User talk:Soorejmg

Talkback
Shriram Talk 14:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Hi Sriram, If that is the case, it has to be mentioned that Wikipidea is giving publicity for only two parties and influencing people's decision by highlighting NDA and UPA. The format of the page has to be changed in such a way that all parties are recognized equally and not by highlighting a few and mentioning others as 'other party', thus giving less importance. Thanks Soorej

Talkback
Next time I will not leave talkback here. Please visit my talk page to read my reply. I usually reply within a day. Shriram Talk 15:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Kejriwal
Hi Soorejmg, I saw the discussion at Talk:Indian general election, 2014 and I am still not convinced why Kejriwal is excluded from the userbox. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Hope you will help me. RRD13 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Roy,

I have posted a comment in that talk you messaaged. A dispute resolution was also started in below link- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Indian_general_election,_2014#AAP

Thanks SoorejSoorejmg (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014
Hello, I'm Shriram. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Indian general election, 2014 because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This edit  Shriram  Talk 13:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, India LokSabha Elections 2014


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, India LokSabha Elections 2014. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Indian general election, 2014. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Indian general election, 2014 – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Shriram Talk 13:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, India LokSabha Elections 2014


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, India LokSabha Elections 2014. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Indian general election, 2014. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Indian general election, 2014 – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Shriram Talk 16:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove file deletion tags from file description pages on Wikipedia, as you did to India LokSabha Elections 2014, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Shriram Talk 16:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
Your recent editing history at Indian_general_election,_2014 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with India LokSabha Elections 2014. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Shriram Talk 17:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi , First reply to the talk in India General Elctions,2014. Then continue talking here.

Thank Soorej

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Indian general election, 2014, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Shriram Talk 17:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit war
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Campaigning in the Indian general election, 2014. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Shriram  Talk 14:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Hi Shriram, Campaigning in the Indian general election, 2014 is a very critical and high profile topic. What you are trying to do is bias people Opinion using Wikipedia. You are highlighting specific political party leaders. As I observed this, I tried including other parties in the page and removed the highlighted political party leaders. You revert it back immediately and then dont respond properly on the talk page, finally leaving the high profile topic visible to people. This cannot be allowed. So I had to revert it back and now you put a Edit war on me?!!!! Unbelievable!!! Your same actions was being discussed in India General Election 2014, and you are aware about it but still continue to do this after including the Campaigning in the Indian general election, 2014 in Indian General election page.

Thanks SOorej


 * You think you are doing the right thing but you are not. It was not my action that is being discussed, it is your action. Don't target me personally.  Shriram  Talk 15:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shriram, Please dont play with words. I clearly mentioned the issue.

Thanks SoorejSoorejmg (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actions speak louder than words, my friend.  Shriram  Talk 15:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Shriram Friend, You Playing with words fto deviate actual issue. COme back to the issue.

Campaigning in the Indian general election, 2014 is a very critical and high profile topic. What you are trying to do is bias people Opinion using Wikipedia. You are highlighting specific political party leaders. As I observed this, I tried including other parties in the page and removed the highlighted political party leaders. You revert it back immediately and then dont respond properly on the talk page, finally leaving the high profile topic visible to people. This cannot be allowed. So I had to revert it back and now you put a Edit war on me?!!!! Unbelievable!!! Your same actions was being discussed in India General Election 2014, and you are aware about it but still continue to do this after including the Campaigning in the Indian general election, 2014 in Indian General election page.

Thanks Soorej


 * Already discussed on talk page. Mention your views there.  Shriram  Talk 16:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * He has edit warred before and continues to do so, User:Shriram, filing a complaint against him would be legitiamte as he has 3RR'd before and shown no willingness to change. NOt to mention demanding his POV.Lihaas (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Indian general election, 2014. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson,

I agree that I was edit warring initially and I was blocked that time, completely agree with that. But the edit war this time given is not valid. I had input data to the page with valid sources and it was deleted without any discussion on the topic. After that an edit war was put on me. It was not me who was doing edit war, it was Shriram and Lihas. Could you consider the 3 points which I have highlighted? Even if my block is not removed, consider the rest of the items. If you could go through the past history in Indian General Election, it will be clear that a group is trying to project certain leaders.


