User talk:UrgeDecca

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of &#32;per the evidence presented at 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:. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Unblock request

 * 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
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
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)


 * 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 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
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 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.