User talk:Boneohimself

Hello, Boneohimself, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Ivanvector:, You’ve been misled on this one. Look at talk page for School of Economic Science there is a lot of talk on why tabloid or discredited sources shouldn’t be given prominence. RobertHall7 is the only one who argued they could be used. Now that you have banned everybody they are being used. This is a malicious complaint to prevent his editing from being scrutinised. If I was tagged on the investigation I would have responded to his accusations and had a fair change to influence your decision. I am not a sock or meat puppet. I would appreciate it if you unblock me or tell me how to redress. Boneohimself (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have tried to reach out to the admin to discuss this issue first but have had no reply. The main charge here is that I am a meatpuppet. User RobertHall7 says I have teamed up with MillandHouse33, Elgato97 to repeatedly form a consensus, ignoring the guidelines to determine the content of the page. This is not true, it is a malicious accusation. The links he provided does not show this, the talk page does not show this. There is not a single piece of evidence to support this because It did not happen. Admin QEDK has taken RobertHall7’s claim in good faith not realising it was a lie and recommended a ban. Admin IvanVector has acted QEDKs advice and banned me again believing the lie. I have rarely engaged in the consensus building discussions on the talk page. Those have happened between MillandHouse33, RobertHall7 and others. If you look through the talk page you will see this. The discussion on the investigation page, which the decision was based on, was mostly by RobertHall7, this is a user that has dominated the School of Economic Science page for more than 10 years and makes every effort to stop others editing, the complaint made against me was with that objective and none other.His claims are false, events are incorrectly recounted. There is no evidence to support them. It is clear from the admin comments at the bottom of the investigation page that I am blocked for ignoring warnings about COI editing, advocacy, the discussion on the page, and a possible violation of multiple accounts policy. This investigation is only about multiple accounts, so it is surprising the outcome was based on any other criteria. I have not received warnings from administrators about COI or anything else, there are none on the investigation page. I am accused of advocacy on the page, I don’t agree with it, but the procedure for that is warnings followed by a topic ban if warnings are not followed I have never even received a warning, there are none listed on the page. The point is I would be able to discuss the issue and find resolution. A site wide ban without any discussion is an extreme measure especially without warning or discussion first, I can only assume it was based on the sob story RobertHall7 has told (which is a lie). I was not notified about the Veuveclicquot1 investigation so could not respond. I humbly request you to consider the above and revoke the ban, or at least offer a path to remediation.

Decline reason:

I have a hard time thinking that you don't have a connection of some sort because your behavior suggests otherwise. I'll also note that you uploaded the following images and claimed them as your work: File:Waterperry House New Hall.png, File:Swami Santanand saraswathi.png, File:Swami Brahmananda Saraswathi.jpg where the latter died in 1953. 1) Who else but someone connected would upload these? and 2) Are you sure that these are your work? There is some connection that hasn't been adequately explained.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Berean Hunter: 1) There are a couple of different organisations here: a) Brahmananda Saraswati and Shantananda saraswati are two Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, an ancient seat of learning set up by Adi Shankara, regarded as India's greatest philosopher. They are highly regarded in India and have millions of followers around the world, including myself. I do have a personal interest in this philosophy and have studied it for years, and my family have for many generations. I do not consider myself connected to them, as I have no involvement with the organization, have never visited them, do not know anyone that is part of it and have only studied their work in books published by 3rd parties. b) SES are one of a great many organisations that followed the teaching Shantananda saraswati, although they are independent of him. They run Waterperry Gardens, a tourist attraction in Oxfordshire, England, famous for its Frescoes depicting the teachings of the Shankaracharya, many people interested in the tradition visit there to see them. I have visited here and taken many pictures, including one you refer to, some of my pictures are on the tripadvisor page too. I did also post other pictures from my trip to Waterperry but other users have since removed them. I didn’t believe this made me connected to SES, my connection is only this visit. 2) 1 picture is my own work, 2 are from a family collection but I have permission to use them, they were made available in the public domain years ago. Hope that helps. Boneohimself (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, there is no requirement for warnings before a block; a block may be issued without a warning if it is deemed necessary, such as a determination of sock puppetry(where a warning would simply allow the sock puppeteer to continue). The 'path to remediation' is your unblock request above, which I will let someone else review. 331dot (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @QEDK: You’ve added a new tag to my profile. I obviously can’t edit the investigation page. Please let me know what you’d like me to answer and I’ll do so here. I feel I’ve already covered the behavioral stuff from the last investigation in my unban request.Boneohimself (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) What is your connection to the School of Economic Science? 2) What is your connection to Millandhouse33? Until you disclose both of these connections, there is no way forward. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK: There is no connection with either. If you look at the SPI, and compare RobertHall7s claims with my contribs, you’ll find none of them actually happened. Hope that helps. Boneohimself (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not have a connection to the School of Economic Science, why are your first few edits and the majority of all your edits related to it? I also think you do not understand the issue relating to which you were blocked. Firstly, you are not under a A site wide ban, you have been indefinitely blocked, they are different things. Secondly, for all your claims of being unrelated to Millandhouse33 and SES, you both have repeatedly exhibited similar behaviour and edited the article in the same POV, which is the crux of the issue, why are two single-purpose accounts editing in cohort to push a certain viewpoint. Till now, your claims of innocence are fruitless, as much as you try to justify your meatpuppetry, until you come clean, there is not a chance for an administrator to grant your unblock request (I am not an administrator, contrary to the statement in your unblock request), that is my opinion. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]