Gaura79

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Iamrcr (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Radhanath Swami

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Krishna Das Babaji Maharaj

Hi there, you seem to know something about Vaisnavism. Do you know anything about the above subject? Any books that mention him (besides mine and Radhanath Swami's book)? Any citations? Years ago I made a page for him but it got deleted for lack of citations. They're like, "If he is not mentioned anywhere then how is he notable?" Good question. But a starkly amazing point for anyone who ever knew him. He was the single most all-around popular Gurubhai amongst all the disciples of Bhakti Siddhanta Saraswati. Funny, Babaji could probably not care less. But I wish it could happen. Any ideas? Cheers--Rickbrown9 (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Would be nice to have an article on him in Wikipedia. I think there's coverage in reliable sources, we just have to find it. Let's see if I can dig out something we can use.-Gaura79 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

FP nomination for Yogapith temple

Hello, Gaura79. Would you be interested to review the FP nomination for Yogapith temple? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2014 (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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gaura79. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gaura79. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International Society for Krishna Consciousness, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chaitanya and Puja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Radhanath Swami. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lupin VII (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Tripurari Sharma

Hello, Gaura79. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tripurari Sharma, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Tripurari Sharma

Hello, Gaura79. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tripurari Sharma".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Suhotra Swami for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Suhotra Swami, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suhotra Swami until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

April 2023

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Editorkamran (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gaura79 reported by User:Editorkamran (Result: ). Thank you. Editorkamran (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaura79. 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: .  Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gaura79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have no relation to the account Nihalojha Gaura79 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Simple denial is not sufficient. You need to address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaura79. Yamla (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

What are the concerns to address? I have been blocked before CheckUser evidence had been obtained. I don't have any relation to the account Nihalojha. Gaura79 (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gaura79 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My opponets in the disscussion on A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada talkpage launched sockpuppetry investigation claiming that I created another account to circumvent a 48 hour block for edit warring. *The claim is ludicrous because for me, as an experienced editor (mainly in Russian Wikipedia, not here) with 15 years of experience to do something like this would be utterly unreasonable, to put it mildly. On top of that the newly created account posted on the talk page some gibberish comments and insults to other editors, something I've never done here. I can assure you that I'm not mentally retarded, because, obviously, only a mentaly retarded person would do something like that. I rarely edit English Wikipedia, and would gladly wait the 48 hours (believe me, I have so many interesting things to do in real life) and continue discussion with my opponents later. * I was waiting for CheckUser results which would serve as a basis to prove my innocence. However the investigation was closed without even checking and finding out that the two accounts are most probably from different parts of the world. * If you look at the article's edit history, you'll notice that heated discussion and edit warring between different users have been going on for years, mostly without my participation. Besides, my opponents accusations are based on false arguments. For example, they claim that I was engaged in whitewashing the article and wanted to delete from the article information of critical nature. This is not true, I objected against one particular source used in the article (and clearly expalind on the talkpage why this source was not good), I'm not against adding to the article criticism as long as it based on reliable sources. See here (Dāsānudāsa, one of my opponents in the disscussion called other editor's attention to that fact and to the fact that I was not whitewashing the article). I clearly explained what was the problem with the source used in the article, I did it several times on the talk page. A similar point of view was expressed [1] [2] by other experienced editor Hob Gadling Gaura79 (talk) 11:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC) * Also I find it important to mention two things: 1. by the reason unbeknownst to me, admin Bbb23 preventively blocked me right at the start of the sock puppetry investigation, which prevented me from posting my arguments at the investigation page. 2. If you examine the edit history of my accusers Psychologist Guy and Editorkamran it becomes apparent that they conjointly have been editing the article not with the aim of improving it in line with Wikipedia rules and standards, but with the sole aim of adding to it poorly sourced controversial information of little encyclopaedic value. There's an apparent case of meat-sockpuppetry here.Gaura79 (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC) Couple more points that I need to mention here: * Now it obvious to me that Editorkamran (and working in tandem with him Psychologist Guy) filed sockpuppet complaint in bad faith in order to get rid of one of the editors who questioned their contribution to the article (they added whole sections which consist of a single large quote (see WP:QUOTE) and which have zero encyclopaedic value). * They refused to answer legitimate questions about total absence of reason for me to use a sockpuppet in the discussion (even if we to assume that I had evil intentions to disrupt Wikipedia or to push a certain point-of-view on the article's talk page, to create such a sockpuppet would only make things worse for me, under any modelled scenario). Besides the claim that I created a sockpuppet in order to ditch a 48 hour block is simply ludicrous. And so is the claim that I emulated a newbie editor with zero understanding of Wikipedia and posted in his name. It doesn't make any sense either. * Instead of presenting credible evidence and admitting the possibility of me being wrongfully accused, Psychologist Guy went on an insulting spree, which remained unnoticed by otherwise quick at drowing a sword and cutting heads of rulebreakers admin Bbb23. * With zero credible behavioural evidence and no CU in place, I was blocked a mere 1 hour after investigation had strated. Without any discussion the case was closed 24 hours later. I understand that admins (and even more so clerks) are very busy with important matters and don't have time to review a case of speedily execution of an editor with over 15 years of experience, who happen to be the main author of over 3k articles and made some 260k edits on Wikimedia projects. * History of interactions with Psychologist Guy (a possible meet-puppet of Editkamran)[3] is replete with personal attacks against me. It seems that such basic Wikipedia rules as WP:AGF and WP:NPA don't exist for him. For example, here he claimes that I'm "embarrassed(?) about Prabhupada's pro-Hitler comments and wants them removed" and that I'm "white-washing" the article.Here he accuses me of recruting other editors to side with me. Here he calls me a religious fanatic ("fanatical Hare Krishna") and claimes that I "identify myself as such on multiple wikis" (I think it's about time to create a new userbox titled "This used is a religious fanatic"). He also accuses me of "removing reliable sources from Wikipedia just because they may contradict my personal beliefs", that I "disrupt Wikipedia", "whitewash", etc. and that I'm "close to WP:NOTHERE" Here he calls me "a disruptive user" and states that "it isn't a loss that you got blocked". He also falsely claims that I'm misquoting other user Hob Gadling (who presented solid arguments for removal from the article contentious sections added by Editorkarman as per WP:FRINGE). He also accuses me of staging a "some sort of "war" versus other editors (all I did was questioning the sources they used). After finding out that I started and significantly contirbuted to over 3k articles on Russian Wikipedia he accused me of paid editing on Russian Wiki and threatened to launch a complaint to WMF. Futhermore he falsely claimes that I'm "evading block by using another sock-puppet called Ilya Mauter", my Russian wiki account which I've never used inappropriately and declared to be my another account before posting here). * To sum things up: I request to unblock me based on 1. lack of behavioural or any other evidence of misuses related to WP:Sockpuppetry 2. Sockpuppetry investigation being launched in bad faith and supported by users who are in personal conflict with me. 3. Sockpupperty investigation being speedily closed in 24 hours without me or other editors being able to counteract the claims and without me being able to post on the investigation page. I also request to conduct CU to provide additional evidence that I'm not related to the account Nihalojha (an innocent newbie Wikipedian blocked for nothing)--Gaura79 (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline since, as TPA has been revoked, this talk page is no longer the idea forum for this request.

