Loveall.human (talk | contribs) Need behavioral evidence burden Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
Loveall.human (talk | contribs) Updated with evidences Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks|indefinitely]]''' from editing for [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|abusing multiple accounts]] as a sockpuppet of [[User:Speaktruth29]] per the evidence presented at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Speaktruth29]]. Note that multiple accounts are [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses|allowed]], but '''not for ''[[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts|illegitimate]]'' reasons''', and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5|may be reverted or deleted]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 07:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-sockblock --> |
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks|indefinitely]]''' from editing for [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|abusing multiple accounts]] as a sockpuppet of [[User:Speaktruth29]] per the evidence presented at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Speaktruth29]]. Note that multiple accounts are [[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses|allowed]], but '''not for ''[[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts|illegitimate]]'' reasons''', and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5|may be reverted or deleted]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 07:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-sockblock --> |
||
'''Bold''' |
'''Bold''' |
||
{{unblock|reason={{ping|Callanecc}} |
|||
{{unblock|reason=As a part-time human rights loving wiki beginner level editor rare user, the marking of minor addition as major was mistakes as a beginner in the past which was apologized for not being aware as evident from the publicly available record and was ensuring that was not done in future (for the minimal edits that I do once in every few weeks or month in holidays). The strongly cited good faith edits being made to the Hindutva extremist profiles 'only' are bunched along together with some other stranger user edits (again the edits made by them are to some other Hindutva extremist profiles) are shown as sock-puppet (the term which took a while to understand). This account is not related to any other use accounts reported in the complaint (the edits by those user accounts aren't even on common page edits wonder how to even bunch it together). With journalists frequently being shot and lynched in streets under extremism, the human-right voices literally are risking their lives and their generations to contribute fairly under apartheid laws. With your technical expertise and experience would request you to review carefully or at least consider the kind of selective edits being highlighted in such complaints as not many have the minimum academic opportunity to voice out. Assuming it was a co-incidental misunderstanding by the one who highlighted, why that person immediately removed the entire sections of extremist profile wikipages [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tejasvi_Surya&type=revision&diff=988118629&oldid=987959055| like here]] without discussions to depict like a fanboy profile of the ruling regime who was globally condemned frequently for [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tejasvi_Surya&diff=983504920&oldid=983478203&diffmode=visual#Controversies| serious racist hate speech and misogynistic statements]]? Thanks. [[User:Loveall.human|Loveall.human]] ([[User talk:Loveall.human#top|talk]]) 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)}} |
|||
Account made no edits from mid-February and was reactivated only by 31 August.[4] - '''Almost 'profiling' here, as a human rights 'volunteer' am not committed here to edit Wiki every single day despite travel and vacations.''' |
|||
Similar obsession with adding "controversy" sections on articles,[5][6] - '''Adding 'controversy' title is given for the historically condemned event for open support of genocidal projects. Again, to note here is the complaint is wrongly linking to a different wiki page edit of a different time to a 'different person' as mine. Among million plus users, is usage of English word 'controversy' for title makes two users among millions as related?''' |
|||
and updating the section that he created on [[Sudarshan News]] which he created with his earlier sock.[7][8] '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 05:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) - '''This is the only wiki page in common that coincidentally in common. I have no idea about the previous user who edited it and technically you might figure out that this is a casual co-incidence.''' |
|||
His eagerness to add controversial content on BLPs then edit warring by solely relying on edit summaries,[9][10] - '''Adding historical events in right wing profiles only is termed here as 'eagerness to add controversial content'. As a beginner was undoing the section removal vandalism which is pointed here as 'edit warring'. Again, notice here, the second edit is wrongly associated with a 'different' account to a 'different' wiki page.''' |
|||
and marking of major addition of controversial content as "minor" while claiming his edits to be based on "facts" just indicates these all accounts belong to same socking master.[11][12] - '''Its true, due to difference in perspective of what is minor I had in the beginning was selecting minor which was corrected later from mentoring as you notice in my talk page. But again, here the complaint here has it bunched along with a different wiki page edit by a different user account.''' |
|||
