User talk:Apollo The Logician

USERS BANNED FROM LEAVING COMMENTS: BASTUN, [email protected]

I'm sorry to see that you couldn't abide by your unblock conditions (see article Michael Shermer.) Due to violation of the 1RR restriction you were placed on as a condition of being unblocked last time I've reinstated your 2 week block. The block will expire on 1st July. I am placing you again on a 1RR restriction when your block expires for a period of 3 calendar months (until 1st October 2017.) I advise you very heavily to rely more on talk pages than reverting other users edits and getting drawn into conflicts. (This notice must remain on your talk page until the expire of your 1RR restriction.) Canterbury Tail talk 14:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on! It was 20 minutes away from being 24 hours.Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping this template in for reference in case you would like to appeal your block. Canterbury Tail talk 16:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Keep on fighting against those trying to revise history to suit their own views. Eliko007 (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 11 July 2017 (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).

Apollo The Logician (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 the following edits 1 2 3. The reasons cited as to why they were problematic was "edit warring" according to the user who blocked me. I will go through these pages one by one and show you how my conduct was proper. #The first article was

Positive and negative atheism. I do not believe that I should have been banned because of these edits but I recognise that not everyone would agree with that so I am asking that at the very least my block be reduced as 1 month is just a ridiculous amount of time to be blocked for something like that.Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

That you don't see this completely textbook example of edit-warring as edit-warring is why you've got in trouble; except in cases of unquestionable vandalism and a few specialist instances relating to biographies of living people and to legal issues, it does not matter who is correct. If someone is questioning you in good faith, you discuss it with them, not repeatedly revert. I also decline to reduce the length of the block; from your previous block history, you ought to be well aware of Wikipedia's escalating scale and that if you continued to edit-war the next one would be at least a month long. (If anything, I'd call a one month block quite restrained in these circumstances; given your

Iridescent 09:18, 11 July 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.

@

No, you can't just remove declined unblock requests if you don't like them—

Iridescent 09:32, 11 July 2017 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

have been blocked for the following edits 1 2 3. The reasons cited as to why they were problematic was "edit warring" according to the user who blocked me. I will go through these pages one by one and show you how my conduct was proper. #The first article was

Positive and negative atheism. I do not believe that I should have been banned because of these edits but I recognise that not everyone would agree with that so I am asking that at the very least my block be reduced as 1 month is just a ridiculous amount of time to be blocked for something like that.Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

Considering your continued insistence that you did nothing wrong in what is pretty much a textbook example of edit warring, your lengthy block log (this is your *fifth* edit warring block in less than four months), your personal attack on the previous reviewing admin, and my seeing no evidence whatsoever that you will cooperate according to Wikipedia's basic policies and guidelines in the future, I have revoked your talk page access for the duration of the block. As for the 1 month, I think you should consider that lenient - many would have blocked you indefinitely until you made a convincing case that you will change your approach to consensus-based interaction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 11 July 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.

Dude, just stay away from the Troubles completely. After all that's happened, why would you think multiple reverts on an article about an MP blown up by the INLA to be a sensible course of action? —

^ॐ 09:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support block Airey Neave: "I removed the category "terrorist incidents" as I didn't believe an article about a person should be in a category like that."

I don't believe that you believe this. I might have done, if you'd instead moved it to a sub-cat, such as "victims of terrorist incidents". But your past edit-warring history has been to diminish Republican terrorism and see it instead as legitimate warfare. In the context of such, I see your Airey Neave edit as being equally biased and against clear consensus on WP. More than that, just the latest in a whole string of such.

I supported you against accusation of sockpuppetry because I saw no evidence to back those up. But I do see you as a biased editor, persistently pushing an agenda that we do not, as a consensus group, support. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: I didn't know such a category existed.Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it does. If it doesn't, one could create it.

