Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Former user 20140220/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets




Evidence submitted by Dougweller
Moutray2010 was blocked for a week on the 8th. On the 12th, Fdiamond appeared. Today I was in a somewhat heated discussion with him on his talk page over edits to William Moultrie which were a large dump of unsourced material, much of which turned out to be copyright violation. I also noted various text heavy inappropriate edits to other article talk pages. After I reverted the copyright material and gave Fdiamond a non-templated warning about this, Moutray2010 suddenly appeared editing articles FDiamond had been editing. I then noticed that both editors leave a space before the full stop/period, and leave large chunks of badly formatted text on talk pages with inappropriate capitalisation, ie words like 'I' uncapitalised and other words inappropriately capitalised. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Added an IP, see also comment by another editor at the bottom of Talk:Augher who thinks this IP is Moutray2010. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup, pretty clearly the same person. Indef'd Moutray2010 and gave the IP 1 week. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 13:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by WikiDan61
New user with a name clearly related to the sockmaster who edited a thread on my talk page started by the sockmaster. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Tagged account, blocked by User:Zzuuzz Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 14:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by WikiDan61
Based on this extension of a conversation on my talk page started by Moutray2010 and continued by another of his socks (Mou2010), and Mohammed Lieber's recreation of a Moutray-related article, this is clearly the latest in a long string of socks by this user. Perhaps an IP block is in order? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Nthep
user contributions connected with yet another recreation of a Moutray-related article. NtheP (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
hatred for moutray2010 and he is framing him. Mohammed Lieber (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Self-endorsed for CU attention to establish if there is a possible rangeblock available. Information from this case and the previous one should be sufficient to establish that information. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to the information given at User talk:HavokPhysicsEngine, is hard blocked 1 week. -- Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TPA revoked on  Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 18:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Created a filter to block some impersonation names of User:WikiDan61 -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No sleepers to block. No feasible range block. --Deskana (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. TN X Man  19:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Tagged socks Sh i r ik  ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Boing! said Zebedee
Looks pretty blatant - yet another "Moutray" posting bogus articles

Comments by other users
This ended up on my page after I tagged his article. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい)  16:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Blocked by Syrthiss. TN X Man 16:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Pilif12p
Psadowski1 is quite obvious,, but I'm not quite sure about the second one. The timing and page edited make me think that it is the same person, CU would probably be nice for the second one, though. Pilif12p : Yo  18:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
Yeah, seems obvious. Creating same pages. In addition, I remember the previous "moutray" wave of pages, and the editor has just essentially stated that he is the same person. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 20:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've just blocked, another sockpuppet. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The user again commented on my talk page, this time from the IP address. As that address seems to have few other edits, can we just block that, as well? There's no indication that the IP is publicly shared, and until someone says it is, blocking seems like the best course of action. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 23:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On my talk page, wrote "i was the original user moutray2010 . whoever this is, is a copycat . i have better things to do with my time. after i was blocked , i have not been involved since the 18 th of may . i admit i did rant on initially , but i was unfamiliar and a new user . after getting blocked a few times , i gave up . i'd suggest considering removing all reference to moutray2010 , as it only appears to encourage disgruntled users , to become a nuisance and waste your time. just for your information . i dont even have a wikipedia account , and am very happy for you to block all the variants . why would i sign a name? why would i use obvious variants ? why would i advertise the fact ? why would i keep repeating behaviour ? just for your information , it is not me . I have too little time to get involved in petty nonsense . i learny my lesson after the first few weeks . bbye" Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I got a pretty similar message which was subsequently deleted by the same ip address. NtheP (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
I blocked the IP per deafening quack. It was blocked for a week back in May as a sock, so this time it got a month. Favonian (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There's almost certainly some Joe jobbing going on with these accounts, by one of the banned H3G sockpuppeteers. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At least two sockpuppets have been re-tagged to GEORGIEGIBBONS. --Bsadowski1 08:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * - Although it's a duck case, the joe jobbing prompts me to suspect more accounts are involved. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There aren't any unblocked accounts that I could find. J.delanoy gabs adds 01:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. TN X Man  11:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

20 February 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Recreation of articles regarding all things Moutray. User talk page shows a collection of argumentative interactions with other editors regarding creation of articles regarding this and related names. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind. If you are operating a legitimate multiple account and do not want to make this public, then please see alternate account notification, and email any checkuser, any Clerk, or any Arbitrator to ask for help. If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly, but cases on this page will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only. You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them, other than to note the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry. Claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed.

Points
 * 1.Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else.
 * 2. If the evidence is not there, then the case will be closed without any adverse finding of any kind.
 * 3.If an accusation on this page is "bad faith" (an editor making a fake case for an "attack" or to prevent their own editing being examined) then you may wish to say so briefly,
 * 4.will be decided based upon evidence of misuse of accounts only.
 * 5.You do not have to defend yourself against other claims, however bad, or engage in discussion about them, other than to note the claim is not relevant to sock puppetry.
 * 6. Claims and issues that are not relevant to account and IP abuse will almost always be ignored by the clerks and checkusers, and will often be removed.

what is the accusation? I do not see any bearing ? I think this accusation has been made in bad faith I consider it to be a form of harassment I will say upfront, that due to harrassment from this member 'wikidan' , I will be getting legal advice on my position , as I felt harrassed off this website in the past , for 3 years. I do not believe there has been any breach the harrassment amounted to some other members opening 20-30 accounts, which were not be me , but tried to imply they were from me when i attempted to delete them , members such as 'wikidan] woudl restore them , so i will not engage in protracted online debate my account was hijacked, and this 'wikidan' has again made this claim , to cause further harrassment. there are some users i Do not wish to have any contact with, due to harrasmen in the past , including 'wikidan'

I am not going to respond further If I am deleted, or harrassed , then i will take legal advice as i consider it to be a form of online abuse. Kind regards Odinsburgh14 (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The accusation is that you are the same user who registered the account Moutray2010 (talk · contribs). That user has been accused in the past of maliciously using multiple user accounts to avoid blocks and to push their own point of view. Based on your editing habits, I (the accuser) believe you are the same user, with yet another new username. The defense that your account was hijacked in the past will probably not hold water, as the basis for the present case is your editing behavior. Like previous instances of this user's abuse, you are working exclusively to spread the fame of the name Moutray throughout Wikipedia, including many articles that have been speedily deleted or proposed or nominated for deletion, and an overly argumentative tone take in the discussion about these deletions. If your account were hijacked in the past, it is unlikely that you and the hijackers would behave in such similar manners. However, you are free to plead your case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moutray2010. (Pleading your case here will have little effect as the admins who review the case are likely to pay more attention to you comments at the sockpuppet investigations page.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