 * 1. Unblock me - Even If I am not unblocked please consider atleast 2 and 3 as they are valid.
 * 2. Help putting a high priority intervention in Indian_general_election,_2014 page &Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Indian_general_election page --- India Election is going on now which is a very ssensitive topic
 * 3. Monitor actions of Users Shriram and Lihaas on pages thry contribute, especially on the Indian_general_election,_2014.

Thanks SOorej Soorejmg (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Herare just a few edits where you were edit warring. There were many more. . The king of the sun (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi The king of the sun, These are the pages that Shriram was edit warring. He was just removing the content that that was added with valid sources. How can he issue an edit war against me then?. I was asking him to discuss before removing the content which he was not doing.

Please consider these two points-


 * 2. Help putting a high priority intervention in Indian_general_election,_2014 page &Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Indian_general_election page --- India Election is going on now which is a very ssensitive topic
 * 3. Monitor actions of Users Shriram and Lihaas on pages thry contribute, especially on the Indian_general_election,_2014.

Thanks SoorejSoorejmg (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Since he dragged me here, by mentioning me, I would like to comment. I never comment, when an unblock request is made. But he is so arrogant. I still don't understand why he is targeting us, especially me. He went to dispute resolution and complained there, said I dictated the page and edit warred, by the way, removing biased contents, reverting removal of contents are not edit war. Pardon my language, but he is so arrogant and perhaps even uncivilized while discussing. I think he needs to follow civility. Look at these links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and many more. This clearly shows he is trying push his points. He is interested in only aam admi pary and is insisting to make changes only to that party this might, perhaps be soapboxing. Again he is trying to push some other 3 points in the request itself. I tried to give him homework to read 5 pillars and that kind of a stuff, but he never listened. I am not an admin, but my view is that, now the article is calm, unblocking him might result in controversial edits, manipulation of article and addition of completely biased contents. He himself asked editors to give high priority to aam aadmi party in the name of equal importance by assuming the assumption of good faith.  Shriram  Talk 04:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shriram,

I am Placing the exact points I made in dispute resolution here. Please don't change the meaning of what I mean by deleting one or two words in Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Indian_general_election


 * 1. The photos of PM candidates of UPA and congress has to be removed or else include PM candidates of all parties


 * 2. Remove parties from 'Other parties' in contents section ( as it lower the importance of those parties) and give equal importance as given to UPA and NDA


 * 3. Make the character size of UPA NDA and AAM AADMI Party same ( making rest of parties loosing importance)


 * 4 .Change the Order of Display of content- Put AAM AADMI PARTY first if it is being said that there no importance in the order in which parties are listed

So, what I said is either include all party leader or include none. You keep insisting on highlighting only two users. I have seen other users also discussing the topic and you have also avoided their requests. Later, in the Talk page, the discussion topics were also split up  and some one has archived the discussion topic to another page to make sure that each individual users does not know that there are similar requests. This is very clear from history of talk page. This was one thing. I would like to invite User: EvergreenFir and User: Wikishagnik  to make things clear here as  Shriram is trying to create a wrong idea with Administrators that I was not doing things properly.

Second thing that Shriram accused me  was that I am doing Edit war:

This is what happened:


 * 1. I added Valid data in the page with accurate source.
 * 2. Without any discussion, the data was removed by Shriram
 * 3. I added the data again and asked him to discuss with me before removing
 * 4. he removed the data and put and edit war.
 * 5. Lihaas who is seemed to have a common interest that of Shriram supported it
 * 6. I was blocked

The fact is he was avoiding the discussion, without discussing he was deleting content with valid source and then putting an edit war on me.

I would also like to invite other Users who I have seen in talk history who had placed similar requests but was rejected by Shriram and  Lihaas by one or other invalid reasons in Talk:Indian_general_election,_2014 & Talk:Indian_general_election,_2014/Archive_1 ( the acrhived one which I mentioned earlier which containted important discussions)

Hi Janmejai, Soman, RaviC, GKCH, 25_Cents_FC, Logical1004, Bill_william_compton, Royroydeb

This is about the stand that Shriram and Lihaas has taken in giving priorities to certain parties alone in the page Indian_general_election,_2014 mainly in using userbox to highlight certain leaders alone and also controlling the content of the page with one or other unjustifiable reasons. I have seen that both of them has issued edit war on some users, not allowed content related to other parties and such. Basically they were dealing with individual contributors as a gang to introduce biased information in the page. Please share your experience after going through the above items.

