User talk:Cantab1985

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

Defense
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:
 * 1) Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion.
 * 2) Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
 * 3) 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)
 * Thank you for your advice.Cantab1985 (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

August 2016
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 GuyTalkContribs 07:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So how can I gain support?Cantab1985 (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 GuyTalkContribs 07:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I mean, to some editors he straight up said "please defend me". Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)

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 GuyTalkContribs 08:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Assumption, when did I say that?Cantab1985 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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 GuyTalkContribs 08:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)

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