User talk:Factseducado

May 2012

See confession at my talkpage for more info. SPI will follow I have no doubt. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The truth of the matter appears to be that this user currently edits from one IP address, and has created one other account User:NewtonGeek which never edited. All three are currently blocked pending some calm, rational explanation that assures us all that he has the capacity to be a useful editor who does not fling hyperbolic accusations about all over the place. Or alternately, since this account was only created on April 23 that other users come up with who all the other "socks" might be. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is an admission - it's clearly sarcasm and they are stressed. They are repeating the allegations that have been made against them. Secretlondon (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, have removed sock block template and amended block reason.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Factseducado, if you wish to return to editing, you need to provide evidence to substantiate your onwiki allegations that another user has threatened you with WP:OUTING. You cannot make this kind of accusation against another user in a public space without providing evidence, so please forward any emails to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org Alternatively, you need to withdraw the allegations against the named user, if you do not have the evidence. You can edit this talk page - please post back here with what you intend to do. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Elen, from what I can gather, Factseducado received a very nasty anonymous email at her former WP-linked account. Since ostensibly very few people here knew the address, and from the way pretty crude remarks were being thrown at her [emphasis Factseducado] in my RfC by wiki admins, it wasn't unreasonable for Factseducado to think that someone wanted her [emphasis Factseducado] out via whatever means necessary. That seems to be why that conversation blew up all of a sudden, and then came the accusations from one of those admins that she [emphasis Factseducado] was a puppet. Frankly she [emphasis Factseducado] has very little faith in the wiki establishment and it's hard to imagine why she [emphasis Factseducado] should. In light of that, it's unlikely she's [emphasis Factseducado] going to want any further part of this saga or WP in general, which is unfortunate because Factseducado was a helpful editor as all of her [emphasis Factseducado] earlier contribs would attest to. Agent00f (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved, neutral administrator requested

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I have not accused any user but I have stated that I suspect who the user is. I have a suspicion about who sent the e-mail to my account. This suspicion is based on the few Wikipedia people who had the opportunity to do it by knowing my e-mail address and the motivation to do it by not being happy with me. I apologize for stating the name of the user I suspect and I am willing to remove the name of the person I suspect. The socking is not dubious; it is unfounded. Any administrator still uninformed about that allegation against me should discuss it with whichever bureaucrat? has access to all the private communications. The blocking administrator is not uninvolved due to her multiple remarks about me which were later found to be unfounded.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have not accused any user but I have stated that I suspect who the user is. I have a suspicion about who sent the e-mail to my account. This suspicion is based on the few Wikipedia people who had the opportunity to do it by knowing my e-mail address and the motivation to do it by not being happy with me. I apologize for stating the name of the user I suspect and I am willing to remove the name of the person I suspect. The socking is not dubious; it is unfounded. Any administrator still uninformed about that allegation against me should discuss it with whichever bureaucrat? has access to all the private communications. The blocking administrator is not uninvolved due to her multiple remarks about me which were later found to be unfounded. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have not accused any user but I have stated that I suspect who the user is. I have a suspicion about who sent the e-mail to my account. This suspicion is based on the few Wikipedia people who had the opportunity to do it by knowing my e-mail address and the motivation to do it by not being happy with me. I apologize for stating the name of the user I suspect and I am willing to remove the name of the person I suspect. The socking is not dubious; it is unfounded. Any administrator still uninformed about that allegation against me should discuss it with whichever bureaucrat? has access to all the private communications. The blocking administrator is not uninvolved due to her multiple remarks about me which were later found to be unfounded. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have not accused any user but I have stated that I suspect who the user is. I have a suspicion about who sent the e-mail to my account. This suspicion is based on the few Wikipedia people who had the opportunity to do it by knowing my e-mail address and the motivation to do it by not being happy with me. I apologize for stating the name of the user I suspect and I am willing to remove the name of the person I suspect. The socking is not dubious; it is unfounded. Any administrator still uninformed about that allegation against me should discuss it with whichever bureaucrat? has access to all the private communications. The blocking administrator is not uninvolved due to her multiple remarks about me which were later found to be unfounded. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

How do I type things in the places on the form?

Change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}. Then type your reason where it says "your reason here". ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would but there is no button that lets that happen.

That's right. There's no button. Basically you're just going to edit this section like you normally do, and change {{unblock}} to {{unblock | reason=I would like to be unblocked because...blah...blah...blah... ~~~~}} Make sure that you focus on yourself ("I made this and this mistake, and here's what I've learned from the situation") and not others ("This editor attacked me, and this other one made accusations, and this is why I'm right"). Also, I highly recommend reading Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks if you haven't done so already. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I would take exception to unblocking as it doesn't address the reasons for the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Every stated reason for the block has been addressed. Why not allow an uninvolved administrator take a look at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factseducado (talk • contribs)

• Please note that this blocked editor has just removed my above comment here [1], and it was restored by another editor. As I am central to the reason this editor is blocked, I find it both revealing and disruptive. Trying to hide my concerns, while still maintaining that I outed the editor AND refusing to submit his evidence to ArbCom so that it may be disproven is enough reason to continue the indef block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not stated that Dennis outed me. Dennis has repeated that but he has provided no evidence. I have stated I am happy to remove the name of the person I suspect. If I recall correctly Dennis asked me to not use his talk page and I have avoided it completely ever since. I would prefer it if Dennis were to also avoid my talk page. Obviously nobody owns their talk page so both Dennis and I are free to use each other's talk pages. I'm willing not to use his for the sake of cooperation. I did delete his comment from my talk page because I would have preferred an uninvolved set of eyes looked at my request. I also would wish he would extend the same courtesy of not using my talk page that I have respectfully given him after I was asked, if I recall correctly.

