Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 1,250:
*:::If I'm not mistaken the socking happened in 2019 and 2020. Lightburst started actively editing in late 2018. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*::"Without abusing multiple accounts" is not the only criteria when considering an unlock request, from what I've seen, they are also expected to acknowledge that they engaged in socking. So far, LB has not done that, and instead, has insisted that the didn't sock in spite of the overwhelming evidence.[[User:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> ''Isaidnoway'' </b>]][[User talk:Isaidnoway|<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">''(talk)''</b>]] 12:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
*:::Sure, had LB been blocked for sockpuppetry at the time, I doubt they would be extended the standard offer unless they admitted it. I was just commenting that our policy towards sockpuppetry is quite far from "zero tolerance".
*:::Since they ''weren't'' blocked, however, I think it's easy to understand (without defending) why they didn't subsequently own up to it: doing so would have no benefit, and carry a substantial risk of getting them blocked after the fact, as is happening now. I'm sitting on the fence here but I think it's important to be clear that what Moneytree's has proposed is banning Lightburst for a long-term pattern of uncollegial behaviour and evading accountability – not for just sockpuppetry that happened four years ago. – [[User:Joe Roe|Joe]] <small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 12:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' - this is an overreaction to something that stopped over four years ago. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 12:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
| |||