User talk:Fear the Fire

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. As a blocked or banned user you are not entitled to edit Wikipedia. All your edits have been reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Aksi_great (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Wrong_not (talk · contribs) has been identified as your sockpuppet per investigation at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pens withdrawn. I have blocked the account. Please be advised that using multiple accounts to edit or comment on the same topics is prohibited. Thatcher131 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am working in an IT company and there may be many users in the same LAN Pens withdrawn 06:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. It seems pretty unlikely, though, that your fellow employee would join Wikipedia on the same day you did and edit only two of the three articles you have edited and nothing else. Thatcher131 06:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he can be my friend as well right?.. if that account dint create any troubles in wiki(analyse his/her contribs and talks), why do you need to block that?. Did you try to analyze the person(user:Bakasuprman), who put me in the check list? Please go through the history of the article National Development Front. If administrator User:Dbachmann hadn't intervened, these people would have established it as a terrorist organization. They are still trying for it. I am in no way related to this organization, maybe in future, I will be a part of it. I know the intentions of these editors, its clear from their contributions on wiki. Wiki is considered as a neutral source and my intention is to just give a try to save this organizations image here or just give a supporting hand to other editors. --- Pens withdrawn 05:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the block

(Case Pens_withdrawn Check the first case handled by User:Thatcher131). One User was blocked on my behalf and few others were labled as sockpuppets of Sunderam7). Note that I am not declared as a sockpuppet of Sundaram.

Now let me try to explain my points.. Most of the positive contributions on the article are from User:Sundaram7 and I only wanted to support him because I see a lot of vandals trying to destroy the article.. Please analyze all my discussions in talk page in thse sections [1],[2],[3] (note that my user name was Pens_withdrawnChangeUsername Archive)...

Please analyse the contributions of admin User:Dbachmann to this article at a stage when it was completely vandalised [4]... He also created a critisism section and added the arguments of other side in it. But still people tried to change the entire structure of the article in just a single edit( see the sequence - [5],[6], [7],[8] *).

Let me brief the the entire history of the article.

Part 1 : Before Admin intervention

[9] The very first vandal attack and the very firt edit by the user User:Bakasuprman on this article ("Human rights" org was changed to "terrorist org" and established a new founder to the org, who was one of the accused terrorist in Coimbatore bomb blast. Is that a right thing to quote without any ref???)
User:Mereda's entry soon after User:Bakasuprman first edit [10]
User:Mereda's vandalism followed by few edits by User:Bakasuprman and the User:Soman tried to neutralize article to some extend without removing any of their claims.
But User:Bakasuprman is back to create trouble [11] ( added few claims which were proved false later on by User:Sundaram7)
User:Soman reverted twice [12], [13] due to rvt by User:Bakasuprman [14])
User:Bakasuprman's new attempt of vandalism [15],[16],[17]
User:Soman's edits are very well neutral, rather it can be see that they are focussing more towards negetive aspects, later on User:Soman was even supporting few of User:Bakasuprman's points [18]
User:Ndfindia's [19] and User:Sundaram7's entry [20] -- article started to move in possitive direction
User:Bakasuprman's re-entry; he reverts the article back to his 5 days old version by removing all the contributions of Ndfindia and Sundaram7, militant org is back again [21]
User:Bakasuprman continues troubling again even after getting warning to discuss before changes are made [22]

sockpuppets of User:Sundaram7 tries to revert User:Bakasuprman's terrorist claims, but of no use [23],[24],[25],[26]
User:Bakasuprman get warnings from diff ips 198.36.32.13("Please dont RV to the old versions without a reason, pls." but changes again [27])
User:Bakasuprman back again with older versions [28],[29]
User:128.83.131.123 (sock puppet or impersonator of banned user User:Hkelkar) rvts to same old version of User:Bakasuprman [30]
User:70.113.94.221 does the same revert [31]--- this user can never be a sockpuppet of sunderram as statet by User:Aksi great. It is absolute nonsense!!! This edit by User:70.113.94.221 simply proves it, because it is the very same revert and is in continuation with the revert done by User:128.83.131.123 (sock puppet or impersonator of banned user User:Hkelkar) here -----------(1)
User:Bakasuprman back again with militant claim [32],[33],[34]
User:70.113.116.46 does the same revert again [35] --- Again, this IP can never be a sockpuppet of sunderram as stated by User:Aksi great. It's a continuation of the same reverts by User:128.83.131.123 and User:70.113.94.221(both are sockpuppets of banned user Helkar); moreover in between User:Sundaram7 and his sockpuppet ids tried to keep the original version.-----------(2)