I would request also the administrators attention in this case as this is a case of clear COI Paid or Biased editing forming a secret group in wikipedia. The king of the sun, JamesBWatson, User:HJ Mitchell, Utcursch could you please have a look into this.

Unfortunately telling the truth directly looks like personal attacks but if one has the patience to go through talk page and dispute resolution page, many things are clear. Hope some one would take an initiative for this. I am a new user in Wiki but very clearly, the biased information can been seen projected in the page Indian_general_election,_2014

Thanks Soorejmg (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is getting ridiculous. You are assuming bad faith and making personal attacks, and that is unacceptable.  You did edit war and refuse to acknowledge it.  And you appear to be a single purpose account and WP:NOTHERE.  Please just stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There he goes again. Who did this? I think I should apply for an interaction ban. This is going personal.  Shriram  Talk 07:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Janmejai, Soman, RaviC, GKCH, 25_Cents_FC, Logical1004, Bill_william_compton, Royroydeb ,Utcursch,

Could you please comment here if you had found Shriram and Lihaas actions suspicious in Indian_general_election,_2014.

Thanks Soorejmg (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In that talk page, Shyamsunder has written "almost all surveys reveal that R Gandhi and Modi are only frontrunners . Others get preferred by hardly 1% or 2% people". So what? Before the Delhi elections, surveys showed that AAP will get hardly 4 or 5 seats but instead, he became the Chief Minister. RRD13 (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

What does "edit warring" mean?
This is my last attempt to clarify this issue to you. An editor who repeatedly changes an article back to how he or she thinks it should be, when one or more others editors change it away from that version, is edit warring. That is what "edit warring" means. That is what you were doing. The fact that you think your edits were right and other editors were wrong does not alter the fact that you were repeatedly reverting to your preferred version. That is what I was trying to convey when I wrote "No amount of explaining that you think your edits were justified makes edit warring acceptable", but you don't seem to have understood it, so I have tried to clarify it. I hope that helps you to understand. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have a policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. Also, insisting that one or more other editors have been edit warring is completely off the point. An unblock request for you is assessed on the basis of what you have done, not what others have done. It may be that other editors have been edit warring on an article, but if so, that does not mean that repeated reverts by you somehow don't count as edit warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson,

Thanks you. I am understanding the Edit warring concept clearly now but the point I am making is-

In the 2nd step below, was Shriram not supposed to discuss before removing the data that was added?. That was not done.


 * 1. I added Valid data in the page with accurate source.
 * 2. Without any discussion, the data was removed by Shriram
 * 3. I added the data again and asked him to discuss with me before removing
 * 4. he removed the data and put and edit war.
 * 5. Lihaas who is seemed to have a common interest that of Shriram supported it
 * 6. I was blocked

Thanks Soorej Soorejmg (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Soorej


 * I came here for the sole purpose of assessing your unblock request, and I have no intention of getting involved in detailed discussion of the history of other editors who have been involved in editing the same article. However, I will say just one more thing about this, in answer to your query. No, when an editor disagrees with addition of new content, he or she is not obliged to discuss the issues before removing it. However, the original editor is required to discuss before adding it back, and absolutely certainly must not keep on adding it back over and over again. If you have not already done so, you may like to read BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and note that it is not called BOLD, discuss cycle, much less BOLD, revert, discuss-and-use-the-fact-that-you-are-discussing-as-justification-for-reverting-again cycle. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson, This was really useful. Thank you. One last question- What if after discussing, the editor who has reverted the post continues to disagree? I started a Dispute resolution for the topic which didnot come to conclusion as the other editor keeps disagreeing. In between, the page remains updated in the wrong way where Only two leaders of two parties are being highlightd ( biased information). As the page is a high profile subject because National election is going on now in India, this information is one that influence te perception of many people. What needs to be done to quickly remove the biased information( highlighting certain parties alone properly and not allowing dat to be input for other parties by reverting and keep discussing for ever) that is already present in the page?

