User talk:Gantlet - Knowledge

1584:

are not ideal. You said above "it's clear to me that it's not at all foolproof", and that is 100% true: there is no method on earth which will always tell us for certain whether edits were made by one person, by more than one person acting together, or by more than one person acting independently. Very often, the evidence is so clear that to all intents and purposes it is certain, but sometimes it is not so clear, and a judgement has to be made. Unfortunately it is in the nature of judgements that they will not always be right. Most Knowledge administrators are perfectly willing to accept that judgements on such issues as sockpuppetry are not infallible, and are willing to reconsider such judgements. However, if an administrator comes to review an unblock request, and sees an editor who angrily attacks other editors, accuses them of "incompetency", and so on, says that he or she does not respect other editors, and that he or she "laughs" at people who he or she thinks have made a mistake, then the administrator is likely to think it's just another one of those troublesome and uncooperative editors who will not or cannot edit collaboratively, and most probably he or she will choose to spend time on other work, such as reviewing an unblock request from someone who has made such a request in a more civil way. It is entirely possible that that is part of the reason why your request is still outstanding after quite a long time. You therefore may find it helpful to think carefully about how you express yourself in any future messages you post here. Also, several of the things you say indicate misunderstandings of how things work here. For example, you refer to "incompetency of the CheckUsers" because the editing history of your account is not similar to that of another account that has been suggested as a possible sockpuppet, but CheckUser data has nothing whatever to do with the nature of editing history: that is a completely separate issue. Again, in connection with the other account you used six years ago, you say "I guess as an admin, you have the power to check it", but administrators have no more power to check technical evidence than any other editors, and even CheckUsers can't check technical data from several years back, as the information is not kept for that long.

1516:

who claimed he knew how to stop death, but won't tell anyone, but insisted that his claims were true. I actually laugh at the incompetency of the CheckUsers because when I check the edit history of my so called sock puppet Rajeshbee, I mostly see Tamil films which I haven't even heard of. I just wanted to make some useful contributions & it's not like I'm getting paid or anything. If you wanna help a fellow contributor, the you can do so, or else I'll just be another guy who is gonna tell everyone about the incompetency of Knowledge admins & how poorly they handle users

698:, I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that I have a sock puppet. I created a duplicate account way back in 2010, when I didn't even know what a sock puppet was & creating multiple accounts is wrong. I was temporarily blocked for about 30 days & my duplicate account was deleted. Since then I haven't created any duplicate account & I've been editing articles usefully & responsibly since then. This is such a poor decision from admins. When I checked the log the sock puppet you found which was mine was 1637:

concerns have been expressed: there is also the question of promotional editing. (3) Even if it can be established beyond all reasonable doubt that you are not the same person as another account mentioned in the sockpuppet investigations, that will not close the issue, both because there are other accounts that have been mentioned and because different people acting in collaboration can under some circumstances fall under the sockpuppet policy: see

1712: 1430: 1276: 1080: 877: 718: 804:

sock puppet was & creating multiple accounts is wrong. I was temporarily blocked for about 30 days & my duplicate account was deleted. Since then I haven't created any duplicate account & I've been editing articles usefully & responsibly since then. This is such a poor decision from admins. When I checked the log the sock puppet you found which was mine was

457: 602: 279: 212: 179:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1175:

learned about the rules & regulations & I've been contributing responsibly ever since however small the contributions were. It's almost clear that you have no intention in removing my block since you seem to be adamant in your so called findings. Please advice is their any higher authority I can contact regarding this.

1636:

The offer I made still stands for the present, under the same conditions. However, there are three other points to mention. (1) Another fact has come to my attention since I wrote my message above. That fact makes me a little more doubtful than I was. (2) Sockpuppetry is not the only issue over which

1621:

which you guys told was my sock puppet is no longer blocked and is available now. I don't know whether it's because he succesfully appealed against the block or due to some other procedure, however, I can see that the account is active now. So it's clear that I'm not his sock puppet or vice versa, so

1579:

It looks to me as though you may well be telling the truth, and so I am willing to consider unblocking you. However, I need further information to help decide how to proceed. It will help if you can answer the following questions. (1) Are you paid for editing? (2) Has any of your editing been done in

1197:

Since in almost a week you have not answered the message I posted below, I am disabling this unblock request to prevent numerous administrators spending time coming here to check it, only to see that it is awaiting a response from you. If yo post another unblock request, I recommend responding to the

300:

is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us

1365:

was not my sockpuppet, then it must be the user with which I had the edit war I mentioned earlier. I assumed that it was my sock puppet since I saw that name on my Revision history. This was 6 years back & I don't even remember the name of the temporary account I created for an edit war. I guess

962:

May I know what technical reasons do you have? You just say there are technical reasons, but doesn't say what they are. I've checked the log of the user Rajeshbee which you claim is my sockpuppet & I've found not a single page common to me & that user which we've edited. I don't know whether

404:

I've reverted your changes because statements such as 'greatest ever' don't need to be cited unless it is covered properly in the body of the article. In this case it isn't. Your choice of sources is questionable; goal.com is not a reliable source, certainly not for an article at FA standard. Should

1583:

A few words of advice on how to maximise the likelihood that administrators will consider your request favourably. Knowledge administrators are volunteers, most of whom make a good-faith attempt to do the best job they can. Administrators have to make the best judgement possible in situations which

