User talk:Hypocaustic

Hello. I'm another occasional Wikipedian, interested in all sorts of things. Like most contributors, I'll occasionally get something wrong. Sometimes I'll even irritate someone by getting something right. If either concern applies to you, talk to me about it here - I may not log on all that often, but I'm listening, and I prefer collaboration.

'Denialism'

If this is your best, or indeed only, response when faced with a disagreement on a matter of science (on the Passive Smoking page) then we have rather different views of the Scientific Method. In the Stalinist Soviet Union they called dissidents revisionists. The early Catholic church called us heretics. Now we are 'deniers'. You fit right in with the present age but it is an age of zealotry not reason. SmokeyTheCat 14:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's not trade silly insults, Smokey - you only lay yourself open to accusations of zealotry if you go down that route. If you have genuine, evidence-based (and preferably peer-reviewed) information which supports a differing perspective, bring it to the relevant talk page and you will, doubtless, get constructive feedback.Hypocaustic (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wedensambo for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. DBaK (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per checkuser. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hypocaustic (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please see above. Hypocaustic (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

checkuser confirms abuse of multiple accounts. If you wish to seek unblock, apply from your initial account.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hypocaustic (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've now reviewed the Checkuser data myself and have to agree, actually - it does look suspicious, or at least statistically improbable. I don't have a simple explanation to offer. I do have some suspicions about who at least one of the other users identified by the investigation could be, but the real-world aggro involved in 'outing' them is not really justified, in my view. As the case made is circumstantial rather than conclusive, do I need to fall on my sword permanently, or would it be appropriate to request a temporary penitence? Hypocaustic (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wow, you "saw" the checkuser data? I doubt that. The account links are confirmed, not circumstantial. If you want to edit this project, you need to return to your original account - using others merely reduced the chance that you'll ever be unblocked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bwilkins, I'm sorry but I genuinely don't know what you mean by suggesting I return to an original account - this is my original account. I thought you were suggesting that someone had cloned/piggybacked my user access; are you now alleging that I have been the 'puppet' of someone else?Hypocaustic (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You have access to Checkuser data? Where? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Redrose64. It's obviously not something I'm an expert on, but there was a report descibed as Checkuser output visible via the 'investigation' page above. That may not have constituted all the data seen by administrators, of course, but what I could see was sufficient cause for concern. As I say, it did look incongruous to me.

I assume that you mean the page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wedensambo/Archive (formerly at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wedensambo). On that, there are no reports described as "Checkuser output"; there are, however, several pairs of links shown as "checkuser (log)". For most users, myself included, clicking any of these returns the message "Unable to proceed The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Checkusers." You are not in that group. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of those links were indeed 'admin only', but one showed a list of articles which I and the two other users named had contributed to. It wasn't a hugely long list, but it did appear a situation which would be unlikely to occur entirely randomly, hence my agreement above that there was initial cause for concern. Should I not have seen that material? Hypocaustic (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I admit, I thought this was a simple SNAFU at first, but it seems to get more and more complicated. The rush to judgement seems a regrettable as a way to treat volunteers, although I appreciate the desire to protect the community involved from alleged disruption. Is there actually anything practical to be done? Should I just give up and withdraw the account? Hypocaustic (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)