User talk:Fancy vibēs

November 2023[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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.

Girth Summit _(blether) 12:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review for the block[edit]

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).

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)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:51, 11 November 2023 (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.

Fancy vißes (call) 16:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open a SPI investigation or Checkuser test against my account and other wrongly linked accounts[edit]

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).

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)[reply]

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)[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.

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)[reply]

Any reviewing CU is welcome to email me to request details about the technical connection. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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 i am not a sock of these wrongly linked accounts this is not fair with millions of common users on Wikipedia there is a great loop and mistakes some admins wrongly linking and blocking many innocent users 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)

I am not a sock of these wrongly linked accounts, but not a single admin wants to hear my voice. Girth Summit might be thinking of me as a bad person or considering it disrespectful to his actions, and other admins may also think and stand with Girth Summit, but I am a common user. I have nothing to do with any respectable admins or their actions, but I just tried to prove I am not wrong. So far, I have proved it by giving evidence from Wikipedia's investigation tools and proving I am not a sock of their wrongly linked blocked accounts, and for Transe and Danse, I am not even a sock to this account because I reverted some edits where this user, Transe and Dance, was engaged in major or small edits, which still doesn't prove me a sock. Fancy vißes (call) 23:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlablubbsBlablubbs Fancy vißes (call) 00:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have no access to the tools that were used to link this account to Transe Ænd Dance. You have asked another user below to stop pinging you in all their unblock requests - I suggest that you stop pinging the administrators who have declined your unblock requests. We know that you are the same person who used the Transe Ænd Dance account, and you know it too: this charade is embarrassing, and a waste of everyone's time. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ping me[edit]

Rawna Praveen singh solanki Kindly don't ping me in your all unblock requests. This is very irritating for me. Fancy vißes (call) 00:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock there is a great loop and mistakes[edit]

@Yamla, @Blablubbs These evidences are still not enough to prove that I have not been involved in using multiple accounts and I am not a sock of these all four blocked accounts. Three accounts have evidence to clearly prove my stand, and one last account, Transe Ænd Dance, only matches because I just made small reverts of changes where this account, Transe Ænd Dance, was also involved in major or small edits, but it still does not prove me a sock when other three accounts with evidence have already proved that I am not familiar with these accounts. I hope so you people believe in the results of this Wikipedia's investigation tool.? This tool (www.interaction-timeline.toolforge.org) prooved my stand that these accounts are not matching with my account still any admin don't want to see evidence if these evidences are not reliable then it mean Wikipedia investigation tool where I have generated these evidence made mistakes.? Or only God will believe on my honesty.?

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). Fancy vißes (call) 00:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit I will not ping other users or admins further, but you can please check these three wrongly linked accounts—two linked because of you, including AnujRor and Anuj Choudhary Ror—further. Yamla suggested Balwant Chopra, Transe, and Danse have similarities, but I have proved myself right and honest by providing evidence from Wikipedia's investigation tool itself. This tool of interaction clearly showed you made great mistakes and errors while blocking me and judging, and unfortunately, you labeled me a sock of two accounts. 3rd account also proved I am not linked to such account. The last Transe and Danse account clearly showed I made some reverts only at the pages where this wrongly claimed master Transe and Dance was involved in major edits. I am different from such account because I made just some reverts, undoing disruption or vandalism, and it still doesn't prove me Sock of this account when other three wrongly linked accounts also proved myself innocent. I request that you please see your mistakes and decisions again. You are an admin here. I am a common user. Just imagine how millions of people will face such wrong linking, blocking and wrongly labeling of being sock by admins here. You are also a human being, but when three accounts already prooved me, just now the fourth was suggested by Yamla, not by you, I still have only similarity at the ground where I just made some undos and reverts only, and this matches my account with Transe and Dance, and now I am sock and have used multiple accounts. This is totally unfair. I cannot defend myself here because I am helpless. I don't have the adminship that you have and only God knows I am right also prooved myself by giving evidence but millions of innocent users are unable to do so.And I didn't commit a crime for which you lebeled me being a sock and blocked me. But Only God can be just and he knows the truth. But I can only request to you that you please review your action of wrongly linking, blocking, and declaring my account as sock for no reason when Wikipedia's tool of interaction has prooved my self right and just. To be honest, I don't know which tool you're using and you are not considering Wikipedia's tool of interaction reliable.? Please be just and honest, see these examples, and review your mistake. I am also providing you same evidences generated by Wikipedia's interation tool if you don't consider this tool as reliable then it's.

see these examples please

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). Fancy vißes (call) 21:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock appeal[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

An administrator banned me on the grounds that I had used several accounts and that, without any supporting documentation, my account was incorrectly associated with two previously barred identities. However, Interation.toolforge.org Wikipedia's tool itself attested to the fact that my account is not sock or that I have never used any other account prior to it, and that there are no parallels between it and the other two or three accounts that have been incorrectly linked. Thus, I believe that I should be unblocked after Wikipedia's own investigative tool demonstrated that there were no parallels between my account and other accounts that were incorrectly linked, indicating that the linking administrator may have made some mistakes or errors. I'm not pointing fingers, but when I did not commit and disruption, crime or offensive thing then why I am still blocked and wrongly labelised being sock?, please unblock me and review my request being just and honest. If I'll not Successed to get justice here I'll ask the God for his justice. For evidence generated Wikipedia interaction tool itself I am providing below... evidences

Decline reason:

CU confirmed sockpuppetry. Talk page access revoked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:39, 13 November 2023 (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.