Thanks Soorej 203.117.37.238 (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:WRONGVERSIONLihaas (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * User:JamesBWatson, I would think canvassing around for his view is turning disruptive. (Sockpuppet investigations/Shriram) How about a topic ban?Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing
Please stop canvassing uninvolved admins as you have done at my talk page and several other admins' talk pages. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi DoRD , It was surely not canvasing. I was just requesting a double check because the article was going to be archived soon.

Thanks Soorejmg (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It certainly is canvassing to contact six uninvolved admins. If you disagree with the action taken in that case, contact the admin in question rather than us. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi DoRD, Canvasing is doing something to do in favor of me. That is not surely done. These are just requests to get attention of atleast one of the administrator on the topic. It was mentioned that the topic was going to be archived soon which wanted an urgent another Administrator intervention.

ThanksSoorejmg (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Look, as I said on my talk page, if you disagree with what was done, contact . I trust his judgement, and will not unilaterally overturn his action. I doubt that the other five admins you contacted will take any action there, either. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It most certainly IS canvassing, and I just about logged into my admin account to issue a block. Please revert all versions of your messages that have not already been replied to  ES  &#38;L  16:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi All,

As per the wiki pageCanvassing, requesting an administrator for looking into a Sock Puppet investigation is not canvassing. Also no favour has been asked for.

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion. A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions. On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior). On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) Editors known for expertise in the field Editors who have asked to be kept informed

Thanks Soorejmg (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You did not request that an administrator look into a sockpuppet investigation. After one admin closed the investigation as unfounded, an action I agree with, you made requests to six uninvolved administrators to look into it. You should have gone directly to the closing admin, but you did not. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the characterisation of your action as "canvassing" can be justified by reference to the subsection of Canvassing headed "Spamming and excessive cross-posting", but more unambiguously it is a clear case of forum shopping. You opened a sockpuppet investigation, which means that you asked for an administrator to assess the case. An administrator did so, and did not give the answer you had hoped for. Instead of accepting that, you tried asking a string of other administrators, evidently in the hope that at least one of them would give the answer you wanted. What is more important, in my opinion, is the fact that this is not an isolated incident, but is typical of your whole approach to editing Wikipedia. It is clear that you are here to plug certain points of view, including giving increased prominence to a political party. When you find that consensus here does not support your editing, instead of thinking "OK, I still hold the opinion that I did before, but I see that the general consensus is against that opinion, so I will accept that and move on to other editing", you try everything you can to get your preferred version accepted, including edit warring, raising a case at Dispute resolution noticeboard which looks more like an attempt to get your way than to ask for neutral arbitration, making numerous accusations against other editors, starting a sockpuppet investigation case without any evidence beyond your dislike of what other editors have done, requesting undeletion of a page that has been deleted as a result of a deletion discussion, etc etc. Some of the things you have done would not be objectionable on their own, but the whole pattern of your activity amounts to a clear attempt to force your preferences through by whatever means you can. Wikipedia works by consensus and collaboration, and editors who come here with a battleground approach to anyone who disgrees with them are considered disruptive. You are perfectly welcome to continue to contribute to the encyclopaedia, provided you do so cooperatively, but if you continue in the same way that you have been doing so far, you will be blocked indefinitely, because the trouble taken dealing with your obstructive editing far outweighs any small advantage to the project from your editing. I seriously urge you to think very carefully about what various editors have said to you, including what I am writing now, and rethink your whole approach to editing Wikipedia. Also, I suggest that you try to accept that other editors who disagree with you may do so in good faith, which at present you seem reluctant to consider. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

One more thought. "The immediate closure of topic looks suspicious. Please do the necessary" scarcely reads like a neutral request for an independent review. Posting a message including those words on six different administrators' talk pages looks to me very much like canvassing. See the subsection of Canvassing headed "Campaigning". The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Btw, User:JamesBWatson its seven User_talk:UtcurschLihaas (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet User:Soorejmg partakes in no discussion Talk:Indian_general_election,_2014Lihaas (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to forget Basis of leaders mentioned in Infobox which explains why his demands cannot be fulfilled.  Shriram  Talk 04:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi All, Canvassing does not mention anything about bringing an attention of other administrators to a case. It is not an article page even which the Canvassing mainly focus on. The investigation of two users were asked for and I would say One user Canvassed an Amdinistrator stating, "JamesBWatson, I would think canvassing around for his view is turning disruptive. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shriram) How about a topic ban?Lihaas (talk) ". If the action from administrator was right, then what is there to worry if other administrators look into the issue?!!!! I don't really understand the logic behind that!

