User talk:Khatri121

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).

Khatri121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I work in Indian Institute of Science, which has common internet server in campus. I know Satya as well, she is a Senior Research Scholar in Dept of Chemistry. :In Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, we have a common internet server so there is no question of socket puppetry. So kindly remove the block. Thank you. Khatri121 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirmed abuser of multiple accounts. only (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2014 (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).

Khatri121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not willing to disclose the identity, but i think Satya did so any way. Proof was given by her, on her page, i am copying and pasting the same. Our ip address is common proxy server across the campus. http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/14.139.128.14 Khatri121 (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2014 (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.

It is clear that you don't understand that the creation of this account is contrary to Wikipedia's policy. Even if it is true that you are two separate individuals using the same computer, your account was created solely to join in and carry on a dispute against a fellow editor, and continued to do so once the main account was blocked. It's also confusing in that Satya301 claims that you are her husband, yet you have repeatedly referred to Satya using "he" and "his" (example 1 example 2) until I noted the discrepancy on Satya301's talk page, then you changed the pronoun to "she" and "her". Bottom line, Satya301's story of being husband and wife is fishy at best, and even if true still does not excuse the misuse of the accounts.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Has this account been used for abusing any one??? Have i harassed any one or even used any slang in my writings??? Is supporting some one in concept is wrong?? I have not supported the abuse, i have only supported the righteousness of the concept that too because the article is about my race. In 1 day contribution you were able to judge that i created this account only to support Satya301. As next day i found my account blocked.

Any way i request you to delete this account. Thanks: Khatri121 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2014 (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).

Khatri121 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Regarding block of Khatri121 and Satya301 If we would be same person, then there wont me any contradiction in our writings. This again supports our contention. And the reason for block of this account is "block evasion not abuse". And as told it is a common proxy for Indian Institute of Science community, so there is no case of block evasion. As Ponyo mentioned so i am replying: on the issue of abuse--- If i say that you are inferior to others, some body call your caste mother fucker, and Editor [Sitush] agrees to it without even understanding the meaning, is the abuse. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khatri) And Editor is not even replying to Satya's references (forget about implementing them). And as a logical thing, how anybody can write wrong things about us (khatris) based on contradicting references. And I recommend only latest references should be regarded, which reflect the modern thought. Otherwise there would be situation where we will be still following the pre Galileio ideology as there are references to support that as well. And Editor like Sitush should be told to respect "other person's race/origin/caste sensibly" which has been mentioned in wikipedia policy as well. Admins/Editors must not write provoking things in their articles. And when such things are challenged, they should remove it immediately..

Decline reason:

per above, and WP:NOTTHEM. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2014 (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.

If we would be same person, then there wont me any contradiction in our writings. This again supporting our contention. And the reason for block of this account is "block evasion not abuse". And as told it is a common proxy for Indian Institute of Science community, so there is no case of block evasion.

As you mentioned so i am replying: on the issue of abuse--- If i say that you are inferior to others, some body call ur caste mother fucker, and Editor [Sitush] agrees to it without even understanding the meaning is the abuse. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khatri) And Editor is not even replying to Satya's references (forget about implementing them).

And as a logical thing, how anybody can write wrong things about us (khatris) based on contradicting references.

And I recommend only latest references should be regarded, which reflect the modern thought.

Otherwise there would be situation where we will be still following the pre Galileio ideology as there are references to support that as well. And Editor like Sitush should be told to respect "other person's race/origin/caste sensibly".