User talk: Liberal Humanist

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Blocked indefinitely and talk page privileges revoked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. 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. Favonian (talk) 10:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #19573 was submitted on Oct 22, 2017 09:44:01. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff and Favonian: I've read through the AN/I thread, and the unblock rationale here was fairly written in my opinion. While remorse for the actions has been shown, I am not too sure about whether or not the editor has fully understood the block, as the part I had my autopatrolled privilege revoked by an administrator over nothing makes me hesitate. Would you offer your thoughts whenever you have time? Many thanks, Alex Shih^Talk 11:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alex Shih:, in addition to the copyvio, there was this advertorial which this editor brought to ANI and started attacking others for not agreeing with them. Then they claimed that they have no COI while on Commons the claimed that they created adverts for the party, obviously the en.wiki article was one of those adverts too. At the time of this unblock request the advertorial article was reverted to the original state, nullifying the clean up efforts of other editors. The personal attacks are minor in the context of the copyvio and advertorial damage to the encylcopaedia and that's where I find this unblock request problematic. —SpacemanSpiff 11:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacemanSpiff: Thank you. The Commons thread is certainly contradictory, and the timing of the revert is too suspicious. Since the unblock rationale doesn't address the concern well about advertorial (in both the unblock request and the e-mails I received, the editor does not seem to understand that their version of the article was problematic), nor the copyvio (other than it was "just once"), I am leaning toward declining this unblock request pending another opinion (to avoid making this appear one-sided), and encourage the editor to seek to understand the concerns, and address the key issues brought up here instead in their next request. Regards, Alex Shih ^Talk 12:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored talk page access for the moment on the premise that it will be used productively for their future unblock requests. Alex Shih ^Talk 12:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Shih: Thanks for unblocking me! Regarding plagiarism, obviously that is wrong and I accept my mistake in that, even though it was just once and I did it absent-mindedly. I shall not do so again. As for the article, I'm not going to lie. It's not an advertorial and I stand by it. I used only reliable sources and I tried my best to make it neutral. If allowed back, I'll just create a draft, have it peer-reviewed by veteran Wikipedians for neutrality (SpacemanSpiff would be more than welcome), and then update the actual article after achieving consensus. Isn't that the Wikipedian way? Anyway do as you feel right! Liberal Humanist (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacemanSpiff and Favonian: Anyway please do accept my humblest apologies! I can't change what I did, but hopefully this will make amend. Cheers, guys! Liberal Humanist (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This version of yours had zero reliable sources. Both of the Times of India source are from blogs, Outlook India source links to an opinion piece, and the Swarajya source is yet another opinion piece. Rest of the sources are self-published materials that fails WP:ORGIND. If you cannot understand what reliable sources are after 10 years and 30k edits with the project, there are serious competence issues that cannot be overlooked even if we disregard every other concerns, such as very obvious violations of WP:NPOV in both the "sources" and the content. Alex Shih ^Talk 12:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it fine to use self-published materials and blog posts when the info is about self? For instance, what is wrong in using info by party members about the party? For instance, "This team grew and Swarna Bharat Party was eventually formed on 1 June 2013 to serve as a national political platform for liberals." Liberal Humanist (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Outlook and Swarajya articles were by journalists. Credible sources! Liberal Humanist (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: I've only been active in Wikipedia for 5 years in total. You have been here since the past 11 years and seem to lack basic competency yourself. Unfortunately yours is only a typical example of the administrators here, which is what got me aggravated that day and ultimately led to the block. I'll get down to all the sources for you:

Self-published link used to source text about the party ideology, policies, and manifesto.
Swarajya op ed by journalist Surajit Dasgupta (credible source)
Outlook op ed, Author is Seetha, a senior journalist and author of The Maruti Story. (credible source)
Times of India op-ed by writer and historian Gurcharan Das (credible source)
Self-published link used to source text about the party ideology, policies, and manifesto.
Self-published link used to source text about the party ideology, policies, and manifesto.
Self-published link used to source text about the party ideology, policies, and manifesto.
Self-published link used to source text about the party ideology, policies, and manifesto.
Self-published link used to source text about the party policies, and manifesto.

Liberal Humanist (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih and SpacemanSpiff: I checked the history of the Swarna Bharat Party article and came across the contributions of 2405:204:5407:54A4:350D:F010:CA02:7AD0. Looks to me like LH has jumped the gun and if that's the case, it demonstrates an alarming lack of clue, but it's nothing compared to this classic case of WP:NOTTHEM. I really don't think it would be to Wikipedia's advantage to unblock this user. Favonian (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, given the alarming lack of clue above, including the absurd defense of the spamming of their political party and this post, I don't think an unblock is in order now. —SpacemanSpiff 02:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gad. I came here from CAT:unblock to watch and learn. It seems to me that unblocking this user would be a mistake. They give lip service to owning mistakes, but I find that disingenuous. They are either nothere or it's a matter of CIR. Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #19580 was submitted on Oct 23, 2017 01:55:54. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

As per UTRS appeal #102273, I have reinstated talk page access so this user may make an unblock request here. This is not meant to imply I'm the blocking admin. --Yamla (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got blocked in 2017 for losing control of my passions and abusing two Wikipedians. I was impatient and thus arrogant in the lead up to it and in the subsequent request for unblocking. Also I violated Wikipedia policy repeatedly by not rewording quoted texts. I was at fault in all of these instances and I have no one to blame but myself.

8 years on, I am middle-aged, more mature, more patient, more responsible - not that my past behavior is excusable; it isn't. I will be extremely patient and remember Wikipedia's policy to reword quoted texts from now on. If this convinces you, then please unblock me and restore my previous user privileges (Rollback, etc).

I wish to return to contribute to Catholicism-related articles. I won't be very active due to real-life commitments. However I'll be free on weekends and can devote some of my spare time to improving Catholicism-related articles. Liberal Humanist (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]