User talk:Fancy vibēs
November 2023
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Review for the block
Fancy vibēs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't know why admin Girth Summit blocked me without previous edit warnings, any four-level edit warnings, or even without any previous block. I was involved in engaging in a discussion on the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty's talk page, where I requested the keeping of some text and sources regarding the origin of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty, which belonged to the Pratihar clan of Gurjars. I also made a request for the increase in protection level of the Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty at admins request for increase in page protection (PPC). After a few hours, Girth Summit blocked me and linked me with two previous blocked user:Anuj Ror and Anuj Choudhary, but there were no significant edits or pages where this previous blocked user was involved, and I was also caught being involved in making edits on the pages where these previous blocked users, Anuj Ror and Anuj Choudhary Ror, were involved. There were not even any SPI investigation requests or reports against me being sock or any authentic reason or evidence to link myself with Anuj Ror and Anuj Choudhary Ror. I humbly request the unblocking of my account and the review of any other administrator's account because, when there is no evidence of significant similarities between my account, Anuj Ror, and Anuj Choudhary Ror's accounts, how can I be linked with these accounts without any evidence? If another WP:Checkuser can review and again see the previous checkuser's action against myself, it will be more transparent. There were not even any SPI investigation requests or reports against me being sock or any authentic reason or evidence to link myself with Anuj Ror and Anuj Choudhary Ror. I humbly request the unblocking of my account and the review of any other administrator's account because, when there is no evidence of significant similarities between my account, Anuj Ror, and Anuj Choudhary Ror's accounts, how can I be linked with these accounts without any evidence? If another checkuser can review and again see the previous checkuser's action against myself, it will be more transparen. This is not unfair to block me without any serious involvement of disruption editing, involvement of editing of same pages or content that may reflec me being sock of Anuj Ror or Anuj Choudhary Ror so when there are not significant proofs or evidence in Checkuser tool then it is not just to keep me block indefinite.Fancy vißes (call) 16:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 16:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
Fancy vißes (call) 16:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Open a SPI investigation or Checkuser test against my account and other wrongly linked accounts
Fancy vibēs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Fancy vibēs]
So according to these all public logs data all these two accounts accounts are not matched with my account and have nothing to do with my account then still by I'm blocked without any reason or mistakes isn't unjust.? This all public logs data clearly showed all pages that I have created, Edit or my edit summaries, my editing behavior and my choice of editing pages is entirely different from these wrongly linked accounts then at what place admins are not hearing the concern and my appeal for the Checkuser test and apeal.? My case definitely not meet the criteria for wrongly linking my account with these stranger accounts with no reasons.Fancy vißes (call) 20:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am now one of several checkusers who have double-checked Girth Summit's results, and I also don't see any reason to doubt them. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
Technical and behavioural match to Transe Ænd Danse at the very least. That account is obviously unambiguously confirmed to Balwant Chopra. At this point, I stopped looking. I have no reason to doubt the other checkusers here. --Yamla (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
- Any reviewing CU is welcome to email me to request details about the technical connection. Girth Summit (blether) 01:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Yamla Users will only be labeled as sock puppets of prior users if they have participated in earlier modifications of the same page. Not even they alter a page's content, adding or removing the identical information. This implies that your account will be associated with a blocked editor who may have previously altered the same three or four pages if just one blocked editor was involved. However, after reviewing and clarifying every publicly available log history, I was able to demonstrate that my account did not correspond with any incorrectly linked accounts, such as Anuj Choudhary Ror, AnujRor, or Balwant Chopra.
- For Transe and Dance, 3 or 4 pages matched, but this still did not show me a sock of Transe and Danse or any other users, so I don't know why anyone is still not trying to hear me, only other admins, just saying we stand with Girth Summit. No problem to stand with Girth Summit or your colleagues, but isn't it still unfair to label me a sock with Transe Ænd Dance because I reverted some edits on the same pages where Transe Ænd Dance was involved? Is this my crime? Well, to be honest, I have proved by providing all public logs that my account is not matched with AnujRor, Anuj Choudhary Ror, Balwant Chopra, For Transe Ænd Dance, I made some reverts on pages where Transe Ænd Dance was involved or made edits, so Yamla, this proves me a sock.? Here are some examples that still proove please see for Fancy vibēs vs Balwant Chopra see (Fancy vibēs vs Balwant Chopra see ), for Fancy vibēs vs AnujRor see (fancy vibēs vs AnujRor),
- for Fancy vibēs vs Anuj Choudhary Ror see
- (Fancy vibēs vs Anuj Choudhary Ror) for fancy vibēs I am not a sock of these wrongly linked accounts but not a single admin want to hear my voice Girth Summit might be thinking me a Bad person or considering it a disrespect to his actions and other admins may also think and stand with Girth Summit but I am common user I have nothing to do anything person with any respectable admins or their actions. Fancy vißes (call) 23:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)