Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar

message: ::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: User:StopUntouchability might be a sock.--D-Boy 13:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: StopUntouchability definitely is a sock and most probably a pseudo-Buddhist avatar of .Bakaman 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumpelstiltskin223/Hkelkar case

message: :::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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Further points here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcdevit#Regarding_RFCU
Hkelkar 00:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: second discussion