|
User talk:Ridiceo
BannedThis message is to inform you that you have been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia by the community. For more information on what this means, see WP:BAN. For information on appealing this ban, see WP:SO. Swarm {talk} 16:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC) Block Appeal Ridiceo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: No, I'm not innocent. I admit that I've taken actions that are questionable or are an outright violation, such as creating an attack page in a sandbox on another user. However, I was not banned for these reasons, and was instead banned for WP:NOTHERE. The crux of the accusations made against me were based solely on the accusation that I had been trying to "downplay" evidence. (of course, they make this accusation without evidence). I did discuss and then remove the quote and it's sources, though i also opened an rfc, which I later closed as a concession, which they omitted from the ANI discussion. Two users, whom were active in the discussion on the Gab talk page, were collaborating on the ANI to get me permanently site-banned. To make their ANI seem more convincing, they railed multiple false accusations against me, including an raising a theory that I might be another user (without evidence) that was also banned on that page previously. They accused me of being a "single-purpose, agenda-driven, civil POV pusher.", again, citing no diffs, nor making any compelling argument that shows that, and again omitting the fact that I had edited other articles other than Gab in attempt to improve them. I was accused of posting edit requests constantly, "the user just kept posting edit requests", when I had waited several weeks between only two of them. They had also accused me of edit-warring, which I admit to, but was due to ignorance of WP policy at the time, and again, isn't the reason for this ban. They continued, again citing no diffs "They scrutinize on reasonable summary as not appearing in sources verbatim, accused the article of minimizing their POV, claimed well-supported content unsupported, and failed to quote any source that actually supported their proposed content. They deny posted/acted what they did, misrepresent policies and guidelines, and refused to concede when consensus was clearly not in his favor." Whilst not quoting what I had actually said, they are able to get away with skewing what I meant. As for my reply, well.. I would say that wasn't well planned. I was under the impression that the Administrators would investigate everything involved, rather than just ban a single user, archive the post and move on. That was an oopsie Even after that, another user had accused me, again without any evidence, whatsoever, of being "obviously not a new editor." Another user had accused me of "throwing out thousand page screeds of lawyering, never hearing other people, and demanding others do work for them. Followed by the "I quit" message, i think they're going to be back under a different name." Anyhow, I admit to, and pledge not to commit again the following actions: *Edit Warring *Creating attack pages on other users *Making excessively long posts on talk pages *Adding unnecessary {cn} tags Thank you, Ridiceo (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Furthermore, as per suggestion by another administrator, I state that I, between the beginning of my account and now, have not used another account or IP address to bypass a block, and have not used IP editing in malice prior to my block, and that I have had no other accounts nor any other edits prior to the creation of this account, and i pledge that I, in the future, will not be engaging in any behavior that attempts to bypass a block, or sock puppetry. Ridiceo (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Decline reason: Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2019 (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. It's giving me errors when I attempt to put the link to ANI discussion into the appeal, so I'll just put it here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=873867754 Ridiceo (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Recently, another user, whilst completely disregarding my comment that I will be deleting any un-solicited replies on my talk page, decided to comment, saying that my claim to not using alternate accounts or IPs is "unlikely". They then railed on, saying that the "timing" of my unblock request is "suspicious" based on recent off-site viewpoint recruiting. I then deleted their comment and they proceeded to edit war on my own talk page, citing article talk page guidelines as a justification, when this is a User page, not an article talk page. The reason i submitted the request now is because of (the same user) using me as a scapegoat on the Gab talk page in this post against supposed POV pushers. They then repeated more unproven allegations against me, of which i couldn't defend myself on. Continuously, this user has commented on the contributor instead of the content, including me myself. It marks me unsurprised when the same two users who sought me permanently banned from the website are also the first two (non-administrators) to reply to my unblock request, posting content attacking me and content innapropriate for a comment on a user page (like asking an administrator to check if another user is a sock of mine). All this is despite the fact that these two users have zero say in the unblock request process. Since this is the case, then their only motive is to sow doubt between administrators or distract them with sockpuppet allegations in order to keep me permanently kicked off the site. Ridiceo (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC) Unblock Request
I have no desire to get too involved in this. I am here to "make a better encyclopedia" however my conscience compels me to make this one attempt on Ridiceo's behalf. I don't know this person IRL, I have never communicated with him/her outside Wikipedia, all my communications with Ridiceo are on "Talk" pages, etc... In short, I'm as neutral and unbiased a person as you could find (in terms of being some kind of "puppet"), and I think he/she should be unblocked for the reasons described above, plus whatever others there may be outside my awareness. I'm going to make this one appeal on Ridiceo's behalf, hit the "eject" button, and go back to slowly learning how to be a proficient Wikipedia Editor. Also I apologise for probably violating Wikipedia Policy by using the "unblock request" template on someone else's behalf. That's probably wrong.Tym Whittier (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Tym Whittier, I know you've been watching this page, so I want to get into contact with you, but I want to make sure its you. My email: usbcoblet@gmail.com My kik: Jaxus_ Discord: @Sanpe#0089 I'd prefer Discord. Thanks Ridiceo (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Ridiceo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Firstly, I'll try to keep it short, different from the long posts I've made in the past. There are three reasons why I believe that I should be unblocked. 1. The block length is excessive, and block type excessive for the alleged wrongdoings. 2. The block was rushed, and I believe that editors were deliberately using the blocking system in an attempt to remove me as quickly as possible, rather than try to resolve or escalate the issues through discussion or other means. I believe two editors crafted a narrative about me which does not bear resemblance to reality. I acknowledge that to others It may have appeared that I was not a new editor, however I actually was a new editor at the time. 3. The time since the block. The block was put into place 15 December, 2018. It's been over 5 years since the block was put into place. Sockpuppet disclosure: From what I remember, I did use at least one different IP address in order to circumvent a block in January 2019. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask and I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability. It has been awhile. Ridiceo (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC) Decline reason: You are banned, not just blocked. See WP:CBAN. No admin may unilaterally lift the ban. If you wish to have the ban lifted, please review WP:UNBAN. I'd strongly advice taking a different approach in any unban request, but that's up to you. Admitting to evading your evasion in 2019, assuming that's the only time, is a good and honest thing to do. (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2024 (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. Yamla, I am confused. It states underneath WP:BLOCKBANDIFF that I can appeal the ban using the {unblock} template on my talk page, however it requires community consensus, and should be posted on an appropriate discussion board. Is it possible for you to do that? Ridiceo (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
|
