User talk:Rtiact

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Rtiact, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Phgao 12:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I am trying to develop the template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WikiProject_Brahmoism
It is based on this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:IndicL
It is supposed to add the main article to Category:Brahmoism when the template is inserted into the Talkpage of the article (as per {{IndicL}}.
Instead I find it inserts the Talkpage into Category:Brahmoism.
A careful compare with the code of {{tl:IndicL}} == no result.
Then backtracked and found that {{IndicL}} was also inserting the TalkPages into its indicated Category.
My Query: is there a way to insert the main article into a Category by placing the template on the Talkpage? If so, what mods does my Template's code need? Rtiact (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IndicL template is being misleading; it doesn't mean "articles", it means "pages". There's no way to have a category on a talk page control what categories the talk page's article is in. A template on a talk page can only affect which categories the talk page is in, it cannot affect the article itself. A Wikiproject template should not be trying to change the categories of the article anyway, if it's relevant to Brahmoism the article should be placed in that category regardless of its Wikiproject status. --Golbez (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have read the evidence against me, ie. the RFCU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ronosen.

I am not a puppet of User:Ronosen
I do not use open proxies as claimed by User:Alison.
I have never disruptively edited, nor is it my intention to do so ever.
It is correct that I have made several edits to the article on Ronen Sen - not only the edit which User:Priyanath has diffed. However, Ronen Sen is eminently notable being India's Ambassador to the United States; the linkage between "Ronen" Sen and "Ronosen" is far fetched.}
It is correct that I was aroused to reactivate my Wiki account based on that recent vandalism threat posted at the Brahmo Conference Organisation's Yahoo group by BrahmoNews vandals like User:Reformedbrahmovandal who are hacking and spamming the Yahoo groups in addition to Wikipedia. So, my renewed interest in Wikipedia is in highest good faith to protect Brahmoism pages like Keshub Chunder Sen from admitted sockpuppets of Ronosen like User:Reformed brahmovandal.
I must respectfully question why the several previous RFCUs to trace out sockpuppets of Ronosen did not tag my account earlier (I have been here for about 1 year). I suspect that I am only found guilty by association, specifically for my good faith in joining Wiki Project WP:Brahmo or for off-wiki association with "Sroy1947" and "Project_brahmo".
A friendly soul at Wikipedia has disclosed User:reformedbrahmovandal's logs to me. He was IP blocked by "Zzuuzz" for abusing an open proxy "74.63.84.101" titchyninja.com on 26th July 2008 which was exclusively used by Ronosen.
I appreciate that requests for unblock where CU evidence is involved is difficult. However, I apprehend that the premise (ie, everyone is a puppet of Ronosen) of the Admin doing the RFCU is faulty. It needs a fresh perspective based on these 2 recent diffs from admitted Brahmo Vandal:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump&diff=prev&oldid=227865310 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&diff=prev&oldid=227860374

As this is my first unblock request, please also guide me how to improve it.

Decline reason:

The checkuser analysis provided at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ronosen indicates that your account edited using the same IP addresses as the other indicated users; this results in a Confirmed result on the question of whether your account is being used by the same person or people as the other accounts, resulting in a violation of our policies and an indefinite block. I note that there may well be coincidences - as with the Ronen Sen edit and others - that may also serve to link this account to others, but the checkuser evidence alone is persuasive. You'll want to have a look at our Guide to Appealing Blocks for more information. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:17, 30 July 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