'''In summary, I have only one account, my edits are wrongly linked with some other user accounts and insultingly accused as sock puppet. Most links in the complaint are not even common pages or time, genuine wiki beginner behaviors like 'minor' edits and undoing edits are shown as 'behavioral' evidence, with this loophole approach not sure how many user accounts would fit this narrative to be blocked indefinitely merely based on guilt by association. Even actual courts provide time during investigation before concluding, here extreme action taken even before listening for a guilt by association complaint. Please review again this case with the responsible privilege provided and also please ensure in future this approach is not misused to stifle user accounts (especially who risk their generations under apartheid to report systematic genocides) without strong evidences and hearing both sides.''' |
|||
Thanks. [[User:Loveall.human|Loveall.human]] ([[User talk:Loveall.human#top|talk]]) 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)}} |
|||
:Loveall.human, you were blocked because it was believed that the [[Special:Contributions/Loveall.human|Loveall.human]] account was being operated by same person who operated the following accounts: (1) [[Special:Contributions/Speaktruth29|Speaktruth29]], (2) [[Special:Contributions/Truth4Upeople|Truth4Upeople]] (3) [[Special:Contributions/RajeshRameshSuresh|RajeshRameshSuresh]], (4) [[Special:Contributions/CrackFakeNews|CrackFakeNews]], (5) [[Special:Contributions/WikiIndia1312|WikiIndia1312]]. |
:Loveall.human, you were blocked because it was believed that the [[Special:Contributions/Loveall.human|Loveall.human]] account was being operated by same person who operated the following accounts: (1) [[Special:Contributions/Speaktruth29|Speaktruth29]], (2) [[Special:Contributions/Truth4Upeople|Truth4Upeople]] (3) [[Special:Contributions/RajeshRameshSuresh|RajeshRameshSuresh]], (4) [[Special:Contributions/CrackFakeNews|CrackFakeNews]], (5) [[Special:Contributions/WikiIndia1312|WikiIndia1312]]. |
||
Line 68: | Line 80: | ||
:::::<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 14:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC) |
:::::<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 14:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::Thank you {{ping|Toddy1}}. Oh, I was not aware of checkuser tool, I take back the attack on that user in that case (you can check the record, I have no history of attacking any user before except now for my account being insinuated for this sock puppet infinite block issue). I am not related to any of those accounts or any sock puppet (which is an insulting attack on me). With a millions of users on earth the possibility two minds having similar political views or editing a wiki page is possible but how to prove one is not a sock puppet by behavior is now the challenge. In the initial days when edited I was not clear about the minor to major difference, so added as minor change. But once mentored, I stopped it, now that past beginner edits are shown as behavioral evidence :(. [[User:Loveall.human|Loveall.human]] ([[User talk:Loveall.human#top|talk]]) 16:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC) |
::::::Thank you {{ping|Toddy1}}. Oh, I was not aware of checkuser tool, I take back the attack on that user in that case (you can check the record, I have no history of attacking any user before except now for my account being insinuated for this sock puppet infinite block issue). I am not related to any of those accounts or any sock puppet (which is an insulting attack on me). With a millions of users on earth the possibility two minds having similar political views or editing a wiki page is possible but how to prove one is not a sock puppet by behavior is now the challenge. In the initial days when edited I was not clear about the minor to major difference, so added as minor change. But once mentored, I stopped it, now that past beginner edits are shown as behavioral evidence :(. [[User:Loveall.human|Loveall.human]] ([[User talk:Loveall.human#top|talk]]) 16:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Hi {{ping|Toddy1}}, it takes a while to learn the system here. I respect the mentoring and guidance when done a mistake by us noobs (especially when it is not intentional) to correct. Have updated the unblock request, hope its useful. So many hours gone because of one guilt by association complaint, hope this will be a good learning. |
Revision as of 06:02, 13 December 2020
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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
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 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) 18:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
Hello! Loveall.human,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! — Newslinger talk 09:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Oct 2020
Please read wp:brd and wp:ONUS, if you are undone, you are the one who is meant to make a case for why your edits should stand. There were a number of issues with your recent additions, to many to list in an edit summery.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Slatersteven:, The added massacres and riots are well documented, historic incidents related to the topic. Every single riot that took in Germany during Holocaust gives a lesson to humanity to prevent such in future. I agree that if its overwhelming there can also be a new wiki page for a list for minor incidents from here on. The ones currently added are the significant ones. May I know which one is 'alleged' that justified to removed many well researched sections of massacres and lynch deaths?Loveall.human (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Make a case at the article talk page, so others can chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Okay bruv @Slatersteven:. Meanwhile will restore the content so far available (which are well researched). If any specific incident doesn't meet the scholarly verifiable standard feel free to highlight/modify/remove it. Thanks.Loveall.human (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, read wp:brd you do not restore, you leave until you get consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- If people keep reverting your additions, then restoring is edit-warring.
