User talk:The REAL Dux

April 2011

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, The REAL Dux, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron32 04:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

Legal threat issued here: [1]. You may not use the threat of legal action to effect changes to Wikipedia. If you have genuine legal concern, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation as described here. --Jayron32 04:02, 29 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

The blocking of me is an obvious overreaction in my mind. The possible result of a misinterpretation of my words in the complaint directed at a Wikipedia administrator. Done in accordance to my limited and novice understanding of Wikipedia rules and regulations. I had asked that the identities be revealed of Niteshift36 and Escape Orbit so that they could be held legally accountable by me, which without checking further with me is automatically assumed I meant as held legally accountable in a court of law. When in fact my words being “held legally accountable” was made in reference as per those rules governing Wikipedia conduct online. Since, I pointed out they both work in tandem to prevent legitimate contradictory facts and sources from being posted (that exceed Wikipedia policy and rules) which indicates they are acting with actual malice towards me in their defamation of me. They certainly do not possess a Neutral Point of View declaring I am a fraud and thus II believed unmasking them prevents them from possible sock puppetry. Being held legally accountable by me was made in terms of referring to this environment to the extent I made it clear in the article discussion I did not refer to litigation, an assumption of Niteshift36. Consider, I made the request hoping to speak with and receive further guidance and clarification from an administrator, which I think should have occurred before unfairly blocking me and certainly, indefinitely.

Decline reason:

Per comment below, and with my own. You say you want the identities of the other editors. Inasmuch as we don't just do Checkusers on people for that reason, that process would only disclose their IPs and some other technical information, which might or might not be helpful in ultimately identifying them. It really seems like you'd be better off talking to the Foundation's legal department rather than trying to resolve it this way. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2011 (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.

A few things. First, I will take it as a given that you did not mean the words as they have been read, but you must admit that they are easy to misinterpret. Even after I read your response here, my first reading of the comment linked above still seemed to be suggesting possible future litigation. We have a policy not to allow suggestions of litigation, which we term "legal threats" along with actual legal threats, because they have a huge chilling effect on an article. While users have the possibility of a suit looming over their head, they edit far more carefully, and some unscrupulous users have used this as a tactic to prevent them from actively making changes to a page, while the threatening user continues to do whatever he wishes. Because of this, we block users who threaten or suggest legal action until either they retract the comment or the legal action is over. We do not suggest that you are wrong, or that those you might be suing are right, but regardless we do not allow litigation to be used as a bludgeon to "win" disputes.

So what we need from you in order to unblock isn't so much an assurance that you don't plan to file any real world legal actions, but a full retraction of the misinterpretable parts of your statement. Until you retract it, you will unfortunately remain blocked. I should also note that the indefinite time of your block reflects that we don't know when you will be unblocked, not that you won't be.

Moving on to other things, you have requested the identities of two users. This is something that we cannot give you, and would not even if we could. On the technical side, no information is stored on the Wikipedia servers which identifies any user conclusively. The servers do store the IP addresses of users, but only users with a special access level (called CheckUsers or CUs) can view these IP addresses. CUs will not give you the IPs of users, however, as IPs are protected by Wikipedia's privacy policy. So, technically, there is nothing we could tell you.

Of course, even if there was information that could be mined from the system, Wikipedia's community comes down hard on those who attempt to "out" other users. As an internet community, we guard our pseudonymity carefully. While there are many users on Wikipedia who choose to identify themselves, most are virtually anonymous, and attempts to find the identities of these latter users are disdained. I suggest that you do not try to identify users, as it will provoke many of the more reactionary admins here to decline your unblock requests, and possibly revoke access this talk page.

I can't really counsel you on the dispute itself, as I wouldn't know where to start. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:21, 29 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

First off I would like to thank you for your consideration and taking the time to explain the situation in more detail. It was not my intent to cause anyone unnecessary giref or manipulate opinion/dispute by threatening litigation when in fact I am referring to accountability via Wiki laws/rules. Looking at the post I too can wholeheartedly agree and understand how my words could be readily misconstrued and suggest otherwise. Such a mistake reminds me to be more selective in what words I make use of in the future and that I need to defer to others wisdom, as I accept I am in need of others assistance in finding my way in this electronic maze called Wikipedia. So again let me thank you for the information and opportunity to retract my words and correct any wrong and misperception so that their exist no ill will or misunderstanding on anyone's part. Let me begin by first asking is this where my retraction is to be done? If so let me begin by reiterating while it shocked me I view the blocking of me was warranted since I do not want my communications or demeanor to be misunderstood. To correct the situation here let me rephrase the statement: Is it possible to establish that Escape Orbit and Niteshift36 are not one in the same or possibly working in concert in a manner that violates Wiki rules and policy whereby they can be held accountable by Wikipedia through myself or others efforts? Since they appear to violate the prescribed guidelines of maintaining neutrality? A perception I arrived at as do others who are familiar with their history of edits and statements aimed at preventing correct information going up on the page that challenge their slant. Thereby, holding me up to ridicule so others will shun me, which constitutes defamation of a living person that is in violation of Wikipedia Rules and PolicyThe REAL Dux (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This does not retract your legal threat. You must credibly and unequivocally state that you will not take and have not taken any legal action, or similar action, against other Wikipedia editors. Insofar as your request concerns other editors, see WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 19:23, 29 April 2011 (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.

