User talk:Millandhouse33

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ezourvedam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian (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) 16:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boneohimself: @Elgato97: please see here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Veuveclicquot1

Information to support unban request

Comparing the original report of meatpuppetry by RobertHall7 to what happened.

Original Report of Meat Puppetry (From SPI)

...uninvolved User:Kashmiri’s drive-by maintenance tag: [1]

Elgato97 removes it first: [2] Boneohimself removes it three times: [3] [4] [5] then in Talk page discussion Millandhouse chimes in: [6] (Statement supporting removal of tag, statements that a cohort has been required to overcome an individual editor, statement canvassing for this to continue.) Boneohimself replies: [7] (Statement providing support.) ...

Full list of related edits

3rd May: Kashmiri & I have a disagrement about edit on matra.Kashmiri reverts my change, tries to justify on talk, discussion contunes till 8th May. Kasmiri ultimately accepts my changes.
4th May, I point out that my edit was infact correct and my changes should remain, offer olive branch.
4th May, Kashmiri visits School of Economic Science Page and adds maintaince tags.
4th May, I collapse tags but leave in place. I contune making other edits.
5th May, User Elgato97 Removes Kashmiris tags. comments: I made a considered decision that the template is not applicable.
5th May, Kashmiri reverts Elgato97s changes . comments Reverted to revision 895493914 by Millandhouse33 (talk): The issues have not yet been addressed, and your account looks like a WP:SPA
6th May, Boneohimself removes Kasmiris's tags. Comments: pease discuss on talk page before making controversial changes.
7th May, RobertHall7 reverts boneos changes
7th May, Kasmiri uncollapses tags then reverts his own edit.
7th May, Boneo reverts Kasmiri
7th May, Kasmiri reverts Boneo
8th May, Boneo Reverts kasmiri
8th May, [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:School_of_Economic_Science&diff=896105641&oldid=895117663 My post on talk trying to build consensus, other editors are invited to join, I state my views on the tags for and against. My desired outcome stated as "I'm in favor of replacing the maintenance tag at the top of the page with inline cleanup tags identifying the areas that need looking at. This achieves the objective of drawing editors attention to the issues without acting like a badge of shame on the page."
8th May, Boneo Chimes in criticising the tagging, does not even mention my proposal.
14th May, RobertHall & I engage on talk. Unconstrucively.
25th May, Dreamy Jazz adds a tag to the page.

Second Claim of Meat Puppetry

RobertHalls7 Original text

They have formed a cohort that gives the appearance of a democratic mandate to manage the reputation of The School of Economic Science (a.k.a. The School of Practical Philosophy) covered by WP:MEAT ("Consensus in many debates and discussions should ideally not be based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors"). In Talk page discussion I refer to the SES with universality in mind as a 'group' or 'organization', and edited the MOS:FIRST line accordingly prior to 2018's year of consensus/stablity at the article - this is far more generous to the organization that our articles on the Church of Scientology, for example, which it has been studied with [8]; Have also contributed relatively positive opinion on it from Evans:[9] and Hugh Jackman in interview:[10] This said, many sources (including those in the body of the article) refer to it as a New Religious Movement or sect, cult, an alleged cult or a possible cult [11][12][13][14], more diffs available, most recently Emily Watson in the Financial Times of April 10, 2019 with a verifiable history of criminal child abuse, denigration of women and other controversial issues talked about in the secondary sources. I have added material which reflects this. In breach of WP:LEDE this is getting removed from the intro by the cohort e.g. here [15] and here [16] despite talk page opposition:[17] leaving readers with the impression that it is an educational, course-providing charity without any reputation of past wrongdoing, nor any sign of the many verifiable allegations of it being a New Religious Movement or cult, etc...