- No, read wp:brd you do not restore, you leave until you get consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Okay bruv @Slatersteven:. Meanwhile will restore the content so far available (which are well researched). If any specific incident doesn't meet the scholarly verifiable standard feel free to highlight/modify/remove it. Thanks.Loveall.human (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Make a case at the article talk page, so others can chip in.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
- Try putting the addition on the article talk page, and then explain why you think it should be in the article, and why you think the objections (if you understand what they are) are mistaken. Try to be brief but not cryptic. So when you write something, see if there are redundant words or sentences. Also ask yourself, would someone who has just seen this issue, know what I am talking about.
- Sometimes what seems unimportant to you, seems important to others (or vice versa). They have a different perspective (or different knowledge).-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you @Toddy1:. Noted. Loveall.human (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Sometimes what seems unimportant to you, seems important to others (or vice versa). They have a different perspective (or different knowledge).-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Bold
Loveall.human (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Account made no edits from mid-February and was reactivated only by 31 August.[4] - Almost 'profiling' here, as a human rights 'volunteer' am not committed here to edit Wiki every single day despite travel and vacations.
Similar obsession with adding "controversy" sections on articles,[5][6] - Adding 'controversy' title is given for the historically condemned event for open support of genocidal projects. Again, to note here is the complaint is wrongly linking to a different wiki page edit of a different time to a 'different person' as mine. Among million plus users, is usage of English word 'controversy' for title makes two users among millions as related?
and updating the section that he created on Sudarshan News which he created with his earlier sock.[7][8] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) - This is the only wiki page in common that coincidentally in common. I have no idea about the previous user who edited it and technically you might figure out that this is a casual co-incidence.
His eagerness to add controversial content on BLPs then edit warring by solely relying on edit summaries,[9][10] - Adding historical events in right wing profiles only is termed here as 'eagerness to add controversial content'. As a beginner was undoing the section removal vandalism which is pointed here as 'edit warring'. Again, notice here, the second edit is wrongly associated with a 'different' account to a 'different' wiki page.
and marking of major addition of controversial content as "minor" while claiming his edits to be based on "facts" just indicates these all accounts belong to same socking master.[11][12] - Its true, due to difference in perspective of what is minor I had in the beginning was selecting minor which was corrected later from mentoring as you notice in my talk page. But again, here the complaint here has it bunched along with a different wiki page edit by a different user account.
In summary, I have only one account, my edits are wrongly linked with some other user accounts and insultingly accused as sock puppet. Most links in the complaint are not even common pages or time, genuine wiki beginner behaviors like 'minor' edits and undoing edits are shown as 'behavioral' evidence, with this loophole approach not sure how many user accounts would fit this narrative to be blocked indefinitely merely based on guilt by association. Even actual courts provide time during investigation before concluding, here extreme action taken even before listening for a guilt by association complaint. Please review again this case with the responsible privilege provided and also please ensure in future this approach is not misused to stifle user accounts (especially who risk their generations under apartheid to report systematic genocides) without strong evidences and hearing both sides.
