User talk:UrgeDecca

UrgeDecca, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi UrgeDecca! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

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

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:No Great Shaker per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/No Great Shaker. 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 ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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)[reply]

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)[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.

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)[reply]

13 June

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 in the same way as I would in a court of law (I am a legal consultant). That will be 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)[reply]