User talk:Cantab1985

Welcome!

Hello, Cantab1985! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

DSF[edit]

Hi - Well done spotting the article in the Jordan Times! According to this article the new DSF selected in March 2014 "was decorated for bravery after helping save five UK soldiers seized by drug-crazed rebels in the West African state of Sierra Leone in 2000." If you look at this list of decorations the two most likely candidates for DSF are Major James Chiswell and Major Phil Ashby; the rest are not senior enough. It cannot be Ashby because he has retired. So good spot! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, forgot to thank you for this long ago. Actually thanks to Colin aka Gulabin.Cantab1985 (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. 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/Jeneral28, 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. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defense[edit]

Honestly, there's not much you can do until the investigation has run its course. See the guide to responding to investigations for specifc advice, which is minimal. Once the investigation has been completed, the findings will be released, and if it is proven that you are a likely sock puppet account, then your account will be indefinitely blocked. Technically, it won't be deleted, but you'll be unable to use it again. If it can't be proven that your account is being used for sockpuppetry, nothing further will be done, and you will be free to edit again.

Here's my advice: If you are the same person who has used the two previous blocked accounts, it is best to admit it right now on the investigation page before it is proven. Then you might earn some leeway, most likely the Standard Offer. It's simple:

Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion.
Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.

To be honest, going around and reverting your previous edits may be seen as a violation of Number 3. You should stop that now, and perhaps stop editing until the investigation is completed.

Please realize that there is no guarantee that you will be given an opportunity to come back, even if you confess to sockpuppetry. People do not like being lied to, and the longer you pretend to be innocent if you know you are guilty, the worse it will be for you.

I realize that you have made some good contributions, but that does not excuse bad behavior.

I hope that helps. Please realize that I'm not assuming that you are guilty, but I've been lied to many times before in similar situations. In almost all cases, the person was guilty. I'm going to wait on the results if the investigation and see what is revealed. - BilCat (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice.Cantab1985 (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are guilty, Cantab1985, I would think that it is best to admit that on the SPI page. At least that will save the investigators time, and administrators might look on any unblock request more favourably as a result. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you taking into account all my edits, including those (not Jeneral28's) which are all constructive? Is that leniency?Cantab1985 (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your constructive edits into account would probably be done after a several-month block (at the least), assuming you admit guilt now. Sockpuppetry and block evasion are serious offenses, and the block time is part of showing us you understand the seriousness of the offenses. If you had no constructive edits at all, there would be almost no chance of your being allowed back. - BilCat (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 07:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So how can I gain support?Cantab1985 (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do not 'gain support.' If you truly are a sockpuppet, then you should declare it immediately. If you are not, then you present your counter-evidence in the SPI case. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 07:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the persons he contacted, I took it more that he was asking for advice on how to defend himself. I gave him the best advice I could, under the circumstances, and I've not participated on the investigation page to this point. - BilCat (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I saw it too. It's not as if editors "vote" on an SPI, so I'm not sure that canvassing is really an issue here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry and BilCat: I mean, to some editors he straight up said "please defend me". Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True. I'm trying to assume good faith, but Cantab1985 calling me arrogant isn't helping their case. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You and other editors such as Samtar and Bil (probably more, just they are the ones who I can see now) are assuming good faith, but it seems like Cantab is refusing to get the point. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption, when did I say that?Cantab1985 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, he did, but as Larry pointed out, there's no real ivote involved here. Remember, being accused of something and being "investigated" can be an overwhelming experience, especially if he's actually innocent. WP doesn't have a system of impartial advocates a la defense attorneys in real life, so sometimes a person can feel very helpless to stand up to "the system". So I'm trying to help him what I can, and to assume good faith until it's proven otherwise. - BilCat (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to refusing to get the point, I see that he wants to keep editing here, and is holding out hope he won't get a long-term block. My last response to him dealt specifically with that point. He has a choice to make as to whether or not he wants to be a productive member of the community, and abide by the rules. I've seen a lot of potentially good editors make the wrong choice, and even though they try to keep contributing by block evasion, they still get caught, and their edits are always reverted. - BilCat (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Funny story, that actually happened to me a few years ago. Turns out that I was actually innocent, so I'm all for assuming good faith. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 08:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So much talking about me. Wow never knew I was a "coffee shop" discussion. Never liked being a focus.Cantab1985 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

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. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock[edit]

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).

Cantab1985 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

All my edits are credible

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block, which is that you were found to be violating WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2016 (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.

Trying again[edit]

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).

Cantab1985 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not of my edits are vandalism or disruptive, several were liked and praised, have created new articles/entries such as MRV-P and MIV which were not created even though they were well-known. All articles such as UNDG and IDA were improved upon, not vandalised, not three-way edit conflicts at all. No one else bother to improve the quality and content of the article in my history. Blocking me means many articles remain stagnant and outdated despite new information relating to them. It is very selfish that you block me just because of old history.

Decline reason:

You have still not addressed the reason for the block, namely sock-puppetry. Favonian (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2016 (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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Cantab1985. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections 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.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK JEF page[edit]

Is here any update for this page post the inaugural exercises in 2019? 86.190.99.71 (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]