User talk:Nufaiyrs

Messages should be left here.

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).

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

Request reason:

I edited all I was going to edit before being blocked so I'm not really pissed about being indeffed... But Sino-Malay was really pissed that we got him blocked -User talk:Sino-Malay and asked me to leave this message here since his unblock request is being ignored.... Basically we are editing from the same computer... however, no overlap in edits, and no abuse occurred... we never edited the same articles nor is their evidence of any abuse.. we never pushed the same POV... we never added the same content, and we never circumvented any blocks even if we are one person... see for yourself in our edit histories.. I copied this from Sino-Malay's talk page and read up on wikipedia policy (Mine) Nufaiyrs edit history Sehidhen's edit history Sino-Malay edit history Beajhure's edit history none of the rules mentioned here were broken...Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts, my actions are consistent with policy over here -Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#Sharing_an_IP_address regarding sharing a computer, I edited different topics, but I admit I did not know the policy or anything about sockpuppetry before this happened. When I edited on Sino-Malay's computer I used the same proxy because his entire browing internet history is stored right in internet explorer and I see every single website he visited.. including the sign up page for wikipedia while on his proxy, so I basically signed up another account..I can also see all the articles he edited, and I have no interest in them. I said already that I'm not pissed about being indeffed. however, what I am pissed about is being indeffed for editing under multiple accounts...because its false and bad for my account reputation, other people may attack my edits purely based on the fact that I was indeffed for multiple account abuse. I just want to leave this account in good standing, I want to be cleared of this accusation and then you can indeff me as an abandoned account. we all also agree to display this template on our user pages- {{User shared IP address}} per policy on sharing the same computer- Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#Sharing_an_IP_address. The others want to get unblocked.. except Sehidhen which is my account, but I forgot the password so I had to open this one.Nufaiyrs (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We're not going to unblock an open proxy. Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2012 (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'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).

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

Request reason:

I never asked anyone to unblock the proxy. I would have posted this mesage on the proxy ip's talk page if I wanted to do that.... I want my name cleared of the accusation for which I was blocked, which is "Abusing multiple accounts" I have shown you the edit histories of the accounts I am accused of abusing wikipedia with in the previous unblock request. I would like evidence of abuse. For example, a talk page in which all the accounts vote yes on a certain topic, or one account backing up another in an edit dispute, or block evasions- you can't, because there is no abuse. None of the accounts ever edited the same article.... (Mine) Nufaiyrs edit history Sehidhen's edit history Sino-Malay edit history Beajhure's edit history Policy says that multiple users can share the same computer if they display this template {{User shared IP address}} and don't edit on the same topics- Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#Sharing_an_IP_address. The blocking admin did not show any evidence of multiple account abuse, he just blocked because we are editing from the same computer... also see User talk:Sino-Malay again. Nufaiyrs (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Technical and behavioural investigations are pretty clear. All that has been included is extreme wikilawyering around the topic. it has now been over 5 days, and hundreds of admins have now reviewed both unblock requests, and there appears to be no consensus to unblock at this point in time. The truth is always easiest. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 10 April 2012 (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.

I am willing to unblock this account if you agree to only use it to edit with from now on. Tiptoety ^talk 05:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. Unblock requests on two of the accounts show identical parsing, phrasing, grammar, and even the exact same knowledge of wikilinking and other technical aspects. For "new" users, this is virtually impossible. For separate users, again, impossible. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

when Bwilkins declined the unblock request at Sino-Malay, he did not even investigate our edits before declaring that we were the same person.

"WP:BROTHER. It's amazing - all these people living in the same house, all editing the same article, all finding the same open proxy. Truly miraculous! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

Sino-Malay gave a perfectly valid explanation for us using the same proxy. His entire internet browing history is open to all who use the computer. the next thing that was wrong with BWilkins claim was that we never edited the same article. Before mocking Sino-Malay in a sarcastic manner, he did not bother to look at the editing history of any of the accounts involved.[1][2][3][4]

Nufaiyrs (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The block log says that I'm blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts". not for owning multiple accounts. If you think that we are all one individual, the block is still not legitimate because abuse has not occured. I asked for evidence of abuse, such as block evasion, voting or even editing the same article., which Bwilkins claimed we did on User talk:Sino-Malay. I saw wikipedia policy on socking, and it says one person is allowed to own multiple accounts anyway as long as they are not abused.

I don't fully understand Tiptoety's comment about "only use it to edit with" if he believes we are different people. What I can understand is that Tiptoety agrees with your accusation that we are one person and he is saying that he will unblock this account if only this account is being used to edit and the other accounts stay blocked.

same knowledge of wikilinking and technical aspects are not proof of being the same person. Why don't you go to account creation logs and block every single user who knows how to wikilink? If a new user has studied the contributions of other users, its pretty easy how to figure out wikilinking. I have seen Sino-Malay's account and edits before, I've explained why we used the same proxy- I can see the internet browsing history and edit history of Sino-Malay and we can see the edit history of any user we want to.

If by parsing and phrasing you mean the fact that I split my response into different paragraphs and wrote my sentences in bullet point form, you know that I have totaly access to and can look at previous unblock requests on Sino-Malay's talk page, and if I don't do the same as Sino-Malay did the entire unblock request will come out as a single massive block of text with no spacing? I also use the same policies Sino-Malay has brought up, seeing as we are blocked for the same reason the same policies apply.

