Quillercouch

After reviewing your appeal, the Arbitration Committee is unblocking your account based on your good work on other Foundation projects. Per our agreement by email, you will be using only one account and no open proxies. For the Arbitration Committee, FloNight♥♥♥ 10:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC).Reply

Congratulations from me, Poetlister. Welcome back. Acalamari 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back, Poetlister! (Edit conflict.) :) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yeah well - you already know I have known you to be a real person for possibly years (ie involvement with WR - dunno how long thats been) - welcome back to acknowledgement from the wiki beuracracy. Viridae^Talk 16:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back, Poetlister! @Viridae your account on WR was created 19 May 2007. @FloNight Is it acknowledged that this user was not a sockpuppet of Runcorn? --Random832 (contribs) 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

oH there you - go, nearly a year. And my originals involvement with WR was to set some misrepresentations of policy right I think. So it must have been more like 10 months. Oh well - felt like years. Viridae^Talk 16:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Oh, and I'll think you'll like this. :) Acalamari 16:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
• Welcome back. -- Naerii 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations, Poetlister! This is great news :) - Alison ^❤ 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations! Welcome back. (No brainer, though - you are a crat on my second favourite project). Sceptre ^(talk) 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am glad to see your editing privs restored. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back! :) krimpet✽ 22:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Welcome (back). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Welcome back! :) Enigma ^message 04:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The opinions in my essay are mine alone. Poetlister agrees with the general theme, but she did not ask me to publish it, nor do I require her permission to do so.

• User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/Poetlister is innocent

Enjoy reading. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Poetlister is not innocent. The checkuser evidence was overwhelming and damning. She is being unbanned not because we have changed our mind on the original evidence; in fact, we have reviewed it and found it as convincing as ever. Rather, she is being unbanned because we believe in giving users a second chance, and because of her good work on other projects. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bullshit - if you accept that she actually is a she - then you have accepted she is not a sockpuppet of runcorn, who is male. Which means she was never a sock and is therefore innocent of all charges. Othwerwise you are still maintaining that this is Runcorn. Viridae^Talk 00:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please, no swearing, please. Be of cheer and be merry. A day of good news only deserves good words :)

I respect English Wikipedia Arbcom experience and discretion, as an experienced editor and sister project CU,　I learn most of sockpuppet allegations hit the target properly. I just said, discretion, including they now lifted the ban and gave Poetlister a second chance. It is really good of them! Also it is good to hear they respect Poetlister do a lot of good works with which we proudly consider her a great asset.

re: open proxies. As an English Wikiquote CU, I proactively block open proxies, and know our English Wikipedia colleagues do the same. So it is also good to hear that Poetlister gave her word not to edit via open proxies anymore.

And last but not least, congrats for restoring your edit right, Poetlister! --Aphaia (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Viridae seems to be claiming that Morven holds inconsistent beliefs or is presenting a logically inconsistent position, but that only follows if Morven is incapable of having beliefs different from Viridae, such as that runcorn isn't male. It looks a bit like a case of failing the Sally-Anne test. -- 71.102.174.155 (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if you repeat it often enough, people will come to believe it. -- Naerii 02:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back. Peter Damian (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

May I suggest good faith, and hold off the arguing a bit.

(Full comment being drafted, will post soon). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Assuming good faith of all involved would lead to the conclusion that Poetlister is not a sockpuppet and checkusers are mistaken (since 1. it’s extremely unlikely that Poetlister herself would be mistaken about this and 2. people being mistaken in good faith happens all the time, including in groups).

Assuming bad faith of someone involved, on the other hand, would likely lead to the conclusion that Poetlister is lying, since that's more likely than a number of checkusers lying (though I'm not entirely clear on how many and which checkusers who have reviewed the evidence support the sockpuppet conclusion and how many and which (if any) checkusers who have reviewed the evidence disagree with that conclusion). However, I think you do have to want someone to be lying in order to get to that conclusion. 87.254.71.190 (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Checkuser doesn't prove guilt. Though it can in certain cases strongly point ot it. However disregarding the checkuser evidence, had this been a runcorn sock he has kept the pretence up for a hell of a logn time with a hell of a lot of commitment. Viridae^Talk 13:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have been away much of the weekend, and am away tonight too. The write-up of the block/unblocks and the summary of a large amount of case discussion and evidence, is now complete, and I'll post it on my return tomorrow. On a matter like this, it would be a poor idea to post and then immediately not be around to respond to others on it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

An explanation of the block, unblock and evidence is now posted at WP:ANI#Poetlister_unblock_clarification. May I hope that it's for the best. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have removed Runcorn from the list of banned users - my rationale: If there is only one person behind these accounts, then who is banned? --Random832 (contribs) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

AFAIK, the official story is still that they were all banned because (when combined) they violated WP:SOCK so I have reverted the change to WP:BANNED.

A new chapter in the story was written when Poetlister was unbanned. The story doesnt need to make perfect sense - this is not a novel; it just needs to be what is right for the project at the time - unbanning Poetlister makes sense. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right, but WP:BANNED is for people who are presently banned, and therefore for there to be an entry on WP:BANNED it must be acknowledged that - if the person operating the "Poetlister" account is (obviously) not banned, that there is someone else who is banned. We block people's sockpuppets without blocking them or creating a WP:BANNED listing all the time. --Random832 (contribs) 01:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This the talk page of Poetlister, which is the wrong forum for discussing your edit to WP:BANNED. I have responded to this on ANI. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Long time no see...Welcome back. Modernist (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back. It would seem common sense won out in the long run. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Poetlister, welcome back! I hope this doesn't mean your involvement in other projects will suffer!! :-( ;-) p.s. The Bell-Buoy needs some loving! hehe John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Congrats, feels good not to be blocked huh? :D ...--Cometstyles 12:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Welcome back, PL. That was quick. In this situation, I'm reminded of the Dickinson poem about truth dazzling gradually. Anyway, best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I should be grateful if you could please explain the rationale for this edit: [1]. As I was in the middle of an appeal to ArbCom, it was rather assuming the result of that appeal. Thanks.--Poetlister (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Suggest you not pursue the matter, I did as I do to all banned/indefblocked editors, you just happened to be one, if you're editing rights have been restored, there is obviously nothing more to discuss. And considering you have also been holding an off-wiki grudge against me for the edit, while you clearly know you were banned (you just happened to get unblocked), discussing the matter with me is not going to get you far anywhere on this encyclopedia. I suggest you move on. — Κaiba 12:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm threats they sure are great fun, especially when uttered when not having to fear retaliation. Quite the macho :) 195.216.82.210 (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for the mail. If his name was really Day Lewis, don't you think the article on him should be renamed, and the Day-Lewis page turned into a redirect, instead of the present vice-versa situation? That would save you from having to revert people's changes all the time. (You can answer here, I'm watching.) LarRan (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply