User talk:Victor Punta

Blocked as a sockpuppet
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)

Note if you decide to return as a different account, that will be blocked as well. --Neil N  talk to me 15:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * Edit was immediately reverted by me when I noticed duplication less than a minute afterwards here 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 . Have a nice day, and thanks for attention to case. Victor Punta (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)