If you believe we are three persons or one it doesn't matter because the block log says "abusing multiple accounts", it does not say "using multiple accounts". The abuse accusation is totally false. Bwilkins claimed we edited the same article on Sino-Malay's talk page, which means he agrees with the accusation that we are abusing. we did not edit the same articles.... I showed you all of our contribution histories, the same article does not appear in any of them. the block reason is invalid.Nufaiyrs (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own this computer so I don't decide ultimately who gets to edit or not. Sino-Malay can ban all of us from editing wikipedia and I don't care. He wants his account unblocked and we can all stay blocked. I want my name cleared of abusing multiple accounts. I want to be unblocked first with an edit summary that says the accusation was not true, and then you can reblock me as an abandoned account. There will be only one account and one person editing from this computer in the future if that is what Tiptoety means.Nufaiyrs (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, technically, you all show up as being one person since you all share a computer network/proxy. Note that "abusing multiple accounts" also includes evading a block, so, as far as we know the block is indeed legitimate. This is all detailed in the serious parts of WP:BROTHER, and that is why admins can't unblock you - we have no way of actually determining whether you're Sino-Malay's friend/relative or Sino-Malay trying to edit to evade a block except your word, and your word is not good enough. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, but if you look at Sino-Malay's block log, there was no previous block prior to hte block TNXman307 gave us all for abusing multiple accounts. I will show you all of our block logs in a second.Nufaiyrs (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Malay block log (clean of any blocks before Tnxman307 blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts")

Nufaiyrs block log (clean of any blocks before Tnxman307 blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts")

Sehidhen block log (clean of any blocks before Tnxman307 blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts")

Beajhure block log clean of any blocks before Tnxman307 blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts")

There was no block evasion if you look at these block logs and our edit histories. ie. Sino-Malay was never blocked during the whole time while I was editing. None of the accounts were blocked while the other accounts were editing nor did we ever receive any blocks till Tnxman307 blocked us all for abusing multiple accounts.Nufaiyrs (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

The bottom line is, I want to see evidence of what I was accused of, that is the whole point of the request below if you get confused. In three sentences, Bwilkins dismissed all the evidence I provided and claimed I was wikilawyering, not addressing any of the evidence I provided which proved no abuse occured. Exactly because its been 5 days, I have not received any evidence of the abuse under w hich I was blocked, nor have I received any rebuttal to the evidence I provided. If this request goes on for 100 days and no one can provide evidence of abuse nor refute the evidence I provided, why am I still accused of abusing multiple accounts? "Technical and behavioural investigations are pretty clear. All that has been included is extreme wikilawyering around the topic. it has now been over 5 days, and hundreds of admins have now reviewed both unblock requests, and there appears to be no consensus to unblock at this point in time. The truth is always easiest. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)" No "technical" or "behavioural" investigation has taken place. I want to see these investigations which BWilkins is talking about. No sockpuppet investigation has taken place. (altough that is not required, the blocking admin needs to show evidence) The onus is on the blocking admin to provide evidence of multiple account abuse, and there is none. Show me the abuse evidence. The same hundreds of admins who reviewed both unblock requests also did not decline the requests either, and the decline reason for the first unblock is invalid. I showed evidence that no abuse took place, and sharing an ip address with another user was legal, and received a response that had nothing to do with the block nor the points I raised in the request- "We're not going to unblock an open proxy. Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)" see Wikipedia:Wikilawyering#Misuse_of_the_term. I have not done any wikilawyering. I have constantly requested one thing- evidence of the multiple account abuse for which I was blocked, and if anyone could not provide evidence of such abuse, I want my name cleared. I did not even ask for an unblock. Bwilkims revied one of the unblock requests at User talk:Sino-Malay and when he declined the request, he did not do any investigation or look at any evidence since the statement he made was patently false- "WP:BROTHER. It's amazing - all these people living in the same house, all editing the same article, all finding the same open proxy. Truly miraculous! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)" contribution histories of all of our accounts show no evidence of editing the same article, therefore no abuse happened. a valid reason was given for using the same proxy, and accounts are allowed to edit from the same ip as long as they don't edit the same topic. User:Jéské Couriano also reviewed my unblock and made a comment above. He apparently could not find any evidence of abuse since he came up with a totally retroactive reason for the block: "Note that "abusing multiple accounts" also includes evading a block, so, as far as we know the block is indeed legitimate. " No block evasion happened. The only block Sino-Malay and I received was the one under which I am currently blocked. If Sino-Malay was previously blocked for lets say, vandalism, and then I started editing wikipedia, that would be block evasion, since we are editing from the same ip and you can't tell the difference. But no such thing occured since our block logs were empty before we were blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I agree that the truth is always easiest. Thats why I want to see evidence of abuse which BWilkins has not provided. HackneyHound was provided evidence for multiple account abuse in his unblock request. Why am I not allowed to see the same evidence? I asked for evidence twice, and twice I received unblock requests which had nothing to do with my block. All our edit histories and block logs are provided below. I was blocked for multiple account abuse. I want to see the evidence. (Mine) Nufaiyrs edit history Sehidhen's edit history Sino-Malay edit history Beajhure's edit history Sino-Malay block log (clean of any blocks before Tnxman307 blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts") Nufaiyrs block log (clean of any blocks before Tnxman307 blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts") Sehidhen block log (clean of any blocks before Tnxman307 blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts") Beajhure block log clean of any blocks before Tnxman307 blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts") Nufaiyrs (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Whether the accounts are used by the same person or not, you are perfectly right in saying that they have never edited the same article (in fact, as far as I can see they have never edited the same page, whether article or otherwise), and I see no evidence of abuse of multiple accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previous unblock requests[edit]

Two unblock requests, over a week, after I requested evidence of multiple account abuse, so far, no one has provided evidence, instead I was greeted with two declines which had nothing to do with the unblock request and the second decline contained outright false statements about alleged "techinical" and "behavioural" investigations which never happened.Nufaiyrs (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]