Thrid Claim of Meat Puppetry

Note: For years at the article we've also had a longterm user who self-disclosed as a member of the organization, and stood up for its reputation. They happen to have had a record of sock-puppetry and sanctions elsewhere. But they participated in content disagreements that - no matter how heated - helped us reach consensus and improved the article. For some reason I doubt they're connected, but I cannot be certain. Since February, they have at times seen eye-to-eye with some of the new arrivals about content, and have also edited to remove content that could be problematic for the organization. Two diffs at least show a commonality of purpose between this longterm user and one of the new users. I can file them if you think it's important. Many thanks, Roberthall7 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Conversational threads from claim of suspicious behavior to ban

Clerk note:@Roberthall7: Given the information you just presented, I'm fairly confident this is a tag-teaming effort, which also shifts this into the matter of administrator discretion. I disagree with MelanieN's conclusion that their editing is not disruptive. Let me state that the Wikipedia sockpuppetry policy (WP:SOCK) does not only cover actual sockpuppets but people who game the system (meatpuppetry, etc.) to form sockpuppetry-like behaviour. Per the points stated on WP:SOCK, this clearly falls under "Creating an illusion of support" and "Posing as a neutral or uninvolved commentator" (atleast these two, maybe more) points of our policy and is clearly WP:NOTHERE behaviour. As such, I will endorse any such blocks placed by any administrator on these accounts, noting ofcourse, I'm not an administrator and I have no authority to do so myself. Pinging @MelanieN: who should be aware of my opinion and @Ivanvector: who was on this case before. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked Millandhouse33 and Boneohimself, based partly on the CU result, on our discussion here, and their continued coordinated advocacy for the school. It's edging on meatpuppetry, but I'm mostly unimpressed that the obviously COI editors have ignored administrators' warnings to not edit the article directly. Because of that I have not tagged the accounts. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Kashmiri has identified OWN [54] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthall7 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Kashmiri has identified OWN ^[54] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthall7 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The above statement is made by RobertHall7 on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Veuveclicquot1 and claimed as evidence of my wrongdoing.

What happened?

20:44, 7 May 2019 User Kashmiri makes comment on my talk page accusing me of acting like the owner of the School of Economic Science Page.
20:44, 7 May 2019‎ Within a minute Kashmiri reverts his own comment before I see or respond to it.
22:38, 7 May 2019 I post a message on Kasmiri's page to confirm he intended to delete.
22:47, 7 May 2019 Kashmiri responds stating original message was a mistake "Sorry this happens when I have too many tabs open. Apologies for the confusion"
04:49, 19 June 2019 RobertHall7 Posts comment 1 to the investigation without proper context claiming it to be evidence of my wrongdoing.

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).

Millandhouse33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My Talk page above is now updated, above, with a proper account of what happened, showing the errors in RobertHall7's account. Hoping to get some engagement now. This decision was made on behavior, not technical details, the descriptions of the behavior on the report were wrong. Hoping to get some feedback from somebody before progressing. This was a bad faith complaint made by two users who didn't want me editing pages. It was conducted without my knowledge so I was not able to make my case during the investigation. User RobetHall7 along with Kashmiri have made complaints in bad faith because they did not want me editing a page or scrutinizing my edits. My edits were in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines their was not, my summary of the discussion with RobertHall7 can be seen here and the discussion with Kashmiri here RobertHall has many times tried to have me banned to silence my voice as shown in the link prior. In both cases, the talk pages will show that I was insisting content be sourced and the two complainants wanted to write there own opinion. It is clear on both talk pages for any party to see. When this investigation was restarted on 14th May, by RobertHall7 & Kashmiri I was not notified, I received no notification until I was banned and therefore excluded from representing myself in the discussion. Only the accusers were heard. The reason given on the investigation by is @Ivanvector: "I have blocked Millandhouse33 and Boneohimself, based partly on the CU result, on our discussion here, and their continued coordinated advocacy for the school. It's edging on meatpuppetry, but I'm mostly unimpressed that the obviously COI editors have ignored administrators' warnings to not edit the article directly. Because of that I have not tagged the accounts." . This cites advocacy, the discussion on the investigation page, which I was not made aware of,but mostly COI. He says it's "It's edging on meatpuppetry", I deny that, but none the less, edging on a violation is not a violation. The guidelines clearly say "Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind." . This decision was not based on IP misuse, but advocacy, COI, etc as stated by @Ivanvector:. Please correct me if I am wrong. Millandhouse33 (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. 1) Attacking/blaming others never, ever,ever makes for a successful block appeal. 2) You are blocked for sock puppetry/meat puppetry. Contrary to your assertions, multiple SPI reviewers have looked at the events surrounding your block from a number of different ways. Your claim of malfeasance falls flat. 3) You were blocked and unblocked on or about Feb 2, 2019. Did you not admit socking there? Were you not argumentative about a WP:conflict of interest? You were told "I have gone to bat for you here, to encourage your input despite your rough start. But I am a little alarmed that you seem to think you can impose changes to the article after allowing other people “the option of reviewing” them. Please understand, if you go ahead and change the article against consensus, the consequences for you will not be good. The unblocking administrator cited my "trust" in you; don't let that trust turn out to be unfounded". IMO, you have not heeded that advice. 4) As this is a WP:SOCK block, please review the pertinent sections of the WP:GAB. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:09, 10 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.

