Request readers to go through this complaint and the quick arbitration processes. Obviously editors/admins around are dangerously editing. It becomes more necessary to highlight these or otherwise people around will start fighting falling prey to these conspiracies. Please check the complaint against an administrator User:Sitush_plus_a_group_is_possibly_trying_to_put_communities_in_India_to_a_fight to understand why this sanction became necessary for these administrators :-) Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original Vishwakarma_(caste) was moved to Vishwabrahmin and then a revert of the article back to Vishwakarma_(caste) discussion was started "Requested move (modified 23 June)" and comments such as "while appreciating the caste's ambition for self definition as Vishwa Brahmins," started appearing which would obviously irritate most Vishwabrahmin. [1]. Everyone who reads the shastras know LORD Indra incur brahma-hatya (the sinful reaction for killing a brahmana;) on killing Viśvarūpa who was son of Twastha. Manu, Maya, Twastha, Shilpi and Visvajna are brothers and the fore fathers of the current Vishwabrahmins who are also called Kammalans in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andra and Karnataka. So, there is no doubt among the people who study the shastra about Vishwabrahmins. The problem only comes with people who do not read the Shastras. The truly educated ones are aware. Also page moves are immediately reverted if they are a mistake. But for this move Vishwabrahmin to Vishwakarma_(caste) a discussion was started.
Over Talk:Vishwakarma_(caste) IP address 106.67.133.238 commented over "Sanskritisation ? genetic code says the truth," [2] and posted an utterly biased genetic report which overlooked lot of other facts. And then User:MatthewVanitas started engaging over that. Finally I have to get with "In neighboring Tamil Nadu, geneticists testing DNA of local peoples, genes have been found from 50-60,000 years ago." ... "there are ancient Brahman chants" http://www.drsheedy.com/early-humans/up-to-12-000-years-ago.php to refute that discussion.
Prasanthnnamboothiri, while editing the very first edits changed "Nambudiris are considered as the most orthodox Brahmins." to "The Nambudiris were treated as most orthodox brahmins". [3] And then immediately after that started poking Iyers and Iyengars as foreigners "The migrant (foreign) brahmins such as Iyers and Iyengras" [4] So obviously this was to highlight a divide between communities. If Iyers or Iyengars cross checks who edited they would see Prasanthnnamboothiri. So the chances of fights between Iyers, Iyengars and Namboothiri increases as it is a use with namboothiri id editing these. After a little while what the id with Prasanthnnamboothiri does is writes the following at Talk:Adi_Shankara "Sankaracharya cannot be in Visvakarma caste because Viswakarma is a caste of recent origin." So... that puts the Viswakarmas against the Namboothiris as well. If Prasanthnnamboothiri is really a Namboothiri why would he change are to were? And if he is not a Namboothiri what is the purpose behind using the ID suffixed Namboothiri?
user:sitush was reverting every credible edit only under 1 reason WP:POV. Anyone can just keep removing sources and start discussions over talk page. But the strangest thing he again did which went inline to what these hidden ips and fake ids were doing, i.e. putting communities into quarrel.... he finally started this thread over [5]Talk:Adi Shankara which now put other brahmins and Visvakarma Brahmins relations into trouble. " I'd go so far as to suggest that the original publication may have been more or less an academic hoax." and further has quoted "That claim has been pushed tendentiously on Wikipedia by self-identified community members, usually by citing Roberts, and we really do need to put a stop to this." Institute such as "Andhra Historical Society, Rajahmundry" put up a query from "Sri A. Padmanabhan" and never seemed to have answered them for years together. Please remember Roberts is not any tom dick and harry he worked as a proctor at the supreme court. And I finally decided to report it as things online seemed dangerous. But as suspected was laughed out [6].
(This is all for today, I will gradually highlight all that I found... there are lots of these. These are not just over wikipedia, these are happening even over Facebook. There (Over facebook) profiles of people are more recognisable and miscreants are more identifiable... while it is a little difficult over wikipedia as it is all text.) Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ganesh. When one has been indefinitely blocked for treating Wikipedia as "a battleground for contesting worldviews", it is eminently unwise to continue the battle on one's talk page. At this point your only legitimate use of this page is to request an unblock. If you're not interested in doing that, please stop editing altogether. Continuing to engage in the disruptive behaviour you were blocked for will result in revocation of your ability to edit even this page. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think any other righteous admin going to follow all the happenings unless I don't explain them systematically what happen? I didn't see any admin so far putting efforts to find out what has happen? If someone had systematically reasoned things would have come out. Which other pages do I have access to? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have access to no other page besides this one. No admin, righteous or otherwise, is going to consider your report, except insofar as it relates to an unblock request. If you have no intention of making such a request, then you have no business editing this page. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, in that case I would request to unblock. But first I would need to complete my groundwork. Or otherwise I didn't see anyone putting any efforts cross examining. Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request to unblock
I have put forth above why I felt user:sitush + group were being disruptive. It clearly indicated to me the edits made by user:sitush was inline to what many other obviously fake IDs and unregistered IP were doing, i.e. were trying to bring Indian communities in front of each other. There are lot more edits I am gradually trying to study. Kindly let me know when someone talks about consensus they have to be from honest editors, why does one need to ping editors? See this Youtube "Asch Conformity Experiment" [9]. If the consensus are to be genuine they must naturally come?
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).
You appear to be unable to see that the stuff you have posted to this page in support of this unblock request is more of exactly the kind of thing that led to the block, and far from being a reason for unblocking, is confirmation that the block should stay. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:31, 14 March 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.
JamesBWatson I have raised some serious concerns. You have not so far addressed those? Also I didn't see any administrator addressing them? I guess this makes me and would make people in India assume wiki has a Hidden agenda and the Admins around seem to be least concerned about addressing them? If honest you must address those concerns. Also it is not just me around feeling there are fake account created by this group there are others complaining this over User:Sitush's page as well. Currently this comment is around. " I am pretty sure it is also a a fraud, you have given yourself all those accolades using false accounts, created bu yourself." There are complaints all over his page what is going on? [10]
You are an indefinitely blocked user. Your contributions to this project are no longer welcome, and this includes presenting your paranoid conspiracy claims. For collaboration to work, users have to be able to understand that they can be wrong. You are incapable of understanding that you can be wrong, and that is why you are no longer permitted to collaborate. If you continue to pursue your conspiracy theories on this talk page, I will ask that your talk page access be revoked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Policy of user id usage: Warring nations can cause unrest among each other by faking local IDs
Is there a policy present over wikipedia which restricts editors from misusing IDs related to regional names. A foreigner from any nation can reach pages related to communities with competing community related names and can start pushing articles only those that are written negative about each other. When readers will look up the ids they would see names of competing communities and would perhaps misunderstand it be written by someone locally while with it would be written by someone abroad and this would start physical quarrels. Has wikipedia considered these problems, since these can cause unnecessary tensions? I am not asking if whether there are restrictions on free thinking, but am worried about wiki's strategic usage to cause unrest. So, is there any policy in practice of reporting those? In this case I notice I had reached IDs with higher or admin privileges, so I would also like to know what are the way around if ids with higher privileges plan misuse wiki? Ganesh J. Acharya (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't see anything about "faking local IDs" then I'd fathom your question has been answered.
It appears that you are asking me to provide you, (an indefinitely blocked editor with a history of irrational editing,) with rational guidance on how to deal with yet another conspiratorial hypothetical scenario? I think I'll pass... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to understand the reason for your block and your continued disruptive editing of this talk page is just reinforcing that the block is necessary. Please take some time away from Wikipedia, then come back read and understand the applicable policies and appeal at UTRS. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
