User talk:Credauth

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Solidarity Day

The reason for the reverting of your addition to the Kashmir Solidarity Day article was included in the edit summary. It was done on the basis of a Wikipedia policy called WP:NOTNEWS. This basically says that Wikipedia isn't a news website and events should only be added to articles if they have lasting significance. In this case, you and the editor who reverted the addition have different views about whether the event you added has sufficient significance. This is called a content dispute and to resolve this you need to either discuss the matter between yourselves to see if you can come to an agreement, or (as I see you have done), open a discussion on the article's Talk page to let other interested editors express their opinions and see if a consensus can be reached.

One other thing - when editing Wikipedia you should always assume good faith amongst other editors. Just because someone disagrees with an edit you made, they aren't necessarily biased and shouldn't be accused of this on the talk page. If we all assume good faith and discuss things politely between ourselves, there's a better chance of reaching an agreement. Neiltonks (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neiltonks,

I was curious on the part that can some senior member delete my contribution without discussing on talk page ? or is it mandatory to discuss on talk page, get consensus and then do the appropriate change ? Should we enable Page Protection so that only approved changes should be visible?

Regards CA Credauth (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor can amend or revert any change that's made to a Wikipedia article. However to avoid edit wars (where editors repeatedly remove and re-add the same material to an article), you should generally engage in discussion when content you add is removed, rather than just re-inserting it. Continued edit warring is disruptive and those who're involved can have their editing privileges withdrawn by an administrator. Neiltonks (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Liborbital, 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.

Saqib (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib bro, i am totally clueless as to why you would raise a false sock request for assisting you. I don't blame you but due to this confusion, one admin Berean_Hunter has blocked me for some unknown reason. please explain to him that the content i added was of value and has been added as part of an article.

Dear Berean_Hunter, i think there is some confusion. you have mistakenly linked me with some one else. I request you to please check again as i don't even know the account you have associated me with.

@Saqib: @Berean Hunter:

when in doubt, i ask (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Please look into logs again. I don't have any other account. when in doubt, i ask (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's a wide CU block, but in conjunction with the interactions with User:Saqib, sockpuppetry seems pretty likely. Yunshui ^雲 _水 00:13, 9 February 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello Admin, I have just recently visited saqib and only had one interaction with him over Jehan Ara. My said contribution were also accepted by him under the heading of 'Accomplishment'. If saqib would have said no to collaborate with him over this draft, i would have never collaborated. In fact, i can vouch now that i am never going to contribute to his article without consulting with him over his talk page. In relation to wide CU block, i have no clue regarding those users. if you require any input like my IPs, Browser, or any other details, i am ready to share it. I would highly appreciate your action in this regards. when in doubt, i ask (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC) :: Here are some details regarding my Internet Package. I am using a district wide cable net (around 10,000 users). This cable net is using ISP (www.connect.net.pk). Connect.net.pk access the IP pools of CNISP (http://www.cnispgroup.com/) located in China. This is why my ip2location always shows that i am accessing from China. It is also possible that other user alleged to be linked with me may also be utilizing IP Pool of CNISP group through their ISP. let me know if you any further details required to acquit me. :: when in doubt, i ask (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC) :::: I have further looked into alleged related accounts. ::::: 1. Liborbital ::::: 2. GringisMan :::: Both accounts' contributions are majorly on American, UK and European personalities, policies and culture where as my contribution are on totally different subjects (Pakistan, Pakistan-India relations). :::: I am still curious to find as to why i am being considered as "likely sockpuppet" ? If its IP, i have given my cable/ ISP / IP pool details specifying that its composed of hundreds of thousands of users. If its meta related info, i would like to see more details as i am pretty sure that nobody uses this old laptop / OS that i use. If its related to behavioral, i have mentioned above that our writing style, topics of interest are entirely different. :::: I would appreciate if admin would look into this and acquit me from this allegation. when in doubt, i ask (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. O Still Small Voice of Clam 18:16, 20 March 2019 (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.

@331dot: I haven't received any reply from admin since last 7 days. I would humbly request you to please look in to this. Let me know for any queries to prove my acquittal in this allegation. thanks when in doubt, i ask (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot review this as it is a checkuser block, only a checkuser can review it. They are very limited in number, and volunteers, so you will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:, please look into this and guide me as to why i am being considered as "likely sockpuppet". thanks when in doubt, i ask (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

including @DoRD: | @DeltaQuad: when in doubt, i ask (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

including @NinjaRobotPirate:. i know checkusers are busy, however, i would like to request to please look into this request. Its been 8 days and no response from CU. Your expedited response will be highly appreciated. when in doubt, i ask (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ping random admins. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance Required

Hello @Neiltonks: / @DeltaQuad: / @Kautilya3:,

I require your assistance in sorting out a critical issue. I have recently been blocked for sockpuppetry which i have never committed.

Please assist me as to how do i prove and reach out to senior members to look into this?

Secondly, user @DBigXray: has undid all my contribution which i did in collaboration with senior members. I would request you guys to please look into this.

Thanks

when in doubt, i ask (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Unblock request. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a checkuser block(that only a checkuser can review); meaning that there is technical evidence that these accounts are related. If this is your only account, you will need to explain the other accounts and why they appear to be related when they are not. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kautilya3 and 331dot,

I have checked the contributions of Mike Foxtrot Bravo. This person has done only one edit to an wiki article which i have never even visited till now.

I have also checked the 'Interaction Timeline Report' and 'User Compare Report'. I couldn't see any similarity. Rest of the options were restricted so couldn't check them.

Please suggest the way forward.

when in doubt, i ask (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the main account involved; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liborbital. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks 331dot... i just checked the main account Liborbital. It was closed last year. There is no common page edits among us plus there is nothing in 'Interaction Timeline'. when in doubt, i ask (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser will come along to review your request. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GAB, please guide me when in doubt, i ask (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CU (AGK , BU, Alison, DoRD), i have no link with any other account. It is to request to please re-run CU. Thanks when in doubt, i ask (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 331dot / GAB, My earlier request for unblock has been denied. i think i have been a victim of collateral damage. Any suggestion on way forward? when in doubt, i ask (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]