In addition to what I wrote earlier:- * * From what I can decipher, I have been clubbed with 3 other editors as sockpuppets of Ronosen on the basis of IP addresses matches. * User:Reformedbrahmovandal is a self admitted puppet of Ronosen. It is extremely extremely unlikely that I would share an IP address with these 2 banned users. I am stating this since I am also given to understand that Ronosen's sockpuppets are using zombie or proxy computers: which I do not. Please confirm this. * User:Project_Brahmo (who I know somewhat in Real life) is physically situated about 1500 kilometres away from me (In Mumbai, India). He is a veteran editor (possibly an admin) with over 10,000 edits (and incidentally a Brahmo). I do not think that he would stoop to using proxies or zombies. I can therefore state that it is also equally extremely unlikely that I would share IP addresses with him. This seems ex-facie to be confirmed from the Checkuser evidence which is inconclusive on this point. * User:Sroy1947 is known to me in real life as well as I know myself. Sroy1947 is notable in real life as a specialist on RTI Act. Wikipedia policies specifically allow Sroy1947 to open a secondary account for editing on "RTI Act". There is minimal (possibly zero) overlap between edits of "Sroy1947" and this account. In the circumstances, since neither Sroy1947 nor this account use compromised IP addresses, there is likely to be considerable commonality between the IP addresses but not with the other aforesaid accounts. But this, however, does not constitute sockpuppetry as defined at Wikipedia. * User:Yvantanguy is reasonably well known to me in real life as he is also to User:Ronosen. It is very possible that we may SOMETIMES have shared an IP address range (I have stayed at his house and used his PC), but as far as I can tell this user had stopped editing at Wikipedia at around the same time as User:Ronosen. * From the WP:GAB article, I find that the Checkuser procedure cannot distinguish between 1 editor or 2 editors or more. By all accounts User:Ronosen is said to be proficient in Information Technology. It is a given that almost every Brahmo online (there are only 200 Brahmos in existence - all inter-related somehow) is a member of the Yahoo Brahmo group(s) where emails are exchanged. We now suspect that (given the alleged match in IP addresses) a worm or some other malware has been used to compromise our PCs thereby allowing the Ronosen vandal group to spoof our IP addresses (or other "fingerprints"). In the circumstances we need to know which of the following cases has occurred A) User:Ronosen has spoofed our (non proxy) IP addresses, or B) My edits (or Sroy1947's) are credited to Ronosen's (open proxies / zombies) IP addresses. * This diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keshub_Chunder_Sen&diff=prev&oldid=225765321 of User:SonOfRonoSen thoroughly exposes User:Reformedbrahmovandal and User:Ronosen gameplan. * The "quack like a duck" test would not work with Brahmos. It is a very small and insular community. You must assume good faith on the part of some Brahmo editors despite what a few determined vandals are doing. * In so far as sockpuppetry by me is concerned, I cite some core Wikipedia policies- :"The policy on multiple accounts addresses situations in which the same individual edits Wikipedia from more than one user account. The use of multiple accounts, while discouraged, is generally permitted. However, abusive sockpuppetry—such as the use of multiple accounts to vote or comment more than once in the same discussion, or to seek to create an illusion of more support for a position than actually exists—is forbidden."
:"In determining whether two accounts are sockpuppets of the same individual, administrators, the community, and the Arbitration Committee may consider all relevant evidence, including CheckUser findings, contribution histories and patterns, similarities or differences in online mannerisms, explanations provided by the users in question, and any other legitimate and reliable information available. In accordance with the principle of assuming good faith, allegations of sockpuppetry are not to be made lightly, but only based upon reasonable cause. In investigating and resolving such allegations, abusive sockpuppetry by established contributors will not be presumed, but is to be inferred based only upon a substantial weight of credible evidence."
The request for checkuser, however, is made lightly, is flimsy and circumstantial. :"All three editors make up the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Brahmoism. This off-wiki message board post perhaps refers to what is happening here.[4] The Keshub Chunder Sen article, which the Ronosen socks were editing, is coming off of protection in a day, so these new puppets may be gearing up for action. ~ priyanath talk 23:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)" It fails to establish (or even cite) any abusive sockpuppetry by "Rtiact" or "Sroy1947". It fails to consider the good faith probability that an editor would initiate a WikiProject to get edit warring Brahmos to achieve consensus. It also fails to consider the probability that editors would join in good faith such a project which publicly declares such intentions. The editor submitting such a RFCU is following User:Ronosen's gameplan to subvert WP:Brahmo into a honeypot so as to eliminate Brahmo editors out of Wikipedia, leaving the field clear for their POV pushing. *Seeing the public evidence in this case, I voice my concern that my account and a related realword identity "Sroy1947" are being harassed by being associated with Brahmo vandals like Ronosen. If there was any specific evidence (especially checkuser evidence)for these 2 accounts, surely this would have emerged in the 2 previous RFCUs conducted on Ronosen (1 conducted by User:Alison and another by User:Sam_Korn). * I am especially concerned that editing through conventional ISPs with standard browser configurations I am being clubbed with vandals like Ronosen who repeatedly abuse proxy configurations and who appear to know the checkuser mechanisms (like IP, browser, OS, configurations) well enough to mimic these things sufficiently to cause collateral damage on established editors with NPOV history and good track record.