1.That user has been accused in the past of maliciously using multiple user accounts to avoid blocks and to push their own point of view. 2. Based on your editing habits, I (the accuser) believe you are the same user, with yet another new username. 3.The defense that your account was hijacked in the past will probably not hold water, as the basis for the present case is your editing behavior. 4.Like previous instances of this user's abuse, you are working exclusively to spread the fame of the name Moutray throughout Wikipedia, including many articles that have been speedily deleted or proposed or nominated for deletion, and an overly argumentative tone take in the discussion about these deletions. 5.If your account were hijacked in the past, it is unlikely that you and the hijackers would behave in such similar manners. 6.However, you are free to plead your case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moutray2010. (Pleading your case here will have little effect as the admins who review the case are likely to pay more attention to you comments at the sockpuppet investigations page.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Points
 * 1. I feel harrassed by Wikidan, so do not consider him to be an independant person , and is acting in an aggressive and in bad faith. If investigation is warranted , then i wish to have it independantly assessed.
 * 2. This issue was not reslved 3 years ago . I opened an account, and was attacked in an aggressive manner , where multiple speedy deletions were added , which were overturned
 * 3. someone, or a numebr of users , opened multiple accounts , which again was for the purpose of humiliation , and online abuse
 * 4. The sockpuppet claim, only relates to 'abuse/misuse' , who has claimed this , other than 'wikidan' , who was one of the previous perpetrators
 * 5.Where is the misuse ?
 * 6. I am not going to get into online argument, but I consider it to be a form of online harrassment which i have recieved, and am not happy to have abusive comments on a trail on wikipedia, which even when i attempted to have them removed , the insult was re-applied.
 * 7. I do not feel That i have abused the account
 * 8. i feel i am entitled to open an account and edit
 * 9. I would like the earlier episodes of abuse that i recieved rectified
 * 10. I do not want to have any further contact with 'wikidan', or his associated abusers . I have nothing further to say on the matter . If I am removed as a user , I will seek legal advice for episodes of online harrassment and abuse i have experienced from users such as 'wikidan' Odinsburgh14 (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * First, I would like to point out to Odinsburgh14 that, while I have instigated this investigation, I will have no part in carrying it out; that is the job of administrators and checkuser clerks, so Odinsburgh should have no fear that the investigation won't be independent. Second: Odinsburgh14 has accused me of harassment for the past 3 years, and yet this account was only created nine days ago. I'm not sure if we can have a clearer admission of the use of multiple accounts.  While there are legitimate purposes for creating alternate accounts, block evasion is not one of them.  As for claims that Odinsburgh14 tried to delete other accounts, only to have "members such as wikidan" recreate them, we can dismiss those claims out of hand as clearly impossible.  Accounts can't be deleted from Wikipedia, and even if they could be, I would have no power to recreate them.  If Odinsburgh was blocked from editing under a prior account, their best course of action would be to log in under that account and appeal the block on their user talk page.  Finally, I point Odinsburgh14 to the Wikipedia policy against legal threats.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Users that were involved in previous episodes of harrassment include : −	wikida, Timneu22, and nthep, and a few others i cant recall. −	−	As some background, and then a decision can be made , which i will not dispute. I want to feel that I can contribute fairly, and that my contribution will be appreciated , if not , then i am not going to waste my time , but also not going to waste my time in online argument. −
 * . i am relieved that this will be independantly reviewed, as i hope it can be satisfactorily resolved, as things were not resolved in teh past. I did not have time to resolve the situation.
 * what happened, in the previous case , was that I had started to use wikipedia , and there was a learning curve . I spent time adding what i felt were useful contriutions , based on research i had recently carried out . I then discovered that my articles were being submitted for speedy deletion , when i did feel offended at , as the house was being knocked down before it was even built. in hindsight , and knowning a bit more about wikipedia polcies , deletion was probably appropriate , but it was the manner that i was comunicated with as a new user . Arrogance , condescenion , insuls , and sarcasm . I felt obstructed at every step . I should have walked away then , but i persisted , and felt attacked by a small clique of users , including wikidan . It put me off using the platform and i only recently returned to it . I was not aware of