User talk:Swamiblue/Archive N

April 2013
This is your last and only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Jay Sadguru Swami. Arctic  Kangaroo  14:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome
Could you edit the Gopalanand Swami article?

Docs and Pics
Send me those pictures and documents we discussed and I can put them on the article.

141.217.233.69 (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Swaminarayan‎, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you.  Neil N   talk to me  06:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Swaminarayan. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 06:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You keep threating a user and are showing other users that you are in charge of Wikipedia. Does your own this? Swamifraud (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Swaminarayan 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. Alexf(talk) 15:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating the discussion
I appreciate your initiative to discuss your views about the article in the talk page discussions. Other editors will equally appreciate your recent move towards an engaged discussion. I look forward to interact with you, and so will other editors, in the talk page discussions as we continue to work towards getting agreeable edits into the article. Thanks! Kapil.xerox (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because its username is a blatant violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information). We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames, nor is trolling or other disruptive behavior ever tolerated. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text on your user talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Daniel Case (talk) 09:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Refrain from non-neutral language and BLP-attacks
Hello, I'm Kapil.xerox. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person (as you did here), but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Refrain from using non-neutral language on Wikipedia. Thank you. Kapil.xerox (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that and looking for a new way forwards. For accounts which sockpuppeted, it is normal for us to ask you to disclose a complete list of all the sockpuppet accounts you used, so that we can review the contributions of all of them in considering how to move forwards from here, whether that's an unblock or a WP:Standard offer type response. Please list the other accounts here. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And the meat puppet accounts, too, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The sockpuppet accounts that I personally created are from my initial blocked swamifraud onwards are:

User:Swamioffraud User:Duarfimaws User:6Duarf.imaws User:Priyadswami User:Sageorsun

The meatpuppet accounts that I personally used at one point are:

User:Breadinglover User:Bluespeakers User:Burpedworm

The IP's are somewhat mine but not always. Some times I would forget to log-in, they would, intentionally, or just different people doing edits. There were instances, I had people contest the points that the repetitive editors who grouped together started blocking the socks and meats. They would create accounts The meatpuppets got upset that since they are real new users but obviously none of us got that they were call in the first place for wrong reasons

Swamifraud (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, but I'm a little confused on a few points. You listed five sock puppets. Then you listed three meat puppets, but you said you "personally used" the meat puppet accounts. Does that mean that those account holders shared their passwords with you? And are we talking about three individuals with three accounts or one or two individuals with three accounts? Also, in the last paragraph of your response, you seem to indicate that there were other named accounts ("they would create accounts") and that they were "call[ed] in for the wrong reasons". What accounts are those?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Those account holders did let me use their accounts. One person socked their own meat puppet account so that is why there is three listed but I have used all three at times. I do not have the passwords but can obtain them if needed. I was not referring to any other accounts just explaining the reasoning behind how they were created.

Swamifraud (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being honest with us. So, just to be sure, the list so far:

Look right? Any to add? -- slakr \ talk / 20:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The accounts that I created were (copied and pasted):



The accounts that I used for meat puppeting were:

I am not affiliated with the :* account. I read the case page and do not know why admins grouped me in there. I intend to edit Wikipedia by using policies.

Swamifraud (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So I read the talk page of the barky account. So basically they are using my posts and others as a foundations for their edits. Also a Check User was performed by an administrator and was proved not to be that user but another administrator states that I could still be meat puppeting. In this case, I am not really sure even how to respond to that because anything I say leaves it up to the discretion of the administrator. Since that is the case, I can just say that I have no intention of re-doing this mess because it really isn't worth it. I have spent too much time here and there are literally indefinite amount of resources that you can use to get help you learn how to correctly edit articles then resorting to sock puppeting again. I am just trying to clear my name and record and resume editing wiki.

Swamifraud (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. As part of the standard offer, we typically require ~6 months delay between the last troublesome actions and forgiveness, mainly as a way of saying to us, "I'm not still obsessed with this, I've seen the error in my ways, and this is the proof." Since the last edits were around the end of October, it'd be about April when that six-month period has realistically elapsed. That's a little over 2 months away. If you're agreeable to being patient and waiting that period, I'm thinking there won't be any issues with us forgiving the prior sock/meat stuff (everyone makes mistakes), and so long as you also agree on getting a username change, I wouldn't see any reason to keep you blocked. :) Sound good? -- slakr \ talk / 22:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Unclear

 * WP:OFFER is what was referring to. This is not a cut and dried thing. Merely sitting tight for 6 months then coming back with an unblock request is not a guarantee that you will be unblocked. WP:GAB would be an appropriate guideline to read to get a handle on how to be unblocked. This is not to say you will be unblocked merely by proposing a GAB compliant unblock, but at least considering the guideline and proposing a way forward that admins can hold you to would be helpful to your unblock request. Blackmane (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Blackmane. I read WP:OFFER and WP:GAB. Based on that, I spoke in great detail about my unblock which led to to suggest the WP:OFFER. I waited six months, without sockpuppetry, promised to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban, and am not create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return. I have explained all my past mistakes in extreme details  months ago. It is above this and is about long paragraphs and I feel like it was overlooked by my last unblock request that was rejected so that's why I want to  slakr  \ talk / input. I appreciate your help Blackmane and if you have any more suggestions please let me know. If I need to copy and paste it or it is not appearing let me know. I am not sure how much more I can express my regret and willing to move forward. Best

Moving on
I have answered your question on my talk page. Happy wikying. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)