Decline reason:

Please shorten your request. This guide can provide some tips on how to do so. I would note, however, that since the checkuser is confirmed, you are unlikely to be unblocked without appealing to ArbCom. Your block message can provide direction on how to do so. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:08, 31 July 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblockme for the following short reasons * I am not a sockpuppet of Ronosen, despite the Checkuser evidence (more on this later) * User:Reformedbrahmovandal an admitted "former" and "reformed" SOCK of Ronosen (who has trashed numerous articles on Brahmoism joined WP:Brahmo * I reactivated my Wiki account after Ronosen published a threat to vandalise Keshub Chunder Sen on the Brahmo Conference Organisation Yahoo group where I a member too, I also joined WP:Brahmo. My reasons for doing so were to achieve consensus / dialogue with the Brahmo vandals who are defacing /POV pushing not only Wikipedia but also Yahoo group Brahmo websites with forged emails. * The Brahmo vandals are technically advanced and forging / faking / spoofing etc. is routine for them. My evidence for this is complex and involves external links which would involve real world identities. * I am perplexed why this account was not identified as a SOCK of Ronosen when Admin:Alison did her first Checkuser. Neither did this come out when Admin:Sam_Korn do his. It was only when "reformedbrahmovandal" (see his last few contributions) taunted Sam Korn for inefficiency that editors with NPOV history are being roped in as socks of Ronosen (on the flimsiest possible RFCU from user:priyanath - which fails policy WP:SOCK). What is the NEW checkuser evidence which was missed in the first 2 CUs? * I request that this final unblock request be handled by an admin with checkuser privileges. Confirmed socks of Ronosen have published on Wikipedia that they know Checkuser mechanism thoroughly and will misuse their knowledge. Activating User:Priyanath has already conveyed this fact to the Admins/clerks involved. It would indeed be a travesty if Ronosen's group are able to get away scot free by gaming the system. * My NEW ground is this: In his RFCU, User:Priyanath diffed a message which clearly identified these users User:ElementR and User:RRaunak as sockpuppets out to vandalise Brahmopages like Keshub Chunder Sen. An associated identity of theirs is RRaunakRoy (suspiciously like Raja Rammohan Roy). Repeated requests to Checkuser these 2 accounts have been denied by Admin:Sam Korn for valid reasons (which has not been applied in my case).To quote

To run a CU investigation, we need to see some evidence of disruption. Simply that these users are the same person is not enough -- that is permitted under policy. We need to see how these accounts would be going against policy in order to run the investigation. Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

All this despite User:ElementR's page containing a blatant admission of SPA and resembling User:SonOfRonoSen.

This Account, ElementR, is registered to highly intelligent brain cells dedicated to fighting vandals and is shared by multiple brain cells. Comments left on this page may be received by other brain cells of this account and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this account or reverting its contributions without checking. If you are an unregistered brain cell operating from this address, note that this need not necessarily be the account address of your ganglion. In many cases, it turns out to be the IP address of your fingers that communicates between your brain cells and the Wikimedia servers. Such fingers are shared among a huge number of bodily usages compared to the number of brain cells using your particular ganglion.

*I also suspect that Brahmo Vandals Lurk behind pages like this (Note user:Priyanath has edited this page). It is an obvious fake to spoof Brahmoism. By eliminating WP:Brahmo from Wikipedia, you are opening the floodgates for "spammers"and SEOpeopleout to hijack our religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brhmoism * I have no intention of going to Arbcom since I am given to understand it is a essentially a place for admins to squabble.

Decline reason:

Your request is still too long. It also contains irrelevant material, such as allegations against other users and what appears to be a rant about brain cells. — Sandstein 15:04, 31 July 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Reasons for unblock request are: * This account is not a SPA of Ronosen. * The Checkuser fingerprints are spoofed by Ronosen (in the interest of brevity, am not repeating all the links from previous unblock requests above.). Since the evidence is highly technical (and involves "outing") I am unwilling to place it on a publicly viewable channel. (I am also aware of Wikipedia's public posture that CU is as unsinkable as the Titanic and all that) * Ronosen's SPA's have demonstrated at Wikipedia some knowledge of Checkuser mechanisms / internals - AND have made threats pursuant to this directed at User Priyanath who filed the RFCU. User Priyanath has already informed other Admins/clerks about this. * To investigate if the CU mechanism is susceptible to "gaming" (the SPA's term, not mine, as used off-wiki) I am again formally requesting that this case only be handled by Admins with Checkuser privileges..

Decline reason:

Since your reasoning focuses mainly on private information relating to the checkuser tool, you should request unblocking by emailing the unblock list at unblock-en-l AT lists DOT wikimedia DOT org. Make sure to include all information relating to specifically to your block - this is provided for you under the "Additional Information" header in your block message - as well as all other information you have in regards to the checkuser. If you require the specific attention of a checkuser, please clearly specify that in your email and the subject heading. Please note that this does not guarantee you will be unblocked: The users granted access to the Checkuser tool are highly trusted and have a high level of knowledge about their duties. Any likelihood of a false entry would have been investigated and disproved before marking the case as confirmed. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:56, 31 July 2008 (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.

Category:Brahmoism Talkpages[edit]

Category:Brahmoism Talkpages, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 11:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]