User talk:Topboy92

Welcome!

Hello, Topboy92, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Kleuske (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome @Kleuske! Your reception really hit the spot. Also, a huge thanks for pointing me to those pages to dive into. I'm stoked to start exploring and learning from them. Topboy92 (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Sathishcm per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sathishcm. 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) 09:29, 24 August 2023 (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).

Topboy92 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am writing to appeal the block that has been imposed on my Wikipedia account. I believe that there might have been a misunderstanding, as I am not associated with any of the accounts mentioned in the ongoing investigation.

I want to clarify that I use Wikipedia solely from my personal computer and do not utilize any VPN. I am more than willing to provide any necessary proof to support this claim.

Regarding the article in question, I stumbled upon it randomly while browsing through articles related to the subject. My initial intention was to assist by removing excessive citation templates to improve the quality of the content. After revisiting the article, I noticed that the deletion process was underway. In order to make an informed decision, I carefully examined all available sources before placing my vote.

I genuinely value the integrity and guidelines of Wikipedia, and I assure you that I am not involved with any of the accounts under investigation. I request your kind consideration in reviewing my appeal and reinstating my account.

Thank you for your time and understanding. I look forward to resolving this matter positively Topboy92 (talk) 12:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, meaning that it is supported with private technical evidence(that even I don't have access to, though they claim you are using a proxy) so a connection to the other accounts involved is not in doubt. I also do not believe that you randomly arrived at the subject involved. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 25 August 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.

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).

Topboy92 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

331dot Thank you for your response and the clarification regarding the nature of the block. I have minimum understanding of your point regarding the checkuser block and the associated technical evidence. While I respect your assessment, I genuinely want to emphasize that I have no connection to the other accounts mentioned and I assure you that I access Wikipedia directly from my personal computer without the use of a VPN, if required I can provide proof of address along with my internet bills. As for the subject involved, I encountered it while browsing Officers Training Academy (OTA) article which was connected to another research I was doing for subject Amir Gulistan Janjua. I attempted to contribute positively on Anoop Madhavan's article by removing excessive citation template. Subsequently, I visited the page again to assess the progress of my edits and encountered the deletion issue, prompting me to carefully review the sources and place my vote. Additionally, to the best of my understanding, I was not initially implicated in the investigation. My inclusion came about based on a comment received from another editor at a later stage. Over the past few days, I've extensively reviewed various articles to gain a comprehensive understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I'm genuinely interested in further expanding my knowledge. Hence, I respectfully appeal for a reconsideration of my situation. I'm enthusiastic about contributing constructively to Wikipedia's community. Your understanding and reconsideration would be greatly appreciated. Topboy92 (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't believe you. You can appeal this block from your original account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:02, 24 September 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.