User talk:SVIwaishi1982

Welcome!

Hello, SVIwaishi1982, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Ro Khanna. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Do you have an association with Ro Khanna? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used to live in Silicon Valley, so I guess you could say he *used to* work for me. But I have moved away now. So currently I have no actual association with him. SVIwaishi1982 (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC) (PS I just learned how to four tilde!)[reply]

June 2019

I don't understand what is going on here. I have two computers that I use to update wikipedia from at various times over the last several years. Obviously I'm not a hacker/coder type like a lot of you are so I'm not sure exactly where to post these things. I can accept being blocked for 24 hours because I was clearly in violation of "edit warring" (which I didn't know was a thing but that doesn't matter, I know), I didn't realize reverts were cumulative, an thought it was per information item. I do feel as if I am being censored BTWs. But can accept a disagreement here too. But I don't understand the sock-puppeting thing. I do have two computers that I use interchangeably. Is that not allowed? Also I just learned how to check messages, but don't understand how to code the talk page. So that could explain a lot of this confusion. I do feel I was attempted to be censored though, especially because I was adding factual information, in a non "puffery" (again what does this actually mean) way, backed up with citations from two publications of opposite political viewpoints. I respect Jesse for taking her/his job very seriously, I don't think Jesse has a lot of patience though for folks who can't code? That is their prerogative as an editor, and seeing how long Jesse has been at it, I respect the total volume of censoring s/he participates in, but it came off as derogatory, especially the way Jesse kept surpressing properly cited facts. I'm sure Jesse is right here, and I was just ignorant of the no two computer rule, and the puffery stuff, and didn't realize edit warring meant three disputed changes to an overall page per 24 hour period, and not 3 specific change to one fact in dispute. I hope someone can read this. I don't know how to code this correctly. Help, please! - SVIwaishi1982 (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ro Khanna shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
It's been clearly explained to you. That's your third revert (4th total inclusion of the disputed material) and you've not posted on the talk page once. Another revert can lead to a block. You've also edited 35 times, all on this page, which is suspicious behavior of itself, hence the question you were just asked above, which you also have not answered. Please read the links in the "Welcome!" section I left you almost nine months ago for tips on how to make helpful contributions here. Thanks. JesseRafe (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ro Khanna. JesseRafe (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SVIwaishi1982 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: ). Thank you. JesseRafe (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, while failing to engage the article talk page even once. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 16:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

I have socks, I wear them on my feet and haven't made puppets out of them since grade school. SVIwaishi1982 (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yamazaki442, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

JesseRafe (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Primefac (talk) 23:20, 13 June 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).

SVIwaishi1982 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To whom it may concern, It appears that I have been blocked by Wikipedia because someone thinks I am engaged in the practice of "sock puppetry." While I do have more than one computer, have used those computers to make multiple edits over many years to Wikipedia, I didn't realize that this could appear to be a violation of Wikipedia's laws, though I must say, on a previous page it did say it is okay to have more than one account. I can only assume this whole block issue came to a head, because a person with more Wiki editing points didn't like the fact that I accused that person of censoring me, which they kinda were, and then that editor creeped on me and found out that I had used the same IP addresses to log into both accounts over the course of several years, and now we are here. Look I get it, that administrator is far more experienced, and a much better Wikipedia editor than I am, my rudimentary understanding of coding, and all. Regardless, I do want to take this opportunity to apologize for having more than one account and making edits to a page. I know having more than one account isn't actually violation of the terms of service, and what is is the act of sock puppetry, which I haven't ever done. It's not like I was logging in, and changing stuff back and forth using two different accounts. I would make edits using multiple computers on the same IP, which were logged into two different accounts, but at no time was there any action on my behalf which made it look like there were more than one actor engaging on a particular set of edits, really what was going on is that I was using a different computer to edit the pages, and I had my saved credentials there to speed up the sign in process. Again this is why I am not as good of an editor as the person who got me blocked, obviously I'm not as net security savvy. Regardless, I have never sock puppeted, not ever, well, except when I was a child and I used to watch Lamb Chop's Play-Along and I made my socks into actual puppets. Honestly who has time to actually sock puppet anyway? There are far better ways to make it seem like one's opinion matters more than it does than by sock puppeting on Wikipedia, which is why I don't do it. I took a scroll through the edits of the wikipedia page, and I noticed that there were sometimes months that went by between logging into the two different accounts, and by the very few number of edits I have actually done on Wikipedia across both accounts, there has been nothing malfeasant about my updates. Everything I have ever written has been sourced. I do get persnickety from time to time when people try to cover up BS, and honestly in the act that got me banned, I was really just standing up for my ability to make this world a better and more fact based place by adding important information about a politician I respect a great deal. Anyway please overturn this ban. I haven't ever sock puppeted, though I do have two accounts and was using several computers, I do work around A LOT of computers and make edits periodically from many different stations, but again, please this ban is simply not right. The biggest rule I feel I broke was that I got into an emotional edit war, and I didn't know that was actually a real thing, but I do now, and won't EVER engage in an edit war again. RE this ban, it is actually okay to have multiple accounts on here. And I was ultimately the one who was being censored at the time. I PROMISE to never engage in any activity that could come close to being construed as sock puppetry. I just want to stand up for what's right, with fact based, properly sourced updates. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Decline reason:

You've been using multiple accounts to edit war in the same article without disclosing them. That is the very definition of abusive sock puppetry. So, no, we're not going to unblock your sock puppet account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:03, 13 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.

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).

SVIwaishi1982 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

But I haven't though. I have never pretended to be more than one person, and I have never used more than one account to change things back and forth. I do have more than one account, which again is allowed here, but I've never used more than one account to make it look like more than one person was editing the same thing at the same time. I just used two computers that were auto logged in. I had wanted to "sock puppet," I would have used two accounts at the same time. This is ridiculous. This needs to be raised. I know for a fact far more egregious problems have been unblocked.

Decline reason:

Clear and blatant violation. This account has no article edits other than those to Ro Khanna. Your other account primarily edited that article, too (though also edited a single other article, Mike Honda). I can find nowhere where you declared your alternate account. Had you done so, and had you not used both accounts to almost exclusively edit the same article, maybe. But no, this was a blatant violation. The sockpuppetry investigation found that you edited from the same computer, too, not exclusively two computers, though there's always a smidgen of error there. Yamla (talk) 18:07, 13 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.