Thanks. Loveall.human (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=<span class="template-ping">@[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]:</span> Account made no edits from mid-February and was reactivated only by 31 August.[4] - '''Almost 'profiling' here, as a human rights 'volunteer' am not committed here to edit Wiki every single day despite travel and vacations.''' Similar obsession with adding "controversy" sections on articles,[5][6] - '''Adding 'controversy' title is given for the historically condemned event for open support of genocidal projects. Again, to note here is the complaint is wrongly linking to a different wiki page edit of a different time to a 'different person' as mine. Among million plus users, is usage of English word 'controversy' for title makes two users among millions as related?''' and updating the section that he created on [[Sudarshan News]] which he created with his earlier sock.[7][8] '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 05:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) - '''This is the only wiki page in common that coincidentally in common. I have no idea about the previous user who edited it and technically you might figure out that this is a casual co-incidence.''' His eagerness to add controversial content on BLPs then edit warring by solely relying on edit summaries,[9][10] - '''Adding historical events in right wing profiles only is termed here as 'eagerness to add controversial content'. As a beginner was undoing the section removal vandalism which is pointed here as 'edit warring'. Again, notice here, the second edit is wrongly associated with a 'different' account to a 'different' wiki page.''' and marking of major addition of controversial content as "minor" while claiming his edits to be based on "facts" just indicates these all accounts belong to same socking master.[11][12] - '''Its true, due to difference in perspective of what is minor I had in the beginning was selecting minor which was corrected later from mentoring as you notice in my talk page. But again, here the complaint here has it bunched along with a different wiki page edit by a different user account.''' '''In summary, I have only one account, my edits are wrongly linked with some other user accounts and insultingly accused as sock puppet. Most links in the complaint are not even common pages or time, genuine wiki beginner behaviors like 'minor' edits and undoing edits are shown as 'behavioral' evidence, with this loophole approach not sure how many user accounts would fit this narrative to be blocked indefinitely merely based on guilt by association. Even actual courts provide time during investigation before concluding, here extreme action taken even before listening for a guilt by association complaint. Please review again this case with the responsible privilege provided and also please ensure in future this approach is not misused to stifle user accounts (especially who risk their generations under apartheid to report systematic genocides) without strong evidences and hearing both sides.''' Thanks. [[User:Loveall.human|Loveall.human]] ([[User talk:Loveall.human#top|talk]]) 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=<span class="template-ping">@[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]:</span> Account made no edits from mid-February and was reactivated only by 31 August.[4] - '''Almost 'profiling' here, as a human rights 'volunteer' am not committed here to edit Wiki every single day despite travel and vacations.''' Similar obsession with adding "controversy" sections on articles,[5][6] - '''Adding 'controversy' title is given for the historically condemned event for open support of genocidal projects. Again, to note here is the complaint is wrongly linking to a different wiki page edit of a different time to a 'different person' as mine. Among million plus users, is usage of English word 'controversy' for title makes two users among millions as related?''' and updating the section that he created on [[Sudarshan News]] which he created with his earlier sock.[7][8] '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 05:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) - '''This is the only wiki page in common that coincidentally in common. I have no idea about the previous user who edited it and technically you might figure out that this is a casual co-incidence.''' His eagerness to add controversial content on BLPs then edit warring by solely relying on edit summaries,[9][10] - '''Adding historical events in right wing profiles only is termed here as 'eagerness to add controversial content'. As a beginner was undoing the section removal vandalism which is pointed here as 'edit warring'. Again, notice here, the second edit is wrongly associated with a 'different' account to a 'different' wiki page.''' and marking of major addition of controversial content as "minor" while claiming his edits to be based on "facts" just indicates these all accounts belong to same socking master.[11][12] - '''Its true, due to difference in perspective of what is minor I had in the beginning was selecting minor which was corrected later from mentoring as you notice in my talk page. But again, here the complaint here has it bunched along with a different wiki page edit by a different user account.''' '''In summary, I have only one account, my edits are wrongly linked with some other user accounts and insultingly accused as sock puppet. Most links in the complaint are not even common pages or time, genuine wiki beginner behaviors like 'minor' edits and undoing edits are shown as 'behavioral' evidence, with this loophole approach not sure how many user accounts would fit this narrative to be blocked indefinitely merely based on guilt by association. Even actual courts provide time during investigation before concluding, here extreme action taken even before listening for a guilt by association complaint. Please review again this case with the responsible privilege provided and also please ensure in future this approach is not misused to stifle user accounts (especially who risk their generations under apartheid to report systematic genocides) without strong evidences and hearing both sides.''' Thanks. [[User:Loveall.human|Loveall.human]] ([[User talk:Loveall.human#top|talk]]) 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=<span class="template-ping">@[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]:</span> Account made no edits from mid-February and was reactivated only by 31 August.