User talk:Quack Hunter

Welcome!

Hello, Quack Hunter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

June 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 23:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those accounts are not me, indeed I stepped in on the SPI because I knew it was filed as a joke.. There is four people editing from my IP address and one of them is a young family member who has a tendency to create sock puppets, joke accounts or edit silly articles in favor of fringe beliefs. If you look at my edits you will see I am not the same person. My account and the Steve account (another family member) are proper accounts. Quack Hunter (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are being honest, do the other people in your household have access to your account? Do you personally hold any other accounts? Tiptoety ^talk 00:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing happens every year Tipoety - I will give you one example, my previous account was Goblin Face [1] a very highly respected Wikipedia account. Basically I am a hard working Wikipedia editor with decent contributions to this website. Outside of Wikipedia I own a skeptic website and I am a rather well known debunker of paranormal/pseudoscience claims. Every year my brother basically creates socks and messes around on this website ruining it for me in anyway he can - like I said unfortunately he always does this, he has a form of mental illness, I work and am not at home all day so I don't truly know what he is up to. He has a history of trolling the Atlantis article, insulting other editors, creating silly names or messing around on articles and other pseudohistoric related articles. He repeatedly states to me he needs to be banned on Wikipedia because he can't refrain himself from doing this. Obviously I can't win on this issue. All the accounts will be blocked even all the good stuff I do because of his vandalism, it has happened many times before. But you can easily see my editing from his if you spend honest time looking into the matter. Regards. I am not further responding. I am used to suffering. Quack Hunter (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upon review if your contributions, which was done before (I still see some editing overlap between this account and the others), I am more than willing to allow a review of the block. Please post an unblock request using the template mentioned above, and an uninvolved administrator will take a look. Tiptoety ^talk 00:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically the minority of skeptic accounts are all me, I don't deny this I am a productive Wikipedia editor who opposes fringe beliefs and vandalism. I find Wikipedia is a useful website to debunk pseudoscience claims with decent references. But the joke accounts/ or accounts pushing fringe beliefs with silly names are not me. This can be easily proved. Look even at the log in times. He has attempted to pretend all the accounts are him to annoy me. I am NOT Anglo Pyramidologist or any of Bookworm44 socks. Look at my posts, I have debunked such crackpottery as pyramid power. I do not hold any fringe beliefs. His statement here is not true [2]. All the accounts under Anglo Pyramidologist/BookWorm44 are him, not me. I don't mind you filing it all under Goblin Face - I guess you can't be bothered to put his accounts under his and mine under mine so that won't happen (it would be nice if you did though), but please put a message on there at least that there is two of us on the same IP i.e. on the sock puppet investigation page or put a link over there of my post here... I am definitely not him. I don't particularly want all his crackpottery or loads of accounts filed under my username, but I guess that is what is going to happen. Please look into this, not just because you can't be bothered and it is an easy block. I am telling the truth here. Regards. David. Quack Hunter (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not requesting to be unblocked but can you review the case history investigation because as I have explained many of those socks are not me, yet they are logged under my username. Please look into the matter with a bit of depth and you can easily see this. Quack Hunter (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You say "Please look into the matter with a bit of depth", but in my experience assessing cases such as this one can take an enormous amount of time and effort, sifting through large amounts of totally irrelevant history to try to find the few bits that are relevant. I can think of at least one things you should be able to do that would help, and another thing that you may or may not be able to do, but which will help if you can.

Can you state exactly what accounts you have used? Also, it will be helpful if you can say why you have used multiple accounts: if we know why, it may be easier to distinguish extra accounts which are here for a constructive purpose from those that aren't.
Can you point to any features that are different between your editing style and your brother's? I don't mean differences in editing content, as it is very common for sockpuppeteers to use bad-hand and good-hand accounts which do different kinds of editing: I mean things like differences in use of English, which are much less often faked. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]