User talk:Richard0048

Archives

Archive 1

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Richard0048 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:Ponyo ive seen that youv'e blocked me based on vague charges. The user who nominated the block has been engaged in disruptive edting leading to conflict therefore nominated me, as I have pointed out in the SPI. There has defintly been some kind of mistake I must stress. I think that I have been subjected to what's called a collateral damage, jugding by the backlog you are referrnig to, meaning that somebody is editing from the same area etc. Also the other accounts have been editing different content than me for starters. The Hioyab account seem to have been active two years ago like another user pointed out so it's kind of far fetched accusations. Looking at behviour (edits) there has not been any wrongdoings from my behalf, so it is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. Richard0048 (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on a combination of technical and behavioral evidence, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is not an example of collateral. A comparison of the technical and behavioural data between your account and other Hiyob346 socks led to this conclusion. The overlap is extensive and I don't believe any mistake has been made.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed colleteral and not based on technical or behavioural ones. You have drawn wrong conclusions. Richard0048 (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Richard0048. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]