User talk:Ridiceo

This user has been banned indefinitely from editing the English Wikipedia by the community. Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking.
(block log · contributions · discussion at AN/I)

Welcome!

Hello, Ridiceo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Drmies (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Gab (social network)‎. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 17:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've already discussed extensively on the issue before editing the page.

December 2018

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tsumikiria, on December 3rd, you replied to me on Talk:Gab_(social_network). You said, Impressive 11,000 text wall you've composed. No, we will not mass delete and doctor valid content and replace them with fig leaf "free speech aspect" that no reliable source treats seriously. You cannot create false balance out of thin air. Wikipedia policies does not back your filibustering that suggests a motive of whitewashing your favorite website. You have contributed nothing of value to the article or anywhere else on Wikipedia and please stop further wasting everyone's time.

I sent a warning template because of the content of this comment. In this comment, you've accused me of wanting to mass delete and doctor valid content, as well as filibustering and attempting to whitewash an article. You've also said that I've "Contributed nothing" and have asked me to "stop further wasting everyone's time". However, in that talk page, I've not stated any plans or suggestions to mass delete or doctor valid content. In that talk page, I haven't, to my knowledge, tried to filibuster or whitewash. I've already discussed this on the talk page. Please see WP:AVOIDYOU for more information to avoid personal attacks. Also, you should see more information on WP:GF, as this can help you avoid user conflict in the future. And most of all, please focus on the content of the article, not the conduct of other users. Ridiceo (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33

Merely a formality as you have not been notified in the past 12 months. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the alert, but I am already aware of this decision. Ridiceo (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gab Discussions

I think a pattern is starting to emerge, and a threat has been made, and my concern is that, if unchecked, first you'll get blocked and then I will be next. I agree with most everything you said, particularly the parts about refusing to build consensus, and with the additional component of using "wikipedia policy" to blocking changes he? doesn't like, but failing to explain exactly how that policy is (or should be) applied directly to the topic being discussed. Failure to respond to critical points made in discussions, insisting on using "deleted tweets" as reliable sources, without bothering to show exactly which deleted tweet that's being referred to, making additions without conversation, making deletions without substantive explanation, and now he's threatening to have you blocked. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, learn how to be a functional Wikipedia Editor, improve a few Articles that I think are important, or interesting, on subjects (particularly Gab) that I have deep (2 years constant use) knowledge of, and do not want to jeopardize these goals by getting myself involved in "drama", however I can also see the writing on the wall, and believe something has to be done about this. He's already established the core of his POV and bias ("the ONLY reason Gab is noteworthy is it's far-right User base"), and all of his actions can be attributed to that ideologically-based belief. Also he ignored my questioning of the use of click-bait headlines from Articles in the text of the Article (word-for-word), actually said he "didn't care" that the Article stated "two Jews" in a cartoon meme, when only one character was obviously Jewish (which means he doesn't care about accuracy), stated openly that he had attempted to contact a Journalist (implying that the Journalist might publish language that would support his POV in the Article), and I could probably go on with more examples. This is just of the top of my head. I could probably "dig in" and double it. I don't want to. I want to do exactly what I assume a new Wikipedia Editor is expected to do. Avoid conflict, etc... and do the work. The threat to have you blocked has compelled me to act, despite significant misgivings.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I attempted to put together information on the user's conduct, so that I could use it for a dispute resolution. I was hounded by two other people over an obscure rule, specifically wanting to remove said sandbox document, which had no direct links coming from my userpage. I decided I was done with that, and archived that into a file on my desktop. On the talk page for Gab, two users constantly cited that I've somehow broken WP policy. When I asked them to focus on the content, I was bombarded with even more accusations. Since the discussion was clearly going nowhere, I made a section documenting what I believe to be what was wrong with the article. They also attacked me for supposedly "filibustering" because it was "too long" for them. I've repeatedly asked them to focus on the content. I've put warning templates regarding the issue on Tsumikiria's profile, but it got removed, and the issue wasn't resolved. Ridiceo (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Mistake on Gab article Ridiceo (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Gab (social network)

Hi Ridiceo. Hopefully this is the last time this needs to be said. Consensus is very clearly against you on this page. You have said all you can say on the talk page - your insistence that the reliable sources are biased and we cannot use content from them that you dislike is not viable. Self revert, or I'm taking it to the edit warring noticeboard. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I decided on a more appropriate venue - sue me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Thank you,

Ridiceo (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you,



[[User:Ridiceo|Ridiceo]] ([[User talk:Ridiceo#top|talk]]) 11:46, 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

Thank you,



[[User:Ridiceo|Ridiceo]] ([[User talk:Ridiceo#top|talk]]) 11:46, 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

Thank you,



[[User:Ridiceo|Ridiceo]] ([[User talk:Ridiceo#top|talk]]) 11:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Edit: I will also be deleting any unsolicited replies to this appeal. Ridiceo (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]