But I see your actions here, based on your clear past track record, as being about removing the "terrorist" tag, because you would favour "glorious military victories of the PIRA" instead. Then once blocked, you weasel around and pretend instead that you simply meant dear old sainted Airey shouldn't be described as a mere "incident". That's just wriggling once you're on the hook. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Not true. Look at my edit summaries and the talk page. I have said feom the get go that people don't belong in incidents categoriesApollo The Logician (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I then reverted once more when he ignored BRD. --Apollo The Logiciaan

Apollo, please cease with the lies. You do realize all your edits are time-stamped, don't you? After you opened a Talk page discussion at Implicit and explicit atheism, and cited WP:BRD, I made no further edits to the article (and still haven't), while I engaged in discussion with you. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xenophrenic: Actually you are right. I got mixed up. You made that edit before the talk page djscussion but I reverted it after the discussion started. My apologies.Apollo The Logician (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do think Andy Dingley's comments here are just as needlessly politically partisan (in a very knee jerk and confused way -- the PIRA had nothing to do with Neave's death), if not more so than ATL. Questioning whether such a category belongs on that page is entirely legitimate. The aim of assassination is to take out a specific individual targeted by an organisation as an enemy combatant. Terrorism is far more indiscriminate and the aim is to cause a general fear in the population at large. The Omagh bombing would be a terror incident, but targeted assassinations? Probably not. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging admins who blocked/reviewed the current block @

I would like to file a topic-ban request at WP:AN however after the hoo-haa about filing a SPI whilst Apollo was blocked and unable to defend himself at it, I would rather avoid making that mistake again, so would it be possible to allow him to be able to respond at WP:AN or here or wherever? Mabuska ^(talk) 11:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you start a topic ban proposal, I'm prepared to reinstate talk page access only for the purpose of responding to it - he can post whatever he wants here, and someone can copy it to the proposal discussion (I'll do it myself if I'm the first to see it). If that's OK, ping me when the proposal is in place and I'll make it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, something has just come up and I might be away for a little while. Anyone else is welcome to reinstate talk page access for this one purpose - just ping someone, or ask for it when you make the proposal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is an alternative method of handling this sort of situation (I am not advocating either option, just pointing out that another option exists), which is to wait until the block expires before filing the request at

WP:AN. If you choose to wait, be sure to mention in your request the reason for waiting a month so the admins don't think that the request is stale. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the responses. Whilst I had already thought of Guy Macon's suggestion, I wasn't sure of whether to wait a month or so. Though I like Boing! said Zebedee's suggestion. I'll be quite busy myself over the next couple of days so will consider my options. Thank you again. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Normally, Apollo The Logician is allowed to delete most things from his own talk page, but cannot do so at the moment because his talk page access has been revoked. In my opinion, if he indicates that he would like this section to be deleted (he can email the blocking admin with the request) the section should be deleted. Apollo The Logician should be aware that deleting something from your talk page is considered evidence that you have read it, and that there is a high probability that this same discussion will be moved to AN if deleted here.

Back in June, I gave Apollo The Logician some advice on how to abide by his restriction[1] which he rejected.[2] I am going to repeat that advice here.

Nowhere in User talk:Apollo The Logician#1RR restriction does it say that it is OK to violate your editing restriction because you are right or because some other editor misbehaved, or because you have consensus. You need to do both; abide by your 1RR restriction and seek consensus on the article talk page. Doing one does not mean that you don't have to do the other.

I am concerned that you seem to be searching for reasons to violate your restriction rather than searching for reasons to obey it. I also concerned that you seem to be attempting to get as close to the line as possible without crossing it rather than attempting to stay as far away from the line as possible.

It is your responsibility to abide by your 1RR restriction. Before you revert, check. My advice is to not revert at all. Go to the talk page and ask someone else to do the reverting for you.

Since he rejected the above advice, Apollo The Logician violated his restriction multiple times, leading to a one month block[3] with the following comment at

"Blocked for one month, standard escalation from previous block. Proposal of a topic ban should be taken to WP:AN."[4]

He has made two unblock requests,[5][6] both of which were denied by uninvolved administrators.[7][8] (He tried to delete the first decline[9] but was informed that doing that is not allowed.[10]) And now his talk page access has been removed.[11]

As can clearly be seen in his unblock requests, Apollo The Logician insists that he did nothing wrong, and there is zero evidence that he will follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when the block expires. This has led to several editors suggesting that further sanctions (possibly a topic ban) be applied while the block is still in place.

