User talk:Victor Punta

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Spliff Joint Blunt (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Mike V • Talk 03:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

NeilN, Mike V, account was created after retiring old account, not used in parallel. Not in violation of WP:POLICY. You were quick to block without due reason. Account was not created to avoid scrutiny, you can check contribs, nothing to hide and account was never blocked before. Don't have access to old account, old password forgotten. The only thing a block will prevent is continued useful contributions to Wikipedia. Victor Punta (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, an examination of the relevant history does not support what you say. You have used numerous accounts and IP addresses over the years, evading blocks and topic bans, switching to another account when a previous account had been warned about edit-warring, creating sleeper accounts to keep them in waiting to use when you abandon another account, and so on and so on. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2015 (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.

It is clear that your recent accounts were sockpuppets intended to evade scrutiny, "retiring" each account and jumping to another before any one of them built up enough of a history of edit-warring and other disruptive editing to get blocked, and keeping unused accounts in reserve to use in future. Therefore, even before the AndresHerutJaim connection came to light, I had decided to decline your unblock request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

NeilN, Mike V, account was created after retiring old account, Spliff Joint Blunt, not used in parallel. Not in violation of WP:POLICY. You were quick to block without due reason. Account was not created to avoid scrutiny, you can check contribs, nothing to hide and account was never blocked before. Don't have access to old account, old password forgotten. The only thing a block will prevent is continued useful contributions to Wikipedia. Now another admin accusing accounts of being sock of AndresHerutJaim without any evidence. Victor Punta (talk) 9:47 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Your own words NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:57, 12 November 2015 (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.

Note if you decide to return as a different account, that will be blocked as well. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You used multiple accounts to contribute to the same discussion. (Victor Punta, Spliff Joint Blunt) Our sockpuppetry policy states, Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people. Thus, it's clearly in violation of policy. Mike V • Talk 19:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike V: Edit was immediately reverted by me when I noticed duplication less than a minute afterwards here [1] with edit summary "duplicate". New account was meant to be a fresh a start. Contribs speak for themselves. Does this warrant indef block? What about AndresHerutJaim sock accusation and tagging this page with it? Victor Punta (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These edits still stood. (1, 2) Even with that aside, the main issue is creating new accounts to evade your original block. Clean starts only apply to users who left the community in good standing. (Not blocked, not subject to sanctions, etc.) Instead, you should have appealed your block from your main account. Evading your original block does warrant an indefinite block. As for the AndresHerutJaim, you've admitted that it was your past account. Mike V • Talk 22:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike V: Original account was not blocked before this case, new account created with past account in good standing (zero blocks). No block evasion took place, nor any scrutiny evasion intended. As for AndresHerutJaim, it was humor, intended for recipient to understand, as indicated here [2]. Have a nice day, and thanks for attention to case. Victor Punta (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]