any block . I dont think a block was appropriate if there was a block . in some cases , i did get embroiled in online arguements , which were differences of opinion . in some cases , i was outnumberred , and the articles were deleted . however in other cases eg richard norton was supportive , articles were upheld , so it was 50:50 situation . in hindsight , i felt it was foolish to get involved in peurile online disagreements , but had felt attacked , and had decided it was preferable to disengage . I cannot believe that this same guy , wikidan , from 3 or 4 years ago , has now reappeared , with the sole purpose of targeting me . If i have created an article , anyone can edit if they feel that it is more approproate , i can only consider it ot be in bad faith , and for malicious intent . at the end of the day , i wanted to participate , and enjoyed participating in wikipedia . i was starting to learn some of the convnetions and how to use it properly , as i only started back to it , last week , and now i have this guy wikidan , not offering anything constuctive , or encourageing , but to simply attack , accuse , criticise . I do not feel i have misused or abused the website . I am not aware of any block , as i disengaged due to harrassment about 3-4 years ago . However there is evidence , that many articles that i started , were deleted by eg wikidan etc ... so it was the same people , is it a co-incidence . also there were maybe 15 accounts , set up with variations of my account set up , which were a 'piss take' , but just to cause harrassment of me , which is why i walked away . As this harrassment form this individual has occured again , it is an opportuntiy to resplve the previous episode , however as i am not an expert in wikipedia , i dont have an english degree and i am not a lawyer , i am not going to go into protracted online debate , which is premanent , and indexed , so if there are specific accusations of 'abuse' please mention these . I will respond as best I can . If the outcome is deletion , which is fair just and reasonable , then so be it . I am not going to get annoyed about it , or get into arguments eg with wikidan , but not going to waste my time to be greeted with sarcasm , insults and condescention , or have my time wasted that when i go to the effort of trying to write an article , that its simply deleted for no reason , like last time . If it needs editing , then fine . I am only trying to provide some background to local history , and anyone can edit it . Differences of opinion exist, but was happening in too much of a pattern , to consider that it was fait and reasonable . i hope this has provided some background . I cannot even remember what all of the flase accounts were that were created , but they were 'meat-sockpuppets ' or something , where someone was 'spoofing' to have been created by me . if you review all the evidence, you will find that it was recognised that there was someone 'spoofing' my account , which doesnt mean that i am saying i did not have a previous account , but i did  not post anything malicious . there were disagreements about whether an article i had written shoudl be deleted or not , which i dont consider argumentative , as you are meant to put your reasons , and was a debate , but then when there were a group operating 'in cahoots' , and then someone 'spoofing' accounts , i justt walked away . its news to me that subsequently , my account appears to have been blocked . if it was blocked , i dont know why i was able to register an account and use in 2014 . I wasnt aware of a block , i dont think a block was appropriate , and i am happy for this to be reviewed indpendantly . If my account is removed , I am not going to appeal it . there are other things i can do with my time , and am not going to accept online abuse from people such as 'wikidan'.Odinsburgh14 (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so.
 * in respones to legal threats
 * Rather than threatening to employ litigation, you should always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures.
 * I will try and resolve here first of all
 * point 2 . i take wikidans advise, that the best course may be to appeal any block ,as i am only now aware that there was a block . so i wish to appeal a block from previously . there were multiple sockpuppet acconts, i think they are called meat sockpuppets?? but they were from other users , 'spoofing' to be from me , simply for the purpose of harrassment of me . so yes , i woudl like any block appealed . I am happy to provide information . I am not spending my time here for any malicious intent , i was simply trying to contribute , and had been doing so the past few days , without issue , i was getting advice from teh community and was learning the ropes , and then i have 'wikidan' jumping down my throat , in an aggressive manner , accusatory manner . if there are issues , i am not perfect , but if it is explained what the issue is , then i take it on board but it is unfair to jump down peoples throats , in an aggressive manner . it wouldnt happen offline , so shouldnt happen online in an online community .for example i was only taught how to sign a few days ago , which was helpful . Odinsburgh14 (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

