Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mbrdnbry

message: :Comment You have basically taken a group of people who share similar opinions and purported them as if they were sockpuppets. Frankly, it's in bad faith to assume that a number of those like-minded editors (who collectively have tens of thousands of edits) are somehow connected. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment:You didn't even look into this and are showing biasedness the same way. Not too long ago, you have confirmed that Sarvagnya/Gnanapiti are sockpuppets here and a couple of months later you let them off the hook here under the condition that both usernames are not used to edit the same article which they have notoriously have ever since. As a matter of fact, they have engaged in a several vote frauds too. I am taking this as favoritism and abuse of powers on your part Dmcdevit. Wiki Raja 03:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, your group is now trolling my talk page here. Wiki Raja 04:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment:All restrictions on editing by Sarvagnya and Gnanapiti were removed as seen here. It is however surprising that Wiki Raja seems to have contributed significantly to that discussion and still did not know of the outcome. Well, I have to assume good faith, shouldn't I? -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the only administrator to actually look into this was obviously Blnguyen. This is the same admin who backs up users such as Sarvagnya/Gnanapiti, KNM, etc. Furthermore, this is the same admin who encourages these same users to engage in mass reverts of topic pages here. Wiki Raja 05:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That decision was based on consensus and not a single handed act of Blnguyen. If you look at the discussion (or should I show you) that he waited for a considerable amount of time to see if there was any objection from anybody before going ahead. If you had concerns, you should have taken it up at that time. Other admin Aksi_great was also involved in the decision. Please do not pull wool over everyone's eyes. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amar, may I suggest you something? There is no point in repeating the same thing again and again and again, forever. - KNM  Talk 05:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this KNM, the above edits from me is for people who might not know about the reality and who may assume things wrongly. However, I will end my discussion here and follow your advice -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki Raja, You can't make accusations of "abuse of power" when you have clearly presented a weak case. There's no proof that there's a connection between users. You just grouped a bunch of like-minded editors as sockpuppets. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you do a user check on these individuals.Wiki Raja 16:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CheckUser is not something you perform for the "hell of it". User IPs and accounts are to remain private, and only if there is some sort of wrongdoing/problem, can a CheckUser be performed. For a CU to occur, you need to present your suspicions very well. You have not. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have a "hell" of a reason to request one. Furthermore, there are many many problems with these users, that is why,  one was requested. Wiki Raja 19:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)