That said ... your first two bullet points would merit a decline in response alone, and since it can be edifying for others I will briefly go over this here

First, you say that it is inconceivable that an experienced and veteran editor such as yourself could be imagined to stoop to sockpuppetry? We have seen many other once-honorable longstanding members of the community fritter away all they had gained exactly that way (or, in some cases, have been nursing a secret army of socks the whole time they were gaining trust, respect and sometimes adminship). As the saying goes, what takes years to earn can be lost in seconds—and has been. So that argument isn't going to fly.

And I also find it quaint, at the very least, that you were waiting for the checkuser results to come back in order that they would "prove my innocence". Anyone remotely familiar with this process would know that this is not only against policy here, they would also know that claiming this too often makes you look worse. Checkuser is not a two-way street; it can establish only a strong likelihood of guilt but never innocence. So we routinely decline this requests, and very often any unblock request that includes one. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I also don't understand the rationale by which Gaura79 has been blocked before a proper sockpuppet investigation. I note that has still be no CheckUser. Is that normal? At the moment it seems like they have been blocked based on one admin's suspicions. I personally don't see any similarity between his editing style and the alleged socks. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I also urge Bb323 and Yamla to review the block based on a CheckUser evidence. Or else, how do you expect Gaura79 to address the allegations? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Admins can block users based on their own investigation into behavioural evidence. They do not need to list a reason. Based on what I can see Gaua79 is a fanatical Hare Krishna who identifies as such on multiple wikis [4] and has disrupted the Wikipedia article on A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada by deleting reliable sources. The white-washing claim is entirely valid, see his edit here [5], he did this 4 times. That is deleting a huge amount of text without a valid reason. He even removed academic sourcing that documented Swami Prabhupada's opposition to evolution. His claim above that he objected to one source is obviously not the truth as he has removed 4 references, not one. Basically anything negative about Swami Prabhupada, Gaura79 will delete from the article. This is not neutral editing. His claims about meat-puppetry are also false. Editorkamran was the first to add many of those sources but they are reliable. I do not know who Editorkamran is and have not collaborated with him, he merely added reliable sources so I restored them. We do not need to remove reliable sources from Wikipedia just because they may contradict our personal beliefs.

