User talk:Netmonger/Archive 4

{

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Netmonger. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Re:Block Log

I initially tried to do this, but it wouldn't let me unblock a user who wasn't blocked anymore (I think it used to do that). Just to confirm, you want me to issue a "dummy block" and then then unblock you with a note in the block/unblock summary saying it was a mistake? Mr.Z-man 13:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There would be no implications really (unless you try to edit for the minute or so I'm doing it). I'd block you for a short time (5 minutes) with a summary like "Dummy block to leave note in unblock summary" and then I would unblock with a summary like "NOTE: Previous blocks were in error." Mr.Z-man 16:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

 Done Mr.Z-man 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:AIV

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Take it to ANI, please. — madman bum and angel 07:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hey brother, Thank you so much for the Barnstar :-) I will surely keep any good work of mine up :-) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^walkie-talkie | tool box 09:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you want to say "Sand on your nose"? if you really want to u can say it in my talk page :-D NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 08:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sallam Allaikum netmonger. How you been ? Anyway I was talking about what the user box says. Remember Jayasikuru of Chandrika ? How they said that the Tigers are about to be defeated and then things turned around for the worst for the lions ? Watchdogb 14:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Watchdogb I dont know where you are from, but I am sure you are not fighting this battle in the jungles of Wanni, its the innocent civilians who are being forced to suffer. If you think I am fan of the Rajapakse government no I am not, no offense to anyone I believe both the leaders, (LTTE and Government) are sucking the blood of the innocent people (at least the government is i/legitimately elected by the people), thats why I try to be neutral in these issues. NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 14:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. Netmonger, this is the reason I do not want any part of this "Crush Tamil tiger through peace" because in the end more civilians die than the people fighting. That is the same "war for peace" our beloved former government did. In the end they ended up with sand on their nose. Watchdogb 19:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Raja

Assuming good faith, I shall assume that it is not your intent to upset Wiki Raja with your latest edit to his user page, however, were I Wiki Raja, I might be upset and offended by such an edit. Please consider that although you are theoretically conversing with people who speak the same language as you, for a value of "same" that often only means "sounds similar at times", cultural differences may mean that something that one person may consider to be humorous may be perceived as insulting or degrading by someone else. If it is your genuine intention to "be friends" with Wiki Raja, it would perhaps be better not to send him bears that eat his barnstars, regardless of how inoffensive or amusing you find them to be. A sequence of upsetting incidents, regardless of how inoffensive each one is worded, may eventually be determined to be bad faith or personal attacks. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 72 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. personal attack and incivility. Rlevse 18:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Showing good faith by myself Request handled by: Rlevse 12:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

To all the admins,

1. It is my right to protect my email id at any cost, the reason why I didn't accept the fact that email address is mine, I believe wikipedia policy is that we do not reveal individual editors email addresses unless we want to,
2. Second thing is that anyone can fake an email from anyone if you understand how emails work, and earlier I was blocked based on the fact that User:Wiki Raja sent(forwarded) an email to the admin Mr.Z-man saying its from me. After realizing it was a mistake the admin unblocked me (see my block log please). And email header is also no proof that the email is the actual email address or faked because one can easily fake that too. Also you might be interested in reading Joe-job
3. Regarding these two diffes here and here these I posted to Wiki Raja after s/he started commenting about me on at miscellany for deletion talk here but at the ANI the entire story is completely twisted saying I posted them to harass him/her see WP:ANI#Netmonger.27s_incivil_behavior, and the blocking admin didn't take the trouble to go through the entire story and just blocked me on things that no one can back up with evidence.
4. And I posted a barnstar which I picked from Wikipedia barnstars here to cool things between us, they took it as a insult without even investigating whats it all about, this is really depressing NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 14:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick comment (I'm not an admin). In future, usually if you don't want to reveal something rather then lying about it, just refuse to confirm or deny. For example if someone says is your e-mail address a or b, simply say you won't say whether either are you e-mail addresses because you don't want to reveal your e-mail address as it's private. Saying neither is your e-mail address and indeed saying stuff like you use your real name for you e-mail address, if this isn't true is going to make people think you're trying to hide something when they find out the truth. Nil Einne 15:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

After this response I sent you an email requesting you confirm your email address ("Please send this email back to me.") and you did so, from yet a third email address unrelated to your Wikipedia username. Why did you use a different email address to respond to me?--chaser - t 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note for the blocking admin about this RFU. -- But|seriously|folks  03:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How email headers could be fabricated with a previous email sent to you

