User talk:MultipleAccountsAllowed

The placing of a sock upon the left hand

If no "improper purpose" exists or is proven is it a sock puppet?

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, does it make a sound?

The placing of a sock on the right hand

eh, why would you do that?

You seem fond of this area of Wikipedia policy...

...so here's a bit from WP:MULTIPLE:

It is recommended that contributors not use multiple accounts without good reason. For example, a user may wish to create an alternate account for use on public computers as a precaution to keep their primary account more secure. ... It is recommended that multiple accounts be identified as such on their user pages; templates such as {{User alternative account}} or one of a selection of user boxes may be used for this purpose. (emphasis added)

I suggest that you identify your primary account and link the two accounts together, or it is likely to appear that you've created this account to make a WP:POINT and to engage in some disruptive trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the above, let me note that the metaphorical act of telling the entire Wikipedia community "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo, you can't catch me!" is not an allowable use of a multiple account. If you have a legitimate need for this account, it would be best if you linked this to your main account, and then proceeded to use it for one of the legitimate uses. Otherwise, your actions so far have consisted of pure trolling and nothing else, and as such, this is a specifically disallowed use for a multiple account, for which it can be blocked. --Jayron32 20:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, I think this is a WP:POINT violation. Ryan Vesey 20:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A commonly used shortcut to this page is WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that s/he is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it. As a rule, one engaging in "POINTy" behavior is making edits which s/he does not really agree with, for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition." It would appear the point of all of this is just not to be disruptive and to be productive. The question here is that if multiple accounts are allowed, and no disruptive edits or other violations are made, what should be the outcome? Specifically, does a policy violation/disruptive edits have to be shown during a sockpuppet investigation? In reading the guidance it does..... MultipleAccountsAllowed (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I think asking a disingenuous question about someone's cat at the Teahouse is a good start to showing the intent to be a disruptive troll. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, MultipleAccountsAllowed. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Garamond Lethe 20:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

The Teahouse Turns One!

It's been an exciting year for the Teahouse and you were a part of it. Thanks so much for visiting, asking questions, sharing answers, being friendly and helpful, and just keeping Teahouse an awesome place. You can read more about the impact we're having and the reflections of other guests and hosts like you. Please come by the Teahouse to celebrate with us, and enjoy this sparkly cupcake badge as our way of saying thank you. And, Happy Birthday!

	Teahouse First Birthday Badge
	Awarded to everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Teahouse during its first year! To celebrate the many hosts and guests we've met and the nearly 2000 questions asked and answered during this excellent first year, we're giving out this tasty cupcake badge. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges

--Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 22:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]