[4] - '''Almost 'profiling' here, as a human rights 'volunteer' am not committed here to edit Wiki every single day despite travel and vacations.''' Similar obsession with adding "controversy" sections on articles,[5][6] - '''Adding 'controversy' title is given for the historically condemned event for open support of genocidal projects. Again, to note here is the complaint is wrongly linking to a different wiki page edit of a different time to a 'different person' as mine. Among million plus users, is usage of English word 'controversy' for title makes two users among millions as related?''' and updating the section that he created on [[Sudarshan News]] which he created with his earlier sock.[7][8] '''[[User:Aman.kumar.goel|Aman Kumar Goel]]''' <sup>(''[[User talk:Aman.kumar.goel|Talk]]'')</sup> 05:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC) - '''This is the only wiki page in common that coincidentally in common. I have no idea about the previous user who edited it and technically you might figure out that this is a casual co-incidence.''' His eagerness to add controversial content on BLPs then edit warring by solely relying on edit summaries,[9][10] - '''Adding historical events in right wing profiles only is termed here as 'eagerness to add controversial content'. As a beginner was undoing the section removal vandalism which is pointed here as 'edit warring'. Again, notice here, the second edit is wrongly associated with a 'different' account to a 'different' wiki page.''' and marking of major addition of controversial content as "minor" while claiming his edits to be based on "facts" just indicates these all accounts belong to same socking master.[11][12] - '''Its true, due to difference in perspective of what is minor I had in the beginning was selecting minor which was corrected later from mentoring as you notice in my talk page. But again, here the complaint here has it bunched along with a different wiki page edit by a different user account.''' '''In summary, I have only one account, my edits are wrongly linked with some other user accounts and insultingly accused as sock puppet. Most links in the complaint are not even common pages or time, genuine wiki beginner behaviors like 'minor' edits and undoing edits are shown as 'behavioral' evidence, with this loophole approach not sure how many user accounts would fit this narrative to be blocked indefinitely merely based on guilt by association. Even actual courts provide time during investigation before concluding, here extreme action taken even before listening for a guilt by association complaint. Please review again this case with the responsible privilege provided and also please ensure in future this approach is not misused to stifle user accounts (especially who risk their generations under apartheid to report systematic genocides) without strong evidences and hearing both sides.''' Thanks. [[User:Loveall.human|Loveall.human]] ([[User talk:Loveall.human#top|talk]]) 07:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- Loveall.human, you were blocked because it was believed that the Loveall.human account was being operated by same person who operated the following accounts: (1) Speaktruth29, (2) Truth4Upeople (3) RajeshRameshSuresh, (4) CrackFakeNews, (5) WikiIndia1312.
- Is your account being operated by the same person who operated accounts (1) to (5)?
- If the answer is no, you need to explain behavioural evidence mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation for Speaktruth29.
- If the answer is yes, then you need to make your appeal for an unblock at User talk:Speaktruth29
- -- Toddy1 (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks @Toddy1:!. The answer is no, no idea about the other accounts. The challenge now is behavioral evidence information, not sure how to sit through and prove (I need to check about it when free). Accusing is easy, proving its not related seems hard. Wiki itself seems quite challenging to learn and use in leisure to contribute, let alone sifting through infinite blocking with few edits :| Loveall.human (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Can I suggest that you withdraw your unblock request. The reasons you gave, are the reasons that matter to you, but are not relevant to the case. Read WP:Guide to appealing blocks. Then, when you are ready submit an unblock request that focusses on the sockpuppet allegation.
- Part of the evidence against you in the sockpuppet investigation was that both you and accounts (1) to (5) misused the minor edits checkbox. You need to explain why you did this up to 8 October, and that you stopped after you were warned about it.
- Look at edit summaries and compare your behaviour with those of accounts (1) to (5).
- Look at the types of edit you made and compare your behaviour with those of accounts (1) to (5).
- Be completely honest, even when it makes you look bad.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you @Toddy1: will read more technical material on how to do all this stuff in free time. Honestly, this is soo complex and demotivating in the minimal free time in life. Just noticed that the one who complained has history of pro ruling party's right wing edit activities, and he has just bunched a set of different accounts that is in conflict with his view as 'Sockpuppet' in the complaint and just like that wham an indefinite block! I empathize those other accounts who might have given up instead of going through all these complex steps, see for example I notice that the other person has appealed similarly on possibly admin's mistake. Is there no regulation for the the one who complains for stifling users contribution to Wikipedia with all such sophisticated methods? If one is suspected of sockpuppet merely on some random similarities, may be at least there should be a warning to the user to get an explanation first. Infinite block just like that and many days to prove that it is a huge mistake by the admin by non-sophisticated beginner user is so painful especially when one is volunteering in one's free time. Sorry for expressing the disappointment with you. Really appreciate your guidance. Loveall.human (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- A common mistake in unblock requests is to attack other users. Never ever do it. It does not help you; it hurts your case by providing extra reasons for blocking you.
