User talk:Shaan Sengupta/Archive 2

2443:

community's trust. However, considering your desire to continue constructive editing, I have a suggestion for you: refrain from creating any new accounts in the future. Stop editing from this account today and preserve it for the future. After six months, submit a request for a standard offer. If it gets rejected, wait another six months before making another standard offer request. Continue this approach, as it is the last possible way for you to continue on Knowledge. I cannot guarantee that you will be accepted, but I believe that admins/checkusers may consider your offer, given your willingness to volunteer and commitment to not breaking the rules again. This is my last reply here. Happy not-editing. –

1892:

1341:

631:

start doing same to stop threads from being archived. Also by your actions it is quite possible that if the thread doesn't see any action again then you might post a comment like this in future to prevent further archiving. Till when can it go like this? Is this correct. I am not against keeping or archiving. I just want proper method to be followed. As for 30 days, we are not the right people to decide. I agree to ask an admin. Since you have pinged one I shall leave it to them. Let's listen to his point before moving forward.

2224:

created, I lost its password and created a new one and was blocked because of sockpuppetry and disruptive edits. This account stats must be satisfying to show that I no longer am disruptive. I have dealt with nearly all the issue that I had with the experience that I now carry. As you have seen that I have no sleepers, is there a way to get out of this early? Or will I be allowed to use this account after six months because I no longer have access to the previous ones.

1673:

1122:

31: 357:. But be sure to atleast serve two warnings before going there. As that platform is for behavioral issues and not content disputes. You need to show that you have tried engaging with them but they are not ready to collaborate. On a second thought you can actually go to ANI now also because they already have received so much disruption notice before. You might know all of this but this is what I can suggest right now. 833: 870: 670:

same thing multiple threads are needed. Previous threads were all sandwiched that's why new RfC was started which again is sandwiched. So previous ones with little to no activity can be archived so that fresh discussions can be held. It would be helpful for newbies also is backlog is clear. This will prevent their point of view to be influenced by others. Rest I too am willing to leave on the admin.

922: 146:

from senior editors) bcoz of my political ideology, so I prefer to just step back from those types. People notice my ideology on my userpage but never go through my contribution history which shows that I have always kept apart my edits and my ideology. Maybe the community (with my work) will someday understand this and be a little less harsh. Thanks again and Cheers!

2096: 1545: 994: 2350:

fresh start. I had access to JaggaDaaku till few months back (means after making this account). But I lost my mobile phone which had everything. And as mentioned above I am not very good at remembering passwords so right now I only have access to this account. If I gain access to my lost mobile then I may have access to JaggaDaaku which is very unlikely.

1799:

1248:

530: 2426:

I accept that I have made mistakes. But I was left with no choice. I waited after JD was blocked. I filed request for standard offer. But it was not accepted bcoz I didn't have access to my original account. That's why I made this one. I am once again willing to wait for 6 months, but its just that I

2196:

with zero edits, then apply for an unblock with the oldest account you still have access to. At that point, you'll need to convince us you understand your use of this account was blatantly inappropriate and deal with the issues that lead to your original block and subsequent unrelenting sockpuppetry.

1875:

1645:

1324:

1094:

2601:

page where a user is vandalising it consistently. I even warned them on their talk page but they won't listen. Elections happen in India after 5 years so 2029 is the next after 2024 but they are repeatedly mentioning 2028. The user goes by Manaal or something. If you can fix please. I am making this

2310:

Yes, I confirm I no longer have any access to those accounts. I only had the detail of my last account in my previous mobile which I no longer have. Also I am not so good at remembering passwords. When I make the request with the standard offer after 6 months I will be making with this account only.