Reviewing admin: Please note that even the most cursory look at the edit histories of myself and Escape Orbit show no similarities in edit history or even the topics we edit. The sole intersection is the Dux article. The notion that one of us is a sock of the other is absurd. But please, feel free to have SPI look into and prove that to be true. I'd also note that at almost the same time this account was being blocked, User:Phoenix2923 returned to Wikipedia to defend Dux and attack me. This account meanwhile posted a non-retraction justification. Then, moments after Phoenix2923 was blocked for his repeated attacks, this account posts a semi-retraction. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can just retract them by stating so here, Dux.

I somehow doubt that the two users are the same, however. That they agree with each other proves nothing except that they agree, and that they use similar word choice proves nothing except that they are both well versed in Wikipedia's jargon. I suggest you drop this inquiry and instead try only to deal with the content itself. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

For the purposes of ending any further confusion I am more than happy to comply with the language you require. I unequivocally represent I do not at this time or foresee I will in the future shall be entering into legal litigation with Wikiopedia editors. Apparently, the perceived threat of litigation is a result of a misunderstanding and commmunication not directed towards any editors I am in dispute with (i.e. Niteshift36 or Escape Orbit) but my looking for guidance from any administrator whom I was turning to for guidance in reporting a violation of defamation of a living person, that is transpring and is in need of addressing. CheersThe REAL Dux (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Since you were blocked only for the appearance of a legal threat, and you have unambiguously stated that no such threat is intended, I see no reason to keep you blocked. Please try to stay civil when engaging other editors in discussions from this point. Thank you. -- Atama頭 22:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of a sockpuppet investigation request

