User talk:Faisisteachas abu!

October 2017

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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked as a "sockpuppet" and no evidence has been provided which is very poor conduct for an administrator.

Decline reason:

This unblock request does not address the sockpuppetry at all. Yamla (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2017 (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.

unblock 2

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for sockpuppetry but no evidence has been provided. My last try at this was rejected because I did not address the issue of sockpupetry. How am I supposed to address something when there has not even been an attempt to provide evidence for the claim? It would be nice if someone could at least attempt to provide some sort of justification for thinking I am "apollo the logician".

Decline reason:

The block is based on behavioural evidence. You need to run the 'editor interaction analyzer' and explain the overlap. Further bland denials will not get you unblocked, and will simply result in loss of access to this page, so you need to be proactive and address the apparent behavioural issues. Just Chilling (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2017 (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.

The behavior was quite clear here. Not going to spell out every behavioral link per WP:BEANS but just running the editor interaction analyzer shows almost complete overlap. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unblock 3

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).

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

Request reason:

It has been claimed that I am the user 'apollo the logician' due to behavioral evidence. I have only been active for a day and I have only edited four articles. These include Eoin O'Duffy, National Party, National Corporate Party and Ulster Protestants. These four article have all been edited by apollo the logician. Is it really that much of a surprise that two editors who edit the same topic, one of which has made five thousand or so edits have overlap in editing? This evidence is beyond weak.

Decline reason:

Upon looking into it, I see more behaviorial evidence, therefore this request is declined. As promised in your previous request, I'm revoking your talk page access. Feel free to request an unblock from your main account, but please stop thinking we're idiots. Max Semenik (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2017 (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.

I'll note that you have not denied the sockpuppetry despite multiple unblock requests. --Yamla (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla I have refered to the evidence that I am a sock as "beyond weak". This speaks for itself does it not? I am going to be frank here and say if you think me not explicitly saying I am not a sockpuppet is evidence for anything then maybe you should not be addressing unblock requests. I am sorry but that just really annoyed me.Faisisteachas abu! (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence can be beyond weak, but you can still be guilty of violations of WP:SOCK. I'm not claiming your refusal to address this point head-on is evidence, but I'm disappointed you aren't willing to do so. You are very welcome to demand your unblock request be considered solely on the basis of the evidence against you, but that typically doesn't work well. WP:GAB has more specific advice. --Yamla (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the very weak behavioral "evidence" by showing how it really does not mean anything. What else am I supposed to do? Faisisteachas abu! (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explicitly deny the sockpuppetry. Or alternatively, state that you are indeed Apollo The Logician (talk · contribs), but that you should be unblocked for other reasons. Note that this is a suggestion to you, not a demand. Regardless, it won't be me considering your request. --Yamla (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are contradicting yourself now. Regardless no, I am not 'apollo the logician'. I have no idea how this would make a difference.Faisisteachas abu! (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you are not a returning editor and have no reason to hide your past editing? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do not have done any past editing.Faisisteachas abu! (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Faisisteachas abu! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19515 was submitted on Oct 17, 2017 20:39:26. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is now a confirmed sockpuppet of Apollo The Logician (talk · contribs). --Yamla (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]