User talk:Rigel0

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rigel0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please see my comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Polaron/Archive

Decline reason:

decline per WP:BROTHER. An interesting twist on that standard excuse, but "I created this for my son" is still roughly equivalent. --Jayron32 04:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"My comment"? User:Rigel0 has not edited that page. —DoRD (talk) 03:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Ahh, I now see that the unblock request was made by User:Polaron on behalf of Rigel0. —DoRD (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) with Jayron32's decline...Phantomsteve removed the talk page and email in his block (which I just restored), so it is certainly understandable that Polaron posted the request. On the merits,

CheckUser is not magic pixie dust, so we can't really tell between you and your son from a technical standpoint and the CU result is of limited value here. I'm minded to AGF and unblock as long as the accounts' relationship is clearly disclosed - and you should certainly read WP:SHARE carefully. T. Canens (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before we do anything, care to explain User:Cobaltite? T. Canens (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of talk page/email access was incorrect (thanks for restoring that), for which I apologise. However, I find it odd that your son just happened to edit 11 articles which you did? That was out of a total of 14 distinct articles/pages edited (highlighted names are those which both accounts edited):

I'm sure that even if my dad and I (or my son and I, or my brother and I) were to edit Wikipedia over a couple of years, there might be a few articles which we would edit in common - but 78.5% of your son's edits just happen to be on articles which you have worked on? The odds are too far against that happening, especially in the space of the 2 days which your son's account had existed. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think my comments at the SPI page were not clear. Most of the above edits were mine. The only ones that weren't were the ones related to Talk:Fairfield County and the one about the reversed lens. All the earlier edits were made by me principally as a demonstration about how one might go about looking for things to fix in various articles. He hasn't really used the account aside from that last couple of edits primarily because our home computer was autoblocked. --Polaron | Talk 18:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I could understand if the edits had been in one or two articles - but eleven? If you wanted to show him, why not be logged in under your account, show him, and then log out and let him use his account for his edits? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polaron could not demonstrate in his account, because at the time Polaron's account was blocked for edit warring (specifically in contention, with me, about a Connecticut article involving National Register of Historic Places). The 3rrnb discussion, currently still open, is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Polaron and User:Doncram reported by The Thing // Talk // Contribs (Result: Polaron blocked 72h). In this Rigel0 account, Polaron implemented at least two edits that were reverts of articles to last versions edited by the Polaron account. In at least one edit, he furthered his position on the issue of much contention (regarding merger or separation of NRHP historic district articles vs. hamlet/town articles), by delinking what was a separate NRHP historic district, and bolding the name instead, to assert his position that the topics must be merged. Polaron used this account during most of the 72 hours of blocking, until a few minutes after I commented about the Rigel0 account being currently used, at the 3rrnb discussion. Then it appears Polaron probably opened yet another new account to continue editing. He has not explained that.

Later Polaron commented at the SPI that he tried to avoid editing articles that I have edited. I think he postured that was for some other reason, but it would also be beneficial for avoiding detection during the time of his block.

Whatever P is asserting, it seems to me that this Rigel0 account is most clearly understood as Polaron's account, used for block evasion. The model it would give to a son or other new wikipedia editor, is pretty poor. To be blunt, possible messages it gives are: "here's how you roll back other editors' efforts", "here's how you defy the consensus of the community by evading a block", "here's how you further a long-running contention", "here's how you try to sneak around without being noticed, when blocked", "here take this account used by me for illegitimate purposes to use for your own similar career". If the son or other new wikipedia editor exists, I would want for his account not to be tainted by this modelling and these associations. I see no likely usefulness of this account for such a person, who would surely do better in a clean, new account. --doncram (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had another 48 hours on my block at that time but so I couldn't do that, but anyway, it's alright to leave this account blocked. If you look, the several articles were chosen to have different kinds of edits, like removing obvious vanity/vandalism, adding citations, asking and answering clarifications/questions on a talk page, creating a redirect. I realize it looks weird, but it is what it is. It's probably less hassle for everyone to just have him create a new one (with a clear notation that it is for practical purposes an alternate account for me) but I want to make sure that's alright before we proceed on that front. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 20:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have made this clear in my comment above: why did you not wait until your block was done (you only had another couple of days left) and then use your account to demonstrate? What was the almighty rush to show him? As for him creating another account which would be "for practical purposes an alternate account for me" - it is either his own account, or it is an alternate account for you. If he were to create a new account, then it would not be an alternate account - and it would have to edit on articles which you have never edited, and which are not connected to those subjects. This shouldn't be a great hardship - I doubt that I would edit many articles that my father would be interested in editing (not that my father edits on Wikipedia!), and my son would probably not be interested in editing articles that I am interested in (although he is currently too young to edit). I am not personally convinced by this "Most of those edits were me showing my son", and agree with what Doncram says above. Failing a convincing argument, this will probably be my last contribution to this discussion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was bad judgement to not have waited another 2 days. There was no real rush except for the fact that we just had his new computer setup the day before. Based on your and Doncram's comment, I take it that it is better to have him create a completely new account that is totally independent of mine then? Or would it be better to have his association with me clearly specified? What would be the best course of action here? Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 20:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he was to have his own account, then on your user page you would need to have a notice that says something along the lines of "Family member accounts: user-123 is my son, and uses the same IP as me at home" (and he has a similar thing saying "Family member accounts: Polaron is my father, and uses the same IP as me at home". As to whether he should have an account, I'll leave that to other editors to decide on the merits of that. However, this account does not have a restriction on editing this talk page, and so I would suggest that you allow your son to put an unblock request on this page, and that you take no further part in the procedings. If the account is unblocked, then just make sure that both of you mention the connection - not that one is a alternate account of the other, as that would be false, and may well lead to further blocks. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]