ArbCom has not requested evidence from me, my husband, or anyone else with firsthand knowledge of any events.

Now I see Hasteur is the person Dennis referred to who has edited my talk page. Hasteur and Dennis have had a lot to say about me. Hasteur's comments during the sockpuppet investigation among other comments of his reveal that he is entirely involved.

Here's a diff where you say you suspect Dennis outed you (or sent the threatening email...or both...hard to tell). I suggest apologizing for that at the very least. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now apologized for naming the user I suspect in addition to offering to remove the user's name. I don't imagine stating that user's name again is advisable since that user is unhappy that user's name was mentioned as a user I suspect. However, the other user has now stated that that user does not want an apology.

When this block was instituted the user who is unhappy about my actions wrote to the blocking administrator with the request that I "clearly strike and withdraw all claims." On her talk page the blocking administrator called for a retraction or a withdrawal of my claim. My claim was that I suspected a named user. I have made no other claim. I have offered to both apologize and remove the name of the user. This is the user secretlonden indicated I was panicking about on the blocking administrator's page.

Hateur and Dennis Brown have both been active at the sockpuppet investigation of me in which no wrongdoing was found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Agent00f Hasteur attempted on that page to keep my husband's account blocked though no wrongdoing was ever found.

Today Hasteur contacted both Dennis and the blocking administrator. Though Dennis initiated the sockpuppet investigation of me he appears to be unaware of the facts found during that investigation when he wrote on the blocking administrator's page today. The blocking administrator changed this block as a result of that investigation which found there had been no wrongdoing. Today Dennis has described finding my talk page writing "odd." There is nothing odd about it. On the blocking administrator's page he also wrote he is under the impression that I am my husband. He then referred to me as a mismatched sock. He then wrote he suspects I may be using my husband's account. Please note: my husband's account has never been used which came out during the sockpuppet investigation Dennis began. Dennis further wrote he believes I may be sharing some other user's account. Every shred of evidence in the sockpuppet investigation discounts this interpretation of events.

"Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments"

"In Checkuser terms, Agent00f and Factseducado are Unrelated, other than being on the same continent."

"NewtonGeek is Confirmed as created by Factseducado but has never edited, so can't really be accused of socking. [Note to readers this is later found to be untrue. My husband created his own account.] Factseducado has confirmed that the IP is him editing logged out by accident - the fact that he goes back and confirms it is him means there is no problem with the identification."

"NewtonGeek has appealed against their blocking on UTRS. They have an academic email address and say that the wikipedia editor is their wife. [emphasis added] Secretlondon (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)"

"Hi. You blocked for User:NewtonGeek for being a sock of User:Factsecucado[...] Newtongeek hasn't edited, so I'm presuming it was from checkuser. They have appealed via UTRS. Do you know which the other account was? They say they are a married couple.. Secretlondon (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)"

"Thanks. I'm taking this as sarcasm not as an admission that they have fifty accounts. Secretlondon (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)"

"Sorry for my bad typing. Factseducado is accused of being a sock of Agent00f at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Agent00f. If this is resolved, there's no problem unblocking NewtonGeek on the basis of that explanation...or Factseducado for that point if he agrees to tone it down a bit.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)"

"I read from the CHU that Agent00f and Facts are different people. Is Facts just blocked because of Agent? It sounds like we can unblock Newton in this case. Secretlondon (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factseducado (talk • contribs)

Since Factseducado has now drug my name through the mud twice here, I'll opine.

1. The block is about you. Not me, Not Denis Brown, not Elen, not Agent. YOU.
2. Contacting the blocking admin is always good form to let them know that their decision is being challenged.
3. I suggested that it would be not a good idea to unblock NewtonGeek based on the fact that the account's only edit was the outreach "auto-edit". That CU identified the account as being on the same IP and created by you suggested a potential sleeper account. I stand by my suggestion. It's the right of editors to give their viewpoint and the right of administrators to ignore it if they so choose.

Now, focus on how your actions caused you to be blocked and how you intend to correct the problems. Hasteur (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur, please stay off my talk page. Your name has in no way been drug through any mud. Let an uninvolved administrator decide what he or she decides. In the future please refrain from striking my comments as Qwyrxian instructed you. I'd also like you not to edit my comments on my own talk page. I don't do that to yours. It is not necessary for you to do it to mine.