User talk:Inferno, Lord of Penguins/Sockpuppetry archive2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

On a side note to Hersfold and Spellcast - even though my question has been answered, I would still like your opinions on this whole subject. Thanks. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

{{

helpme

}} Quick question - am I considered blocked, or banned? (This question is aimed primarily at

WP:SOCK), and I could if I wanted to right now, but if you say no, I'll leave entirely. Thanks in advance. (This is aimed at Hersfold and Spellcast because they are the blocking admins - I want their opinions) Inferno, Lord of Penguins

20:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You're blocked, not banned. Bans must be decided upon by the community. —

neuro^(talk)

20:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I'll notify them. —

neuro^(talk)

20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I kinda want their opinions as well, so thanks for letting them know. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 20:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Saw what you did neuro - thanks :) Inferno, Lord of Penguins 20:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOCK doesn't allow for a blocked or banned user to come back under a new username. It allows users to wipe the slate clean of past disgreements or poor behaviour; it does not allow blocked users to circumvent their block, because when you are blocked the person is blocked, not the account. The only difference between a block and a ban is that a ban is either decided proactively by the community or through inaction--no admin willing to unblock = ban. //roux

20:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. From what I read, that seemed like only banned users to me, but ok, I'll comply with that. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 20:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No.. if that were the case, no block would ever work. Cheers. //roux 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if it required a full reform into a constructive contributer, then I don't see why it wouldn't work (as why would a constructive contributer need to be blocked?). But anyways, don't wanna argue Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, if anybody has something to say, just post it, I still read wikipedia, and I log on, so I'll see any new messages. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't think any admins would unblock, I guess I'm banned....Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

They might in future, I for one wouldn't consider yourself banned - I've seen people who've done a lot worse than yourself reform. —

neuro^(talk)

21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to wish you luck for the future - you were very helpful & constructive on the occasions we interacted. DuncanHill (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's all I intended to be Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Ok, this is an insanely gross mess of a case, but I don't see that there is any further purpose to having this block in place. Here's why:

Your explanation of the situation below is very helpful. While you have, at some point, broken just about every rule outlined in
WP:SOCK
, you have finally come clean on all of it, which was partially what we were looking for during the dramafest the other night.
Your explanation does seem to address the reason for the highly confusing checkuser report; account sharing would confuse, and having your brother vandalize things would lead to people assuming you a sockpuppeteer. While this is a common explanation for that, as you are now aware, your detailed explanation does make sense, more so than good-hand/bad-hand sockpuppetry of this nature would.
It has been pointed out by others, and I've observed myself, that you have done some exceptional work on this account that is worthy of merit. On the whole, I think the project would be a little worse off without you than we would be with your brother vandalising your userpage.

Now, that's not to say that your past actions aren't completely forgiven. We don't allow shared accounts not only because it makes messes like this more likely, but also because the GFDL requires us to attribute all edits. With shared accounts, this becomes difficult or impossible. Your failing to admit to your knowledge of this whole situation also ended up prolonging your block - had you explained this all previously, we may have unblocked you in IRC the other night. There's also the somewhat unrelated issue of your brother who seems to enjoy attacking the site more or less at random. So while you are now unblocked, please take care in the future to prevent other users from accessing Wikipedia from your home IP address; keep an eye on your brother and make sure he is aware that this sort of thing is not acceptable; and be aware that if something like this should happen again, it may not be looked on quite as kindly. For now, though, let's all learn something from this (me a lesson in

WP:AGF

, you a lesson in honesty ;-) ) and get back to editing like we should be. Thank you again for owning up to all of this, and see below for something extra.

P.S. - As for your IP address, I am adjusting the block to affect anonymous users only. This way, you will still be able to edit while logged in, however your brother will be unable to create any more accounts while at home.

Request handled by:

a/c

) 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be checking up on this later. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 03:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Hersfold to comment. Since this is what you want too, I'm placing the request on hold for now. Mango juice^talk 19:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm here, and reviewing. Hang on a bit.

a/c

) 20:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Purple Barnstar
		Sometimes owning up to your past mistakes is just as difficult as writing a featured article - something which I hope you'll now be able to do. For your efforts to return from your block and get back to editing, and also to some extent as an apology for putting you through this, I hereby award a/c ) 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)