- Aman.kumar.goel provided behavioural evidence. The person who judged the evidence was Callanecc. The behavioural evidence was enough to justify using the checkuser tool to gather electronic evidence.
- Callanecc found electronic evidence that RajeshRameshSuresh, CrackFakeNews, and WikiIndia1312 were the same person. This probably meant that they were using the same computer or iPhone for their edits.
- WikiIndia1312 made two unblock requests: [1], [2] but neither of these addressed the electronic evidence that showed Callanecc that WikiIndia1312 was operating at least two other accounts.
(There was once a case where two people in the same family were using the same computer to edit Wikipedia. Electronic evidence confirmed this. One of the users appealed. He/she provided an explanation for the electronic evidence, and behavioural evidence showed that the editors were different people - so the users were unblocked.) - No electronic evidence was found linking you with the other accounts. The only evidence was behavioural. Your appeal needs to address the behavioural issues.
- -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you @Toddy1:. Oh, I was not aware of checkuser tool, I take back the attack on that user in that case (you can check the record, I have no history of attacking any user before except now for my account being insinuated for this sock puppet infinite block issue). I am not related to any of those accounts or any sock puppet (which is an insulting attack on me). With a millions of users on earth the possibility two minds having similar political views or editing a wiki page is possible but how to prove one is not a sock puppet by behavior is now the challenge. In the initial days when edited I was not clear about the minor to major difference, so added as minor change. But once mentored, I stopped it, now that past beginner edits are shown as behavioral evidence :(. Loveall.human (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Toddy1:, it takes a while to learn the system here. I respect the mentoring and guidance when done a mistake by us noobs (especially when it is not intentional) to correct. Have updated the unblock request, hope its useful. So many hours gone because of one guilt by association complaint, hope this will be a good learning.
- Thank you @Toddy1:. Oh, I was not aware of checkuser tool, I take back the attack on that user in that case (you can check the record, I have no history of attacking any user before except now for my account being insinuated for this sock puppet infinite block issue). I am not related to any of those accounts or any sock puppet (which is an insulting attack on me). With a millions of users on earth the possibility two minds having similar political views or editing a wiki page is possible but how to prove one is not a sock puppet by behavior is now the challenge. In the initial days when edited I was not clear about the minor to major difference, so added as minor change. But once mentored, I stopped it, now that past beginner edits are shown as behavioral evidence :(. Loveall.human (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you @Toddy1: will read more technical material on how to do all this stuff in free time. Honestly, this is soo complex and demotivating in the minimal free time in life. Just noticed that the one who complained has history of pro ruling party's right wing edit activities, and he has just bunched a set of different accounts that is in conflict with his view as 'Sockpuppet' in the complaint and just like that wham an indefinite block! I empathize those other accounts who might have given up instead of going through all these complex steps, see for example I notice that the other person has appealed similarly on possibly admin's mistake. Is there no regulation for the the one who complains for stifling users contribution to Wikipedia with all such sophisticated methods? If one is suspected of sockpuppet merely on some random similarities, may be at least there should be a warning to the user to get an explanation first. Infinite block just like that and many days to prove that it is a huge mistake by the admin by non-sophisticated beginner user is so painful especially when one is volunteering in one's free time. Sorry for expressing the disappointment with you. Really appreciate your guidance. Loveall.human (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Can I suggest that you withdraw your unblock request. The reasons you gave, are the reasons that matter to you, but are not relevant to the case. Read WP:Guide to appealing blocks. Then, when you are ready submit an unblock request that focusses on the sockpuppet allegation.
- Thanks @Toddy1:!. The answer is no, no idea about the other accounts. The challenge now is behavioral evidence information, not sure how to sit through and prove (I need to check about it when free). Accusing is easy, proving its not related seems hard. Wiki itself seems quite challenging to learn and use in leisure to contribute, let alone sifting through infinite blocking with few edits :| Loveall.human (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)