Delivered-To: [e-mail]
Received: by 10.142.162.20 with SMTP id k20cs37375wfe;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:09:40 -0700 (PDT)

Received: by 10.70.76.13 with SMTP id y13mr7388353wxa.1191146979295;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <[e-mail]
>
Received: from wiki-mail.wikimedia.org (wiki-mail.wikimedia.org [66.230.200.216])

        by mx.google.com with ESMTP id h34si11144474wxd.2007.09.30.03.09.38;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2007 03:09:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com
: best guess record for domain of [e-mail] designates 66.230.200.216 as permitted sender) client-ip=
66.230.200.216;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass smtp.mail=[e-mail]
Received: from vincent.pmtpa.wmnet
 ([10.0.0.17]:57070 helo=localhost.localdomain)
        by mchenry.wikimedia.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
        (envelope-from <
[e-mail]>)
        id 1Ibvk2-0007Kp-K8
        for [e-mail]; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 +0000
Received: from localhost.localdomain (vincent [
127.0.0.1])
        by localhost.localdomain (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l8UA9c0a026094
        for <[e-mail]>; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 GMT
Received: (from apache@localhost
)
        by localhost.localdomain (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id l8UA9cco026093;
        Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 GMT
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:09:38 GMT
Message-Id: <
[e-mail]>
X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: apache set sender to [e-mail] using -f
To: Fakeuser <
[e-mail]>
Subject: How it is possible
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer
From: Wiki Raja<
[e-mail]>

Well I created the above header now if I say that above message was sent to me by Wiki Raja would anyone believe me.. NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 08:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know of this. I was the blocking admin. As noted above there is more than one act involved. Also, the fact that chaser got a confirmation email from a different account makes it even more suspicious. Butseriouslyfolks let me know of this on my talk page and at first seems to have felt 72 hours was too long, but then says "I hadn't seen the userbox though, and that makes it look more like a pattern deserving of a multi-day bloc", which seems to indicate he at that point felt it was okay. IMHO, I'd leave it at 72 hours, but if someone wants to shorten, I won't object, we're now at about the half way point. Rlevse 10:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

To the blocking admin, are you taking another users word against mine, you have blocked me based on reasons that you cant backup with evidence or prove. What are the acts involved. I still dont understand why I am blocked based on things that cannot be proven or backed. Is this the way people assume good faith in wikipedia. NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 11:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You're accusing others, including me, of not showing good faith when you yourself haven't. You also haven't addressed why you haven't answsered chaser's question. I suggest you use email accounts that don't use your name. I'm unblocking you to show I had good faith in this matter.Rlevse 12:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was left with no choice but to accuse everyone else (of course involved parties) because I am the victim of all these issues.., I have contacted chaser through email and explained to him. I replied to him from a third email address because I had changed my wikipedia email address to the new, because my old address was compromised, in ANI by all the admins who do not understand wikipedia's privacy policy. But I still stand by my what I said, I was blocked with evidence which cannot be backed up, only on the suspicion that I am wrong not because it was actually proven. So whoever was involved in my blocking had already assumed bad faith on me NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 13:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If I had bad faith in blocking you, I wouldn't have unblocked you.Rlevse 14:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If reviewing administrators want a copy of our email communication, drop me a line and I'll forward it to you.--chaser - t 19:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Privacy policy

I noticed you mentoned you feel your privacy has been violated. FYI, the wikimedia privacy policy is here Wikimedia:Privacy policy. While I personally don't believe your privacy was violated, if you feel it was, you may wish to consider filing a complaint with the Meta:Ombudsman commission Nil Einne 15:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My privacy is indeed compromised, including that of wiki raja, his email address was also posted on the ANI notice board,

the policy is

E-mail, mailing lists and IRC

E-mail

You may provide your e-mail address in your Preferences and enable other logged-in users to send email to you through the wiki. Your address will not be revealed to them unless you respond, or possibly if the email bounces. The email address may be used by the Wikimedia Foundation to communicate with users on a wider scale.

If you do not provide an email address, you will not be able to reset your password if you forget it. However, you may contact one of the Wikimedia server administrators to enter a new mail address in your preferences.

You can remove your email address from your preferences at any time to prevent it being used.

NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 08:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Google Maps

Google Maps images are not in the public domain - they are copyrighted. Consequently I have marked the images you took from there for deletion. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We need an article on A. M. A. Azeez

Can you help with an article on him please. Looks like he is pretty notable in Sri Lanka. Thanks Taprobanus 14:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Please unblock this account at least to make my case. There was no check user done to block my account.

Decline reason:

You may make your case on your User talk: page, though really, the evidence in the referenced SSP report is damning enough; when IPs match, there's not really need for a CheckUser. — — madman bum and angel 06:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

---

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.

Are you a technical person who understand the concept of "Portable IPs" NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 06:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're referring to Static/dynamic IP addresses. According to [1], "allocated portable" has nothing to do with that aspect. The closing paragraph here supports this interpretation.--chaser - t 08:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay for everyones reference, check the below link

• http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/f.php?ip1=222.165.157.129&ip2=&ip3=&ip4=

every single edit done through the ip 222.165.157.129 is by me, how do you say that the IP is shared by myself and Lahiru_k? NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 11:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If every single edit done through that IP is indeed by you, then you're a sockpuppet [2]. — madman bum and angel 17:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand Madman's point, but the fact that all the edits made directly by that IP address were you doesn't indicate that there aren't edits made by someone on that IP using Lahiru k's account. Those would not show up in the contribution log for that IP address. A checkuser report is necessary to determine whether an IP relationship exists between two accounts.--chaser - t 18:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think madman is saying that since Netmonger claims every edit from that IP is his, and since the diff presented from that IP states that it was an edit by User:Mystic to apparently get around a block, then it follows that Netmonger is a sock of User:Mystic. Is that what you were talking about Chaser? Dreadstar † 19:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Mystic is a sock of Lahiru_k, as confirmed by CheckUser, and that's the banned sockpuppeter. My point is that CheckUser is not necessary, as the IPs are confirmed to be the same, but anyone's entitled to ask for one should they wish to do so. (Netmonger himself may not, as he is banned, and CheckUsers to prove one's own innocence are rejected.) — madman bum and angel 20:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand you guys logic,How could I be the sockpuppeter of the account Mystic if that account was already blocked, I am sorry I dont quite get the point how could I puppeteer a blocked account. I was blocked unfairly and had no choice but to create a new account and continue editing, why should I leave the project just because someone accuses me of something that I didn't do? Yes I claim that every single edit from that IP (222.165.157.129) is by me. thats a static IP from my office. If you want you can send an email to Sri Lanka Telecom and verify to who they have assigned that IP, they would give this info if you mail them through a wikimedia email address (hope fully). NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 02:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how many people access the internet through that IP address? The number of employees in your office could be a rough proxy of that.--chaser - t 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Its against the company policy to divulge company specific details in public forums, in fact it is against the company policy to edit wikipedia during office hours :-), I am the only idiot in the lot who is wasting my free time in wikipedia. NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 06:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Below content is copied from Lahiru_k's talk page for ease of reading

This is what happened

• 222.165.157.129 is the Mystic/Arsath/Netmonger [Static ip, Sri Lanka Telecom (SLT)]
• 203.155.32.180 is me [Static ip. SLT] only few months I used that but not now
• 124.43.000.000 to 124.43.255.255 range use by both of us [Dynamic ip, SLT]

I never used 222.165.157.129 or Mystic/Arsath/Netmonger never used 203.155.32.180 which are both static IPs but we both used 124.43.000.000 - 124.43.255.255 IP range which is assigned to the ADSL/ISDN dynamic pool. If someone can proove that I used 222.165.157.129, I'll pack my bags. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^walkie-talkie | tool box 20:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

But a prior checkuser confirmed the case against you and Mystic. --Haemo 20:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I contact my blocking admin already and I'm making comments here until he replies me. Yes prior checkuser confirmed Mistic as my sock. As I believe that because both of us are using the SLT's ISDN/ADSL dynamic IP pool. That sock case was full of errors and admin Srikeit done some serious mistakes. In example, User:Ajgoonewardene blocked for nothing. No vote stacking and even he didn't violate WP:SOCK. Other example is User:Mystìc blocked indef and I blocked for 2 weeks saying I'm the sock puppeteer. Don't know how the admins came to that conclusion because my account created on March 6, 2006 and Mystìc created on January 18, 2006. So User:Mystìc is the oldest account from us but I the one who blocked as sock puppeteer. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^walkie-talkie | tool box 21:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, they usually go with the less active account when they block sockpuppets. However, I would mention that it's really, really suspcious that Arsath, Mystic's other account, only became active again once you were blocked. It could just be a coincidence, but it's still suspicious — a good alternative is that Mystic = Arsath = Netmonger, and since he was just blocked, it lead to this. Regardless, the Netmonger-Arsath-Mystic connection is clear. --Haemo 23:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well... I explained everything to my blocking admin about the activity of all accounts. Actually there is nothing to hide that Mystic = Arsath = Netmonger. SSP had solid evidence on this and I think Netmonger also not hiding that. Thank you for clarifying me the SOCK hunting method. :) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^walkie-talkie | tool box 02:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Why they are taking so much interest in blocking these accounts?

