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]

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] 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
User:Bakasuprman back again with militant claim [32],[33],[34]
User:70.113.116.46 does the same revert again [35]

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 previous edit history clearly shows that he was using sockpuppets extensively and he was caught only later.) -----------(1).

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)-----------(2).

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

More info on User:notBound (added on 21/3/07) - looking in to the contributions of User:notBound, it is clear that he was fully active on 13th and 14th March.. he was working on an articel in his sandbox on 13th 14th and 15th.

Here are the timings of User:notBound's edits on 14th march

12:56,# 12:51,# 12:48,# 12:39,# 12:37,# 12:36,# 12:36,# 12:35,# 12:34,# 12:31,# 12:27,# 12:17,# 11:23,# 10:56,# 10:55,# 10:49,# 10:48,# 10:19,# 10:18,# 10:13,# 10:11,# 10:09,# 10:02,# 09:34,# 07:59,# 07:55,# 07:50,# 07:46,# 07:42,# 07:37,# 07:35,# 07:25,# 07:16,# 06:50,# 06:49,# 06:39,# 06:26,# 06:24.

See my edits on the article Arun Shourie on the same day. Timings of edits are 12:47,# 12:52 and # 12:53

12:47 [48](in this edit I have added a criticism section and it obviously took some time to prepare that), # 12:52 [49], and # 12:53[50] ---- these edits overlap with User:notBound's edit. -----------(3)

there are other overlapping edits on the same day which overlapped with User:notBound's edits. I was just trying to create a signature for myself and see how they overlapped with User:notBound's edits. timings are # 07:42,# 07:40,# 07:33,# 07:33

Truth is that User:notBound's is the new user id created by the same person when User:wrong not's was blocked saying tat he is my sockpuppet.

It was a great mistake from User:Aksi great to claim that I and the user User:notBound are not sock puppets of User:Sundaram7. it is clear from (1)(2)&(3)

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.

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. [51], [52]. - 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]

okey theose users where not tagged as sockpuppets of sundaran, it was because, my IP was blocked tat it was showing a blocked tag when clicking on those user ips( wiki automatically directs us to create the page)..

I want my IP to be unblocked.. I have to talk with User:jpgordon. Or mention y u blocked my IP now Fear the Fire 07:47, 20 March 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have explained the reason above; please note the points (1), (2) and (3)

Decline reason:

You are a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet of Sundaram7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as is also apparent from the contribution patterns. — Sandstein 06:51, 21 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.

case at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard

I have seen that somebody has created a case called Invalid Sockpupperty Decision at Administrators'_noticeboard page: [53] and sombody just removed the case even before taking some action!. I just reinitiated the case now. Please watch this case. Sundaram7 06:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i feel that it is not worth staying in wikipedia as the system is fully corrupted ... Going through the activities of certain admins here, looking in to their talk pages, and looking in to the contributions of others related editors, it is clear for me that this system is not going to be neutral for long.. Of course there are many neutral admins, but they will have to be more causious because the system is easily manipulated by others... Simply look at the way this sockpuppet issue is handled.. -- Fear the Fire 07:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no one taking up the case. How about asking for help from User:Thatcher131 who took the case [54] for the first time. He might be able to help.--Fear the Fire 10:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As predicted..

The vandals has been silent for some time and now it seems like they are on safe side.. A new user is created to just start the vandal attack. (see his first edit here). No doubt he is a sockpuppet, because this was the same arguments put by vandals here.. --Fear the Fire 06:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]