Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:29, 2 October 2006

Hkelkar

• Hkelkar (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Densagueo (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Subhash bose (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bakasuprman (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

User densaguo was created after subhash was banned and then Hkelkar lobbied for Subhash's relaxation and extension of Holywarrior's ban same is repeated by Densaguo almost to word at a different place besides he refers Subhash as Netaji cannot be known to new user for he was not even useng it as signature  Ikon |no-blast 13:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This accusation again?An RFCU was filed against me earlier for the expressed purpose of getting me blocked as part of a defmaation campaign against me and was rather quickly dismissed by admins. I believe that the motivations of the user who has files this RFCU should be analysed, given his block log both as ikonoblast and his earlier user User:Holywarrior.Hkelkar 21:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 Clerk note: See previous case Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Subhash bose. The report wasn't "dismissed," the evidence at that time was inconclusive. Thatcher131 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to all - There have been three checkusers filed for Subhash_bose and one for Hkelkar all by the same cabal of editors. It seems WP:Tendentious editors (including the one that filed this RFCU) have nothing to do but to harp on about fantasical conspiracy theories.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Discussion moved to talk page. Thatcher131 22:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

So what's the code letter? It's not specified. Shouldn;t this be "declined" per other RFCU's above?Hkelkar 04:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Codes are A,B,C and F. Ikon |no-blast 06:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

But none of these users are banned.Hkelkar 15:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides, if you see WP:Sock Puppet the criteria listed is that only block/ban evading sock puppets are bad and there have been no contribs from the other users in some time (one week I believe is the official time frame). Plus, baka's account has 1000+ edits so he's clearly not a sock. This RFCU is bogus.Hkelkar 16:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Besides, I do not believe Subhash was ever banned. He was blocked for some time (he had some tendentious editing and was rather hotheaded but basically a decent editor) but the block is lifted.None of these users (myself included) have been abusive per wikipedia policies.Hkelkar 16:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn to this page by Hkelkar.I haven't been editing much on account of the fact that I have been busy with my academic work.I must point out that this "sockpuppetry" accusation is essentially a McCarthyist witch-hunt by Ikonoblast (formerly User:Holywarrior; if you have popups then you can see his former block-log) who has been a long time sparring partner, of sort, of mine and, from what I can see from his contribs, Hkelkar's as well. He has also made similar accusations before in order to extract summary judgements and get those people blocked who expose his illicit abuse of wikipedia (such as mis-citing POV claims, OR, and routine harrassment of several wikipedia users). As you can see, I have not been blocked for long time so the accusation of block/ban evading sockpuppetry is moot. If you see the earlier RFCU, then you will see that we have adequately proved (to the best of our abilities) as different users to two admins on irc (consult admins User:Srikeit and User:Blnguyen for details).Plus, I'm sure a simple perusal into the apache server logs will establish that we are two different people from two different places.RFCU's such as this, from what I can see, are a platform for summary judgements based on little or no evidence and no criteria other than the whims of the admin viewing the page. I urge the admins to investigate all objective records, including isp logs, Apache logs, and the past RFCU before making hasty decisions.G'Day.Shiva's Trident 17:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is  Likely that Hkelkar is Subhash bose. The others are  Inconclusive. (By the looks of it, with so much edit warring and misconduct all around, this conflict looks to be ready for arbitration, or decisive admin intervention.) Dmcdevit·t 19:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

May I ask on what basis is this assertion of likelihood made exactly? Thanks.Hkelkar 19:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

 Clerk note: The basis for the assertation is based upon technical evidence provided by the checkuser tool extension to MediaWiki software wikipedia uses. It cross-links certain server logs. Due to privacy and checkuser policy, the technical evidence is never provided. Kevin_b_er 21:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that the "cross-linking" shows edits made by us from separate home ips and univ ips. I had already stated in the previous RFCU that we (bose and I) knew each other and frequently used our PC's at home and on campus. In order to avoid meatpuppetry, we have generally stayed away from each other's edits since the last RFCU (I was new to wikipedia and got a login on bose's insistence & did not know about sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry back then), plus I believe bose is busy on account of his impending core courses (mine ended earlier).

If we are banned on the basis of this evidence, then it means that any PIO user who belongs to UT who has a login on wikipedia should be banned.Again, I urge admins to consider the motives of ikonoblast, the complainant, given his tendentious editing and frequent use of intimidation tactics against several users (listed in this RFCU as well as others).Thank you and have a nice day.Hkelkar 22:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, admins should of course take behavior into consideration and determine whether the "likely" is likely enough for a block. CheckUser is not a magic pixie dust, all results are tempered with admin discretion. Dmcdevit·t 22:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Further points here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dmcdevit#Regarding_RFCU

Hkelkar 00:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Upon the advice of shiva's Trident, I went to #wikipedia-en channel on irc where User:Dmcdevit was also logged in. He has clarified that the conclusion of "Likelihood" was on the basis of technical evidence only and without considering the history. I have a log of the session posted here (for the sake of privacy, I have only kept logs of my conversation with Dmcdevit who has given me permission to publish it; all other conversations have been deleted):

http://pastebin.com/797684

The history is that the reason why our ip ranges are the same is because we have a common isp (roadrunner) which is the dominant isp in the Austin area and almost everybody uses it in Central Austin, where we both live on account of it's proximity to the Department where we both go.

During the summer semester I was mainly in the lab owing to a research backlog and Trident was mainly at home as he is a theorist and theorists can work from home only. This is the reason why my edits were from a University machine and his edits were from a home ip.

Now that the fall semester has started, Trident has classes and stuff to go to and assignments (I presume) to work on (for which he presumably needs to be in library all day) so he is at the department and makes his edits from there. I just finished my paper and sent it for publication so I presently have a lull in my work and can thus stay at home more and so my edits are from my home ip which has the same domain as Trident's home ip because, as I said, we use the same popular isp (Roadrunner) and so looks similar. This explains the "switching of the ips" that dmcdevit was talking about in the irc chat session posted above.Thus, the technical evidence that points to likelihood has a perfectly innocent explanation once you consider the history and the circumstances.Hkelkar 06:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Must have taken a while to come up with that. BhaiSaab 02:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The anti-Hindu conspiracy has been effectiely debunked by User:Blnguyen here. As for the case against me, I guess problematic users have little better things to do thatn fantasize about socks like the boy who cried "wolf".Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)