User talk:Sacredsea

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Sacredsea, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! The Wo  rld  02:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

September 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind a 24 hour block if User:Bbb23 wishes to block me. However, User:Bbb23's advice upon the block was for me to first try to discuss on the talk page and seek consensus. My confusion is that it was talk page discussion and consensus building that I was seeking that seems to have led to this block. To wit, an ongoing talk page discussion had led to a general consensus on this point after considerable detailed discussions. Another user made changes without developing consensus on the talk page, so today I brought the article back to the antebellum status quo and asked them to engage in discussion and consensus building on the talk page, with an explanation of my position. They reverted in opposition of the consensus, so I again pointed out the importance of discussion and seeking consensus on the talk page and reverted again with further explanation of the existing consensus. I made sure not to revert three times in 24-hours (although it was admittedly three times in a span of 6 days, which I thought that was acceptable given that the reason for reverting was to get the user to engage in consensus building on the talk page). I try to follow wikipedia policy in letter and spirit to the best of my understanding, and this is the first time I have been blocked, while trying to do that. So, if this is a good enough reason to be unblocked I would appreciate it, otherwise, I will accept the block and hope for someone to explain in detail how I subverted wikipedia policy and was blocked by seeking consensus before controversial edits are accepted.Sacredsea (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What is one user's consensus is not necessarily another's. I locked the article. Swamiblue restored his version after the lock expired. Then you edit-warred with him. I've blocked Swamiblue for two months because of his history. I blocked you for only 24 hours because it's a first offense. Edit-warring is not the right way to enforce a perceived consensus. One way of handling it was to notify me or another administrator of Swamiblue's first edit after the expiration of the lock. Once you revert, you're stuck because now you too have restored your version. Another way of handling it would be to bring to a noticeboard such as ANI or even AN3 because of the conduct. I hope that is understandable to you, even if you don't necessarily agree with it. It's an administrative decision that I felt compelled to make.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the handling of the situation and respect the administrative decision. It is also good to know that I could have just alerted an admin after Swamiblue's first edit, which would have been much easier and less time consuming than the whole trying to engage in discussion-reversion route. I appreciate the explanation. Sacredsea (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Criticism of Swaminarayan sect.The discussion is about the topic Criticism of Swaminarayan sect. Thank you. Moksha88 (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please have a look at NPOVN#Morari Bapu. -Nizil (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of User:Moksha88&#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear ,

Although I quite frequently use Wikipedia, I have not been as active an editor for the last several years as I was before. Only when I attempted to edit a mistake I recently saw in Wikipedia did I realize that you had blocked me indefinitely as a sock puppet or a meat puppet (which one is not clear from the explanation you have provided). It took me some time to read through the investigation as well as the policy surrounding sock puppetry, meat puppetry and indefinite blocking. Having done so, I request further clarification regarding your justification for my indefinite block.

As I understand WP:AGF, assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, and SPI procedures are set up with this in mind. In accordance with this principle of assuming good faith, to accuse someone of sock puppetry requires verifiable evidence of disruptive editing as a sock puppet or a meat puppet and the accused has a chance to defend themselves against those claims. In the case of your indefinite block of my account, I was not a target of this SPI, so no evidence was presented against me; I was not given a chance to defend myself in the SPI; and only after you ruled against the users involved in this case did another editor suggest me as a sock puppet with an accusation of a single 3RR violation. However, without presenting any verifiable evidence against me, or giving me any chance to defend myself, you indefinitely blocked me providing only the two word rationale “behavioral evidence” without any further explanation of what that behavioral evidence was. It seems to me in this entire process of me being indefinitely blocked, you have not followed WP:AGF with respect to me by not providing proper evidence against me and not allowing me to defend myself in this SPI.

I did notice that there are some essays that state new single-purpose editors can be summarily blocked as obvious sock puppets or meat puppets, but I do not fall into that category, as I am neither a new user nor a single-purpose editor. If good faith were being assumed with me, it seems to me I should be fully unblocked, a proper SPI should be filed against me providing specific instances with diffs of my alleged disruptive behavior as a sock puppet or meat puppet, and I should get a chance to defend myself before an uninvolved administrator. So, my initial request for clarification is to see if you think this is a legitimate request, or if not, then why not?

If you do not take this requested course of action, then I would ask you to clarify with diffs all the evidence of my alleged current disruption of Wikipedia as an alleged sock puppet or an alleged meat puppet that led you to indefinitely block me. For the record, I am not nor have I ever been a meat puppet or a sock puppet. All of my edits have been to improve the encyclopedia in accordance with its policies (as far as I understand them). The evidence that has been provided in the current SPI is against other users, and there is no specific evidence provided against me. This detailed information with diffs that I am requesting is necessary for me to understand if I have actually done something against Wikipedia policies and harmed the encyclopedia and I should modify my behavior, or if I have been erroneously implicated and I need to work to show that. Sacredsea (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC) Sacredsea (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)