Cinosaur is urging admins to review the blocking. Nothing wrong with that but this user has not been active on Wikipedia since September 2022 but suddenly pops up to leave multiple messages to have Gaura79 un-blocked? This was likely a case of Gaura79 emailing Cinosaur. Based on Gaura79's own comments above he has some odd ideas about editing on Wikipedia as he is describing different editors as being his "opponents". This is not a football match. There are no opponents here. Gaura79 appears to be close to WP:NOTHERE, the user has had about 5 warnings before on his talk-page about edit-warring on articles related to Hare Krishna. I am not seeing productive editing from this user, only disruption. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

1. I will just ignore your insults and come strait to the point: Yet again you blaming me in something I haven't done. There's no need whatsoever to give distorted interpretations to my actions: I clearly explained in review summaries and on the article's talk page the reason for reverting your controversial edits. I'm not against this information remaining in the article, it just has to be better sourced and put into context, because this is encyclopaedia and not a tabloid or Wikiquote, especially considering that we're dealing here with topics related to pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Another editor (Hob Gadling) already pointed out these problems with your edits on the talk page [6] [7] but you conveniently ignored his arguments. 2. So where is "behavioural evidence" here? After I've been blocked for 48 hours a new guy comes registers in Wikipedia and posts some messages on the article's talk page, blaming other editors in "not reading Swami Prabhupada's books", insulting other editors and demanding removing Views section without presenting any sound arguments. If you look at the article's history you'll notice that there have always been some heated discussions over its content, nothing new here. Why would I create such a sockpuppet? What for? To avoid 48 hour block? How would it bring me closer to the desired result? Please answer me that. 3. For your information I don't use WP:SUL. I'm registered under my real name in the Russian Wikipedia, that's where I'm mainly active. I don't edit Wikipedia in other languages. Gaura79 (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't comment on the SPI, it is up to the admins but you are a disruptive user so it isn't a loss that you got blocked. You white-washed material 4 times and you got blocked for edit-warring for 48 hours, I don't think you should pretend you did nothing wrong. You basically want to remove anything negative about Swami Prabhupada. It was explained to you on the talk-page why those references are reliable. You are also mis-quoting other users such as Hob Gadling. Nowhere did this user agree with your edits or say what you seem to be claiming. This seems to be some sort of "war" to you. Hare Krishna vs other editors. I don't want to get sucked into your nonsense.

On the other Russian Wiki you linked to you also identify as a Hare Krishna and because the rules are much less strict over there you have been editing many of those articles from an entirely positive way but it doesn't work here. How much have you received from ISKCON for your editing on the Russian Wiki? I see that you wrote most of the Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada Russian Wikipedia article [8] and you have been editing it since 2007 obsessively. In-fact you basically wrote that entire article in 2015. I just translated that article and there is not one criticism of Swami Prabhupada on it, no mention of any of his offensive, racist or pseudoscientific views. The article has an excessive 498 (!) references and treats Swami Prabhupada as some sort of hero. This very much looks like paid editing. There is much conflict of interest here. Sorry I do not approve of your editing, it is not neutral. Swami Prabhupada had some good ideas but also a lot of bad ones, we can't just cite positive things about people, we have to report what reliable sources say. The Russian Wiki article you wrote is one of the most biased articles I have ever read. It is not neutral editing. You have been blocked and I have no interest in interacting with you again so I will not respond here further. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Most of what you wrote is off-topic, but I'll answer you nevertheless: Your reaction to everything is very emotional and you just want to create conflict out of nothing. I've reverted the article to the pre-war version not because I wanted to whitewash it (and remove all the critical information that you want to add to it), but because I think it's a better way to deal with the situation. Discuss first, add stuff later. This is how it works in the Russian Wikipedia. you also identify as a Hare Krishna - so what? Hare Krishna is one of the topics that I'm interested in and which I've been studying for years. Why I shouldn't write articles about Hare Krishna? because the rules are much less strict over there - it is not so, the rules are almost the same in every wiki. And believe me, there are editors in Russian Wikipedia who don't like Hare Krishna and Prabhupada and they keep an eye on those articles. The article has an excessive 498 (!) references - yes, there are many reliable sources on Prabhupada out there. Surprised? Swami Prabhupada had some good ideas but also a lot of bad ones, we can't just cite positive things about people, we have to report what reliable sources say. - this is pretty obvious. The Russian Wiki article you wrote is one of the most biased articles I have ever read. It is not neutral editing. - thank you for your feedback, but I guess you haven't read it after all, otherwise you would have noticed that it does contain a lot of criticism, I even used Ekkehard Lorenz articles quite a lot. There is much conflict of interest here. - that's why your feedback is welcome, but not in the form of insults, of cause, and not in the form of false accusations, that mislead admins into blocking other editors for nothing.Ilya Mauter (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Because of the personal attacks, I have revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  The guy is rightly furious that he's been indef blocked based on (unproven) accusations of being a puppet master. I don't see any personal attacks here, only what seems like a crusade on the part of the accusers. This whole process has been very irregular and I think he/she has a right to question it. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Bbb23, the indefinite block you have effected was based solely on the allegations by two dissenting editors. It was not verified by behavioral patterns, nor was a CU requested to provide technical evidence of sockpuppetry. To be fair, Gaura79 had every reason to be upset, yet he did address the allegations pointwise. Could you please re-list Gaura79 vs. Nihalojha for a CU investigation? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)