User talk:Kernow/archive2

Hi. It rather looks like a misunderstanding. Instead of unblocking you, I've reduced the block to 3 hours while I try to consult the blocker and make sure we're on the same wavelength. So by the time you read this, it should be sorted. Deb (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have re-instated the original block per Suspected sock puppets/Kernow. If you can agree to avoid editing articles such as Jonty Haywood and The Game, I think there will be a stronger case to grant the above unblock request. Can reviewing admins please consult myself or the original blocking admin User:Jehochman before altering the blocks. I consulted with Jehochman off-wiki (he is currently unable to edit easily) before enacting this, but the responsibility for the reblocking is mine. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At Suspected sock puppets/Kernow I stated reasonable unblocking conditions (To prevent further disruption, I think we should block these sock or meat puppet accounts. If they undertake to avoid each other and avoid anything related to Jonty Haywood, they could possibly be unblocked.). Kernow, please review those and let me know if you agree. Jehochman Talk 13:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, given his long history of sock and meatpuppetry to promote himself and his site, I don't think an unblock is warranted under any terms. I'll respect to consensus of other admins on the matter. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I think you have me confused. A few months ago I was accused of being a sockpuppet of my old account, Jonty303. That account was mine, but I abandoned it due to password loss. I don't have any history of sockpuppetry or self-promotion. Kernow (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I hadn't noticed that suspected sock puppet/Kernow, I'll have a look and see if I can make any sense of it. In the meantime I'm confused. I thought this was all cleared up last time. I haven't edited the Jonty Haywood article ever. I haven't edited the Game article for years either. I was blocked a few months ago as a sockpuppet of my old account but was unblocked after explaining the situation. I think you both (Fritzpoll and Jehochman) were in that discussion actually. I was unblocked after agreeing to pretty much those exact conditions last time and I stated then that I have no problems abiding by WP:COI. Nothing has changed since then. Everything's been deleted from my talk page but luckily it's still in the history if you look at this version of the page. I feel like I'm having one of those "waking dreams" (I seem to have been reblocked for the same thing, now I'm being asked to agree to the same conditions as last time to be unblocked). Anyhow, yes I still do agree to conform to WP:COI, I won't edit articles about me or the game in any way that conflicts with Wikipedia's goals. Kernow (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Kernow, the thing that has had all of us concerned (myself, Fritzpoll and Ohnoitsjamie) is that when you exited the scene, a couple accounts appeared, proposing and making the same sort of edits. One of them was tenaciously trying to get a spam site removed from the blacklist.  That created the appearance of a marketing campaign, rather than independently acting volunteers.  Of course, we can never know peoples' motives; we have to judge by appearances.  It would help if you tell me what articles you might like to edit, and hopefully we will not see any further editing contrary to WP policies and guidelines in the locus of Jonty Haywood and The Game. I am pretty sensitive to people who get caught in such a situation and I'd like to unblock you. Jehochman Talk 15:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the explanation, I've taken a look at the sockpuppet thing too. I don't know who those accounts are but I'd like to know what you mean by the "same sort of edits". There seems to be this ongoing presumption that I have been involved in spamming my website and trying to write articles about myself and such. Looking at my editing history, I don't know where this presumption has come from. As I have already explained, 3 years ago when I was a very new editor, as Jonty303, I had information on my website about various topics (not just The Game), and I added external links to those pages to the relevant articles on Wikipedia. This wasn't an attempt to spam, but I know now those ELs weren't suitable for Wikipedia. I was warned about it and I stopped, and I was never blocked for this, it was just a handful of edits. Then I lost Jonty303's password when my computer got wiped. I made the account Kernow to continue editing. Since then (early 2006) I haven't added a single link to my site to Wikipedia nor have I edited anything to do with myself. I don't think I even edited The Game article since creating Kernow but I did take part in the mammoth deletion debates that surrounded that article for ages in AFD/DRV and its talk page. Nobody had a problem with that at the time, that I remember. I've never had anything to do with the Jonty Haywood article. In fact I've only made a small number of edits since it was created, sadly I really haven't had much time to devote to Wikipedia at all lately (travelling a lot). I honestly am totally indifferent to whether Wikipedia has an article about me, so long as it doesn't say anything untrue that might affect my work or travels. As for what articles I'd like to edit in future, well, I answered this last time too. As I say I don't have a huge amount of time at the moment but I'm interested in biology, genetics/evolution, teaching and travelling, and I anticipate contributing whenever I come across a topic to which I can make a useful contribution.