I don't think that is a good idea. The whole point of the block is to give him time to reflect on what happened, to consider the fact that the next block will almost certainly be indefinite, and to see if he decides to follow the rules instead of looking for excuses to break them. If he changes his ways, good. We are done if that happens. If he continues his previous pattern of behavior, he will be indefinitely blocked. We are done if that happens. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...aaaand he continued his previous pattern of behavior and was indefinitely blocked. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MacBride defended IRA prisoners in the 1950s (and BTW, one does not have to "support" someone who is being defended in a court of law). The "Troubles" did not start until the end of the 1960s. There is nothing in the article that shows that MacBride supported republicans during this period. Hohenloh ⁺ 13:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the information above before reverting my edit? Hohenloh ⁺ 19:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mangoe (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder now that you're back that your 1RR still stands from when it was imposed earlier. I reinstated it to your talk page after you removed it depite being informed it should stay. I assume that was just a misunderstanding due to the interim block, but you are still under that 1RR until October 1st.

I am disappointed though that you've come right back off a block and seem to be repeating your behaviour from prior to the block. It should be noted that not a every action the IRA ever performed is notable and Wikipedia is not a historical document on everything that they did, but a general encyclopaedia. Just a reminder that all content on Wikipedia must conform to it's

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).

Apollo The Logician (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 which I am innocent of. Yes I created the User:Conchobar O Beig account but I never tried to hide who I was my proof for this claim is [ here. User:Kleuske is a witness to this.User:Canterbury Tail can explain it.Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nope. All one has to do is look at this history to see you using the accounts illegitimately. You also failed to place a notification per

WP:ALTACCN. You're done.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:13, 12 August 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.

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).

Apollo The Logician (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 which I am innocent of. Yes I created the User:Conchobar O Beig account but I never tried to hide who I was my proof for this claim is [ here. User:Kleuske is a witness to this.User:Canterbury Tail can explain it.

As you can see above another user declined to unblock me as he claim I had used multiple accounts illegitimately. He claimed that the edit history of Reason Rally proves this. So basically I reverted with one account and then reverted again with another later on.

According to

WP: SOCKPUPPETRY

, the following are illegitimate uses of multiple accounts

Creating new accounts to avoid detection

Using another person's account (piggybacking)

Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address Reviving old unused accounts (sometimes referred to as sleepers) and presenting them as different users

Persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)

Considering I never tried to hide who I was and was honest from the very start who I was I fail to see how I could be said to have used multiple accounts illegitimately.Apollo The Logician (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Using multiple accounts to edit war in the same article is by definition illegitimate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:16, 12 August 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.

Revert by Conchobar, same revert by Apollo; using one account to evade the 1RR restrictions on the other account is absolutely crystal clear. I won't formally decline this myself as I've already declined one of your previous requests, but this is absolutely textbook sockpuppetry. ‑ 

Iridescent 20:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Iridescent: I thought my 1RR restriction was over that's why I said this. Why would I straight up say who I was if I wanted to hide my identity and break the 1RR? You are making up crap. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

You knew your 1RR wasn't over. Your 1RR notices states plainly "I am placing you again on a 1RR restriction when your block expires for a period of 3 calendar months (until 1st October 2017.)" You copied and pasted that onto the sockpuppet account's talk page. Do not take us for idiots. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun:So when I removed it from my talk page I really did know that my 1RR still applied and I was only pretending? Why would I do that? Maybe if you didn't act like such an idiot I wouldn't take you for one.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling us you pasted something onto your other account's user page but you'd either forgotten or didn't understand what it said. But I'm the idiot. Ok. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I pasted it on my other accounts page I didn't reread it, that's the beauty copying and pasting, you can just move information from one place to the next without reading it and typing it out again.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. It is your responsibility to abide by your edit restriction, and it is your responsibility to remember when it expires. The next decline should include revoking your talk page access. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon:So let's get something straight, you think somebody should be indefinitely banned for misremembering when his editing restriction ended? I really have no words.Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although the narrow technical answer to your question is "yes" (you have a lengthy block log and should understand how blocks and restrictions work by now -- I would be inclined to give a new user a lot more slack), that isn't all that you did. Creating an account and using it to revert again after you reverted the same edit with your main account is fundamentally dishonest, even for those who are not on 1RR restrictions. It give the reader the false impression that two editors think the edit should be reverted when in reality it is just you and your sockpuppet.