@Dlohcierekim: Thank you, your reply provides some much needed feedback. Can I ask for some further explaination on your 4 points. 1) accepted 100%. 2) Is the reson for this ban that Myself, BoneoHimself and Egato repeteadly colluded to take the page in a specific direction, or is is somthing else? 3) I did get banned for sock in Feb, I was within a few days of me joining wikipedia, I did not know any better & accepted full responisbility. It has not happened since. I was initially argumentative with MelanieN, but I quickly realised my error, made up and have followed her instruction on concensus ever since. (you'll notice I'm very active on thie talk page for this reason). We were both editing the page in parrelel quite happily for some time and her comments on the investigation were in my favor. I accept responsibily for both these things, but they have not happened since, are my early transgressions a factor? 4) Thanks. Millandhouse33 (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying sooner. The question are my early transgressions a factor? would best be answered by @Ivanvector:. I don't think so, but I don't want to answer incorrectly. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim: Thanks, I guess I'm waiting for @Ivanvector:, is there anything I should be doing to speed things up? Millandhouse33 (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unblock request 2

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).

Millandhouse33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would once more like to appeal this ban. 1) first claim of behavioral meat puppetry-See comments from clerk and admin. The clerk states that they are fairly confident this is a tag-team effort, the tag-teaming constitutes the illusion of support and they recommend a ban. At the beginning of the statement they make clear that this is based on information provided by the complainant. The information provided by the complainant is not correct. I have copied the information here, directly below is a full time line with commentary. None of the other users supported my position, nor did I support theirs. Although I attempted to foster consensus, none occurred. Elgato7 did not even respond. 2) Second claim of meat-puuperty is copied here. Here are the sections of talk where lede is discussed (1,2,3,4,5) . None of them contain a result based on a concensus of the users listed in the investigation. Boneohimself and Elgato have not participated in any of them. This alone should demonstrate this is not a colaboration between me and the other two users. None contain a result by democratic vote, arguments are resoned and discussed. Again this can not be described as meat puppetry. 3) Third claim of meatpupetry is here. Myself and the named user were on the same side of the argument on more than one occasion, however like the others we are independent of each other. This user was not listed on the case so I assume no suspision exists. 4) historic ban for sock puppetry: did get banned for sock in Feb, I was within a few days of me joining wikipedia, I did not know any better & accepted full responisbility. It has not happened since. 5) Ignoring warnings about COI, was initially argumentative with MelanieN, but I quickly realised my error, [it] and have followed her instruction on concensus ever since. I'm very active on thie talk page for this reason. We were both editing the page in parrelel [happily for some time] and her comments on the investigation were in my favor. I have and would not ignored her instructions.- Since joining Wikiepdia in Feb I have made 828 edits to 56 different pages, mostly adding well sourced content to pages. This is an average of more than 5 edits per day for 133 days, I don’t think I would have made such a large contrubtion without Melanies early guidance and have always been greatful for what I learned from her. If I have missed somthing here I ask that it be spelled out for me. If I am unbanned I intend to carry on as previously. Millandhouse33 (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sockpuppetry now confirmed by checkuser ([18]). Talk page access revoked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 16 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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Swami Shantanand Saraswati

Hello, Millandhouse33. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Swami Shantanand Saraswati".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]