Please admins, take this into your account, did you all for a moment think why the below mentioned users are taking so much effort in getting my account and Lahiru_k account blocked?

• Sinhala freedom (talk · contribs)

Lahiru is a Buddhist, I am a Muslim, check this users user page which claims he is a Buddhist, and also check his contributions which totally contradicts what is claimed. So I ask what credibility does this user has to make these comments here and, here all these edits are attempts to create a very negative idea about us. THE BIGGEST QUESTION IS.. IS HE REALLY BUDDHIST AS HE CLAIMS?

• Sumoeagle179 (talk · contribs)

This user account was created only last June 2006 see creation log here, the person has never come in contact with any of us or even edited a single article that my self have edited, but s/he seems to know all about my past edits, past user accounts, details of all the IP addresses used by me and Lahiru_k. And please note s/he seems to be sometime confused what they presented at the SSP report at one point this user says snowolfd4 edits from 198.61.20.180 and the next moment s/he changes it to 198.61.20.129, then s/he says snowolfd4 is from Brooklyn NY and the next moment he is from JAMAICA, the user goes on a real spree to gather all this information and post in the SSP report. Now any person who has a reasonable amount of common sense would ask the question "WHATS IN IT FOR THIS USER?" thats exactly what the admin Haemo asked "I would, however, like you to explain where your interest in this whole debacle comes from", the most striking evidence that shows how much time s/he has spent in this is that, in his SSP report he says "Lahiru_k spends upto 18 hours a day in wikipedia" see here this means he has been stalking Lahiru_k for 18 hours so this was more like his job. So either this user must be yet another user who is in LTTE payroll or must be a sockpuppet, this is undeniable. Further the admins can check this users edit counts which is mere 882 edits out of which only 288 are on articles, the rest 303 edits are votes on WP:RFA, WP:FAC and many other project related pages, 70% percent (594 edits) of this users edits have been either on talk pages or Wikipedia project pages. So the purpose of this account is very questionable. I wouldn't want to have an account merely to promote users to admins.

• Watchdogb (talk · contribs) aka Elalan (talk · contribs) aka Trincomanb (talk · contribs) aka Sinhala freedom (talk · contribs)!!!!

I suspect the greatest sockmaster of all at wikipedia, who was banned once for sockpuppeting. But his favorite quote seems to be "Shortest distance between 2 points is a stright line"

There are more users in the list I will publish more details later. NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 19:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Aww seems like someone seen my facebook account. Oh well, :). BTW No, I am not any of those accounts other than watchdogb. Oh btw you can't scare me from editing wikipedia. I am not like others who change usernames and hide behind their computers. Thanks Watchdogb 21:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No its not from your facebook account, Watchdogb but can you deny the fact that you are the sockmaster of Sinhala Freedom? You know very well that I am not Lahiru_k (for that matter the rest of pro-LTTE bunch) because we have had numerous interactions in other forums. I really wonder how "Shortest distance between 2 points is a stright line" is your favorite quote when you use remote desktop to access your sockpuppet account Sinhala Freedom. It is sad, people sell their conscience for pity gains NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 02:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Haven't I proven that I am not Sinhala_freedom on the last SSP case taht was launched against me ? Anyway, I am curious how you got into my favorite quote. Can you tell me ?Watchdogb 12:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't said which forums we interacted on. If this is true then maybe I can recall exactly who you aren't. However, your accusations on me is totally false. Watchdogb 16:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Netmonger what you are talking about is complete trash bordering on slander (about me) and you know it. Please stop your pointless accusations, attacking everyone involved in the sock puppet case against you. No one told you to break any rules here and hence you are completely responsible for your fate. Sinhala freedom 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you get me blocked for it? Talking about trash take a look at your falsified user page thats what I call trash. The whole community knows you are not Buddhist and you talking trash about it. I know you are a sockpuppet, I dont believe in fate like you mate, I believe in choices and for that matter good choices, I dont have to be told what to say in talk pages by a meatpuppet master, I say what I honestly feel and know as fact. NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 09:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Language