2050:

1759:

1499:

1208:

742:

material while the RfC is ongoing. A lot of RFCBEFORE discussions starts on non-related talk pages actually, i.e. at the various Village Pumps, user talk pages, WikiProject talk pages, etc, before moving to the relevant talk pages for the actual RfC. These threads end up being archived even early in

145:

I thank you for your appreciation. I always look to work collaboratively with newbies and take guidance from seniors to engage well and make this project more better. I believe I could have made more contribution regarding these disruptions but its just that I am always under attack (sometimes even

2596:

Don't worry. You can run checks every day/week if you want. I am not making another account. I am just hoping that when I apply for standard offer after 6 months it is accepted and I am pardoned for my mistakes so that I can continue the good work that I have done until now. Since I am blocked and

2388:

I didn't use this account on other wikis as JaggaDaaku was established there. And had I used two accounts on same pages it would have been a clear violation for fresh start. Also it would have given the impression that single user is using two accounts to support himself which was again wrong. But

2045:

1837:

1494:

1286:

734:

I have not looked in depth the content of the two sections. But are there points from the earlier section that are not already in the RfC? If so, let it just archive itself. If not, you can also leave a note to the closer somewhere in the current conversation that there is an archived thread to be

669:

Look that discussion is inactive bcoz of a reason. It was filed bcoz someone thought someone is being disruptive. That thing ended and the thing which replaced it was the content which should be there of the page. And this is already being discussed in the RfC. So I don't think that to discuss the

2442:

As you mentioned, "I filed a request for a standard offer, but it was not accepted because I didn't have access to my original account. That's why I created this one." I want to advise that creating a new account despite the denial was not the right step; as a result, you have completely lost the

2427:

want to continue using this account, and for that I can accept all the ways that are acceptable to the community. You can lock all those previous accounts globally too if you think I might use them on other projects. Just accept my plea so that I can use the standard offer with this account only.

1891:

1876:

1340:

1325:

2349:

no. My last blocked account JaggaDaaku. I had access only to that after it was blocked. I filed UTRS from it after waiting for 6 months. There I was asked to request from my original account, whose access I didn't had. That's why after that request got turned down I made new (this) account for a

1798:

1247:

630:

I never forced its archival. I just did what should have been done naturally. You clearly mentioned that you were commenting only to prevent the discussion from getting automatically archived. This shouldn't be done by an experienced editor like you or me otherwise the new users or IPs will also

119:

I just wanted to thank you for putting together such a comprehensive SPI case. It turns out that the socking was more extensive than we thought and goes back further in time. This sockmaster doesn't seem to be able to stay away from editing on the project and since you edit in the area of Indian

2223:

I did the same the last time. I went with 0 edits no new accounts. But I was told to make a request with the original account. I no longer have access to any of my previous accounts. I only can preserve this account. My original account was banned for sockpuppetry only. The first account that I

1672:

1121:

654:

material to not suddenly be archived in the middle of an ongoing RfC, and I thought that leaving a comment would be the simplest method to accomplish that. I'm fine with the thread being archived after the RfC ends. But I will accept whatever the admin's opinion is.

2280:

Ok I will once again wait for 6 months. Just tell me one last thing, If I make the appeal after 6 months with this account, will it be considered or I will be asked to make request with original account. I have cleared that I no longer have access to any of those.

1729:

1178:

730:

If you are involved in a current conversation... Just let the bot do the work, lest others accuse you for trying to influence the discussion in one way or another, unless the thread to be archived is noncontroversial, i.e. a relatively inconsequential edit

2168:

the notice reads that multiple accounts is allowed but not for illegitimate reasons. I told you everything that was true still this is illegitimate? You said I am not eligible for a clean start. What do I need to do so that I can do editing on Knowledge.

1617:

1066:

300:

User Maphumor is continuously seen to contest in edit warring. He is imposing his orginal researches and probably is seemed to uplift or suppress particular political ideology. He is reverting sourced edits (or previously sourced). Please do something.

214:

The next period of protection will probably have to be a month and the one after that, I imagine, can go through to the election. If you like, feel free to ping me since I'm aware of the backstory (though I'd still probably register a request a RPPI).

