User talk:The REAL Dux

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

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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Jonathanwallace (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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

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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron  32  04:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC) You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.
 * Legal threat issued here: . 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.  -- Jayron  32  04:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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

{(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)
 * 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)
 * 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. --  At am a  頭 08:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)