily and quickly have declined the unblock request, or even more easily still just ignored it, but both times I chose to go to some trouble to try to help you. It is entirely up to you whether you take my advice or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to leave blocked. Just three days ago (during the 1st unblock request) they posted another link outing personal information of another editor. (IRWolfie was kind enough to remove it.) The WP:Battleground mentality they carry is not conducive to productive Wikipedia editing IMO. (My opinion would remain the same if they weren't the person behind the June24th SP account.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hold on, I did not out personal information of "another editor". We were discussing the same case.


 * James, would you just allow the checkuser to run and clear this up for once and for all? I had already been used prejudicially.


 * In the meanwhile, you might keep an eye on what the Brahma Kumarit tagteam consider "not" to be WP:ADVERT, if you're not going to allow me to do so. --Januarythe18th (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI - The diff provided above is misleading: it is an intermediary edit. The final edit shows how the page is at present, complete with reference. Regards Danh108 (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the facts by Januarythe18th
Hopefully I'm not just taking sucker bait by responding to comments here, but there are (at least) 2 significant misrepresentations being made: This editor is taking advantage of the OS. His outing was never in response to a request for evidence. It was made after I cautioned him for using off-Wiki information about me on the talk page. I remember cutting and pasting some of the outing policy on the talk page. It was then in response to this that January posted a link, explained how it lead to a personal profile and added something like "you put it in the public domain so can't complain". So yes, egregious is IMHO, a good fit. Here is the original ANI complaint.

The only 'prejudice' I see is editors expressing legitimate concern about persistent uncivil behaviour. As everyone here is saying, the article talk page provides further examples.

The deceptive nature of the unblock request is itself a case that this account should remain blocked - complete with Admin having to use OS on this talk page on 13 October because the link to the personal profile was reposted. Danh108 (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The "fact" is, I was blocked for outing when I did not out. My other conduct, both good and bad, was not brought into the equation. There are other channels to do so.


 * The "fact" is, you asked more than once for evidence you were a servant or "sevadhari" of the Brahma Kumaris, and when I point to where it was on Google, you ran off and snitched that I was outing you because you thought you'd get a result.


 * Despite you previously attempting to out me by the names and positions you think I am on numerous occasions.


 * Look, it's a tagteam. One BK complains here, another BK complains there; one BK reverts, another BKs accuses; one BK sucks up to one admin, another BK sucks up to another admin.


 * These are just their strategies. There's no sincerity, integrity or interest in the Wikipedia as a whole involved in it. They are here to achieve their aims. They are just using the system based on their shared previous experience of it.


 * I am hoping that eventually one Wikipedia admin with half a brain will see this and have to admit what is going on. --Januarythe18th (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Rewarding tagteams using snitching as a strategy does not improve the Wikipedia

 * And are you going to admit that you attempted provoke a response from me, by attempting to out me using a specific name and references of who you claim I am, addressing me in that name, at least 4 times on talk pages and the mainspace before making your own accusation against me?


 * Do I need to list the references again?


 * Where is your honesty and integrity? Admit it, right now.


 * You state on your user page you are a volunteer at the Brahma Kumaris. How many times did you request I gave evidence of a centrally coordinated BKWSU tagteam and that you are part of it?


 * As above, I voiced my reluctance to do so because I was sure you would use it against me. I made an obscure link to evidence that prove you were a "surrendered" supporter. Then you used it against me to achieve the tagteam coordinator's aim, which has all along been to remove me. Hence the hail of other accusations.


 * I am sorry it's not in my nature to "win" by run around sucking up and snitching all the time. I do not believe the Wikipedia is made better by such activity, nor by rewarding such activity. --Januarythe18th (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Would you like to re-read WP:GAB and WP:AAB before the above unblock is declined? ES  &#38;L  22:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

For Eats, Shoots and Leaves
No, there's no need to. This is a farce.

I am correct in saying it is a farce. Unfortunately by pointing out just how much of a farce it is, immature admins will not like that and punish me by not unblocking.

They accuse me of a battlefield mentality but I have been subject to an assault by the BKWSU tagteam who and whose off wiki leader has been working to achieve just this result.