 * Anyway, I think the cause of the problem here is this. The aim of The Game that my website documents is to spread it everywhere, and my website has had national media coverage, gets thousands of new visitors per day, and is very high on the Google ranks. Now I'm not trying to "big up" my site to you, what I'm trying to get across is that the combination of these makes it quite likely that given how popular Wikipedia is, occasionally a visitor to my site will edit Wikipedia and try to add stuff from my site either to the game article or the article about me.


 * I really don't know what to do about this. I think Wikipedia is a great resource and I would hate to be (even indirectly) responsible for causing a problem here. I can put a message on the site asking people not add the site to Wikipedia but I doubt that will work, and may even have the opposite effect. Do you have any suggestions? Is there a page which lists how many times my website has been spammed? If it really is a serious problem then I'll certainly help however I can.


 * As for my Wikipedia account, the problem appears to be people assuming my personal involvement whenever anyone edits in relation to me or my site. My worry is that I'm going to log in again in a month or so to find myself blocked again for the same reasons. Maybe if there is another problem relating to my site you could contact me about it first. If I don't respond within a few days then feel free to email me. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks again Kernow (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Kernow, it would probably help your situation to check your Wikipedia account occasionally for messages, and if anybody raises an issue to have them contact me. Hopefully I can help you avoid any further misunderstandings. You're in a bit of difficulty because readers of your website may come here quite naturally, and because you are known for making notable hoaxes. Some folks here may extend a bit less good faith toward you than normal. Now if only we could convince you to put that sharp mind to work stopping miscreants from abusing Wikipedia... Jehochman Talk 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, well thanks for unblocking me. I'll try to check my account as often as I can but as a full time teacher I'm sure you can understand that I don't have as much time for Wikipedia as I'd like. After hearing that my site has been spammed here I can understand why there may be a less than friendly attitude towards me like you say. Thanks for your compliment, I wish I could help more. Although without at least a few miscreants I guess you administrators might get bored... Just kidding ;) Cheers, Kernow (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Corresponding with and assisting an editor that was actively editing his article, by uploading a radio interview onto his site after their express intention was made clear to be able to have it selectively whitelisted and used as an extremely questionable source, does not suggest to me that User:Kernow either had no reason to think he might have messages recently, or that he is not particularly bothered about what his article contains. In fact if he was bothered about any possible libelous statements in his bio, you would think he would log in more often than in between the times other people seem interested in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, let's be specific, User:Jessi1989 claimed to have contacted Haywood during the radio interview issue, so I don't see how the statement " I don't know who those accounts are " makes any sense, or why Kernow would think he would not have any messages. MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's be mellow and watch what develops. Jehochman Talk 13:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you. You're saying I uploaded a radio interview recording onto my site just so that some user could add links to it on Wikipedia? I don't know where you got that information from. That interview has been on my site since the radio station sent it to me shortly after the interview. For years the site has had an "awards" section for individuals who have done something that initiated a very large number of players. Where possible, evidence of what they did is always provided, be it a recording, copy/translation of an article, photograph, etc. I do remember someone e-mailing my site a while ago asking if we had permission to host one of the recordings there, but I get numerous e-mails about my site every day, and that wasn't the first one to mention The Game article on Wikipedia. If you look at the link you posted you'll see that in my reply I tried to discourage them from getting themselves in trouble here. Also I'm sorry for not logging in to Wikipedia more often, I do log in from time to time but as I said above, teaching full time I really don't have as much spare time as I'd like. Also I don't really understand what you mean when you say I should have thought I had messages. My account has been largely inactive for years and in that time nobody has left me any messages. I wasn't aware my account here was so well known. As an aside, is there any way to set it up so that you get e-mailed when someone leaves a message on your talk page? Kernow (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Kernow for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 15:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)