Disappointed

[Torie]

Wait, we have a minimum age?

The minimum age for posting here is 13.

Is there a maximum age limit?

This place shaves enough years off one's life that I doubt that's an issue.

Just why do you think I watch my diet and work out? 

[cubfan]

You know, it doesn't help your case that you were still vandalizing Wikipedia as recently as a few months ago.  Continue to work on maturing, and maybe in a few years you can come back.  Before you try to do that, email an admin first, because just simply showing up will definitely get you rebanned.

Obviously is the guy really wanted to come back, and had some level of maturity, he would have indeed done what you said, as opposed to just making a scene here to bitch about it via the sock route. Haven't we made it clear that going the sock route is the worst possible road to take to reinstatement, and said it over, and over, and over again? jmfsct v Mods. But I doubt that  either the desire or the maturity was in play here.

Addendum:  I now understand that probably the sole reason for the prior banning was age, so the issue is indeed just the form of the re-entrance - a less serious matter, but one that is not irrelevant.

Yeah I should not have gone the sock route and I apologize for doing so. And the Wikipedia thing was a few months ago and I have decided to stop vandalizing and only make constructive edits. I would prove that I was 14 but I would have to give away some personal details and I do not want to do that.

[Lambsbread]

Wait, we have a minimum age?

We also have a minimum wage

[Torie]

You know, it doesn't help your case that you were still vandalizing Wikipedia as recently as a few months ago.  Continue to work on maturing, and maybe in a few years you can come back.  Before you try to do that, email an admin first, because just simply showing up will definitely get you rebanned.

Obviously is the guy really wanted to come back, and had some level of maturity, he would have indeed done what you said, as opposed to just making a scene here to bitch about it via the sock route. Haven't we made it clear that going the sock route is the worst possible road to take to reinstatement, and said it over, and over, and over again? jmfsct v Mods. But I doubt that  either the desire or the maturity was in play here.

Addendum:  I now understand that probably the sole reason for the prior banning was age, so the issue is indeed just the form of the re-entrance - a less serious matter, but one that is not irrelevant.

Yeah I should not have gone the sock route and I apologize for doing so. And the Wikipedia thing was a few months ago and I have decided to stop vandalizing and only make constructive edits. I would prove that I was 14 but I would have to give away some personal details and I do not want to do that.

Thanks for the note. Your situation raised policy issues in the Cave, and has generated a lot of discussion. It's still ongoing. We might call it the "cubfan" precedent.

[minionofmidas]

Wait, we have a minimum age?

The minimum age for posting here is 13.

Is there a maximum age limit?

Yes. That's why Clarence is not posting anymore. Nothing to do with his heart, he just crossed the age limit. (The minimum age limit is a requirement of American federal law; IIRC it strictly applies only to registering an account and submitting personal data (such as an email address) to the site, not to posting. Kids just aren't considered mature enough to legally consent to do that, which just goes to show that using this forum is akin to having sex.)

[minionofmidas]

Relevant statute on wikipedia

And yes, that would strongly imply that, while one might still argue trolling or the "sock account" (though I fail to see how an account that's used exclusively to argue one's case, with no confusion about identity involved, can be called a "sockpuppet") might be held against him, the simple fact he used to post here when he was too young shouldn't be counted against yougo. It was strictly speaking Dave Leip's job to prevent that.