User talk:Fateful apparition

Transfermarkt

Per Transfermarkt's login page: Whether player info, coach info, club info, or match report – as a Transfermarkt user, you can edit and add to almost all data by yourself. Simply click the gear, fill in the form and click submit. This means the site is a self-published and therefore unreliable source. It should not be cited in articles. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you're suggesting directly contradicts the requirement in WP:SPS to Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people given that most statistical uses would about footballers who are still alive. If another source is available, cite the other source. If not, Transfermarkt's content is to be treated as unverified. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're casually suggesting we disregard a core policy in WP:V. You're not going to get anywhere with this line of reasoning. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Why am I being blocked lol??? I have never abused another account

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).

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

Request reason:

False positive, I did not breach 3RR and have never abused another account. It's a travesty to be punished for the actions of FMSky, who is the one guilty of both these offences. Wikipedia admins should learn how to identify malicious contributors.

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, supported with technical evidence, so sock puppetry is not in doubt. If you are for some reason not a sock, you will need to give a plausible reason as to why technical evidence would indicate otherwise. 331dot (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2021 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Wait, was I blocked by IP? You should check when these edits were made. I use a public computer (might be why), as I do not have a laptop, and have never vandalised or made a disruptive edit. The sockpuppetry flag may also be due to this. If they aren't blocked, you should also check how FMSky managed to breach 3RR with no issues. There's something dodgy going on here.

Decline reason:

Without going into too much detail, suffice it to say that the checkuser process does take the time into account (and more than just the IP, actually).

As for FMSky, it seems that administrative discretion was exercised. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2021 (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.

--Fateful apparition (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]