Netmonger, whats you mother-tongue ? Sinhala freedom 15:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just like you man TAMIL NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 09:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To add to this I don't consider a single language as my language, I speak fluent Tamil, Sinhala and English. I wish English was my mother tongue and everyone else in this country and rest of the world, so people wont fight over the language like where we live. NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 13:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins, Chaser, FaysalF

Chaser, Fayzal, Admins

Even if you disregard Lahiru_k's scanned documents, what about all the evidence I have given, they are from wikipedia and undeniable. Why wikipedia is having double standards? When those pro-LTTE editors forwarded an email they faked I was blocked for it, is that information not tangential and unpersuasive, in my point of view it is. Honestly guys do you really think Lahiru_k faked those documents he sent you? I havent seen it my self, but use your common sense and think how far would a 19yr old go to securing his wikipedia account, I dont think he would go to the extent of creating a fake passport because if you send that information to Criminal Investigation Department of Sri Lanka he could serve a prison term of no less than 7 years.

And what about the last email I sent you? Did you go through it? Please please dont be so unfair, now since all the dynamic adsl ID's banned, none of the Sri Lankan adsl users can edit wikipedia. You are doing great injustice to a whole nation.

Admins if you want I could send all the emails I sent to Chaser and Fayzal, please ask for it.

NOTE: SLT is the only ADSL provider.

NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 01:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

On Admins request SSP case concisely

I am blocked on the basis, that my account is a sockpuppet account of Lahiru_k, earlier I used to edit with the name Mystìc I created this account in January 2006 see log.

• I admit I am Arsath aka Mystìc aka Netmonger
• I am not Lahiru_k (repeating it for the millionth time)
• Arsath account was renamed to Mystìc
• Once Mystìc account was blocked I recreated Arsath account to make my case for the SSP report filed against me.
• I stopped using the Arsath account and switched to Netmonger since I wanted to remain anonymous. I've not used the Arsath account for anything except for the arbComm case I opened at that time see contributions, so I was not sockpuppeting and I have clearly said that I am Mystìc.
• I edit from this ip 222.165.157.129 from my office and at home I use ADSL. Lahiru_k and I have never shared this ip you can check this as well.
• Sri Lanka Telecom ADSL connection IP's are assigned dynamically (mostly to safeguard there leased line market). this could be verifed by checking other users who edit from Sri Lanka, who are confirmed (in a rather bitter way) not us, please run a checkuser on my account and User:DoDoBirds,User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam,User:Rajsingam and User:Lahiru_k, you would find the same IP ranges. Admin FayssalF would bear witness that User:Rajsingam is not Lahiru_k or Netmonger or Arsath.

• Also check the SLT Website which says http://www.sltnet.lk/adsl/index.htm that they assign dynamic ips to customers

• About my language skills, I speak native level of English, Sinhala and Tamil, I dont want to be divisive, I have said this before see my user page Check the user boxes of Mystic, if you want to know why, I'll forward my explanation to Fayzal.

• if you guys have any more questions please email me or post them here I am more than willing to answer them.
• Could an admin with checkuser privileges get involved in this case? Please.

• Why my Mystìc account was blocked in the previous occasion

Point one

The first checkuser case Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lahiru_k blocked not only the Mystìc account it blocked the accounts Psivapalan (talk · contribs),Sri119 (talk · contribs), Mama007 (talk · contribs),Ajgoonewardene (talk · contribs) and Snsudharsan (talk · contribs) as well. I really dont know how the checkuser concluded they are socks but looking at the pictures of the checkuser tool here I think Dmcdevit would've seen the similarity between the Dynamically assigned IP addresses of our ADSL connections, which would be shared by many other Sri Lankan ADSL users. And as far as I know Lahiru_k admitted that he is the sockmaster of Snsudharsan (talk · contribs) account. And Lahiru's account was blocked for some time (I dont know for how long) for sockpuppeting.

This particular account was never used to vote on the template deletion discussion.

