User talk:Ruffnut Thorston
June 2020
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. N.J.A. | talk 12:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Unblocking Appeal
[edit]
Ruffnut Thorston (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am very sorry for the vandalism I committed. I fully understand it, looking back at it in retrospect, and I will not do it again. It was meant to be a well-intentioned joke but now I can see that it was harmful Ruffnut Thorston (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2020 (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.
- What would you edit if unblocked? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
What I have been editing in the past: correcting SPaG errors and updating pages about things in my community. Anything that just needs updating, really, with new (relevant) information. Ruffnut Thorston (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- NJA, Your thoughts on this request? Considering I see only one vandalistic edit recently, and otherwise constructive edits, I am inclined to unblock. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks N.J.A. | talk 00:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have a suspicion that this was set up as a sleeper account, making enough good edits to be autoconfirmed, and then revived to vandalise a semi-protected article that he had been vandalising using numerous socks. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ruffnut_Thorston/Archive. Thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I can promise you that this isn’t the case. The only reason I committed the vandalism was because the page’s subject (Daisy May Cooper) had seen a previous vandalism (which contained very similar content) on the page and had found it funny, as shown through the fact that she reposted a post onto her story in which she said that it was funny. I saw that the original comment (referring to a big online joke that Daisy May Cooper is aware of - see her Instagram account for posts about a sea captain) had been deleted and so I put up a new one. That is all that it was. I didn’t intend to harm anyone, it was only a bit of a joke. I am sorry. I can promise you that I haven’t revived this account simply to be a vandal. In fact, yesterday evening I forgot that my account had been blocked and I tried to update some information about my school but I wasn’t allowed to because my account has been blocked. I really am sorry. I didn’t realise that all of this was going to happen and I will not do it again. You have my word. Ruffnut Thorston (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
And I can promise you that I only did this once. I am not behind all the other vandalisations of this page. It is just about an online joke going around. I promise. I’m just a girl who set up this account be as I didn’t want my information to be displayed whenever I made an edit. Ruffnut Thorston (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Please follow this link to see a previous vandalism (that I can promise I didn’t commit).
https://www.instagram.com/p/CBlKuiKAZUJ/?igshid=wv4k1aj0ofzg Ruffnut Thorston (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Second Unblocking Appeal
[edit]
Ruffnut Thorston (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is an appeal for clemency. I recognise the wrong doing caused by my vandalism and I am requesting to be unblocked. I am starting a page because my old appeal expired because it revived no replies.Ruffnut Thorston (talk) 7:59 am, 7 July 2020, last Tuesday (5 days ago) (UTC−4)
Accept reason:
Despite reservations, I am unlocking and giving the user another chance. Any vandalism, disruptive editing, or evidence of abuse of multiple accounts will result in an immediate block by any admin without any notice, N.J.A. | talk 12:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Ruffnut Thorston (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- One thing, I am pinging User:RoySmith to ensure I am not missing anything. He tagged your page as blocked for socking. The SPI isn’t clear to me if evidence suggested sockpupptery. If it has, you will be blocked again and will need to seek unblock using your original account. ,N.J.A. | talk 13:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- User:NJA I was the editor who opened the SPI. There was persistent vandalism on Daisy May Cooper which led to the page being semi-protected. The following day, similar vandalism was done by this account. I just found it suspicious that an account that had barely been used before (and not for over seven months prior to that edit) but that was auto-confirmed was suddenly revived to continue the vandalism on a page that had been protected. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- @NJA:, Thanks for the ping. One of two things will happen. 1) Ruffnut Thorston will have seen the error of their ways and become a productive editor, which would be a win. 2) They will continue to be disruptive and will end up getting blocked again. That would not be good. Either way, I'm fine with the unblock. Semper WP:AGF. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)