Misplaced Pages

:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser | Case Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:03, 30 September 2006 editShiva's Trident (talk | contribs)2,622 edits →Hkelkar: Not again!← Previous edit Revision as of 17:05, 30 September 2006 edit undoShiva's Trident (talk | contribs)2,622 editsm →HkelkarNext edit →
Line 19: Line 19:
:::::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.] 16:15, 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.] 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 ]; 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 ] and ] 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.] 17:03, 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 ]; 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 ] and ] 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.] 17:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:05, 30 September 2006

Hkelkar

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)
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)