Soorejmg (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I know, you are not going to understand, it seems. He did not canvass like you, by asking 7 administrators to do something, when the case was closed. Asking another administrator may not be bad faith but criticizing without any content like "The immediate closure of topic looks suspicious." and canvassing by accusing editors are actually bad faith edits. You could have contacted JBW but you went on canvassing by hoping that some other administrator may dance to your tune.  Shriram  Talk 05:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi All,

I requested for Administrator intervention when user Lihaas asked an administrator to close the Investigation and administrator did that immediately.

Shriram is one of the other accused for sockpuppeting in that request. Now, after Lihaas made that canvasing to JamesBWatson and after JamesBWatson closed to topic in sock puppeting investigation, the complete sequence looked suspicious which is true. After these sequential actions from the parties, I requested interventions from other Administrators to look at these suspicious actions to reveal the truth before the case get completely closed. That is totally justifiable and there is completely nothing that was asked in favor of me from administrators. If asking the administrators for looking into a suspicious activity is incorrect, it is not right.

Thanks Soorej Soorejmg (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * What does "Please do the necessary" seem to indicate?
 * Anyways, I guess you can now start an SPI for JBW and me ;lLihaas (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for your persistent disruptive editing after being warned about your onslaught of edits at multiple administrator talk pages and baseless accusations against other users. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 06:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Some advice on what to do after your present block expires
Looking at your editing history, I'm afraid I see a real risk that if you continue in the same way, before long you will be blocked indefinitely. I have already urged you to think very carefully about what various editors have said to you, and rethink your whole approach to editing Wikipedia. I will also add a few more pieces of advice about your editing, in the hope that it may help you avoid being blocked again.


 * 1) Be careful that you are applying the same standards to your own editing that you apply to others. For example, you have defended your posting to the pages of seven administrators, saying "Canvassing does not mention anything about bringing an attention of other administrators to a case", and yet you accuse Lihaas of canvassing for asking one administrator to look at your editing.
 * 2) When you refer to what other editors have said and done, make sure that you are clear exactly what they have said and done. For example, you wrote "Lihaas asked an administrator to close the Sock puppet Investigation", but in fact Lihaas did nothing of the sort: he/she only asked if a topic ban should be considered. Again, you say that I closed the investigation "immediately". In fact, I closed the case 32 minutes after Lihaas made his/her post, and a check on my editing history will show you that I did no other editing in those 32 minutes. 32 minutes gave me plenty of time to read your report, check the editing that you referred to in that report, look into the history of the editors you accused, and come to a conclusion.
 * 3) When you are answering points from other editors, make sure you are answering the point they have made, and not some other point which they have not made. For example, you wrote "Canvassing does not mention anything about bringing an attention of other administrators to a case". However, nobody had suggested that bringing admin attention to a case in itself constituted canvassing, but it had been suggested that the way you did it constituted canvassing. I took the trouble to give you the headings of two subsections of the guideline, to make it easier for you to find for yourself what particular aspects of your editing might be regarded as canvassing, but you seem to have overlooked that, and to still think it was the mere fact of asking for admin opinion that was thought to constitute canvassing. To make it even easier for you to see the relevant points in the guideline, I shall quote from it. The subsection headed "Spamming and excessive cross-posting" refers to "Indiscriminately sending announcements to editors" and "recruiting too many editors", both of which can reasonably be taken to include contacting seven more administrators when the first one who assessed the report you posted did not decide the case the way you wanted. The subsection headed "Campaigning" says "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent", which certainly covers how you wrote: as I indicated above, "The immediate closure of topic looks suspicious. Please do the necessary" is not neutral tone and wording.
 * 4) When it has been made clear to you that particular actions you have been taking are not acceptable, have the sense not to continue them, especially when you have been warned that doing so is likely to lead to being blocked. You were told that your posting to several administrators (after your first request for administrative action failed to get the result you wanted) was unacceptable, and yet you posted to several of them again, urging them to support your position. It is scarcely surprising, therefore, that you have been blocked again.
 * 5) When it is clear that consensus is against you, drop the matter and move on.
 * 6) Everything I have written in those points is written on the assumption that you have been acting in good faith, and genuinely have failed to see how your editing will look to others. It has taken me some time and trouble to draft and edit my suggestions, and I genuinely hope that doing so will serve to help you, as otherwise I have been wasting my time. However, I'm afraid that there is one aspect of your recent editing which concerns me more than those that I have mentioned so far. Of the seven administrators who you initially contacted when you didn't like my decision on the sockpuppet case, four of them replied, indicating agreement with my closing of the case. Subsequently, you posted again to all three of those who had not done so. It is very difficult to see that as anything other than targeting those administrators who you thought were most likely to support your case, and I don't see how that can be considered as anything other than deliberate canvassing. If it wasn't, then you must have considerable difficulty seeing your own editing objectively, and if you have that much difficulty understanding what you are doing then it is likely that that difficulty will sooner or later lead to your being blocked indefinitely because you lack the competence needed to edit Wikipedia. I therefore urge you once more to think very carefully about your editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarifications to Points JamesWatson made:

