User talk:LauraMulcahy

Welcome!

Hello, LauraMulcahy, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Atlantic306 (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 2026

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. 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.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 26 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Block Repeal

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).

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

Request reason:

Not a sock puppet account LauraMulcahy (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, meaning that you have been linked to the other account with private technical evidence(that even normal admins like me cannot see). This isn't just about your editing. If technical evidence has led to the wrong conclusion, you will need to provide a plausible explanation as to why that might be. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2026 (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 have been blocked with the reasoning that I am a sock puppet account. I want to refute this, as I was merely in agreement with the user I am being associated with. I responded quickly on the talk page in my second comment because I was automatically subscribed after my first contribution to it.

I would also appreciate if my previous contributions in editing could be recognised— I joined weeks ago and have made a number of contributions to improve the pages suggested to me. I want to continue doing so, and if that would involve no longer partaking on talk pages, I will accept that. I am an individual person and not the sock puppet of the account I am being accused of. LauraMulcahy (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Evidence Led to Wrong Conclusion

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

Technical Evidence Led to Wrong Conclusion

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Technical Evidence Led to Wrong Conclusion |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Technical Evidence Led to Wrong Conclusion |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Technical Evidence Led to Wrong Conclusion |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I would be interested to see what this technical evidence is, but I can clear up confusion surrounding IPs. Yesterday, I left my first comment on the talk thread while travelling through an airport— I will not name the exact airport for privacy reasons but it is an airport in London, so my IP will be linked to there. I left my second comment after arriving in Ireland, so my IP will be linked to there.

I understand that comments under different IPs will raise concerns, but if you crosscheck the edits I made as early as when I set up my account, they should match with the IP I used to make my second comment. Neither of these IPs should have any correlation with SparklyAmanda, as I am not a sockpuppet account. LauraMulcahy (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]