I know that other account  has nothing to do with me. It's a set up. You have the power to check it out, and do not need to remove it early ... but the admins will refuse to do so, now because it will prove them wrong.

And they don't like admitting it when they are. It's simple, start with the checkuser and let's sort this out.

The bottomline is,

a)


 * I've never outed anyone directly by name, and yet I get blocked for "egregiously outing".
 * It my multiple times accuser BKWSU tagteam member Danh108 has out by name several times but is rewarded and allow to edit.

Why? He snitches. He asked for my proof he was a servant of the religion and when I gave it, he report me.

Does that really seem right?

b)


 * I have never made a single admin accusation or complaint against anyone else on the Wikipedia and have been subjected to constant assaults since the latest BKWSU tagteam engaged on their campaign, coordinated from off wiki (which is how brand new editors are able to make such complex accusations)
 * My presence is call "pollution" by them when I try to help them, see above (they are Brahmins, we are Shudras to them).
 * ... Yet I am the one who is accused of a "battlefield mentality"?

These Brahma Kumari people are coordinating off wiki to develop just such strategies.

c) I've already cleared Danh108's sockpuppet accusations and I am not that other account. Please show some integrity and allow it to run. Then we can start unpicking what it going on here. --Januarythe18th (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * How dare you. You fake your way onto Wikipedia pretending to be a BK with poor English, and then lecture me on 'honesty and integrity'. The entire article talk page got filled with your endless accusations. Strength of conviction and frequency of repetition is not compensation for lack of evidence. There is nothing more I can say - I have already responded on several occasions. You push me to doubt if I'm interacting with a rational person.210.86.249.30 (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC). Sorry Danh108 (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Melbourne? That's where the Brahma Kumaris so called Centre for Spiritual Learning is where you serve, isn't it? One of Brahma Kumaris own Scientology-like retreat centres where they encult upmarket newcomers. --Januarythe18th (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of talk page
Since you have been persistently misusing talk page access while blocked, including repeatedly changing another editor's posts so as to misrepresent what he or she had done, your talk page access has been removed. If you are unblocked, talk page access will be restored, and if not, the administrator who assesses your latest unblock request will be able to decide whether or not to restore it.

I will make one last attempt to explain to you why your unblock request is virtually bound to fail, even though I have explained it more than once, and you seem completely unable to get the point. As far as I know, every word you wrote about what you call the "tagteam" may be true, or it may not. Even if we knew for a fact that it was true, that would not lead to your being unblocked, because any unblock request is assessed on the basis of what you  have done, not what others have done. Also, continually harping on about the fact that you say you have not used a sockpuppet does nothing to help your case, because that is not why you are blocked. Finally, I see that you say that people "accuse" you of a battlefield mentality. Accuse???? Try spending two minutes reading this talk page, and if you really honestly can't see that this is not an accusation but a simple statement of blatantly obvious fact, then you are so blind to the nature of what you have written that you will never be able to fit into the way Wikipedia works. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at .

I will not spend time replying to all the points you have raised with your latest sockpuppet account (Januarythe18th1969), for several reasons, not least the fact that most of them have already been answered, and there is a limit to how much time I am willing to waste on patiently explaining over and over again the same points to someone who, no matter what one says, is totally deaf to anything that doesn't fit into his or her preconceived view. (See WP:IDHT.) There is an unblock request pending. If that request is eventually declined, then instructions on how to make another request are immediately above this message, in a prominent pink box, so that you can't miss it. Unblock requests posted by sockpuppet accounts to evade the removal of talk page access will not be considered, and the more use you make of sockpuppets the less likely you are to be unblocked. This talk page is now semi-protected to prevent you from evading the loss of talk page access with yet another sockpuppet, and if you evade semi-protection then it will be no trouble at all to fully protect it, which will mean that nobody except administrators can edit the page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Mukhi) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Mukhi, Januarythe18th!

Wikipedia editor Wieno just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Well-written and well-cited page. Thanks!"

To reply, leave a comment on Wieno's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Sockpuppet investigation
McGeddon (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
McGeddon (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)