743:

the RfC conversation. And either the participants have a list/index of relevant prior discussions in the current discussion, or the references to prior discussions in the current discussion would be a clue to look for them in the relevant archives.

2365:

You created this account in May 2023, but you edited as Jagga Daaku on other wikis until 15 August 2023. If you have good intentions, why did you edit from both accounts, and why didn't you disclose earlier that Jagga Daaku is your account? –

1814:

1263:

735:

taken into consideration. An experienced RfC closer may then look at that archived thread. (Personally, I prefer that the early conversation being archived as the page size of the talk page is getting heavier as the RfC rolls on.)

726:

with an appropriate explanation for other editors explaining the delay in archival). With this template, one can delay the archival in a more granular manner, i.e. instead of 30 days, you can set it to be archived in 2 or 3 weeks

761:

Okay, I can accept letting the discussions automatically archive themselves. There are points I've made in that thread that I haven't mentioned in the RfC, so I'll add a link to the thread in my !vote once it's archived.

2326:

You mentioned that you didn't have access to your old accounts, which is why you created this account after waiting for six months and never logged into other accounts after the creation of this one, correct? –

1775:

1224:

444:. I saw that and immediately requested to get'em blocked which they are. Their userpage is deleted which they copied completly from mine. I suspect that this might be in response to my recent involvements. 948:

and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

881: 449: 577:

material from being archived? In fact, I'd argue that forcing its archival is gaming the system. Frankly, 30 days is too short. But I'm happy to get an opinion from an admin, if you like.

853: 121: 892:

during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —

2404:

Sockpuppetry is a global policy that applies to all other Wikimedia projects. So, no matter if you were using two accounts on different wikis, it was still sockpuppetry. –

1853:

Sockpuppetry is a global policy that applies to all other Wikimedia projects. So, no matter if you were using two accounts on different wikis, it was still sockpuppetry. –

1302:

Sockpuppetry is a global policy that applies to all other Wikimedia projects. So, no matter if you were using two accounts on different wikis, it was still sockpuppetry. –

841: 441: 120:

politics, I hope you'll file updated cases if similar behavior regarding elections and small political parties reappears. I believe the SPI case will be merged to

2389:

after I lost access to JD I had no option but to use only this account on other wikis too. Since I was no longer using JD, I thought its ok to not announce that.

1838:

after I lost access to JD I had no option but to use only this account on other wikis too. Since I was no longer using JD, I thought its ok to not announce that.

1287:

after I lost access to JD I had no option but to use only this account on other wikis too. Since I was no longer using JD, I thought its ok to not announce that.

597: 460: 2462: 1911: 1360: 837: 463:

where I have been targeted frequently and have struck nearly all of the block evasion comments. Here the last set of socks were blocked by Ivanvector.

452:

where the last sock was blocked by Spicy. Now the reason to suspect this us bcoz I have been involved in getting 6-7 of their sock accounts blocked.

612:

thread that directly led to the ongoing RfC on that talk page. The archival period of the talk page is only 30 days. Was my comment reasonable?

467:

Can we run a CU to see if this was a try by anyone of these? Pinging other involved Admins/CU mostly with Bangladesh article IP evasions. @

431:

couldn't decide whose talk page should I go to so I chose mine. A strange thing happened moments ago. Someone tried to impersonate me with

2137: 1586: 1035: 230:

I would surely register a request at RfPPI, maybe can consider pinging you as you said you are aware of the backstory. Thank you again.

124:

so this might be where you need to go in the future. Thanks again for your time and effort to stop the disruption that was occurring.

59: 494:

Ohk. Meanwhile I was writing this, Spicy has already found that this was a try by the sock. My doubt was correct. Thank you so much.

2192:

you'll ever be unblocked. If you don't have access to your original account and can't recover the password, you need to go at least

1641:

you'll ever be unblocked. If you don't have access to your original account and can't recover the password, you need to go at least

1090:

you'll ever be unblocked. If you don't have access to your original account and can't recover the password, you need to go at least

564: