User talk:ThatsGrand/Archive 2

Ovlem
I'm asking explicity - are you ? You're edits demonstrate considerable exposure to Wikipedia beyond the beginning of your usership, and overwhelming correlation to that user. Can you clarify who you are and on what articles you've been working on? --Jza84 | Talk  21:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For the final time no! I've been trying really hard to get wikipedia policy right and have read a lot of it. I have had a lot of exposure through reading, but all this stubbornness ignoring fact was not what I expected as soon as i started editing.ThatsGrand (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Requests for checkuser/Case/Ovlem for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment left.ThatsGrand (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I have changed the above link from Suspected sock puppets/Ovlem to Requests for checkuser/Case/Ovlem, as this is where you have been accused. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?
Are you a sockpuppet of User:Tommy23? --Mais oui! (talk) 12:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Most definitely not! Trust me! I do not live in the UK, nor am I gay, or support Chelsea. I am not a sock in any way shape or form. What did I do that makes you think that?ThatsGrand (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Mmmm... not convinced I'm afraid. And I suppose that you are also going to deny being a sockpuppet of permanently banned User:Pureditor too? --Mais oui! (talk) 13:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How many users are you going to accuse me of? I am not a sock. Please AGF.ThatsGrand (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that you made your "first" edit less than 24 hours ago. New Wikipedia users do not say things like "Please AGF", not do they display the worrying edit pattern and the editing 'buddies' that you have. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. Your 'buddy' User:GoodDay may or may not be a sock- or meatpuppet, but please note: we are not daft around here. --Mais oui! (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt
I wouldn't normally raise the point of an editors charachter but since mine is being questioned my hand is forced. Matt as I see it is a very aggressive editor and gets very much emotionally attached to the topics he edits. For example this very strange edit. He says:


 * I don't give a shit about "3RR" when racism is concerned - racism is racism and I'm not putting up with it. I don't give a toss if I'm banned for it either. WERE ARE THE REFS?????? I've had ENOUGH - a handful of babies are not just running the creche here, they are running the entire bloody floor.

This emotional attachment and feeling of injustice is I feel the main reason for his personal attacks against me and trying to remove me from Wikipedia. Respected editor Sarah777 has raised is the fact that I'm Irish and my opinion would tend to disagree with his is also key to figure out his intentions. My personal opinion is that as I am a new editor he sees me as an easy target to make his point and make himself feel better about the "injustice" he feels is going on.

The whole issue of sockpuppetry is a non starter
Wikipedia policy states that ''A sock puppet is an alternative account used deceptively. Some examples that clearly violate this policy would be using two usernames to vote more than once in a poll, or to circumvent other Wikipedia policies.''

So even if I was a sock puppet, which I'm not of course, I haven't broken any policies. All I've done is edited. So I don't think I even meet the criteria to be a sock, so there aren't particular reasons for me to be intendified, its just merely Matt's personal grievances against my opinions and the fact that I'm Irish.

Matt Lewis has accussed these editors (Pureeditor, Ovlem, Wikipiere etc.) before of being socks through a check user, however an administrator and check user Alison concluded that there wasn't really any connection between the lot.

I requested a check user when I was acused however it really never got going as the case against the editors I'm accussed of being a sock of was closed as the administrators felt there wasn't a case. I have continiously suggested that a check user would clear this all up but I think Matt has realised the previous point so has now started to ignore previous checkusers and the potential of doing a new one.

Matt's "Evidence"
So as Matt as made his case with his "evidence" I shall now simply show you the holes in his argument. (of which there are many). 1st thing I notice is our "combined interests" and "early edits.
 * UK nationality - I don't think I've edited a page once on Wales, England or Scotland. He claims me reverting some ips changing the UK as his nationality in the infobox to Scotland as some way as proving this. I am a fan of tennis so upon seeing an ip changing his nationality I looked at the talk page and their was a consensus for using UK. I don't really have an interest in this, just in tennis.


 * Ireland topics - The simple thing of this "combined interest" is that I'm Irish and naturally I would edit these. Dublin is my home city and Ireland is my country. Using Republic of Ireland is a contentious issue among many editors on Wikipedia, as it not the name of the country. I noticed upon my first editing that there was a large discussion going on about the name. The consensus following the discussion was to pipelink Roi to Ireland. I just did that on a few articles where they are now stable and accepted as it the consensus.
 * He claims I was discussing the Good Friday Agreement [here]. I don't see it mentioned and I'm not sure what point he is trying to make.


 * He also claims I attacked User:Mooretwin here, but I have no idea where this attack is if you read it.


 * He also claims that I learned to pipelink Wikipedia policy early on as per herehowever I didn't pipe anything just copy and pasted from the Wikipedia policy page. I have also never dated cite tags like he claims (not sure what he's trying to prove anyway)


 * There are many other random made up claims he makes which I don't know what have to do with anything such as this where he claims I was distancing NI from the UK when the edit shows me reverting an edit which defied the consensus and stable version of a topic relating with the state of Ireland. These claims are bizare and I'm not sure what they have to do with a sock case and are I feel made up to tarnish my name for whatever particular reason.

1) User:Mooretwin not sure what this proves. He is an editor who disagrees with the current consensus to pipelink ROI so naturally one respecting the consensus encountered him reverting the changes. The two other editors who posted on his page was for a very different matter.
 * COMBINED HISTORY

2) Home Nations - I just simply reverted someone (I think it was an ip) reverting someone else's change to the consensus.

3) Dublin - me reverting vandalism on my home city page. Not sure what it proves.

4)Northern Ireland - me reverting editors changing the consensus such as someone changing Derry where there is an agreement to use it when referring to the town.

''These are me reverting edits - not bold edits or anything, as I'm new I'm not doing much adding to articles yet just identifying consensus and the right thing to do.