User talk:Ruthaylett

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:EWAdams per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EWAdams. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:06, 12 November 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I certainly am I real person, not a sock puppet, and can provide plenty of evidence. See my academic webpages at http://macs.hw.ac.uk/~ruth for a Strat and I can add others if you want them. Ruthaylett (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I can't get through to those webpages right now, but that's not the point—for purposes of this request I will assume that you are a real person. However ... according to the SPI you and the other blocked accounts were, if not sockpuppets, then meatpuppets, and as a practical matter we treat them the same way. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

First you say I am not a real person and now that it doesn't matter if I am. Surprised this becomes about me and not the inaccuracy of the comments I was originally referring to: I had assumed that you guys do care about accuracy. And to be accurate: I know Adams a little - met him a couple of times at conferences, and have papers in related fields, so know his work: see my papers listed at https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qxC_AUAAAAAJ&hl=en for work in serious games and interactive narrative. Does this disqualify me from commenting? Because I know enough to correct inaccuracies? 'Meat puppet' suggests you do not think I have a mind of my own, so feels a little like personal abuse. Banning me from wikipedia editing does not change my life: I edit infrequently but I do have expertise that would be useful to it and my impression is that you already have too few women contributors. So maybe this would be more your loss than mine in the end. But my real point is that you should correct the original comments rather than shooting the messengers. Ruthaylett (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)' [reply]

Decline reason:

None of this is relevant to the reason for the block, sock/meat puppetry. We have no way of knowing who is sitting at the computer, so we must treat all the accounts involved as if they are operated by the same person. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

So say I accused YOU ‪331dot of being a sock puppet - could you disprove it? We all know it is very hard to know who is behind an online handle. However, as I am an AI academic I can tell you how to do it: Turing tackles it in his famous test. You ask for information only the real person can provide. This isn't hard in my case - Adams is a man, I am a woman (Turing was trying to distinguish these in his original idea); moreover Adams comes from the US and it seems is working in Sweden, I am British and working at Heriot-Watt in Edinburgh, UK, as you can see from my Uni web pages cited earlier.In addition, I am apparently famous because I have a famous son, Owen Jones. I have just jointly authored a book, see https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/living-robots on robots as well. So I can certainly provide information you wouldn't get if I was actually Adams in disguise. I have to add that I set this user up in 2008 (you can check I am sure), and I am not in the habit of lending my usernames or passwords out. So Adams would have had to be prescient by nearly 15 years for this account to be his. It does look as if maybe you don't really want to establish the truth because shooting the messenger is so much easier? An irony, as I am sufficiently familiar with Adams and his work to make that page rather better and less like a CV. The problem you guys have is precisely that it is outside your fields and so it is much easier to just zap it. Ruthaylett (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedurally declined, let us concentrate on the unblock request below, which has much better chances to be accepted.Ymblanter (talk) 06:28, 25 November 2021 (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.

Note: I can't access the web page, due to DNS issues. It's likely requires www as http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~ruth/ works. Perhaps if the user explains their relationship (if one exists) to Adams, then the user could be unblocked with a warning? Swil999 (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Apologies for messing up my webpage reference, which as you say is http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~ruth. Apologies too for getting involved in something that turned out to be contentious: I wrongly assumed my addition to the delete discussion on the Adams page would be helpful when it clearly did not pan out that way. I have learned something from this and will certainly not get involved in any talk pages like this again, whatever I think I might add. So you could consider me duly warned, and hopefully can accept that I not in fact a sock puppet but a real person. I had been hoping to add an extra person to the Aylett family of Virginia entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aylett_family_of_Virginia (Patrick Henry Aylett) with suitable citation, and if you could remove my block I will happily go away and do this. My relationship to Adams btw is that of an academic in the same field - his ideas on interactive digital narrative are related to Emergent Narrative, an idea I formulated in 1999 (see https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Fall/1999/FS-99-01/FS99-01-014.pdf). I met him when he did an invited talk at the International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling (ICIDS) in 2013 - see https://www.narratology.net/node/228 - which I would have cited had things not got a little heated. I did genuinely think I had things to add but I am not an experienced editor and thus have annoyed you all in ways I hadn't understood in advance. Ruthaylett (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Cullen328 unblocked as shown in his note below, but forgot to add accept to the unblock template. Closing on his behalf. Swil999 (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hi, I would like to note that I'm a Wikipedia administrator who does know Ruth Aylett off-wiki, so I can vouch for the fact that she is a real person. I have counseled her on Wikipedia policies, and in my opinion an unblock would be appropriate. --El on ka 21:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have opened a discussion about this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting unblock of Ruthaylett --El on ka 05:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I came upon some off-wiki canvassing from Adams (possibly crossing the line to requests for meatpuppetry) while I was searching for sources to add to Ernest W. Adams during the deletion discussion. (I didn't link to it, as most of the editors involved had by then been blocked, and I believe linked might have violated WP:OUTING for some of the editors involved.) Anyway, while such canvassing is against policy, it is also understandable the urge to do something for one's friend and colleague (and she shows signs of understanding where she went wrong). And in any case, she does appear to be a real person. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator completely uninvolved in this situation, I find Ruthaylett's explanation convincing and have unblocked accordingly. Welcome back, Ruthaylett. Cullen328 (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]