Admin User:Dbachmann comes in [36]
User:Freedom skies puts the same old claims of User:Bakasuprman [37] and Admin User:Dbachmann asks User:Freedom skies to source the claims.[38]
User:Dbachmann finally finishes his revision. Article stil has the protection tag. [[39]]

Part2 : after User:Dbachmann intervention

Soon User:Bakasuprman started his efforts [40], but this time his strategy was a kind of long term achievement of his goal mainly because he dint want to be noted by the Admins. This is the point were I actually initiated my efforts to support the article. I notified Admin User:Dbachmann about User:Bakasuprman's edits here. He didnt want to waste much time on the article. I was a new user and it was not able for me to edit the protected article. So I again requested Admin User:Dbachmann here for help. He replied here and removed the protection tag [41]. He dint interfere in the article after that. (I hope it is clear from this that I am not the sockpuppet of User:Sundaram7 because, if it was Sundaram7, he would have been able to edit the protected article. His past edit history clearly shows that)-----------(3).

The story doesn't end here.User:Bakasuprman continued to play the same game, but is always takes utmost care to be on the safer side because User:Sundaram7 also started filing cases against him. User:Bakasuprman role is continued by sockpuppets of banned user User:Hkelkar like User:Lionheart5.. see the edits here [42],[43],[44],[45],[46] Please read my discussion with User:Lionheart5 in my talk page.

(will add more points here later)

Let me frankly say that I know User:notBound .It was a mistake from his side to edit the ndf article and he did it only once [47]. His edit was soon reverted by User:70.113.112.244 (sock puppet of banned user User:Hkelkar)-----------(4).

He wont be editing this article in future because now he is aware of this sockpuppet problem. Note that he is a new user

From (1)(2)&(4) it is very well clear that User:70.113.116.46 and User:70.113.94.221 are not sockpuppets of User:Sundaram7 where as they are of banned User:Hkelkar. It was a great mistake from User:Aksi great to claim that. Same is the case with me. I and the user User:notBound are not sock puppets of User:Sundaram7. it is clear from (3)&(4)

I will try to get more points on the 2nd Part to prove that I am not a sockpuppet of User:Sundaram7. I will have to leave now. But will surely come up with more clear proofs to prove tat User:Aksi great was fully wrong in his judgment.

Blocking my LAN IP is not a good idea because more than some 2000 people work in the same LAN. Something must be done about it. If User:Aksi great doesn't take an action immediately, I will have to go for some higher appeal... Or may be, if there are some other editors in my LAN, they will start filing their complaints..

Re: Fear the Fire

I do not remember saying anywhere that 70.xxx IPs belong to you. As for the sockpuppetry charge, and your saying that you are on large LAN, I don't buy it. I am quite positive that you all are the same user. You all edit the same articles. I don't believe that so many users from the same IP would suddenly discover wikipedia and start editing with the same POV. In the future, please don't evade your block by editing from an IP. Leave an {{unblock}} template on your talk page(s) and another neutral admin will review your case. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where are so many users from my IP editing the same article!!!. Its just me and User:notBound. And i have told you that User:notBound edited that article only once!!! After my warning he dint touch it. And we are in no way related to Sundaram7. You dont remember saying anywhere User:70.113.116.46 and User:70.113.94.221 are sockpuppets of sunderam??? The same tag you have added for me was there for User:70.113.116.46 , User:70.113.94.221 and User:notBound!!!! how come we are the all same sockpuppets??? and I dont know who removed the article User:70.113.116.46 and User:70.113.94.221 now. --Fear the Fire 07:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are here to support those vandal editors, then you have did a great job!!! you have eliminated a user who was trying to support the article!!! Now let us see where the article heads.. I know that, for time being vandals will be silent..

It is clear from my discussion, the motives of User:Bakasuprman and sockpuppets of User:Hkelkar... Congrats!!! -- Fear the Fire 07:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your fantasies to yourself. I (nor anyone else) have never added any tag to the user pages of those IPs. The pages have never been created, and they have never been deleted. [48], [49]. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why did u block my ip now??(see the time of the block here and time of the above mesg and time at which i posted a mesg to User:jpgordon here). Is it because you have seen my ip talk to User:jpgordon regarding this case??? --Fear the Fire 07:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]