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is crystal clear on this: "Editors who want to use more than one account for some valid reason should provide links between them on the respective user pages (see below), with an explanation of the purpose of each account or of the relationship between them. If so desired, the user and user talk pages from one account can be redirected to the other. Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse." Plus, of course, nobody here believes that you "forgot". --Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Guy Macon:It was not my intention to mislead anybody so to ban me for that is just ridiculous. Same goes for the paragraph you quoted. Also I should add I had no idea that such a policy existed so I must profess my ignorance, how am I to know such a policy existed? What evidence do you have that it was intentional on my part?Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC

Again, you have been blocked multiple times. If you expect to be allowed to continually break the rules and to be excused just because you plead ignorance, you are mistaken. I learned what the rules are, and have gone 11 years without being blocked. There is no reason that you cannot learn the rules as well. Not that I believe your plea of ignorance; It simply is not credible. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using talk page to attack other users, TPA should be removed for the duration of the block. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: Block is indefinite.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then that's how long you access should be removed for. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. Venting in frustration is understandable, but this is well over the line, as you know perfectly well.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the

Iridescent 22:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. He clearly has no intention of working together with other editors to build the encyclopedia or to start following our policies and guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apollo The Logician (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18974 was submitted on Aug 12, 2017 22:23:06. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For the reviewing admins, please see his blanking of the SPI notice that linked the SPI policy. He claims above (and I suspect in this appeal) that he doesn't know about the policy but that is clearly disingenuous since he was the
  the required competence to edit on Wikipedia.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

also, see Ulster1912 (talk · contribs), a sock puppet that I blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit of irony there, a hardline unrepentant republican masquerading as a loyalist to evade detection. It was stated that it was inconclusive as to whether Apollo was a sock of Lapsed Pacifist/Gob Lofa or not and Scolaire's evidence made it less likely the case, however Apollo is sure as hell intent on behaving like them. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:44, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has continued sockpuppetry and block evasion with Ulster1912 (talk · contribs). Note that user also lied about this; see "I am not that user". --Yamla (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add yet another blocked sock account Special:Contributions/Ian012344. Mabuska ^(talk) 09:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please examine Yer boy (talk · contribs). Is a formal SPI process wanted? Johnuniq (talk) 10:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser confirms[12] that Yer boy (talk · contribs) and Ulster1912 (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Apollo The Logician (talk · contribs). All known socks blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apollo The Logician (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #19100 was submitted on Aug 28, 2017 20:54:53. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

Apollo The Logician (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #19254 was submitted on Sep 16, 2017 22:06:01. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Plato's political philosophy, Apollo The Logician!

Wikipedia editor

notwithstanding its creator, there is nothing obviously wrong with this article

To reply, leave a comment on Aguyintobooks's

Learn more about

]

Nomination of

Sagan standard

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sagan standard until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

User has engaged in block evasion as of October 2017. Lied about it, too. --Yamla (talk) 12:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Faisisteachas abu! indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Apollo The Logician. Good catch. Let us know if you notice any more sockpuppets. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apollo The Logician (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #19553 was submitted on Oct 20, 2017 17:33:48. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add potential harasser to the list of misdeeds. I seem to be attracting reverts by first time IP editors who seem to know me and up blocked as being proxies. Whilst I can name a couple of suspects I lean more towards Apollo being the master. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please post the IPs at

WP:SPI with Apollo being the suspected sockmaster. We have some tools and techniques that we don't talk about much (don't want the sockmasters knowing too much). sometimes (maybe 10% or 20% of thetime) we can completely shut down a sockmaster. It's worth a try. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you, will provide them later. Just to repeat I lean towards Apollo being the master, I'm not definitely certain. Mabuska ^(talk) 08:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any point in notifying Apollo seeing as they are banned from responding? Here's the notification anyways: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Apollo_The_Logician. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabuska: No, there is no requirement that you notify the master or the suspected sock. In cases of serial abuse, such as this, it's often preferable not to.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has engaged in block evasion as of November 2017. --Yamla (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Apollo The Logician again. Guy Macon (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apollo The Logician (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #23642 was submitted on Dec 24, 2018 07:31:40. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Saoradh logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Saoradh logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Saoradh logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Saoradh logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]