Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Rumpelstiltskin223/Hkelkar case 2 Other 3 second discussion

[edit] Rumpelstiltskin223/Hkelkar case

I think it is odd of User:StopUntoucability to file a checkuser request, given that his (SU's)account was created today. HKlekar was banned over 3 weeks back. I believe User:StopUntouchability is probably a meatpuppet of User:Pkulkarni. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood^© 12:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I created an account in the name of SayNo2Untouchability long time back. I did not do any edit using that account as I was not familiar with wikipedia rules, but watched all the dirty tricks used by people to push POV. Yesterday I put a request to delete that account and created the new account by the name StopUntouchability. Admins can verify it.StopUntouchability 18:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

User:StopUntouchability might be a sock.--D-Boy 13:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

StopUntouchability definitely is a sock and most probably a pseudo-Buddhist avatar of Pkulkarni (talk • contribs).Bakaman 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other

Another misleading contention made by the user ikonoblast above is the holywarrior business. In fact, User:holywarrior and User:Ikonoblast are one and the same person (see holywarrior's user page) and a study of his block log and contribs will show tendentious editing and multiple intimidation tactics used by him to bully and distress users in similar manners as this fraudulent RFCU.Hkelkar 00:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Point of fact, if you look at densagueo's talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Densagueo I had admonished him for interfering with a discussion going on by me. He replied that he was just trying to help and got bitten per a violation of WP:BITE by other users and so left wikipedia.He was thanked for helping. The diffs of his attempted mediation are given below: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shell_Kinney&diff=prev&oldid=73749066 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ikonoblast&diff=prev&oldid=73749996 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shell_Kinney&diff=prev&oldid=73737401

Hkelkar 01:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If possible plz check user:Bakasuprman too for he is indulged in removing warnings from all the alleged socks of above like this , after they are warned not to rmv warnings. Ikon |no-blast 08:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Congrats for proving yourself to be a WP:TROLL. The outcome of my "being a sockpuppet" is found here [USeless Sock page. Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Iolakana• view is wromg in this case because autoblock he is talking about in this case is possible only when user uses same IP for violating 3RR after one sock is blocked.It seems subhash uses different PCs for different socks. Ikon |no-blast 06:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Also comment3 he dismisses in the link above does not talk of violating 3RR so the dismissal ground itself is unfounded. Ikon |no-blast 09:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment that I think Hkelkar and Bose are really the same person. I had some evidence a while ago here, and also, he seems to be reaching out to users with similar interests and attacking other users behind their back, like here. Hkelkar seemed to have also deleted warning templates, like here, only because he thought they were "laughable accusations". Even if they were illegit, they shouldn't have been outright removed. This type of behavior is much like bose's, in my opinion. Also, I notice that Hkelkar uses sarcasm against users, accusing them of Personal attacks while calling them "my dear chap" and the sort. At least Bakasuprman uses this type of rhetoric, also with his case, it could be coincidental. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 20:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So the following people endorse this bogus RFCU

Ikonoblast (Tendentious editing, tag-warring, blocked several times by admins, warned off several times by admins, seems to have backpedaled on the project page of this RFCU).

Mar de Sin/Basawala (Saber rattling, contentious and often propagandistic editing, defends racists on wikipedia, seems to be loading articles against Hindus).

BhaiSaab (harrassment, very very long block log, using Muslim Guild to engage in mass revert wars and intimidation tactics, constant edit-warring with many users all over wikipedia).

The people who don't regard me as a sockpuppet:

Admin -> DBachmann (Generally an unforgoving admin who is not kind to people who violate wikipedia rules and norms, thus, if he concludes that I am not a sockpuppet the admin reviewing this discussion should pay serious attention to Dbachmann's assessment), per this.

Admin -> Ben W Bell (Another admin) per this where he points out twice that I am not a sockpuppet

Me I guess

Bakasuprman

Netaji

Hkelkar 22:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Add to that

• User:nidhishsinghal
• Admin - User:Blnguyen
• Admin - User:DaGizza

Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Using your own sockpuppeteer account under "the people who don't regard me as a sockpuppet" doesn't count. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Let the admins decide on that.Plus, are you now saying that DBachman, DaGizza , Blnguyen and Ben W Bell are my sockpuppets? Is everybody on wikipedia my sockpuppet (except you and the Muslim guild meatpuppets)? Now that's funny.Hkelkar 07:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Blnguyen is no more a good admin ; he lost the tag trying to be one, Ben W Bell will get desysoped sooner or later if he does not mend his behaviour(I don't think his services are required anymore) , Da Gizza is a bit diplomatic and I don't have much experience with him ; but still a nice guy if you discount that Fundy watch association,Dbachman has still not given you clean chit; if he has ask him to put it here; you are goingaround misquoting him that is your trademark now. Ikon |no-blast 08:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)'

Congrats to WP:TROLL. The only thing the rant above is hitting is the wind, as it is being carried away by its own irrelevance.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Tsk tsk. Aren't we being extra-tendentious in our edits today. Attacking admins too. Personally both Ben and Blnguyen are fine admins, and Ben will only get sysoped in a certain editor's alternate universe in which he is lord and master, certainly not on the wikipedia that we all know and love. The reviewing admin should ask Dbachman about his views and whether I have "misquoted him" or not.Hkelkar 08:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I said "sockpuppeteer account", not "sockpuppeteer accounts." BhaiSaab ^talk 18:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] second discussion

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/wiki/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 ^talk 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)

"anti-troll conspiracy" is more like it. I shudder to think what WP would look like if these sock artists would have their way with it :( how long are we going to let this nonsense continue and waste valuable editors' time? dab (ᛏ) 09:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Look Dbachmann I have always regarded some of your points in high esteem owing to what seems to me are good-faith efforts on your part to introduce a scholarly perspective to wikipedia articles. However, I feel that this attack is uncalled for, as all of my edits have been well-sourced and in conformity with wikipedia policy. I cannot speak for other editors accused here but I have always been true to the principles of wikipedia. Kindly explain your position a little better and point to those edits of mine that you find "trollish". Thanks.Hkelkar 09:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Update:DBachmann has clarified that he does not consider me to be a sock puppet of bose per thisHkelkar 10:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologise to those who are not sockpuppet and those who are proved should face block or other punishment which community decides.I had listed them according to proof I had and that is the best I could do.Above diff of Dab is an old one not to be presented in this case. Ikon |no-blast 10:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Since Hkelkar has asked for proof of his Trolling behaviour ,I wd advise him to look into his own contribution history which is suggestive of all he is. Ikon |no-blast 12:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)