 * 1. He clearly asked to ban the topic. Copying his words here- "User:JamesBWatson, I would think canvassing around for his view is turning disruptive. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shriram) How about a topic ban?Lihaas (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)"


 * 2. Requesting a Administrator to see a suspicious administrator activity of closing an investigation on request by a accused is totally different from taking help fro multiple editor to fix an article.
 * 3. I was given a wrong tag of canvasing admin for doing something favor of me which was wrong. I just   requested their attention on the sockpuppeting investingation closed by an administrator JohnBWatson on being requested by the accused. It was my duty to make clear to everyone there it the intention was just pretty straightforward to get their attention on the suspicious activity.


 * 4. Just to repeat what I said earlier, I had to clarify about the wrong statement made against me as           canvasing on their pages by you. I had to make clear that it was just request for their attention. I just want it to be noticed by atleast one admin and whoever is free.


 * 6. I can ask the reverse way. If Lihaas asked you to close the topic immediately and if you did that that is not suspicious as per your words. But If I asked 6 admins to just see this suspicious action, then it is canvasing. Superb!!

Thanks Soorej Soorejmg (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

P 11:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Do not insert your text in the middle of someone else's comments
 * 2) Do not add any spaces or tabs in front of what you post D


 * I give up. I have really tried hard to help you understand, but you just don't seem able to understand anything that is said to you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Soorejmg: You canvassed; period. Then you actually did it again.  When 3 or 4 admins tell you it was canvassing, pull your head out of the sand and learn that it's canvassing.  You filed a very frivolous SPI - you could have been blocked for that alone.  Don't make clearly bullshit accusations (see WP:WIAPA), and people won't have to say the obvious thing about closing ridiculous filings.   D  P  12:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Truth is Truth even if 1000 says against it. SPI was valid if and you will get it if you had gone through all the talk sections, dispute resolution and all other discussion with Shriram Lihaas and me and their reactions in the talk page. Again I requested for an investigation and I did not ask any administrator to come and give a comment in favor of me. I requested to have a look at this supicious act by another administrator. That is the maximum clarification.

to make it more clear- Canvasing = Asking some one for a favor in advantage to one. ( I have not done it) Canvasing not equals requesting an administrator to look into a suspicious activity - Clearly there was a suspicious activity when Lihaas asked an Administrator to close the topic.

Soorejmg (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SoorejSoorejmg (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "Truth is Truth even if 1000 says against it" - not on Wikipedia. See WP:TRUTH and WP:CONSENSUS.
 * You filed an SPI that was NOT IN GOOD FAITH. Period.  You should NEVER have filed it in the first place.  Because your filing was 100% inappropriate, the victim of your inappropriate SPI report requested it be closed, and it was.  Nothing suspicious - other than your own actions.
 * For the LAST TIME: YOU WERE INDEED CANVASSING - your made-up definition is wrong. D  P  15:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi All,

As per Canvassing in wikipedia,


 * 1. In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus - This Condition Satisfied


 * 2. However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. - No whereI influenced any administrator!


 * 3. Spamming: Posting an exciessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand - This is the incorrect action that I have been accused of,  but please remember that this is not an article or page content. If it was an article and I request help from various other users and linfluence them to say that my point is correct, then I agree that is wrong but in this case,  It is a request for SockPuppet Investigation and there is nothing asked in favor of my side from any administrator.

