User talk:Diamondwatcher

Welcome!

Hello, Diamondwatcher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that 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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --please sign your contributions :-) --Kt66 13:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Michael Roach, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Michael Roach.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 10:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Offer to Mediate

Hello Diamondwatcher. As you know, mediation has been requested for a dispute that you are involved in. I am willing to serve as the mediator in this case. To begin, simply indicate your acceptance of me as mediator either on my talk page or on the mediation page. I reccommend that you add the mediation page to your watchlist if you have not already. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 ^contribs 18:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Withdrawal from Mediation as Unnecessary

I have posted the following comments on your Roach mediation page, since A Ramachandra has been permanently banned as an Ekajati sockpuppet, Ekajati says he is abandoning edits, and Hanuman Das quit editing after a tantrum last month:

Mediation presumes good faith, and mediators have to assume good faith, but when there is no evidence of good faith, other editors do not have to presume it even under Wikipedia guidelines. This is the same familiar pattern with a group of "three" editors repeated in other, similar articles. In this article, Diamondwatcher attempted to collaborate and find a compromise with A Ramanchandra, Ekajati, and Hanuman Das, who had a long record of being active in supporting each other in suppressing critical links on sites devoted to controversial religious figures, and together refusing to collaborate or compromise their rigid position even when other editors refuted their arguments. Ekajati says in response to the block, he is "proud" of "A Ramachandra". "Hanuman Das" who tag teamed with "Ekajati" regularly and whom Diamondwatcher tried to compromise with recently, left in a literal tantrum last month. "A Ramachandra" is now banned indefinitely as a sock puppet, and "Ekajati" was temporarily banned and now says he won't participate anymore, but wants his ban switched with "A Ramachandra" ;-). Experience with these editors has shown that at some point, collaborative and inclusionist editors here must be bold, do what is right, call a spade a spade, and do whatever it takes to move on. Because the majority of editors were in favor of a compromise and it was only A Ramachandran who refused to compromise and who failed to adequately justify his claims or behavior in the mediation I did not participate in, I have reinserted the critical link, and I intend to support others in ensuring that it stays there unless a legitimate and compelling case to the contrary is made. So far it hasn't. I recommend Diamondwatcher withdraw from mediation since he was correct that the other party was not engaging in good faith mediation, and it is no longer needed.

Should these disruptive, POV editors return under some other name, I will continue to support the NPOV position that critical links should not be arbitrarily suppressed. --Dseer 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up, here are the latest, specific charges regarding this "trio", the user behind the sockpuppet you agreed to mediate with, and the other sockpuppets:

User:Ekajati Suspected sockpuppeteer Ekajati (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Suspected sockpuppets Chai Walla (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) Baba Louis (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

Report submission by --Pigmantalk • contribs 01:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidence Ekajati (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is under a two month ban for sockpuppetry. Currently confirmed sockpuppets of Ekajati are Hanuman Das (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), A Ramachandran (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), and Tunnels of Set (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). Hanuman Das changed his account name and was previously under the user name Adityanath (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). While still under the Adityanath account, two accounts were found to be sockpuppets of the Adityanath account: Baba Louis (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Chai Walla (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). See here for findings.

Since Hanuman Das is a sockpuppet of Ekajati, then accounts found to be sockpuppets of Hanuman Das are therefore socks of Ekajati.

As of 1/29/2007, Chai Walla is working on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath [1]. This means Ekajati is using this sock to evade the ban.