User talk:Mountainwhiskey

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DileepKS69 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I must say this is most unfortunate when I have not committed Sock Puppetry. I have seen DileepKS69s and BijuTSs edits and have coincidentally edited the same pages as them. I do not know either of them personally. I would request that IPs be looked into and this block be reconsidered. It is unfair that a user who seems to be having the same PoV as the alleged users is blocked just because of similar interests. Does not Wiki allow users with the same Pov edit on similar pages?

Decline reason:

Actually, your IP has been looked into. And when they looked, they found that on top of the behavioral evidence there were technical reasons to believe you were sockpuppeting. So, your request to have your IP looked at was already fulfilled, and your request to be unblocked is declined. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2011 (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.

Well, regardless of your connection with the original editor, you've now evaded your block: User:Amazer007. Even if I did believe you before, I don't believe you now. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who is here to contribute would end up creating a duplicate account to carry on the good work when his or her work is disrupted by fanatic vandals. Amazed007 is a result of that, whether you like it or not!!! If you wanna make this a better place, you should try to.bust the vandals who frustrate those who are here to contribute and not bust those who tried to restore their vandalized edits or who created a duplicate Id to carry on their work. See Ya ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.55.115 (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

OK - FYI, first off, my head hurts right now, and I'm tired, so my thinking is unclear.

I will unblock your account under the idea that you are not Dileep, but I would like your assurance for a few things:

That you will not edit under any other account during any future blocks you might have. This is already a policy, but I would like your assurance.
That you will be more careful and cease edit warring. Again, this is policy, but I would just like to hear you acknowlege that the edit warring is unconstructive (because, frankly, it is).

OK? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Magog, thanks for the re-consideration.

1. As was already told earlier, I used another account to carry on edits when pretty much every other edit of mine was either reverted or vandalized without reason resulting in unnecessary edit wars, discussions and personal attacks. It was never my intention to use another account otherwise. And I do not possess any other accounts. I also do not intend to create another account because I have now learned that reacting to vandals and revert specialists only lands you in trouble. 2. I was always a victim of edit warring provoked by registered vandals making a concerted effort to drag you into a trap. I understand that the talk page is the best way out. If that does not work, you can always approach a senior editor or admin.

And lastly, I am NOT DileepKS - I have never seen or heard him in real and it is purely coincidental that we are all editing the same pages. Same goes with BIjuTS!

Have a great day ahead - MW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.101.191 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've unblocked the account. Mind you, I find the second answer of yours to be a great non-apology apology and I still think you are showing a bit too much WP:TRUTHiness in your thought process, which will land you in trouble. I'm also going to advise Samaleks how to proceed further. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Magog once again. No, I don't intend to create controversy or be dragged into controversy intentionally or otherwise. I am going to give myself some time to learn wiki-etiquette and how to stay away from trouble, as long as I am allowed to be here. Thanks - MountainWhiskey - talk 05:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. 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 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting edits in Kochi

Hello Mountainwhiskey, your revert here also reverted two completely valid minor improvements. You could have easily edited the 2 words in the lead manually ;). It's not a big issue in the great scheme of things - it's fixed already -, but please be more careful when you revert several edits at once (or restore the "lost" valid changes manually after the revert). Thank you for your consideration. GermanJoe (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello GermanJoe, I got this feeling that the grammar in "In Kerala, ..." was wrong and hence edited. Also, Kochi officially is the 2nd largest city in terms of area and to avoid, edit-wars (which have happened in the past), it is important we do not drag other cities and comparisons...Thank you for your time. - MountainWhiskey - talk

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mountainwhiskey. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mountainwhiskey. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]