I've written previously about the troubling history of innocent users being indef-blocked on false allegations of sockpuppetry. Many examples are well known to this audience.
Browsing Majorly's talkpage, I found that he executed a block of "David J Wilson" on Simple English Wikipedia based on an ambiguous checkuser result. Apparently, the sockpuppeteer (or another troublemaker) behind "Snow Funn at tall", who was legitimately blocked and mistakenly linked to Wilson, created a new account "Dave 'Snow Funn' Wilson" to support the hoax, and - amazingly - two other Simple admins fell for it. (Majorly was inactive during the appeal, when this issue came up.) And at the end of the discussion on Simple, yet another troublemaker account "DJW" signed as "David J Wilson" to say that he still couldn't edit his talk page. It was a hoax, as the "real" David J Wilson pointed out.
There is no doubt in my mind, upon reading the discussions, that David J Wilson is completely legit, and the admins on Simple are woefully incompetent.
Read all about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Maj...k_on_simplewiki
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia...:David_J_Wilson
Now I fully expect responses on the trend of "Simple English Wikipedia admins are incompetent - what else is new?" But it's really an issue on the scope of the Wikimedia Foundation itself. We've seen repeatedly how abusive sockpuppeteers (Sam Blacketer, Poetlister, the incident on Serbian Wikipedia of one man with three admin accounts) go unnoticed and tolerated for months and years, while legitimate editors are indef-blocked on mere suspicion that, upon full analysis, proves meritless.
I haven't edited Wikipedia in several months (on any account or IP), and I don't intend to return soon or probably ever. Nothing important has changed.