Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:01, 12 October 2013

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)

Do you mean this edit where I explained to you why your edits were reverted by others and offered you assistance as to where find help? I never touched Outline of chess.

The Brahmin concept of caste style "Pollution" is not a concept we have on the Misplaced Pages. --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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

Januarythe18th (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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 Misplaced Pages which include new pages and many reliable sources, in comparison to my SPA accusers.

Evidence

Brahma Kumari Single Purpose Accounts

I drew the Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2='''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 Misplaced Pages which include new pages and many reliable sources, in comparison to my SPA accusers. ==Evidence== ===Brahma Kumari Single Purpose Accounts=== : I drew the Misplaced Pages's attention a long term pattern of . My accuser ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 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 was then removed by one of the other Brahma Kumaris, ] (] <b>·</b> ]), . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, and this is all part of their strategy, please let me know where to publish it. Thank you --] (]) 01:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{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 Misplaced Pages which include new pages and many reliable sources, in comparison to my SPA accusers. ==Evidence== ===Brahma Kumari Single Purpose Accounts=== : I drew the Misplaced Pages's attention a long term pattern of . My accuser ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 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 was then removed by one of the other Brahma Kumaris, ] (] <b>·</b> ]), . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, and this is all part of their strategy, please let me know where to publish it. Thank you --] (]) 01:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{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 Misplaced Pages which include new pages and many reliable sources, in comparison to my SPA accusers. ==Evidence== ===Brahma Kumari Single Purpose Accounts=== : I drew the Misplaced Pages's attention a long term pattern of . My accuser ] (] <b>·</b> ]) 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 was then removed by one of the other Brahma Kumaris, ] (] <b>·</b> ]), . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, and this is all part of their strategy, please let me know where to publish it. Thank you --] (]) 01:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Unblock request

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)

• Requests for unblock