My account was spoofed. I do not know why i was blocked. I would like to appeal the block and have it investigated, as i do not think it is a fair, and would like the reasons explained to me , so i can respond and appeal Notes: In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired
 * I have appealed the block, now that i have been made aware of it.
 * Request reason:


 * i do not know why i was blocked, as i walked away , due to harrassment , prior to notification of this , approximately 3-4 years ago.
 * 2. i do not know the reason for the block, or the length of the block ?
 * 3. i am not aware of the appeals process, so i have , cut and pasted the 'appeals' tag , and await further information , so i can respond to this . This is a separate issue , and a historical one, though it has transpired that the unresolved issue from the past , is the trigger for this current accusation from wikidan , and now that i am aware of it , would like to appeal a block . I wish to respectfully resolve this . I do not spend my time , to have it wasted , or for the purpose of causing difficulties , and have no malicious intent. I welcome this opportunity to have this unstaisfactory and distressing situation independantly reviewed . if the outcome is that I am to be blocked , then I will walk away ,as I refuse to be harrassed in the manner that i was last time i used this website 3 or 4 years agoOdinsburgh14 (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

12 Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Multrare 13 Scottish surnames of Flemish Origin 14 Speedy deletion nomination of Vade ad Formicum
 * 1. i feel the first priority is to appeal the block, and await thie outcome
 * 2. in response to some of wikidans accusations, that i am only focused on one topic, i dont agree . i have talked about local history , clogher valley railway , portclare , etc ,
 * 3 some articles here were submitted for speedy deletion . I put my opinon, and left it at that , on some occasions tha tarticles were deleted , in others they were retained , in others they were edited.
 * 4. i am more aware of the processes, and dont take a deletion personally , even if dissapointing , some are retained , some are edited , some are deleted . thats the nature of the process . I do not feel i have misused the account . i do not feel i have been abusive , and no-one has attacked as aggressively as wikidan , whose first communication with me , is an accusation . I am not rising to insults and sarcasm . Wikidan has raised a point , and has informed me that the account was blocked . I was not aware of this . I have appealed the block , as i wasnt aware of a block , i dont fel a block is fair , and there were unresolved issues in the past , where my account was spoofed , and multiple accounts were opened to appear to come from me , which was recognised and identified by Wikipedia , which i can only assume led to the block . I can appreciate if someone is opening 20-30 accounts , then they deserve to be blocked, but i did not open 20-30 accounts . these were spookfs , and from the content , they were deisgned to make me look foolish , so why would i open 30 accounts to do this . this is why i walked awy , due to this harrassment , adn why i am considering legal advice, as online harrassment is prosecutable , and maybe the law wasnt so clear 3 years ago , but there are precedents now ,which is why i would like the situation reviewed . I appreciate the opportunty to resolve this , and if my acccount is closed or blocked on this occasion , if its deemed there is reason , although i would be surprosed , as i dont know why , however there is also the issue from 3-4 years ago , pertaining to the online abuse , which needs resolved either , which goes beyond whether my account is unblocked or not. I have not done anything , this time , or in the past , other than act in good faith . i done have much free time , and i wouldnt be wasting it . I appreciate the opportunity to have this case reviewed. Thank YouOdinsburgh14 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This may be difficult to disentangle, as looking at previous account , there is a mixture of issues
 * 1. on some occasions, i did argue to vociferously . I hindsight , i was ignorant of the policies . There were issues about 'copyright' , and when that was explained to me , i now understand , and cant quote from elsewhere but must rewrite it myself.
 * 2. there was some 'back and forth ' on the edits, however , someone spoofed my account , to take 'argumentativeness' to an extreme , and this is what led to the block . From someof the accounts , yes i agree that a block should have been applied . I would have applied a block , myself . however it was not from me . some of the disagreement were from me , whih was due to the fact that i was new to the system , but what led to the block , ie sockpuppets , was due to multiple users being set up , and this was NOT me.
 * 3. the sockpuppets who set up multiple accounts, was done with the purpose of getting me blocked
 * 4. if i am judged on this occasion, where are the disgressions? i have set up a few articles , and ther was some feedback , eg copyright , or notability . I stated my opinion , and left it at that . They may be retained , they may be deleted , but i accept that is the system . I have not ranted on , or got engaged in protracted arguments . I accept the outcome.
 * 5. setting up multiple sockuppets, for the purpose of abuse, should be blocked ,but this is not what has happened . in the past spoofed accounts , made to look like sockpuppets were set up , for the purpose of blocking me . i have not set up this account 3- 4 years later for the purpose of abuse . I have written a few articles , some were retianed, soem were edited , and some were deleted . If they are trivial , or non notable , then yes, they ae removed , others are kept , but there is no malicious intent . Where is the malicious or abuse in the articles i have written over the past 7 days ? it has just transpired , that the previous account was blocked , and i dont know the details, but i have appealed this block , as advised by wikidan , as the first place to start so i hae done so , and can await reasons for teh block , request it is investigated , and i can respond . the other issue , is my contributions over the past week . i am not aware of extraordinary issues from there . I have learnt about copyright , i have learnt how to sign , and one of the articles has requested assistance with 'editing , grammar and flow' , not with simply 'speedy deletion'. I hae tried to assist with listing a few of the issues , which in summary are :blocked account - which i would like to appeal . prevoius 'meat sock puppets' , where my account was spoofed , and similar sounding accounts were opened , for the pupose of getting me blocked ( why would i open multiple accounts , which are very similar , so to be identifiable , it is suspicoiusly obvious, why ? ) , then there is any issues with this account , over the pat week . I feel this is a good opportunity to address the issues. Odinsburgh14 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. ' present case is your editing behavior.' - i am not aware of any problem with my editing . I am just trying to present an article.
 * 2. account being hijacked - YES this is an issue, and i believe what led to the account becoming blocked, and as wikidan has advised , square 1 , is to appeal this , which i have done.
 * 3.'pushing you point of view' - It is not my intention, as I do not have a point of view . Everything posted, should be independant facts, i am only stating facts . if there are specific accusaitnos /issues , then i can respond to them . I await to hear what the issues are , and will do my best to try and resolve them . Thank you .Odinsburgh14 (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

One who uses multiple, even numerous accounts totally and solely for the purpose of good-faith editing and within the rules, without ever using them to edit-war, distort consensus, or vandalize is not likely to ever be suspected. Even if it has been found that such accounts are operated by the same person, it is unlikely any serious action will be taken because the purpose of any consequential action that is taken against editors is not to be punitive but to protect the encyclopedia against harm. If no harm is being made to the encyclopedia, and all edits advance Wikipedia's cause, it is not in the best interest of Wikipedia to block these accounts.Odinsburgh14 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I apologise on the previous occasion 4 years ago when I took things personally . I felt there was provocation over a protracted period of time and I lost my temper. I feel embarrassed, and would like the previous account unblocked but then deleted . However , there were temporary IP blocks placed which was reasonable. However there were then multiple false accounts/ meat socket puppets or something , I don't knew the Wikipedia term for spoofed accounts , which were made with obvious variations of my account, for the purpose of getting me blocked. Why would I create obvious variations ? Why would I create multiple accounts ? It would just make me look foolish , which was the intention of the perpetrators , and was successful . I am not spending time for malicious purpose. I set up an account to contribute and no harm was done. I then get accused of 'sock puppetry'. I want to draw a line from the past. If the previous account is blocked , please unblock and delete. I don't want multiple accounts . I want 1 account . I joined this account in good faith . I would like to request that I can open 1 account . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odinsburgh14 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
A perfectly obvious sockpuppet, who has very conveniently posted on this page at great length, providing more than enough evidence to make it clear beyond all doubt. Indef-blocked and tagged. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)