User talk:GreyHatBilla

RFC?

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How to open the RFC on talk page of an article?

Full instructions are available at WP:RFC. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y thanks GreyHatBilla (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KnightWarrior25, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Faizan (talk) 13:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

defending against Sockpuppet claims

Someone please copy paste my this appeal there in

I've been blocked for without any reason, and even without informing me one of the admin has block my IP. The check user has yet not completed the investigation still I have been blocked by rude administrator : FPIS. So I can't defend myself against those claims there at SPI. Please paste this there in SPI.

"look first of all, user page is indeed necessary to create if you are an Wikipedian. I created that and I am not a biased editor like you two three boys @[Mar4d, Faizan]. Its obvious that the article which I like i will edit them first, though I have made constructive and useful contributions like in F-INSAS Special Forces of India and in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 ..... Etc. And stop making personal attacks @ [Mar4d, Faizan], I am a new editor, you should have checked my contributions before pointing finger on me. " GreyHatBilla (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna start an RFC for Kargil War for mentioning Decisive Indian Victory in the infobox as per as sources. As I'm a new editor I was not knowing that how to open an RFC. So I asked for an administrator. What's been wrong in this @ User:Faizan ?GreyHatBilla (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 I am blocked so I can't comment there at SPI. So I mentioned you here GreyHatBilla (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Not a Sock User

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).

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

Request reason:

Bbb23 I again say, I am not a sock user. Please try to believe. I am a new Wikipedia editor, just joined 10 day ago. I just edited the articles which I liked. For example:- I edited F-INSAS, Special Forces of India, Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, sir have a look to my useful contributions first. I am an 'Unbiased Editor'. Please Unblock me I have to correct lots of stats on Various articles of Wikipedia. Please don't block my account as if you will block my account and IP, then I will not able to edit anymore. Please I have did nothing, and I don't know why (User:Mar4d) reverted me on various article by writing 'reverted banned sock'. Even my edits has not constitute vandalism or Pov and the spi case is still going on and I know that the case will be resulted in favour of me because I'm Not a sock user. I again say. "I'm Not a Sock User" GreyHatBilla (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence I can see strongly suggests that this account is a sockpuppet. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2015 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Nope, I'm not .... Are you crazy bro? How can I've be a sock of any other fu****g account, why don't you are checking my IP, web, Location, Country etc..... Aren't these evidences enough to prove you all wrong? GreyHatBilla (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I think overall it is probable that you are a sockpuppet. PhilKnight (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2015 (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.

A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Note that admins cannot see personally-identifying information (such as IP or geolocation) and have to rely on behavioural evidence. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:24, 30 July 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

@ J%C3%A9sk%C3%A9_Couriano Well lemme explain...... You need to check my contributions. My edits don't even constitute Vandalism nor they are POV or biased. I Infact corrected the WP:FAKE figures on various articles as per as source and even added the neutral reference. Admins cannot but a Check user can see the IP's, locations, web browser, operating system etc and can easily link between two sock accounts but in my case the decision is based on behaviour evidence that does not even match with. I don't even know those (Banned POV Warriors) and yet I've been blocked because few biased editors (Mar4d, Faizan) who's been secretly pushing there POV's on various Indo-Pak articles think that any new user that is against there POV is a sock of previous banned accounts? Banning a new user can be easy job for you as you are administrators but you don't know how it feels when you are ban Permanently when you have did nothing. I'm not attacking someone personally but I have to say this. These users (Mar4d, Faizan) needs a topic-ban from indo-pak articles as they edit only for there country (pakistan) and wants everything written according to there biased point of view, they revert every new user by stating them as a sock of previous banned accounts and support all those biased editors who are editing according to there pov and they often mis-use special rights given to them and this can be seen from there behaviour and editing easily. well I know no one from you will pay attention to this, as you take decisions one-sided. I've repeated this that I'm not an sock account and try to believe, check all you want but rather you @ Bbb23 & @ Vanjagenije have announced that I'm a sock because of the behaviour evidence. Have you even checked my IP and Location? I'm more then sure none of those banned accounts live even near to me. This is totally wrong. If you don't has these evidence then you should have waited awhile and then re-started the spi, then you would have tried to link between accounts rather then directly blocking me based on so-called behaviour evidence that doesn't even matched with. Have a look to my editing history, time of editing, time-gap between editing, these would you should have checked on behaviour evidence but you rather believe in blocking any new-user directly and in my case it goes even worse. Admin Future Perfect at Sunshine blocked my directly within minutes when the Faizan filled an spi and requested check-user. He even did not waited for check user to start his/her investigation. He directly banned me giving reason as 'apparent sock puppet'. He neither leaved a message on my talk page, nor he waited for check user. this is totally wrong. I deserve a unblock because 'I'm Not an Sock User' That's it i want to say GreyHatBilla (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blocks of sock puppets are imposed when the evidence, technical or behavioral, persuades an administrator that the account is a sock. You have made only a handful of edits. The first edits allowed you to become autoconfirmed so that you could then edit the semi-protected article Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, a controversial article, particularly for a "new" account, and one that has been plagued by socks. You may claim that your editing was correct and neutral, but most people do that. You reverted at least two users, and the entirety of your changes were reverted. I suggest you take six months per the standard offer and renew your unblock request at that time. That doesn't mean it will be granted, but at the moment you stand virtually no chance of being unblocked, and additional repetitive unblock requests will probably result in the loss of access to this Talk page. You should also reflect on what it is you want to do at Wikipedia and how that will benefit the project because that will be an important factor when an administrator evaluates an unblock request in six months. Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2015 (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.

Admins CAN NOT see your IP, location, or any other personally-identifying information. I told you this before. And a Checkuser (who can see such evidence, but cannot publicly reveal it) will not run a check absent evidence, so the fact that a Checkuser was willing to run a check in the first place suggests the behavioural evidence is convincing enough that you are a sock of KnightWarrior25. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]