User talk:Lardlegwarmers

Sockpuppetry

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lardlegwarmers. Thank you. Prolog (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lardlegwarmers. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting that:

The Covid-19 topic ban be lifted, since I am apologizing for using the talk page of Lab Leak Theory as a forum and posting too much tendentious commentary. I used Manuductive as a sockpuppet to evade my topic ban at Covid-19. However, I really didn't get involved as much with Covid and I made constructive edits in other topics. Also, I believe that I have really toned down the combativeness in the Covid-19 area in particular.

Posting at Scott Ritter, etc., I do not believe that I was evading any ban whatsoever and the comments of mine that were not topic-banned should be reinstated if they seem constructive to whoever reviews them. As for the indef itself, I still can't request it with a straight face, honestly say that I am capable of AGF about certain editors. If I am allowed to post on my talk page while indeffed, I am happy to address anything that comes up while I chew on my belief that the community has sided with bad faith editors who use baiting and sanction-gaming to remove dissent from their shared viewpoint.

Decline reason:

The Covid ban is irrelevant, since you're checkuser-blocked from the entire site, and nothing you've said here addresses that in any useful way. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:21, 13 April 2025 (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.

User:Tamzin User:Izno user:331dot --- Lardlegwarmers (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You and this community are not going to see things eye to eye. It doesn't really matter whether that's because you're the problem or we are; it works out the same way. You should find a different hobby. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, I respect your right to your opinion, and that you have authority on Wikipedia. But, you are wrong if you think you have the capacity to know what another person is or isn't going to see eye to eye with. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not speaking from any position of authority. I'm speaking as someone who knows this community well; who's been indefinitely blocked and has indefinitely blocked a few hundred people; who's written a successful unblock request, helped others succeed, and watched many more fail. I'm just telling you, based on everything I know, people who see the community as their adversary don't get unblocked. And that's what you're communicating, whether you realize it or not, when you shrug off your own policy violations and then say the community sided with bad-faith editors. This isn't a should/shouldn't thing—as you know, I'm a cynic and I don't assume the community always gets it right—just an is/isn't thing. So my advice—not as an admin, just as the person you pinged, responding to what you've said—is to save yourself a bunch of wasted time and find a different hobby. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:55, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have fringe beliefs on Covid but am willing to refrain from tit-for-tat commentary in that subject and look the other way when editors with 18 years make borderline uncivil comments to deter POV pushers. I think the bad-faith editor is Horse Eye's Back trying to instill BLP violating material with bad-faith tendentious editing. Other than that, I am good with Wikipedia. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jpgordon, OK, fair enough. Please also address the part where I propose that the policy for striking out and reverting sockpuppet edits doesn't apply to all my constructive work in areas where I was never topic banned. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]