User talk:B.robertrit
Sockpuppet investigation[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bdub2018, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
July 2018[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to John 1:1, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC) |
B.robertrit (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand that I was blocked for sockpuppetry and deeply apologize, it was wrong. My purpose was not to be deceptive. I was never blocked when the new account was made, and I ceased a matter of days ago making edits to Wikipedia articles with the other account, and was confined to talk pages. The reason is this: I felt that I was being hounded by a particular editor (my accuser in this case) who has been systematically reverting my edits and making numerous false accusations about my intentions (insinuating also that I was a returned banned user, which I was not) and saying I could consider my self de facto banned, or something to that extent, while I was just trying to figure things out. He has since that time systematically reverted all my edits, including secondary references, corrections that were well within policy, instead of giving appropriate time to fix them. Two minutes is not enough warning to have your work wiped out without being given a chance to fix it.
I stopped making edits immediately when I was notified that I was potentially breaking policy and was trying to understand the disparity between the actual policy and the rules, the other editor kept threatening bans when I was asking about the rules, because the rules would say one thing, and he another. I misunderstood rules to begin with, because I am new to Wikipedia, so when there are disparate policies, it is confusing. I made this account with an intention of having a fresh start because up to that point it seemed my edits were targeted for revision without the chance to make appropriate corrections. I believed that the new edits that I made which were reverted were well in line with the policies, and I intended to keep the revision going. You can see in the version history of John 1:1 that I was attempting to remove and fix many of the problems I was not aware I was making when I originally made them. This shows I was being conscientious about making a good article. The reverted article contains dead ended sources, incorrect translations, and misleading statements that need correction.
I did not intend to use the other account anymore, nor do I; I made statements in the third person because I did not want to let on that I had changed accounts, because I was afraid I would be targeted again. I wanted to report the behavior to administration but could not figure out how. I didn't and don't wish to maintain the other account, but they cannot be deleted. I did not make new edits again until I thought I understood so I did not repeat past mistakes. I realize this may sound like some excuses; I am not excusing. I only want to relate that my intent was not to be disruptive, but from the beginning was just to contribute to a series of articles that I felt I had the knowledge to improve. Again, I admit to the wrongdoing. It will not happen again. Thank you for your consideration.B.robertrit (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You must request unblock on your original account, and you will need to address the reasons why that account was blocked. As for "My purpose was not to be deceptive", you then say "I made statements in the third person because I did not want to let on that I had changed accounts..." which seems pretty much a definition of deception to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2018 (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.