User talk:Whixper

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet of liborbital, nor do I even know who that is. This seems to be guilt-by-association, based on the fact that this other user and I edited the same page, but I'm not sure how to prove that I'm a distinct user... All I can legitimately say is that my edits were intended only to improve the page I was editing. Nothing I did was meant to be vandalism, nor done with the intent to disrupt or damage wikipedia. To my knowledge, none of my edits violated the protection or disruption. Furthermore, evidence provided in support of the ban is specious, and no prior warning was given, per the 'Preliminary: Education and warnings' policy. I am new to editing wikipedia, so if my edits were not up to the standards expected, I apologize, but blocking a user, without warning, seems an extreme measure. Whixper (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

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=I am not a sock puppet of liborbital, nor do I even know who that is. This seems to be guilt-by-association, based on the fact that this other user and I edited the same page, but I'm not sure how to prove that I'm a distinct user... All I can legitimately say is that my edits were intended only to improve the page I was editing. Nothing I did was meant to be vandalism, nor done with the intent to disrupt or damage wikipedia. To my knowledge, none of my edits violated the protection or disruption. Furthermore, evidence provided in support of the ban is specious, and no prior warning was given, per the 'Preliminary: Education and warnings' policy. I am new to editing wikipedia, so if my edits were not up to the standards expected, I apologize, but blocking a user, without warning, seems an extreme measure. [[User:Whixper|Whixper]] ([[User talk:Whixper#top|talk]]) 13:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC) |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=I am not a sock puppet of liborbital, nor do I even know who that is. This seems to be guilt-by-association, based on the fact that this other user and I edited the same page, but I'm not sure how to prove that I'm a distinct user... All I can legitimately say is that my edits were intended only to improve the page I was editing. Nothing I did was meant to be vandalism, nor done with the intent to disrupt or damage wikipedia. To my knowledge, none of my edits violated the protection or disruption. Furthermore, evidence provided in support of the ban is specious, and no prior warning was given, per the 'Preliminary: Education and warnings' policy. I am new to editing wikipedia, so if my edits were not up to the standards expected, I apologize, but blocking a user, without warning, seems an extreme measure. [[User:Whixper|Whixper]] ([[User talk:Whixper#top|talk]]) 13:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC) |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=I am not a sock puppet of liborbital, nor do I even know who that is. This seems to be guilt-by-association, based on the fact that this other user and I edited the same page, but I'm not sure how to prove that I'm a distinct user... All I can legitimately say is that my edits were intended only to improve the page I was editing. Nothing I did was meant to be vandalism, nor done with the intent to disrupt or damage wikipedia. To my knowledge, none of my edits violated the protection or disruption. Furthermore, evidence provided in support of the ban is specious, and no prior warning was given, per the 'Preliminary: Education and warnings' policy. I am new to editing wikipedia, so if my edits were not up to the standards expected, I apologize, but blocking a user, without warning, seems an extreme measure. [[User:Whixper|Whixper]] ([[User talk:Whixper#top|talk]]) 13:55, 24 August 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Please explain why your first edits are to this article? Why are you editing that particular article?
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Nothing nefarious. I am a fan of Rick Heinz's storytelling, a backer of his book on the Inkshares/Nerdist contest, and a follower of his subsequent work with Geek & Sundry. When I learned this article had been created, I wanted to help spruce it up and help it look like other authors' articles I've seen (hence the info box, which was my only significant edit). I had intended to contribute to other articles if I had something relevant to the article in question, but we all have to start somewhere.