Iambarky789

Unblock Request

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).

Iambarky789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Um...I am not sure why I was blocked? Could someone help me? Removed If you look at the history of that page, many people have tried to add this information but they are persistently not allowed to add it even though this information has valid sources so I thought posting directly on the notice board may help get some attention. Please explain what I have done to get blocked. I am apart of no organization and just very recently joined this site. Iambarky789 (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

BLP violations aside, you were also blocked as a sockpuppet, and completely failed to address that in your unblock request (which would lead a lot of people to conclude that you accept that conclusion yourself). — Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2013 (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.

Hello????

Did user:Jpgordon leave a message on my talk page? When I click the zero next to my user name is says you left me a message on my talk page. I was having problems with leaving my blocked request and then maybe you left a message while I was working on it. I am not sure why I am blocked out and unable to use my log in to do anything. Some one help. I see no message from user:Jpgordon. Please help.

Iambarky789 (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I just corrected your unblock request to make it readable, that's all. I don't have any other comment on your request. Someone other volunteer will come along and process it, though. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Well actually, user:Jpgordon, could you please help me out. I was reading all the literature on Wikipedia and I have not done anything wrong. Please would you help me and take a look at what I am trying to convey. Thanks a lot for responding. Iambarky789 (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed most of your unblock request. You are not permitted to repeat the WP:BLP violations that in part led to your block. If you do this again, access to your talk page will be revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

2nd unblock request

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).

Iambarky789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not sure what Daniel case meant by saying I failed to address the accusation of being a sock puppet when I did not know what happened. I am not a sock puppet and deny that I have done any thing wrong. I read that I am accused of being a sock puppet of a user named swami fraud but I am not that user nor ever had an account of wikipedia before. I believe that this is a mistake. Please help review. I have not made edits to any articles so I am not sure what do to next. Iambarky789 (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on the edit pattern, I agree with the conclusion that this is a sockpuppet account intent on violating BLP. only (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2013 (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.

Unblock request

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).

Iambarky789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

To administrator daniel case and only, I am sorry for having to request again to unblock me and waste resources in this matter. I hope this is the last time I have to deal with this. Administrator "only" stated that on my edit pattern, I am a sock puppet and solely here to violate biography of living person This is not true and I do not want to be accused of this. The only reason I created an account was because my friend was a affiliate of a swaminarayan group and they told me the ways about baps policies regarding their view of Hinduism. I saw that there were claims not in favor of pramukh swami and I followed the news and thought it is not fair that this swami had information in the news but not on this website. I have used wikipedia.org very seldomly and regret that it was for reasons that were thought to be disorderly. I followed the progress on wikipedia for this swami and saw that many people tried to post this information but they were not allowed. I saved all the information and tried to follow all policy and post directly on the notice board, the procedure that I thought was correct, but instead I was blocked. I did not make any edits to any articles and tried to use all the information collected to get conversation going to have these claims included on the swami's page. I was I am blameworthy for trying to fight a battle that is not mine. I dug deep into over the swami-fraud user case and I am not that user. I am not affiliated with Wayne State University or even from Michigan where that institution is located. I would like to ultimately request I be unblocked. I am not going to use this account any further for usage for things I am not unfamiliar with. I am not a sock puppet. I am sorry for violating any policies. If there is anything I need to do further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Iambarky789 (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please see my comments below, there are still issues to be addressed before Iambarky789 can be unblocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:55, 9 January 2014 (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 was the administrator who sent you the email from the UTRS tool. A checkuser has confirmed that you are not the same person as User:Swamifraud. To move forward from here I need a couple of things from you:

1. The comment in your unblock request suggests you me that you may have engaged in meatpuppetry, would you please review the meatpuppetry policy and tell me if you think you have been engaged in meatpuppetry and if so what you intend to do differently.
2. Please read our policy on the biographies of living people and tell me why and how you have violated it (the verifiability policy might also help).

Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Callanecc

After I reviewed the meat puppetry policy and I did not engage in that since I was not called in my any other user. I followed the dispute about this group from multiple editors and saved the material posted and reused it when the members of that page refused even the discussion of it from other users. I used the large list of sites that showed the allegations exist as well. I read the Biographies of living persons page and it says all the core policies about adding information should be Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR). You said to look at Verifiability Policy and that states “In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view.” I copied and pasted over a half dozen sources that are reliable and one source that is included that includes a response from the group itself. I felt the burden of evidence was met. The notice board may have been the wrong place to bring this up and instead should have been on the talk page but even recently I observed a discussion started the talk page by an a non-member user on Pramukh Swami and was reverted and no one has undid that and that bothers me because any talk on the discussion page is even removed. Things like that before was why I repeated on the BLP noticeboard that “Many people have tried to add this information on his wikipedia page and organization page but there are a group of users that constantly monitor those particular articles and removed any of these allegations because of reasons unknown. One can assume that they want to keep these pages clean because they are a part of the organization.” The people that I copied the sources from said the same thing. If you can look into this matter further, it would help me understand. I read the article on Person accused of crime and it says” for people who are not known, editors should not include it and if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.” I stated on the BLP noticeboard that he is a public/religious figure and the head of the organization. I want to make sure that I understand these policies correctly. I did not make any edits other than that. I am not sure if I am misreading something but I reviewed your requests thoroughly.

68.47.31.182 (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith that your statement about not being a sockpuppet is the truth that leaves the BLP violations as the only reason for the block. The section of the BLP policy primarily related is WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The other issue is that consensus is needed, there isn't consensus to include something then it shouldn't be included.

In any case, I'm inclined to give you another go with the understanding that anything which resembles edits like Swamifraud or which look like BLP violations will probably result in an indefinite block and the unlikelihood of an unblock. I've left the admin who blocked you and ping only and Daniel Case if they'd like to comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, as I understand it from your comment above, a check user has already been performed and shown that Iambarky's account is technically unrelated. So, when you preface your latest comment with assuming good faith about sock puppetry, I'm assuming you mean meat puppetry. Based on Iambarky's latest post addressing meat puppetry and WP:BLP, I do not believe he's not a meat puppet. It strikes me as very odd that a new editor, on his own, would dig that deeply into this controversy and then effectively wish to repeat the precise same points that Swamifraud and his socks have made ad nauseam in the past. Additionally, the comment about other editors being part of some conspiracy because "they part of the organization" is the usual nonsense raised by editors with an agenda and who wish to defy the consensus of long-standing, experienced Wikipedians. My recommendation is that he remain blocked. If there is a consensus among administrators that he be unblocked, I would defer to that consensus. Alternatively, if you feel very strongly that the block is unfair, then you should unblock him on your own. I recognize that you're more disinterested than I am, although that cuts both ways. It makes you more objective but potentially less knowledgeable. In any event, I trust your judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I meant meat puppetry sorry, I agree with "I do not believe he's not a meat puppet" however was willing to disregard it given their statement. However the further explanation from you makes it pretty clear that there are issues Iambarky789 has still not addressed, so I have declined the unblock request. I think disinterested is the right word to an extent, in that I was disinterested to give Iambarky789 another go, but your comments convince me (with the extra knowledge provided) that there is still reason to keep Iambarky789 blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)