User talk:Ridiceo

Banned

This 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

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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)

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= 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, [[User:Ridiceo|Ridiceo]] ([[User talk:Ridiceo#top|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. [[User:Ridiceo|Ridiceo]] ([[User talk:Ridiceo#top|talk]]) 16:32, 21 January 2019 (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= 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, [[User:Ridiceo|Ridiceo]] ([[User talk:Ridiceo#top|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. [[User:Ridiceo|Ridiceo]] ([[User talk:Ridiceo#top|talk]]) 16:32, 21 January 2019 (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= 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, [[User:Ridiceo|Ridiceo]] ([[User talk:Ridiceo#top|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. [[User:Ridiceo|Ridiceo]] ([[User talk:Ridiceo#top|talk]]) 16:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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)

• Edit: I will also be deleting any unsolicited replies from non-administrators to this appeal. Ridiceo (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The reason for this, is because another user, immediately after publishing my block appeal, decided to reply, encouraging Administrators to "check" if I'm another user, which is inappropriate for a block appeal, especially when making such statements without evidence clearly stating how that individual and I may be connected in some way. Such queries should be opened in WP:SPI (WITH EVIDENCE), not on user talk pages in response to a block appeal.. . It seems they want to rid of anyone that doesn't follow their POV, and are using me as a scapegoat to get rid of other users they disagree with. Ridiceo (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)