User talk:Harvard2014

November 2014

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:13, 23 November 2014 (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).

Harvard2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am being accused of being a sockpuppet or metappet of Babanwalia. This is absolutely false. I am being prevented from participating in this discourse because right-wing Hindus promoting their script are afraid of a voice of reason challenging their revisionist account of history. I would like you to show a connection between me and this other user about whom I know nothing. It is a shame that WIkipedia is being used for sectarian causes rather than promoting knowledge.

Decline reason:

Over and apart from the sockpuppetry allegations, you basically admit to being a single-purpose POV-pushing account, so you stay in the hole. — Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2014 (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.

Harvard2014 (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I (the blocking admin here) have made a request on the Administrators' Noticeboard page (WP:AN) — see here — to have this block reviewed by an outside admin or admins. If another admin decides to either reverse or uphold my block, please feel free to act without feeling any need to clear it through me first. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello,

It has come to my attention that there is a reasonable possibility that you were made aware of a Request for Comment on the Punjabi language article talk page through an off-Wikipedia email list. Please note that Wikipedia does not allow individuals to selectively notify individuals with the intent of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way. Individuals who receive such emails are encouraged to disregard the contents of the message and leave a message on the individual’s talk page to stop engaging in such activities. Users who are found to engage in further canvassing may be brought to the attention of the administrators’ noticeboard. This may result in sanctions, including revocation of editing privileges. It should be noted that request for comments are closed based upon the merits of the comments presented and whether or not they draw upon Wikipedia policies and utilize reliable, third-party sources to support their statements. The discussion is not a vote, so the closure will not be decided based upon the number of individuals who support a particular side. I hope that this message helps enlighten you on our policies. If you have any questions about these policies, please feel free to reach me on my user talk page. Best regards, Mike V • Talk 20:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I was not made aware of this issue from a mailing list. So I am guilty until proven innocent. This is a new concept being pioneered at Wikipedia, which should be more progressive than other forums. How does one arrive at such a possibility? The decline reason is again making an assumption that cannot be substantiated. If you want to contact me by phone or email, I can give you my academic affiliation and credentials. I would like this block to be reviewed by an independent party and I would like to understand how you arrived at your conclusions. Harvard2014 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]