User talk:Harsha varadhan

Please unblock me as this is a case of mistaken identity. I've hardly edited a few pages. Its not clear as to how I'm related to these banned users. Harsha varadhan (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking administrator I relied upon Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Youonlylivetwice (2nd) and related reports. I am going to request a checkuser to look at this to make sure.[1] Jehochman ^Talk 17:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser came back inconclusive. The editing pattern seems to be the same as banned User:Mudaliar so I am leaving the block in place. Another administrator is welcome to review the evidence, but I'd request they discuss this with me before taking any action. Jehochman ^Talk 12:16, 8 April 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).

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

Request reason:

mistaken identity

Decline reason:

reason —agree with The Evil Spartan — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 10 April 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.

Please unblock me. I have only edited a few pages. Jehochman alleges that I'm User:Mudaliar as I have edited the Mudaliar page. This is a case of mistaken identity. I request another admin to review and discuss this case with Jehochman. Harsha varadhan (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the evidence, it appears pretty damning to me. I would say it's 95% certain you are this user. Even if not, you are engaging in the same edit warring that got the first user blocked. The evidence would include reverting to what appears to be a much earlier version of the page: [2], wikilawyering about an inconclusive RFCU result, edit warring, and a similar style in knowledge about Wikipedia policies. However, I too would leave someone familiar with this case should look at it even more in depth. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:10, 10 April 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).

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

Request reason:

mistaken identity

Decline reason:

Per The Evil Spartan above, whose assessment I confirm after having looked into this independently. I see no reason to unblock you on the basis of not being the same user when you were still causing the same kinds of problems. Mango juice^talk 19:20, 10 April 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.

Please unblock me as the accusations against me don't make sense. I'm not sure how I've been declared as a sock of banned a user. For example, how am I supposed to get myself unblocked without stating my case? I'm now being accused of wikilawyering. I request the reviewing admin to look into this issue. Thanks, Harsha varadhan (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]