User talk:CombinationPermutation

What I think is funny is that I have used other accounts (which edited mostly math- and science-related articles). The reason you haven't caught them is because they haven't made any unconstructive edits. Even with the edit warring on EToP, you'll note if you look at the contributions of my various Poké-socks that I've also made a few constructive edits to other Pokémon-related articles with those accounts. In fact, you'll note that all of my edits to Pokémon-related articles other than to EToP are constructive. In short, the only reason I've made any unconstructive edits at all is because you can't let go something as simple as the wording of a sentence. --CombinationPermutation (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Collectorian, after seeing your comments on the sockpuppet investigation page, I have one question: Why block the other accounts when they're being used for legitimate purposes? They've never edited Pokémon-related articles, and all edits they have made (mainly to science- and math-related articles) have been constructive and have followed consensus and Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, you'll note that even some of the Pokémon sockpuppets you blocked made a few constructive edits, though I was prevented from making more constructive edits by your strange obsession over Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu. --CombinationPermutation (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may step in, there are no "legitimate purposes" for a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user. If you want to contribute to wikipedia, please make an unblock request through your original account. Dayewalker (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SOCK says that a new account may be created to get a clean start to make constructive edits without being tarnished by a vandalous past. That is what I'm referring to. --CombinationPermutation (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to have missed the part of SOCK#LEGIT that says "This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account, and so long as no active deception is involved, particularly on pages that the old account used to edit." Black Kite 23:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It says that it's permitted as long as I don't continue the same editing patterns as the blocked account. After all, if start completely over and I make only constructive edits, it won't matter that I'm a sockpuppet, since no one should even be able to tell. --CombinationPermutation (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, if you make only conmstructive edits (which you haven't), on articles which your old account didn't edit (which you haven't), and keep your head down (which you haven't), then it's sometimes difficult to spot such accounts. Black Kite 19:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Yeah, this isn't really the week to be making those arguments about avoiding a ban by being a sockpuppet. Dayewalker (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)