Chahax

Dear Chahax,

If you look at the reference at the end of the sentence (in the Kilobaud article you edited), it links to a website that explains that 'RUN' was indeed started by Wayne Green, so in fact it -does- belong to the short list of computer magazines started by wayne green, perhaps you might want to reconsider your opinion. Mahjongg 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Woops!! my bad...I see the reference now. Perhaps it would be a good idea to include it in the RUN artical, so others won't be confused the way I was.

From WP:SOCK

Legitimate uses of multiple accounts

Multiple accounts have legitimate uses. For example, prominent users might create a new account in order to experience how the community functions for new users.

Segregation and security

Other users employ multiple accounts to segregate their contributions for various reasons:

• A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area.

• Since public computers can have password-stealing trojans or keyloggers installed, some users may use an alternate account when editing under these conditions in order to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts.

• Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on his/her interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity. Users with a recognized expertise in one field, for example, might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects.

• A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle may wish to use a sock puppet so that readers unfamiliar with NPOV policy will not assume his/her information edits are statements of personal belief.

Keeping heated issues in one small area

Some editors use different accounts in talk pages to avoid conflicts about a particular area of interest turning into conflicts based upon user identity and personal attacks elsewhere, or to avoid harassment outside of Wikipedia. A person participating in a discussion of an article about abortion, for example, might not want to allow other participants an opportunity to extend that discussion or engage them in unrelated or philosophically motivated debate outside the context of that article.

About sockpuppetry, etc.

Please note that I occasionally post from 216.67.29.113, mostly when I forget to log in, or on super controversial subjects thanx.

Chahax 03:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks

An indefinite block is one where the blocks length of term has been set to 'infinite' or 'indefinite' by the admin placing the block. Indefinite blocks are used to prevent a specific account from editing. This may be because the account itself is not to be used for various reasons, or because the individual who created it is banned or using it as an abusive single purpose account.

Inappropriate usernames, policy-breaching sockpuppets, and single-purpose abusive accounts that have not made significant constructive edits can be indefinitely blocked on sight, and should be noted in the block summary. This includes accounts used predominantly for vandalism, personal attack, or threats. Established users with significant constructive edits should not be indefinitely blocked except when there is a community ban! In all other cases, they should be handled with appropriate time-limited blocks or arbitration. Indefinite blocks should not usually be placed on IP users (whether individual IPs or IP ranges) in order to avoid inadvertently blocking legitimate users.

I sympathize with your situation, but you're in a tough position, even though it doesn't seem at all deserved. Maybe you'd have more luck getting someone to unblock you if you agreed not to nominate the article for review again. If it really is in poor shape, you can probably get someone else to nominate it by pointing out its problems on the talk page. Everyking 04:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And who'd be crazy enough to do it? Chahax 04:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

A more established user wouldn't get treated like this. The more experienced and well-known the user, the harder it is for someone to get away with false accusations and unjustified blocks against them. Everyking 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting the blocking administrator to comment on the block, including whether the alleged alternate accounts or socks were used improperly and whether the duration of the block should remain indefinite. Newyorkbrad 11:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In further evaluation of your unblock request, please explain why you edited intelligent design from an IP address while requesting that it be FA reviewed from your registered account. Please also advise whether you have any other accounts or IP's that have ever edited intelligent design and/or the FAR pages. Thank you. Newyorkbrad 21:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I intended to use the IP only, (the only IP or account I've ever used to edit Intelligent design or FAR besides this one, indeed, the only other account or IP I have) unfortunately the wiki engine does not allow for an IP to complete the process of nominating an FAR. I then explained this on the FAR page, and completed the process with this account. Unfortunately, the nomination was removed without discussion, and my explanations reverted (They are still in there somewhere tho). The point is at no time did I ever play the IP/Chahax accounts as extra voices in any arguments or debates. Everything was, and still is, very above board and well within wiki policy. Chahax

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I've made all the changes asked of me. I'm feeling REALLY picked-on here. This ain't cool. I've done nothing wrong. All I want to do is put a featured article up for review. I'm sorry if that upsets anyone, but it should be discussed in the review, not handled like this. Now PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE unblock me. I have done nothing wrong.

Decline reason:

As per checkuser results and the discussion at WP:ANI, the block must stand. — Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 12:25, 17 April 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.

Fine

see also:User talk:216.67.29.113

I used to think that Wikipedia was fun. I want to thank you for the eye-opener. Thank you for showing me the ugly side of wikipedia. Doing this to me was a mistake. These talk pages speak for themselves. I have been perma-banned without good cause, without prior discussion, and without hope of appeal. I intend to make sure that a great deal of people see these pages. Chahax 16:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have gotten Raul to agree to some tentative conditions for unblocking you here. I don't know if you still have any interest in editing after what happened, but I think it's worth a try. Everyking 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Having a look

You seem to have targeted the ID article for some systematic POV pushing; I can understand that you ran into trouble for doing so. Due to the combination of IP & user account editing as well as obnoxious, disruptive tagging, I find a one month block to be justified. An indef block seems to be too much, though. I've contacted Raul654 and asked to commute the block.--Eloquence* 01:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've commuted the block to one month.--Eloquence* 19:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Chahax! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 941 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Michael Brunker - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)