Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:02, 22 May 2008

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts. Please see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Aimulti for evidence and further information. (Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

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

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

You've just admitted to using multiple IP addresses or accounts to continue the behavior you were previously blocked for. Since that was why you were blocked, you're not going to get unblocked. — Hersfold 01:58, 20 May 2008 (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.

The tags placed on the page in question were done from my usual IP address and signed with the four tidals. The page, however, would only display my IP address NOT my user name. I tried several times to correct the signature but nothing I did would render a signature with my user name.

I had no reason to use a 'sockpuppet' to place the tags and even marked the 'insult' removed as such so that no one could say I was trying to change history.

If you compare the IP address and aimulti you will see they are the same and if you look at my edit history you will see I made several attempts to get the signature to display correctly. It seems there is some glitch on this dispute page that causes some signatures to display as IP addresses.

That is NOT my fault.

In addition Toddst1 is an editor engaged in an active dispute with me and so by Misplaced Pages policy cannot place a block AND using in IP address (your own), even if it had not been a software error (as it was) is not using a sockpuppet. The IP address is the same one used for aimulti. Also the claim I tagged Toddst1 as a 'one issue editor' is FALSE. I tagged three people, one who voted for me and two who voted against me. I had no need to pretend the tags came from another party. What purpose would that serve?

A SOCKPUPPET IS SOME WHO USES A DIFFERENT IP ADDRESS. I used my regular IP address and signed my posts with the four tidals.

I DID NOTHING WRONG WHATSOEVER.Aimulti (talk) 01:54, 20 May

To Hersfold, I admitted NO SUCH THING. I have never used any account but my own. How did you come to that assumption? I was simply saying I had no reason to try to disguise the source of the tags. This is COMPLETELY UNFAIR.Aimulti (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

please see above

Decline reason:

After the block has been reduced to its original length, block evasion is no longer an issue. I see nothing here that indicates why the 48h block for this personal attack is inappropriate. —  Sandstein  06:09, 20 May 2008 (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.

Is it possible that Aimulti commented while logged off, but was not aware of this, and has a dynamic IP address? Edits like these seem to suggest he wasn't trying to hide who he was, and is honestly having difficulty with editing in the discussion. I haven't looked at this in depth, but so far I've only seen one IP vote keep, and when Aimulti didn't actually vote, which also leads me to believe that he wasn't trying to multivote/sockpuppet the AfD, but as having actual technical difficulties. -- Ned Scott 03:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I cannot look up what IP the comments were attributed to (I cannot review history now) but my IP is: - 216.239.138.136. I did not log off yesterday but I WAS logged off today when I checked in, so it is possible somehow I became logged off. To check my IP, do a whois on: - aimultimedia.com. As I have never logged off since joining Misplaced Pages I did not know this allows you to still edit but screws up your signature.Aimulti (talk) 04:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd. I logged off and saw the IP address attributed to aimulti that is blocked is : -76.194.235.52. That is NOT the IP address for aimultimedia I get from a Whois. Something is wrong here.Aimulti (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I did another Whois (using another lookup service) and this one said my IP is 76.194.235.52. What is going on? Aimulti (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm usually pretty lenient on granting unblock requests, especially with requests from respected editors like Ned Scott, but I'm not inclined to be in this case for the following reasons:

• The user had previously admitted meatpuppetry, and probably should have been blocked for that but wasn't
• The user was blocked by me for repeated personal attacks for 48 hours, then either knowingly or unknowingly evaded the block
• The user's last edit before blockingis one where he swears for the second time to never edit Misplaced Pages again
• The user has stated that I have an active dispute with him. I have no knowledge of any such dispute. In fact, the contrary. This accusation seems to be created as a yet another device to further his case.

Given all that, I don't really see any compelling reason to change the block. Toddst1 (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that blocking is a last resort, especially indef blocking. Would you be opposed to changing the block from indef to a day or so, or longer, but at least not indef? -- Ned Scott 05:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Block reduced to 48 hours per Ned Scott. Toddst1 (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The above is simply not true.

1). I NEVER ADMITTED Meatpuppeting. All I did was be honest and say I knew who came to my aid. I DID NOT ASK THEM TO and would have asked them not to if I had thought they would (as it is obvious I would be accused of sockpuppeting). I CANNOT CONTROL THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS.

2). I NEVER tried to evade the block. I was just looking up its history.

3). I have never made a personal attack against you. I have done so against the members of the hate group attacking me....with just reason.

4). I believe you are in active dispute with me. Am I wrong?

5). I am not interesting in delaying my case but do feel the 'one subject editors' notices were fair (just look at their history) and should be taken into consideration. I did not accuse you of being one. That statement was false. I did, however, accuse the person who came to my aid of being one (as clearly he was) as were the other two attacking me.Aimulti (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Aimulti, some might consider it counterproductive to make further personal attacks while arguing to have your block lifted. I feel the need to defend myself and repeat that I, for one, am not a member of the "hate group" you have referred to as "DAG Exposed." To my knowledge, I do not know anyone in that group, I have never been involved with them, and I have never before interacted with you, in person or on the internet. I learned of the group you cite and their efforts to oppose your Paul King/Dissident Action Group/Prof Sam/Baby Peanut campaigns of HIV/AIDS/STD misinformation on Yahoo Answers and elsewhere only after you accused me of being a member. It is disappointing that you have chosen to use Misplaced Pages as the new venue for your activities ("Elephant in the Room"), but I trust you have found that Misplaced Pages is somewhat resistant to agenda-driven manipulation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Keepcalmandcarryon, You have been caught in a lie. You posted on AME (MSN Group) before you joined in on this dispute. A friend of yours screwed up and posted the link on the dispute page. As for "Misplaced Pages (being) somewhat resistant to agenda-driven manipulation" I sadly have found quite the reverse to be true. A small group of AIDS fanatics have been using Wiki to conduct a vile smear campaign against anyone involved with rethinking. A very sad state of affairs. Thank you for allowing me to prove you are a lier. The evidence: -

From: keepcalmandcarryon (Original Message) Sent: 4/26/2008 11:44 AM I'm sure y'all have noticed that, despite its claim to maintain a "neutral point of view", Misplaced Pages's articles relating to AIDS dissidence are biased (see for example the entry on Celia Farber). In honor of Rethinking AIDS day I am going to make time to do some editing and adding of needed references, and I encourage others to do the same! (LINK TO ARTICLE ON DISPUTE PAGE)

Aimulti (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You also said: - "Paul King/Dissident Action Group/Prof Sam/Baby Peanut campaigns". Where and how may I ask? There is no reference to these (except, I assume, in MEMBERS ONLY hate groups). If I am wrong please provide a link to the source. How can you lie so?Aimulti (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not that Keepcalmandcarryon, as I stated previously. My references are given in the talk page of the AfD. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to strongly suggest that you both make an effort to disengage. MastCell  22:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FINAL COMMENT

Oh really! Just a coincidence? How strange that the topic was Misplaced Pages and you joined Misplaced Pages just days later. How odd your friend RemS1one referenced that very article. How wierd you BOTH joined within a day of each other. Well, as Keepcalmandcarryon is such a common 'handle' this must all be quite innocent and just a coincidence. Who could possibly think otherwise?Aimulti (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Mark Hanau. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. Please respect others' edits. Toddst1 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT MODIFY OR I WILL HAVE YOU BANNED

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was keep. This was a close and contntous one as evidenced by both the volume of discussion and the reluctance of admins (including myself yestarday) to close it before now. The conflict of interest concerns are grounds for rewriting but do not speak to whether the article should exist in the first place. At least one editor !voting keep suggested that the article could exist but not as written. There is no reason to delete such an article unless there are BLP or libel issues. The personal attacks both here and on the article's talk page are reprehensible, but ultimately irrelvent to the notibility of the subject. I find the notability argument weak, but sufficient. Likewise the !votes narrowly come out in favor or retention. I think, in the end, the result should be clear. Hopefully, both sides can come together and produce an article that does not have the problems of the current version. --Selket Talk 23:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimulti (talk • contribs)

• Regarding the above message (the closing message from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mark Hanau): why have you felt the need to post it to the article talk page (redundant, since the AfD discussion is linked) and to a user's talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the article is once again under attack for the same two individuals.Aimulti (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages sockpuppeteers