1515:

Look. Either you tell me how exactly I can convince you guys or what you actually mean by a convincing reply. I don't know how to convince you guys that I don't have any sock puppet when you yourself are adamant that I have & when I ask for proof you won't show me. I remember the story of a man

1675:

is unblocked and active, so that means you were confirmed we weren't related in anyway, right? Moreover if you check his edit history to mine, you can't find even a single common page which we've edited. So clearly, our interests are entirely different. Infact, most of the articles he's edited are

1043:

user right, some of Knowledge's most trusted editors. It will not be published. On the one hand there are privacy issues, on the other it would be a bad idea to tell you how to more easily evade our scrutiny. Besides, you're saying here that "I created a duplicate account way back in 2010, when I

803:

I haven't got any response for my unblock request so doing it again. Hope I'm doin'g it right. I was blocked saying that I'm a sock puppet. I would like to know how you came to the conclusion that I have a sock puppet. I created a duplicate account way back in 2010, when I didn't even know what a

1174:

was created way back in 2010 when I was new to Knowledge. I created it as I was involved in an edit war with another user. Don't remember the name. It was the time when I didn't even knew what a sock puppet was or what an edit war was. I was blocked temporarily at that time & that was when I

808:& the created articles by him are mostly Tamil film articles. I'm from a place called Kerala & my language is Malayalam & I don't even know Tamil, except understanding a few words. I would relly like you guyz to remove the block so that I could continue with my small contributions. 702:& the created articles by him are mostly Tamil film articles. I'm from a place called Kerala & my language is Malayalam & I don't even know Tamil, except understanding a few words. I would relly like you guyz to remove the block so that I could continue with my small contributions. 1366:

as an admin, you have the power to check it. And I no longer respect the so called respected editors anymore as they've made the biggest blunder in considering my user as a sockpuppet of some other person. Again, please tell me how I'm supposed to dispute against it with a higher authority.

567:

When you update statistics please remember that you should also update the timestamps as of when the stats are correct. This is done by manually updating the date above or below the statistics table. By doing this we show when the stats were last updated and it prevents other editors from

1258:

contains quite a few entries, but Dewatchdog is not among them. So either you lied back then, or you're lying now, but you cannot have been consistently truthful. I'm left to either believe the CheckUsers (as I mentioned among the most respected editors on Knowledge), or a proven liar.

1670:

Okay. If you're talking about the points mentioned on top, let me clear those. (1) I'm not paid for editing and (2) No. I don't collaborate with anyone for editing. I've been on Knowledge since 2006 and all my edits have been from my own level of knowledge and understanding. And if

1724:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

1169:

not Rajeshbee. If you check me records properly you will know that. You don't need to tell about how to evade your scrutiny, rather from this block itself it's clear to me that it's not at all foolproof. As I told you earlier the sock puppet

963:

that user has made an unblock request, but I really would like to clear this because this shows the incompetency of Knowledge & it's admins in effectively handling users and makes responsible editors like myself lose faith in it

1641:. If you really are innocent of all charges then I can well imagine how frustrating this whole thing must be, but you are very unlikely to be unblocked unless you comment on the issues you have been asked about. 525:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 1752: 109:

Greatness! I think you are doing a great job on wikipedia so far, but I think you can cool off some on this subject because I put in the word Arguably to preface the greatest ever, which makes it neutral!

1736:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 1044:

didn't even know what a sock puppet was & creating multiple accounts is wrong. I was temporarily blocked for about 30 days & my duplicate account was deleted." - I assume that refers to

472:

or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Knowledge, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the

1580:

collaboration with any one else, either other Knowledge editor or anyone who does not edit but coordinates or organises editing, or who advises on editing or in any other way makes an input?

465: 172: 994: 473: 341:

You wrote (cur | prev) 20:24, 23 January 2015‎ Gantlet (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,543 bytes) (-136)‎ . . (Unncecessary. Already gave the review from NDTV) (undo | thank)

358:

This is Knowledge English site(en.wikipedia.org). Please refrain from using citations from other languages in future. This is strictly against the community guidelines.

834:, and the technical evidence connecting you and Rajeshbieee was evaluated as "a mix between possible and likely". I think you'll have some more explaining to do. 136:

I was just wanting to give you and opportunity to weight into the conversation about the validity of these start boxes, which here's the link in order to do so

1063:

was rather full of obvious falsehoods, I currently see no reason to consider yourself a credible source about your relation, or lack thereof, to Rajeshbieee.

1571:

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.

1421:

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.

1238:

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.

1031:

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.

868:

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.

625: 1676:

ones I have zero knowledge for. So I'm rather surprised how you came to the conclusion that we're sock puppets. Any other questions I need to answer?

1255: 476:

which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use

236: 432:

says we shouldn't sandwich text between two images. Generally, image subjects should be discussed within the article too. Please consider reading

176: 1388:

The unblock template is not intended to be used for back-and-forth comminication. Declining this request (reply?) as the other is still open.

1766: 1470: 1316: 1120: 917: 758: 550: 1556: 1406: 1223: 1016: 853: 651: 244: 326: 180: 137: 1617:

I took a break from editing out of mere frustration since my account was erroneously blocked. I just found out that the account

1762: 546: 378: 1465: 1311: 1115: 912: 753: 461: 255: 48: 26: 1745: 43: 537:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

1757: 647: 542: 1442: