User talk:UrgeDecca
UrgeDecca, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi UrgeDecca! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC) |
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Unblock request
[edit]
UrgeDecca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Calling User:Blablubbs. You appear to think my father-in-law (NGS) and myself are the same person. I assure you we are not. I initially decided to support him when he quit the site last week, after he was insulted about his hearing issue, but he persuaded me to remain aloof and continue using the site if I want to. I hadn't been around since the end of May and he decided in the meantime to help with layout of the 1886 FA Cup Final article to make it easier for me to continue editing. I had asked him to look at it because I was unsure about its citation formatting and suchlike. Prior to that, I only used the site occasionally because I have a very demanding career, although my circumstances have recently changed.
All this is in the past and current versions of my userpage and our connection was declared on the NGS userpage too. I understand that it is in order to share a connection providing it is openly declared and I know other editors have done the same. It is unlikely that we have been logged in simultaneously because the study we share is only small and, although there is room for two people, it isn't then comfortable. I always make a point of logging out and deleting my usage history whenever I go offline. I do the same for any site whether it is one of my professional sites or the bank or Amazon or whoever.
I believe you should have requested an explanation before jumping to conclusions. Please tell me what I can do to convince you that I am acting in good faith, bearing in mind that I will not disclose any confidential information. Thank you. UrgeDecca (talk) 19:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No Great Shaker likes to use the phrase "bearing in mind", too: Special:Diff/999558010, Special:Diff/983628739, Special:Diff/984051081, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2022 (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.
- A CU reviewing this should run get edits on the first IP in get IPs and look at the failed login on this account around the end of May. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
13 June
[edit]I have just logged in again and my father-in-law (NGS) will remain logged in. He has been logged in for the whole weekend but did not edit again until last night (we are in the UK, in case you don't know). We have decided there should be one discussion and, as I am the one who wants to continue editing, I will lead it here. Please refer to us as NGS and UD to avoid any confusion. We shall do likewise. I will answer all points made later today when I have more time.
For the moment, I would like to comment on the points above by TonyBallioni and NinjaRobotPirate. I do not understand what is meant by "run get edits on the first IP in get IPs" so some clarity would be appreciated, please. You appear to be concerned about a "failed login on this account around the end of May"? First, can you provide a precise date and time? Second, you must realise that a failed login could have been caused by one of many internet or password related problems and cannot be relevant to the case at hand. Turning to the decline reason given above, I find it incredible that your rationale is limited to usage of the same everyday phrase. I do not know where in the world you live but let me advise you that "bearing in mind" is an extremely common phrase used by millions of people in the UK. If that is your sole reason to decline the appeal, then this whole matter is descending into a travesty of justice.
I repeat that I will be back later today. In the interim, please provide any additional points here as we should try to keep everything on one page for convenience. Thank you. UrgeDecca (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Statement
[edit]Good morning again. I have some time now so I will outline our case, as it were, in more detail. Please note that I have amended the above entry because, as NGS has advised me, I should not be treating this matter in a professional way and I will write in layman's terms. My apologies for that. I am writing everything in a text editor first and will return shortly. UrgeDecca (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
UrgeDecca (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Good afternoon. Sorry, I was pulled away and this has taken longer than I expected.
- In the now closed SPI case, User:Blablubbs began by commenting on a "suspected unclean start".
- That is incorrect because I opened my account on 14 November 2021 so I did not "start" on 8 June 2022 as he infers.
- He acknowledges the "possibility that this is indeed two relatives, but the timing suggests otherwise". He asks for a check using a tool called CU.
- My comment at this point is that he should have contacted NGS and/or myself to request an explanation. He should certainly have advised us that he was opening the SPI case because there is a section in the pro forma which invites comments by other users including "accused parties". How are we to take advantage of the facility when neither of us has been advised of the case? That is both discourteous and unjust.
- Blablubbs points out that there was "a significant dip in activity" between 22 December and 28 May, apart from a five-minute visit on 27 January.
- The account was opened so that I could have my own sandbox because I was researching details of certain footballers to help me build a spreadsheet for use with Fantasy Football. I was particularly interested in players out on loan to other clubs. I had been using Wikipedia:Sandbox as an IP editor and was having a lot of problems with vandals. I was advised in this post to set up my own account. As you can see from my early contributions as UD, I was using the sandbox to research players but also made occasional edits to correct or improve the articles. Diogo Dalot was in poor shape and, after improving it, I politely asked the previous editor to use the preview function. That is the only time I have used any talk page other than my own.
- You have commented on a dip in activity after 22 December but I was hardly a regular user in November or in the first half of December. Between 17 and 28 November, there were only two early morning look-see edits on each of the 21st and 25th. I was extremely busy during that period and away from home much of the time. The same scenario arose between 5 and 16 December when there were only two edits on the 10th (I was home on holiday that day and, even then, I had very little time for this site). After Christmas, I was busier than ever because of a complex case that occupied virtually my whole time.
- NGS was at home throughout November and December but he had lost interest in the site and was preoccupied with other activities. He did give me advice about using the site if I asked. I certainly remember him helping me with this problem. NGS finally returned to the site on 12 January because he was dissatisfied with the coverage of Partygate and he became involved again on pretty much a daily basis.
- On 26 January, NGS had seen a notice on another editor's page and he decided to post this paragraph to declare our family connection. The following day, although I was still unavailable, I did as NGS asked and created my user page including the connection (and I did a couple of quick fixes to the two articles I had been working on). Would we have done that if we had something to hide and would Blablubbs have been aware of any connection without the declarations? Of course not, so we are being penalised for being honest.
- After that, there was no possibility of me editing the site because I was far too busy. NGS continued to edit frequently until 13 May when he had to curtail his activity because of his escalating involvement with Bury Football Club. He posted this notice and made only 18 edits between 14 and 27 May. On 28 May, a Saturday morning, we were both briefly active but at different times. I had just finished working notice and was about to commence a new venture which is home-based and will allow me much more leisure time. I did a fair amount of editing on the 30th, three on the 31st and then an hour or so on the morning of 1 June. I knew I would be unavailable again until last weekend (11/12 June) but I briefly returned on the 8th after the blow-up between NGS and the person who made the insulting and reprehensible jibe about deafness. I decided to support NGS and closed my account too. Subsequently, NGS persuaded me to carry on editing if I want to, saying he will fight his own battles, etc. which is why I decided to return, even if it was only a few days later.
- I think you are due an explanation for our activities on 31 May and 1 June, when we were both briefly active. I no longer had a laptop after finishing my old job and so NGS and I are currently sharing his until I get a new one (probably next week). On the 31st, I logged in just after lunch to show him some difficulties I was having with citation formats. He helped me fix some of them but then I had to go out for the afternoon and he went into his own account because he knew a problem had arisen with the Bury article. On 1 June, I logged in after breakfast to do some more work on 1886 FA Cup Final. I handed over to him late morning so he could work on the two Bury club articles and, for me, that was supposed to be it until last weekend because I had other things to do setting up my new business.
- "UD claims to be NGS' nephew".
- Okay, Blablubbs corrected this last night after NGS raised the point but it shows a lack of attention to detail and a lack of due diligence. He is accusing us of malpractice without getting his facts right which indicates that he has not studied events fully and has drawn incorrect conclusions.
- "UD retired very shortly after NGS and "[withdrew] wasted effort", only to return a few days later".
- I think I've covered this above but will be happy to discuss further.
- "Shared interest in 1885–86 FA Cup and 1886 FA Cup Final, edit strings are always sequential, which is more consistent with switching between accounts than with simultaneous editing".
- It is surely obvious that NGS has been helping me with 1886 FA Cup Final. I did a lot of work to improve and expand the article up to 1 June. As I explained above, we sat together on 31 May so he could advise me on the citation usage. When I set things aside on 1 June, I asked him to look over the article and see what could be done to improve its structure and layout. He said he would and he made extensive changes based mainly on 1901 FA Cup Final which NGS himself improved to GA standard.
- The one and only change made by NGS (again, helping me) to 1885–86 FA Cup was to add the short description notice.
- The table shows that I once edited Bury A.F.C. and that was in response to making this correction elsewhere.
- I have explained at length why we do not do "simultaneous editing" even though we are both currently logged in. NGS has had continuous WP connection via his tablet since Friday or Saturday while I have been actively editing. He presently has no desire to edit WP on the laptop.
- "Significant UBX overlap between UD's revamped userpage and NGS'"
- Agreed. I copied his layout and then amended the boxes because we are different people with different outlooks. I created a couple of boxes myself because it is easy, using an existing one as a template.
- "edition" as a summary"
- This is both trivial and grossly misleading. I used the word in a summary because it was a final and late addition to the edit I had just previewed. NGS tells me that summaries are not mandatory but I try to say something and I agree I should have taken more time over this one. NGS has done over 60,000 edits and you have produced eight samples of "edition" in all of his summaries. In two of those, the actual word is "expedition" and in another it is "sedition". In a fourth, the summary is "1949 edition" after he corrected the year of the Wisden annual sourced by the article. In the fifth one, he correctly amended "hosting" to "edition" and then used the new word in the summary as a minor edit. In the other three, all very similar articles, he correctly amended "season" to "edition". It was because I had seen "edition" used in this way that I made my change the way I did.
- "CU evidence strongly indicates this is the same person and not just relatives sharing a connection"
- Can we please see this evidence, or at least a summary of it?
- "They've been lying about it in an attempt to evade scrutiny"
- You cannot accuse us of lying when (per nephew) you haven't got your facts right and are basing your entire case on assumption. We may have made a few mistakes but the fact is that we are being penalised after we made our connection known by honest declarations on our user pages.
- "While NGS' latest retirement could be said to not initially have been under a cloud, the vandalism changes that, etc."
- That is a matter for NGS himself but, as things stand, he has no intention of ever returning which is why he has placed a "resigned permanently" notice on his talk page. He has agreed to help me because I am being unfairly targeted. I have told him that he should have just walked away when he was insulted but I'm afraid he is a volatile character (and readily admits that) and he exploded. His reaction is no reason to suppose that he is operating a sockpuppet, however. After all, he has made over 60k edits and has written umpteen WP:GA articles and several WP:DYK pieces as well as massively improving many other articles, so he can hardly be called a bad editor (unlike some even I have seen).
According to the notice placed on his user page, NGS has "abusively used multiple accounts". That links to WP:ILLEGIT which lists inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. I cannot see one single example in that list which describes my usage of the site. One of the items is avoiding scrutiny and it must be a supreme irony that we are where we are now because we complied with the "fully and openly disclosed" requirement. The nearest we have come to a transgression must be "contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" but that has been explained above and it only arises with one article in which NGS' edit summaries actually show that he is helping someone else: see [1], [2] and [3]. The main thrust of WP:ILLEGIT is use of a sockpuppet to claim a false consensus. I have only visited one talk page and that was justified. How can I possibly be said to have influenced consensus? NGS has been in heated discussions at WP:AFD and WP:ANI and so on, but I haven't been anywhere near those forums and surely, if I was his sockpuppet-in-law, I would have been there shouting his case?
I think that's as far as I want to take things now. I'm going to stay logged in but I doubt if I will be using the computer again today. If I have said or done anything I shouldn't, please tell me what it is and I will take notice. But I am not NGS and NGS isn't me. We are not "lying". We are two people who live under the same roof. How we can prove that without giving away confidential information, I do not know. UrgeDecca (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Declined out of hand for use of personal attacks, including ableist insults, subsequent to block. It's unfair to demand any admin spend the time to read this wall of text if you're going to speak this way. (I note that talkpage access has been disabled.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:37, 18 June 2022 (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.
- I had something longer and more sympathetic typed before the novel above was posted, but I'm not going to engage this for a myriad of reasons except to point out that "they" is a commonly used gender neutral pronoun, being a second-language English speaker sometimes leads me to mix up words (not too often I hope, but it does happen – mea culpa), and the stipulation of an "unclean start" is because the abusiveness of the socking is closely tied to the circumstances of NGS' retirement; unfortunately, I could not find a better way to phrase it. While I am of course saddened to see that you are discontent with my linguistic and cognitive abilities, I am not willing to overturn the block because – especially in light of Tony's CU findings – I still believe I made the right call. If you wish for the block to be reviewed, please use the
{{unblock}}template. There is no need to ping me again, I am aware of this page. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)- I have added the unblock template as requested. I apologise for evident misunderstanding around your use of "they" and have amended the appropriate paragraph above, but I am more concerned about being accused of lying than about any use of words. We need to see the findings of the CU tool and compare them with the events I have outlined above. I do not like your use of the word "novel" because it is evidently sarcastic. Either you are accusing me of lying again (a novel being fiction) or you are saying that I do not have the right to answer at length the points made by you in your SPI case. You say you believe you made the right call, but believing is not knowing and people being accused of something have the right to expect proof beyond reasonable doubt before they are condemned without being given any opportunity to defend themselves. If that is how this site operates, then it is an affront to civil rights and common decency. My father-in-law suspects that most of the so-called administrators have no relevant real world qualifications or experience and he has been told some are even schoolchildren. I will come back tomorrow to see if anyone is prepared to read what I have written above, since you are not, but I am losing patience and I will not tolerate a kangaroo court scenario like this. UrgeDecca (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
14 June
[edit]User:Blablubbs. It doesn't surprise me to see that none of you unqualified and incompetent administrators have had the courtesy to reply. It is evident that this site is an undemocratic insult to civilised society. It's reputation in academic and legal circles is on a par with Wirecard. It operates as an oligarchy which makes final decisions based on assumptions reached by (Personal attack removed) who "kind of doubt" things. There is no respect for civil or legal rights; no opportunity is provided for defence; no listening to reason; everything is taken out of context and perspective; no common decency; ludicrous "rules" that would be laughed out of any court of law; and, perhaps worst of all, no regard for fundamental concepts like innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
That was me with my lawyer's wig on, shall we say. I think it is an adequate and accurate summary of this appalling site. I have seen enough and am not pursuing this matter any further.
So, you think you have made "the right call", do you? Well, you are not often right and you are wrong again. Completely wrong. My father-in-law had already resigned in disgust and now I am following his example.
Oh, and you know what you can do with your tildes.