User talk:Loganrobert96
June 2014
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Loganrobert96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Firstly, the account which I seek to get unblocked is BerryTime, although I am appealing on this page since the investigation was under the Loganrobert96 account. (This is per Callanecc's request) For whatever administrator reviews this appeal, I strongly recommend that you first and foremost review this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Loganrobert96. This should prove very informative into the reason that I was banned. I have contacted Callanecc to inform him of my unblock appeal and requested his thoughts on the matter once I further explained my case. If you have already read the page above, then continue.
Summary
In summary, my friend, D, made a silly page which I wanted to see. I tried to fix it, but it got put up for deletion, and I, feeling responsible and that I had let D down, reluctantly decided to help him defend it, but soon left the matter entirely, moving on to be constructive and helpful in Wikipedia. While I agree that the other accounts involved should be blocked, BerryTime is not a vandalism account, nor is it used as a sockpuppet, so BerryTime has done nothing wrong. Since bans, especially indefinite ones, are supposed to be put in place to prevent future vandalism not as a punishment, but BerryTime has caused no vandalism, this ban is only punitive, not preventative, and thus in error.
If you take a look at my list of contributions, you will see examples of the sorts of pages and edits which I am involved with. I correct spelling errors, grammar errors, syntax errors, help to wikify articles, fix dead-end articles, try to prevent or undo vandalism, and monitor and improve articles which I know well and can provide information about, but have no specific article area of interest. I also monitor pages which I have edited in the past, such as all of those on my watchlist.
As far as the creation of EditShark53, that was clearly a sockpuppet, but BerryTime was neither that nor block evasion, as I was aiming for a clean start rather than to slip away to continue vadalizing. I understand I did not fulfill that procedure correctly as I was unaware of it, but I am now tagging both other accounts as retired. I have looked at the policy for clean start and realize that my BerryTime account was created during a block on my other accounts. I suppose that this is the block evasion which was mentioned. I can't attribute this to anything but my ignorance of wiki policy, and while I assure you that I simply made the new account in order to get away from the sockpuppet events, and Wikipedia good faith policy dictates the assumption of good intentions in the absence of obvious contrary proof, I completely understand if you choose to view this as block evasion.
Standard offer
After further discussing my options with Callanecc, he suggested I appeal for the standard offer, and I agree. I would respectfully appeal that the break be less than 6 months, 1. due to the fact that if it weren't for the ban on sockpuppetry, which I was unaware of as a crime and did only because I felt responsible to repay my friend, I would be able to have a clean start, and as I thought that was what I was doing, you can look and see how I handled that. I positively contributed to the encyclopedia, and became more invested in it, spending time looking up the processes and regulations, and finding out about barnstars and other awards, and changing my siganture, etc.. 2. due to my ignorance of sockpuppetry and block evasion policy at the time. I now realize my mistakes and apologize for them, and promise that I will not continue such action in the future. 3. due to the positive way I have acted since distancing myself from the sockpuppet investigations. However, if you decide on a 6 month ban, or even longer I suppose, I won't complain, and I most definitely won't be creating any other accounts.
Credibility
Callanecc also requested that I provide a statement as to why you should believe me, so I offer this: I have been using my BerryTime account now for about a month, and in that time, I have seen quite a few vandals. They are usually just ip's not users, and do things like deleting large sections, putting in silly phrases, or changing tings to their opinions. It should be clear that I am not like this. I have stuck with this process, continually defending myself, and came out telling the whole story about a week ago. No one who was untrustworthy would spend this much time and effort in order to get their name cleared, or make over 100 positive contributions just to be unblocked, as it would be so much easier to go to a public computer and make a new account with a different email, and they could bypass this whole process, and no one would be the wiser. But I'm not doing that. I understand that block evasion is wrong which is why I am trying to have a clean start. I know that my account has been recognized, and I am okay with that, as I am still responsible for my actions, regardless of whether or not I fully understood Wikipedia policy at the time, but I would like to continue my use of BerryTime, perhaps even because it's not free from any connection to my old accounts. If I were to edit improperly again, and an admin or user were to check further, they would find this investigation and call for me to be banned, so if trust is an issue for you, it is better to have me continue use of this account where you can monitor me, and where I have a history, than encouraging me to start a knew account unknown to you, though if I were to later make a new account if this block appeal is denied and I waited several months, I would be sure to let an admin know or link my account to the old case in some way.
Other accounts
Oh, and also, the account DrCruse, and I can only assume others as well were blocked with the reason that they were sockpuppets of this account, but this is not true. I'm not sure if that's relevant or even needs changed, but I just thought I'd let you know. The only accounts that were mine were Loganrobert96, EditShark53, and BerryTime.
Conclusion
Thank you for your time, and I hope that this comes to a speedy resolution.
Decline reason:
I have no problem with taking a standard offer approach in this instance, however, I am unconvinced about shortening the 6 months period. In this context, I'm declining this unblock, and suggest that you make another request towards the end of this year. PhilKnight (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
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.
Response
[edit]Thank you for reviewing my appeal. I will follow your advice and put out a new appeal later this year. loganrobert96 (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)