User talk:ApatheticName

Welcome![edit]

Hello, ApatheticName! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! — 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 02:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Hi ApatheticName! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Citing Legislation and/or Laws, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023 Unblock Request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, Yesterday I was rightly blocked for a personal attack against Cullen328, and leading up the block there were several incidents, that I now regret.

Firstly, I felt the need to unnecessarily get myself involved in BoundaryLayer's unblock request, from 11 months ago. I should not have done this, as I had nothing to do with the oringal block and was not fully informed on the reasons for the block.
Secondly, I tried to involve an another admin who was previously uninvolved to back my case. This was incorrect as I wasted the administrator's time.
Thirdly, out of frustration I vandalised the RfA page with an attempt to nominate BoundaryLayer for an RfA. When that failed, I then used a cheep insult against Cullen328.
Before this incident, I believe my account was used productively to edit articles on British, and particularly Northern Irish, history, politics and sport.
If my account is reinstated, I will apologise to every user involved individually on their talk pages.

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. Now checkuser blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:25, 2 May 2023 (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.

ApatheticName (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023 Unblock Request #2[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I stand by all that I said in my first unblock request. The sockpuppet accusation is easily explained. I found out about Wikipedia editing through someone I live with, telling me about his blocks and vandalism. This inspired me to look into what Wikipedia editing is properly about, and take part in it myself. Since we live we each we do share similar interests, but if you look at edits they made compared to the edits I made you will find mine are, other than yesterday's incident which I have apologised for, productive. I hope you will take into account my good faith edits. Thank you for reading, ApatheticName (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your explanation is not consistent with the technical data. Sockpuppetry is Confirmed and your attempt to mislead us is not convincing. Yamla (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2023 (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.

May 2023 Unblock Request #3[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I find the sockpuppet accusation concerning.

Firstly, I do not have access to a password for that account, since it is not mine, so I can not  organise an unblock appeal from there.
Secondly, you accessed private information without good cause, as during one discussion it was mentioned that my account is pro-British while BoundaryLayer's account is anti-British. This could suggest you willing looked at my IP address without firm belief it was my account was a sockpuppet.
Lastly, up until Monday's incident my account was used only in productive ways. I have since apologised for my disruptive behaviour and have committed to not doing it again, but this is yet to be addressed.
Thank you for reading,

ApatheticName (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your denials are not believable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2023 (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.

TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For any reviewing admin, this is as clear a checkuser finding as it gets. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]