Soorejmg (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Soorejmg, you just don't get it. Argue your version all you want, but you are still wrong. By contacting seven (I apparently overlooked the first message you left) different admins, you absolutely were canvassing and admin shopping. It is long past time for you to drop the stick and back away from this subject. You made a mistake when you filed a frivolous (some would say malicious) sockpuppetry case. Don't continue to compound that mistake by telling the rest of the community that they are wrong and you are right. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi DoRD,

I have listed 3 points which as per WikiPolicy Canvassing to consider for canvasing and stated the conditions whether it is satisfied or not. It proves that there was no canvasing and I am innocent. Could you please comment on the 3 points and show which point does does not prove the other way?..

Thanks Soorejmg (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Soorejmg, do you even know the meaning of sock? Try reading WP:SOCK, WP:DUCK. I have reported socks who were proven to have done disruptive editing. If you don't know how it looks like, I will give you examples (1, 2, 3, in which DoRD, JBW, Native Foreigner blocked socks. Don't accuse JBW, he knows more than you do. And its wrong, the baseless allegation you did against him.   Shriram  Talk 16:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Shriram, You were accused of Meatpuppetry which is a category under Sock_puppetry. I am very clear what was happening in Indian_general_election,_2014 and I had stated it in the Sockpuppet_investigations/Shriram request

Thanks Soorejmg (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It spiralled out of control after the first block (rightfully) was appealed and he did not learn his mistake and continued the accusation/accusatory tone.
 * more advice just ackniowlege your mistakes an d move on IF you wish to continue editingLihaas (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lihaas,

Your act of removing the content of a specific political party and keeping the contents of other party in a strategic way is clearly observed in the India Election page and you do that with a list of supporters, one of that is Shriram. It is when I observed that I raised the Sock Puppet investigations. That is plaine truth.

THanks Soorej Soorejmg (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Having multiple people all support the same edit is not the same as two or more editors actually being the exact same person. For crying out loud, if that were the truth, we'd only have about 1500 people on this website, as opposed to the 10,000,000 userid's.  We also wouldn't get anything done - that's what WP:CONSENSUS is all about  D  P  16:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is beyond ridiculous, but okay...
 * You did not notify other editors about an ongoing discussion. Rather, you left a specific request for seven administrators, most including the message "The immediate closure of topic looks suspicious. Please do the necessary."
 * Per #1, you absolutely were attempting to influence the outcome of a closed SPI case.
 * Leaving messages for seven administrators, who had no connection whatsoever to the case at hand, certainly meets the conditions for spamming. As has been pointed out, it was also admin shopping.
 * Now, if you still don't get it, I can only conclude that you are either trolling us, or are not in possession of the skills required for editing in a collegial manner. Either way, you will likely end up blocked again. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Suprising that no one is seeig Admin shopping, canvassing etc when lihaas directly asked James to "ban the topic" of Sock puppet investifation against him!! I am any way stopping this here. Nothing much to discuss further.

thanks everyone Soorej 121.7.106.28 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't get to make up your own definition of "admin shopping". Lihaas merely requested an admin who knew BOTH parties to close a ridiculous (and poorly-considered) SPI request.  Your SPI was NOT in good faith whatsoever - you merely did it because you were not getting your way on an article  D  P  17:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Accused of a nonsense complaint by a person who do not even have a slightest idea of sock puppetry. Not anymore, I have been given a clean chit. The case was closed. Your nonsense complaint was not entertained. I would suggest you to not to make any more WP:personal attacks. You have already been blocked twice. So you have to think more than twice! Try to learn some neutrality. I still wonder why you did not participate in the discussion but made desperate edits stating discuss, discuss. Anyhow the discussion took place, in your absence. Btw you were not blocked when the discussion was taking place. Now I am leaning towards the thought that you did not want to discuss but wanted to added things as per your wish, which were obviously against NPOV.  Shriram  Talk 17:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Surprising that you are not learning anything after all these suggestions. Btw he did not ask to ban the topic, I think he asked for a topic ban, which is different. WP:TOPIC BAN. Good thing you are stopping your bad faith edits.  Shriram  Talk 17:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As annoying as it may have been it was WP:FUN ;)Lihaas (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)