User talk:DavidPatrick70

Welcome!

Hello, DavidPatrick70, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Redlining. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

DavidPatrick70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe I should be unblocked because: I am not the person the block was intended for. I am collateral damage from someone trying to block a vandal who caused trouble, and I went through the trouble of confirming my identity just to get an account created, and I do not know why I am being targeted yet again. I have not made vandalizing edits nor do I intend to, you can look at my edits and see that I am working constructively and intend to continue doing so. The blocking admin may have acted in good faith but was mistaken and made the block in error.

Decline reason:

Regrettably, all the evidence I have suggests you are not being truthful. You have one final route of appeal through the Ban Appeals Subcommittee; see that page for information on how to contact them. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:42, 4 February 2014 (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.

@Deskana: I was instructed to put @Deskana: under this by QueenOfFrance. DavidPatrick70 (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

DavidPatrick70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The request remains the same. I have tried to speak with Deskana and been rudely told that there was a "last time we went through this" by Deskana despite never having been able to get so much as a single word response from Deskana before, therefore I am asking for someone uninvolved to review my edits and see that I am constructive and not the person Deskana mistakenly thinks. I believe Deskana is acting in good faith but is overzealously causing collateral damage due to mistakes on his part.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. This was a checkuser-based block; therefore, only an admin with access to that tool can properly assess the evidence on which the block was based. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2014 (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.

I have evidence to add to my case. While Deskana was being all Inspector Javert, someone else did something very similar to what the person who previously had my IP did, creating an ID of "libtardssuck." I know it wasn't me or from my IP because I was blocked at the time. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libtardssuck&action=history

Please consider the evidence and my edits. Deskana is in good faith but blinded by something and is acting mistakenly. DavidPatrick70 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea

@Amalthea: Amalthea, care to explain why you out-and-out lied about me? I am here in good faith and I have done my best to show good faith in all my edits. You on the other hand refuse to abide the policies of Wikipedia in Assuming Good Faith and you and your fellow liar Deskana are accusing me based on "secret evidence" that is purely made up. DavidPatrick70 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihiltres: Since I can't respond directly to the lies pasted to your talk page: they're lies. I'm not "trolling" you, the trolls are the ones lying about "secret evidence" to cover up their blatant incompetence. All they're doing is damaging the encyclopedia by getting in the way of constructive editing. DavidPatrick70 (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't contradict the CheckUser evidence, not least because I don't have access to it. If it's right, then you should be ashamed of your hypocrisy. If it's really wrong, sorry, but you'll have to find your own way around the block. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihiltres: It's not right, and both Deskana and Amalthea should be doubly ashamed of their incompetence and their hypocrisy. They've utterly failed to WP:AGF at the urgings of that sociopathic fraud Nick, they've utterly failed to avoid WP:BITE, they've utterly failed to pay attention to proces.

Even if I WAS somehow some "troll", WHICH I AM NOT, I've made good constructive edits. They don't seem to care about that at all. I've now been told I should take some sort of "WP:STANDARDOFFER" thing by Nick on IRC and that it is contingent on "admitting to" a whole list of things that trolling liar is trying to pin on me. Well, there's no way I admit to things I didn't do, and there's no way I'm going to say anything complimentary about that sociopathic, incompetent, blackmailing boob.

I've been doing a lot of reading of policies the past couple days. It's not me that's hypocritical, it's those ridiculous people who don't show anyone the benefit of the doubt even when the evidence that they are abusing and hounding an innocent person is slapped in their sad, sorry, sociopathic, incompetent faces. DavidPatrick70 (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you do not seem to be able to use your talk page without resorting to personal attacks, I've removed access to it. This is currently with BASC, if you have anything further to add, please email arbcom-appeals-en

lists.wikimedia.org Worm^TT(talk) 15:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BASC decision

The Ban Appeals Subcommittee has considered an appeal from this user. Our consensus view firmly supported dismissing the appeal. It was also brought to our attention that this user has been engaged in extremely rude, abrasive, and unpleasant IRC communications with administrators; evidence of this was forwarded to the subcommittee at the time of the appeal. Our recommendation is therefore that this user not be unblocked in the future unless this additional evidence is considered. AGK [•] 09:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]