• Ajgoonewardene (talk · contribs) please see his/her contributions,

the last edit of course was very contentious and would have hurt lot of feelings of the LTTE sympathizers check it out, but the grammar I must admit, is far far better than of Lahiru ( I am sorry I had to say this :-))

Point Two

At that point as far as I know nobody knew whats my ip's are, my office IP address which is 222.165.157.129 was revealed only when I edited some of the user talk pages and arbComm case WHICH I OPENED without logging in. They opened the SSP case after I proposed one of RaveenS dearest templates in wikipedia for deletion for its biased nature, please see here Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_15#Template:State_terrorism_in_Sri_Lanka, the template was eventually deleted and replaced with a template I CREATED .i.e Template:Sri Lankan Conflict.

• A humble request to sympathizers of Lahiru and Me

please dont bite the admins, I know Fayzal and Haemo were little fast in blocking our accounts, they were not to be blamed for anything, it's the people who filed the request. I am in touch with Fayzal and Chaser through email and they have been very patiently reading all the emails I've sent them, I dont know the exact details of the communications they have had with Lahiru but I am sure they are listening to his side of the story as well. I sincerely thank him for taking their precious time on this matter. And the rest of you please don't take my equest as an attempt to butter the admins to get my work done; thats the other clubs style and not mine.

• Note

I am of the opinion, all Sri Lanka conflict related articles should be frozen for few months, to calm things down, I have done very little contribution to the Sri Lanka conflict related articles, majority of my edits have been to Islam related articles and the Colombo article. Out of the 1338 edits of mine only 70 have been related to Sri Lankan conflict related articles, check it out. This of course discounting the edits I did for the Template:Sri Lankan Conflict, which is another 31 edits 99% of this 31 are edits done during the original design of the template. Now admins you decide how disruptive my edits have been.

NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would really like you to address, clearly, the circumstances surrounding the prior confirmed checkuser that explained Mystic was a sockpuppet of Laihru. Because that's the contentious part here. Checkusers are aware of dynamic IP issues, so that doesn't sufficiently explain what happened. --Haemo 18:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, if u have anymore questions let me know, and please post this at ANI NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 19:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would just point out that I didn't block either of your accounts. Nonetheless, what I'm looking for is some explanation of the situation surrounding the confirmed checkuser. See, the thing is that a confirmed checkuser is very compelling evidence — checkusers are aware of problems that dynamic IP addresses face, and would not confirm on that basis. --Haemo 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka issues

Please see: Discussion move and Specific proposal Your participation and acceptance would be appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin kindly unblock my account so that I could respond to the proposals? NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 12:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hi Netmonger. You have just been unblocked as per this ANI thread. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up® 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-blocked pending details discussed at the ANI page above. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up® 23:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks a million, but still my IP ranges have been blocked, I cannot edit until the particular IPs are unblocked. Thanks NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 12:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Now I really feel like I am sock puppet, but one with many puppet masters... the admins, and the people who are manipulating the story at ANI.. what can I do about this.. NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 15:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked as per The AN. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up® 21:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

222.165.157.129 IP address is still blocked, could an admin unblock this IP. NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 09:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, try now. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kattandakudi massacre1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kattandakudi massacre1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LTTE Kattankudi Muslim Mosque Massare 18.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LTTE Kattankudi Muslim Mosque Massare 18.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:LTTE Kattankudi Muslim Mosque Massare 23.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LTTE Kattankudi Muslim Mosque Massare 23.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Re other accounts

Hi, Fayssal. Any plans to unblock this account and Arsath account. NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 11:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I advice you to forget about those accounts. I really do not see any reason to unblock them. I checked Mystic's contribs and found out that it had edited Sri Lanka/LTTE subjects while Arsath's has edited no more than the ArbCom case. So? -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up® 11:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Lets forget about those accounts. Can I have the sock tag removed from those user pages? I dont mind not unblocking them as long as the sock tags have been removed, The Mystìc account has over thousand edits check it out NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 12:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please make sure you don't use those accounts. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^Wiki me up® 12:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I really use them fayssal? :) you forgot something... they are still blocked. :D NëŧΜǒńğer^Peace Talks 17:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

SLR agreement

As a signatory of this agreement, you may be interested that we're currently discussing the WT:SLR#Continuation of SLR agreement. This is just a courtesy notice. — Sebastian 05:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

SLR agreement

As a signatory of this agreement, you may be interested that we're currently discussing the WT:SLR#Continuation of SLR agreement. This is just a courtesy notice. — Sebastian 05:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)