Jump to content

User talk:BhaiSaab: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
H (talk | contribs)
23,582 edits
BhaiSaab (talk | contribs)
6,082 edits
Line 55: Line 55:
<includeonly>{{Ed right2|User talk:BhaiSaab|section=7}}
<includeonly>{{Ed right2|User talk:BhaiSaab|section=7}}
<!--Comment below here and your comments shall appear on [[WP:CN]]-->
<!--Comment below here and your comments shall appear on [[WP:CN]]-->
First off, I would just like to say that I found the arbcom results a little surprising. I spent about two months tango-ing with Hkelkar and trying to expose his lies. I admit that I went a little too far and found personal details (by a Google search) and took too much into my own hands when trying to verify his identity, but I just wanted to make sure that I was not falsely accusing him. My main problem with that user was that I knew he was [[User:Shiva's Trident]], something he had been denying for a long time, and in the same arbitration page we see acknowledgment that I other users were [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Sockpuppets_2|right]] all that time when admins like Blnguyen chose to ignore the situation, while at the same time banning these users who knew what Hkelkar was up to. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#BhaiSaab] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#TerryJ-Ho_banned] Alright, I guess it makes a little sense to give me a prolonged ban, but why ban someone like TerryJ-Ho, who had no previous record of blocks and simply got into a few tiffs with a trouble-maker, Hkelkar? There is something seriously wrong with the arbcom decisions in this case.

On the same day of his banning, Hkelkar began actively editing with an [[Special:Contributions/Rumpelstiltskin223|alternate account]], which he used until Feb. 10 (and after which, began using other accounts of course). He has currently taken to possibly using dozens of throwaway accounts (many of which are probably listed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&diff=116587889&oldid=116587577#Hindutva here]).
Also I wanted to note my ban resets. The first was done because of a checkuser which later proved to be [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Falcon2020&diff=106830451&oldid=99947804 incorrect], as did the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MinaretDk&diff=106829813&oldid=106629358 third]. As usual, Blnguyen did not admit his mistake in identifying the socks. If you want to use my "3 ban resets" against me, at least get your facts straight.
I don't particularly care whether or not I'm indefinitely banned. This entire discussion is just lip service to an ineffective solution. Instead of going after the root of the problem, Hkelkar, you're going after whoever Hkelkar seems to cross during his POV-pushing routine. I thank Netscott for defending but I would also suggest to him that he not waste his time. [[user:BhaiSaab|BhaiSaab]] <sup>[[user talk:BhaiSaab|talk]]</sup> 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
<!-- and above here -->
<!-- and above here -->
</includeonly>
</includeonly>

Revision as of 20:10, 20 March 2007

Archive

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

My Story

I see a sockpuppet. The sockpuppeteer states he's Hindu. The sockpuppet claims to be Jewish. I don't assume good faith of the sockpuppet for three months (because policy does not require me to extend the courtesy) while, at the same time, the admins are oblivious to the fact. Arbcom decides that I had been right about the sockpuppetry. The sockpuppet is banned. I am banned for my behavior while having assumed bad faith. That behavior includes "being anti-Semitic" (or as I would say it, defending my country's President) to a sockpuppeteer who Blnguyen now knows is actually a Hindu. Admins are all off the hook for their failure to see what a normal user could see for three months. Can anyone tell me if this would have happened if the admins knew, like I knew, that I was speaking with a Hindu and why Iranians can't praise their President? BhaiSaab talk 17:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the tip of the iceberg of your disruptive editing. Arrow740 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, a member of the "anti-Muslim brigade" replies first. BhaiSaab talk 01:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That entire case was a lot more than a case of sockpuppetry and assumptions of bad faith against a possible sockpuppet. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In case you don't know (but I think you know it), BhaiSaab is even not allowed to edit his talk page to reply you. So your last comments about the case are unnecessary caustic, mean, and not very... noble. TwoHorned 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment did not need reply, I think we can all agree that it wasn't a case of finding a sockpuppet and getting rid of him? So I cannot imagine that BhaiSaab would disagree with me on that point, if you believe he will then delete my last two comments and please explain why on my talk page. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That case was about sockpuppetry and disruption. Sockpuppetry was a part of it, and it was used for disruption. We all know that. TwoHorned 16:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NinaEliza 17:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye

See you BhaiSaab! (→Netscott) 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good... hopefully we'll both be around. I suspect you may "pop" up in the meantime though... lol! Take it easy. (→Netscott) 16:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar

This case is now closed and the results have been posted above.

For the Arbitration committee, Cowman109Talk 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only sockpuppet is him. If you attempt to do some sort of defamation by labeling every user from my uni as a sockpuppet of mine, I'll be sure to have some fun around here. BhaiSaab talk 01:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go

It was nice to have an Iranian voice on the wikipedia. Hope to see you back. Don't screw up your time-limited ban by sockpuppetry; a year ain't that long. -- Kendrick7talk 05:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

Just to notify that mediation has renewed at the Muhammad article, after a delay due to Ars Scriptor's leaving, in case you still wanted to participate. I'll be the mediator, but I may call in help from someone more experienced later. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BhaiSaab (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to be temporarily unblocked so that I may comment here. If that is not possible, I ask that someone simply relay a message which I will post on my talk page. Thanks.

Decline reason:

You can comment in the section below and it will appear on WP:CN#BhaiSaab.27s_commentary. — HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment here BhaiSaab

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BhaiSaab&oldid=116605970"