User talk:VinsyKumar

September 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Singh have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Singh was changed by VinsyKumar (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.889248 on 2021-09-21T16:57:07+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Showbiz826 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. —SpacemanSpiff 03:11, 24 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is a wrong accusation on me. I am not a sock profile of any banned user as alleged by the blocking admin.VinsyKumar (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Simple denial is not a convincing reason to remove a sockpuppetry block because all socks deny being socks. You'll need to provide a convincing explanation as to why our impressions that you are this user are wrong. MER-C 18:45, 25 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am appealing simply for the reason that I am not Showbiz826. I don't see any similarity in his editing style and that of mine. VinsyKumar (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You aren't trying to convince yourself, you are trying to convince us. Yamla (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Sir, why should I be held accountable if the blocking admin had a wrong impression about me? He blocked me as a "suspected" sock of Showbiz826 rather than a confirmed one. Shouldn't it be asked that what made him consider me a sock of Showbiz826? I re-checked each edit of mine but couldn't find a single edit matching with that of Showbiz826. Thats all I had to say in my defence. VinsyKumar (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have gone through Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry policy page and I would like to appeal my block again. As per the policy page, a user is considered someone else's sockpuppet if both the profiles are run by the same person. In my case, neither I am Showbiz826 nor I am in contact with him. I heard this name "Showbiz826" for the first time when I was blocked as his suspected sockpuppet. To prove my point, I would like admins to compare edits of Showbiz826 with those of mine. There is no similarity in editing behaviour. Therefore, I humbly request admins to unblock me.VinsyKumar (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I compared your edits, and I think you are the same person. If you aren't, you are a meatpuppet, which we treat the same. I am declining your request. If you make another unproductive unblock request, you will probably lose access to this page, so make it count. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been repeatedly saying that I am not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet and this is the fifth time I am making an unblock appeal. But some admins still think that there is some behavioural similarity between me and Showbiz826. Now, I humbly request admins to perform a CU and get the things verified. I am sure, I will be proved innocent.VinsyKumar (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You can stop counting, since this is the last time you will be appealing your block. I will be revoking your talk page access after this. We keep saying that either just saying you're not a sockpuppet or asking for our evidence that you are is not going to get you unblocked; in response you keep saying the same thing.

Now you've escalated to another classic bad move ... asking for another Checkuser to be run so you can "prove your 'innocence'". As the linked policy clearly and explicitly states: "On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted.". Don't feel too bad; you're not the first person to learn about it the hard way (if indeed you did) and you will probably not be the last. But however you feel, I know I won't be hearing about it and it won't be my problem. Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2021 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]