User talk:Multiplexor

Welcome!

Hello, Multiplexor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme

Fnagaton is trying to my account blocked and he's acting in evil faith by misrepresenting guidelines, policies, endless edit warring, use of sockpuppets and abusing inexperienced admins to get everyone blocked who opposes his crude attitude and opinions. --Multiplexor (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this is about. Is there any policy violation he's citing against you? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he claims I'm using sockpuppets when I'm definitely not using more than a single account, namely this one. He calls my edits or justified reverts "vandalism" or reverts them with "rvv", even if it's obviously and definitely not vandalism in the least. He'll certainly accuse me of a 3RR violation and ask some admin to block me. --Multiplexor (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These so-called sockpuppets were yours. You are using false-flag operations to get pages semi-protected to lock out new and unregistered contributers who oppose your views. As said, you're abusing the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia to your own selfish advantage. --Multiplexor (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see that I was making the same justified reverts as User:Jeh and User:Thunderbird2. They are not blocked, accused of vandalism or sockpuppetry by Fnagaton. Why? Because he knows his lies won't work with established accounts. It only works with relatively new accounts. --Multiplexor (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplexor and Fnagaton, Please halt commenting to each other for a bit, I'm taking a look into this. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative. --Multiplexor (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplexor,
Can you please explain this edit and it's purpose?
Remember that answering in good faith will help maintain good faith. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fnagaton complains when someone calls him by his realname. Yet he uses a long-established nick as his account name. Therefore, nobody exposes anything secret at all. Fnagaton revealed his identity right from the start when he created his Wikipedia account. The point he's always twisting statements back and forth until he finds something that could be considered a policy violation when in reality this perceived violation has nothing to do with the spirit of any policy at all. I'm also convinced that he's mentally hiding behind his nick and using it like a mask in a role-play game. If he were to use his real name, he might come to senses and might realize that Wikipedia isn't a strategic war game, that he's interacting with real people who are acting in good faith. --Multiplexor (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplexor, if a user requests you avoid using his real life name, then it would be civil to follow that user's request. Is there value to the encyclopedia by using this person's name?
Fnagaton, please disengage, it is not helpful to diffusing the situation.
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I mention his realname? I only pointed out how trivial it is to figure out his realname because he published this information himself in several places along with a photograph even. He also uses the same nick in other places. That's all. I don't intend to mention his realname. --Multiplexor (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll assume good faith and query with Fnagaton if this would be a satisfactory end to the situation. However, I would be supportive of a block if I hear you again used his real life name. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things clear, this note includes possible sock puppets. I don't want to hear that Fnagaton's personal name was abused. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And 15 minutes after you wrote this an anonymous user goes ahead. Sometimes coincidences are just too convenient. --Multiplexor (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplexor,

Where are you editing from? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What information are you asking for exactly? --Multiplexor (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You made a terrible mistake

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

217.87.72.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Troll

Blocking administrator: Dmcdevit (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trolling at all. This is accusation isn't just a lie, it's also a personal attack. Dmcdevit, when you convicted Fnagaton of socketpuppetry, why did you let him off the hook? [1] --Multiplexor (talk) 21:01, 9 May 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).

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

Request reason:

I am not trolling. Do not claim that I'm providing no reason for getting unblocked because I just did. Furthermore, it's up to the admin who blocks someone to provide true and factual reasons. It's not up to the victims of witchhunts to prove innocence.

Decline reason:

Per Dmcdevits comment below. — Rjd0060 (talk) 21:19, 9 May 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.

This user is a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of Sarenne (talk · contribs), used for harassing Fnagaton. I apologize for not being clear in the block summary; his actions seemed trollish and obviously blockworthy without being banned already. Dmcdevit·t 21:19, 9 May 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).

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

Request reason:

You are wong. I am not Sarenne. I am not a sockpuppet. These are facts. The truth is if Fnagaton accuses someone of being Sarenne, the account gets blocked without any justification or credible investigation. Another fact is, you believe everything Fnagaton says, no matter how obviously he lies like calling statements "personal attacks" or "vandalism". A further fact is that Fnagaton should have been blocked along with Sarenne a long time ago.

Decline reason:

No, CU confirmed it, block is good, page protected to prevent further abuse, email "unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org" — MBisanz ^talk 21:29, 9 May 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.