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix2923 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. -- Atama頭 00:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{(From my perspective I anticipated this false allegation. Since it is part of Niteshift36 observable pattern of bad behavior. More evidence he is engaged in defaming me. If you review the discussion section fully it becomes discernable anyone familiar with the verified facts and who dares to attempt to correct the Frank Dux page inevitably ends up accused of being a sock puppet by Niteshift36 and/or Escape Orbit. I am confident you are aware as am i this allegation is an effective tool in manipulating others perception since material facts remain consistent due to their truthfulness. Whenever the truth is challenged this shall raise similar sounding arguments by different people. Such similarity may be twisted to lend an appearance of credibility to an allegation of sock puppetry, which I believe is what is occurring here and now. A review of the discussion page should make it obvious to all the Frank Dux page is taken hostage by Niteshift36 and Escape Orbit. Evidently, their hostility towards my presence indicates they view me as a threat to ruling over their perceived dominion. The two went so far as to delete then hide my responses. I surmise the deleting/masking of my words and my sudden appearance had evidentially caught the attention of a possible fan familiar with my history, Pheonix2329, whom I assume has this page on his watch list no different than Niteshift36 (given how fast he appeared). Apparently Pheonix 2329 had been arguing for improvement by making similar arguments anyone armed with the truth and being stonewalled will do. Whatever assistance you may need to determine Pheonix2329 and I are not the same person I am happy to comply just as I did with issuing a retraction. I only request that this kind of aggressive and hostile behavior on the part of Niteshift36 and Escape Orbit be taken into consideration and he be prevented from kidnapping the page further. That the correct information be permitted to appear and remain on the page. Beginning with something as simple as correcting my birth date as I was born in April. If you visit my facebook page The REAL Frank Dux it will confirm this. And why would I need a sock puppet when I am right here using my own name ready to direct others to credible sources in order to improve the page… it really makes no sense to me. The allegation is made in order to prevent my participation by which Niteshift36 and Escape Orbit may continue to defame me.}}The REAL Dux (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to stay unblocked, you had best drop the personal attacks and hints at legal threats. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just one problem with your story, The REAL Dux. Phoenix2329 returned from a 4 month hiatus just before your post (a minute before, in fact). Unless he has some form of precognition, he must have been in contact with you at the time, or you are the same person. I have to sleep on this unless another administrator wants to step in. I don't want to block someone when I'm this tired. -- Atama頭 08:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also kind of a good-hand / bad-hand thing going on here, as Dux continues to speak in relatively calm pseudo-lawyerese, while Phoenix swoops down like an Avian Raptor, so to speak, hurling vile insults that are practically begging for a block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back up here......You claim to be brand new, yet have this "pattern of bad behavior" down thing already? More importantly, I did not initiate the SPI, an administrator (Atama) did so completely on his own. But you start off by acting like I did it. Third, you keep talking about this "they did this" and "they did that". There is no "they". Escape Orbit hasn't edited that article since before you created this account. Escape Orbit hasn't edited a single thing you put on the article, unless you were operating under another account. And guess what? I haven't edited a single thing you put in the article either. Now you start back with the "defame me" junk? Have you read WP:COI? You have too much of a vested interest here. While you keep talking about what my secret agenda must be, it's obvious what your agenda is and that agenda is a COI. Take a couple of minutes and read the essay WP:TRUTH. It may prove enlightening. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Atama頭 17:09, 30 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have NOT created a disruption to this page but seek to clarify the documented facts relating to me. Lets re-examine the situation… I am not using any aliases and come on the page using my own name. My actions are transparent in an attempt to have intelligent discussion of the facts. I have thus far experienced on the discussion page my voice deleted, then when someone reposted it and the material facts I cite that should be up on the page with a link to the source, what is being discussed is hidden. I am accused of making legal threats. No legal threats have been made. I suggest Escape Orbit and Niteshift36 are working in tandem with each other to prevent to the correct information is going up on the page… does that qualify as sock puppetry? Apparently, the rules of Wikipedia are being selectively enforced. At the very least I must be entitled to have input since there is NO proof of Sock puppetry by me. This is a false statement and rather arbitrary. Prove this up or immediately allow my contribution in a Wikipedia page that directly affects me, especially considering incorrect and unbalanced information is kept on for years, defaming me. The falsehoods and unbalanced reporting being protected by whom - the same persons who are having me blocked before I have had any opportunity to contribute, in accordance to rules and policy. Let me reiterate, I am not Pheonix2329 and I would assume checking my IP address proves it. The fact he appeared when I did is either a direct result of coincidence or more likely his watching the page. Whatever occurred between Pheonix2329 and Niteshift36 I am not aware of but should be handled between them and don't involve me. This needs to be settled by dealing with Pheonix2329, NOT ME! For all we know, Pheonix2329 is an invention of or known to Niteshift36 to be used in making an allegation of sock puppet against anyone who posses a real threat, thereby blocking them. All one has to do is read the history and discussion section to determine any positive / correct information about me is being deleted and prevented from being posted on the page by Niteshift36 and Escape Orbit. They eliminated the fact the sources they cite were named defendants in litigation of libel and slander, while making excuses why other court documents supporting these false claims can’t be used. Calling me a fraud is in violation of Wikipedia rules and shows they do not possess a neutral point of view. What is being called a disruption is my calling attention to their violations of policy and a request for assistance. The REAL MOTIVE why I am being blocked before I have even had a chance to begin, under the guise and false charge of being a sock puppet. If this is indeed a forum of free discussion and pursuit of the truth then unshackle it and allow me the courtesy and right afforded others.

Decline reason:

Your story seems less likely to me than that you are operating more than one account. Since you don't appear to be interested in volunteering to make the encyclopedia better in any way other than fighting to add poorly sourced information to an article about yourself, I don't see any benefit to Wikipedia in unblocking either of these accounts. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:37, 1 May 2011 (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 isn't a 'forum of free discussion and pursuit of the truth.' It's just an encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:51, 1 May 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

The fact someone agrees with me does not constitute that person is a sock puppet. Defanmation is against Wikipedia rules but apparently they are being selectively enforced. There exist no way to put the accurate information on the page because this isn't about truth as much as it is about who has the most friends that are administrators. Prove me wrong? The REAL Dux (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Actually, we have to keep this account block until you demonstrate that you actually are who you claim to be; the last thing we would want is somebody pretending to be a famous personality such as Frank Dux without providing adequate proof. Please read WP:REALNAME and follow the steps there; independent of the accusations of abusing multiple accounts, we need to make sure there is no impersonation going on. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:44, 1 May 2011 (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.

Cherrypicking from the first unblock template above, I think you misunderstand the NPOV policy. Nowhere does it say that editors are supposed to have a neutral point of view, only that articles are supposed to. Us users can have whatever points of view we like, as long as the end product doesn't really show it. Attempts to require editors have demonstrate having a "neutral point of view" prior to editing on a subject would disqualify pretty much everyone who knows enough about the subject to be useful.

Also, Dux, you'll have far better luck if you just deal with the problems you find in the content, instead of trying to divine the motives of other users. To be blunt, no one here cares why users do what they do, we only care about what they do. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]