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)

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]

Block Appeal

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).

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)[reply]

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)[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.

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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?diff=873867754 Ridiceo (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unblock Request

~~{{unblock | A gang of Leftists routinely attack single Editors like this one. [[User:Tym Whittier|Tym Whittier]] ([[User talk:Tym Whittier|talk]]) 20:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)}}~~ Struck out this unblock request. Unblock requests may only be made by the account owner and it is deeply inappropriate for Tym Whittier to make one here. --Yamla (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a New Editor, have no "dog in this fight", randomly encountered Ridiceo while trying to edit the Article on "Gab", could not help but notice a gang of Leftist Editors pushing their ideological POV on that (and other) Articles. I realize I'm too new, too inexperienced and too volatile to fight this fight, against so many, more-experienced Editors so I moved away from the scene (Article on Gab) in order to gain more experience, knowledge of Wikipedia Policy and to preserve my account from becoming a casualty as well. Came back after about 2 months and discover Ridiceo is indefinitely blocked. He/She appears to be a casualty in an ideological war made by Leftists, meaning Socialists and Communists, that make a regular practice of censoring speech and non-approved ideas and getting people banned, blocked, deplatformed and censored as a means by which to perpetuate their ideology. They don't "win arguments", they destroy the opposition's ability to make arguments. In this case they use the bureaucracy of Wikipedia as a means by which to silence and deplatform dissent. One example is when a majority of the sources are Left, they argue in favor of the majority of the sources. And when the majority of the sources are "not Left", they attack the credibility and the reliability of the majority, and favor the Leftist minority source(s). It's right out of the Communist playbook, and it's perfectly obvious to anyone that cares to look. I believe Ridiceo to be a casualty, and one of many. However the biggest casualty is Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia has a serious credibility problem, and in the absence of a reliable and balanced source of information, people naturally turn to "fake news".

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)[reply]

Pretty quick way to out your sockpuppet there. Wow.--Jorm (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your reality bending ability is beyond impressive that your mind exists in another universe. Yes, the ☭KOMMUNIST CABAL☭ definitely exists, and I am its head lizard. Now pull out your laser gun and shoot me. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, Tym Whittier gets blocked for "Extended and wholly unacceptable personal attack against Yamla", and, whilst this block is right, these same administrators ignore personal attacks against me, including a user calling me "inconceivably disruptive", , lying about me "edit warring" as soon as I got autoconfirmed, misrepresenting what i had said or meant, and subtle attacks such as "I can almost expect their response to be "These are all unsubstantiated!". " and "It was excruciatingly frustrating to deal with this editor, so I was emotional at times." to belittle me and attack me. as well as several unsubstantiated allegations accusing me of being a sockpuppet account with no evidence at all., as well as edit warring on my user talk page, which an administrator did not warn them for. And this is not to mention the several more unsubstantiated allegations on the Gab talk page, accusing me of breaking this rule or that rule, and attacking me, and accusing me of making an "attack page" on another user, which, after further discussion, I requested to have deleted afterwards. What did this "attack page" consist of? diffs of another user attacking me, of which I was planning to open a discussion on ANI. Whilst what Tym Whittier did was in violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and is unacceptable, so is unsubstantiated allegations of me being a "sock account" without evidence, and edit warring on my talk page, both of which no action was taken on. Ridiceo (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tym Whittier

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)[reply]

email sent. Could not find you on Discord, which is good since I don't trust it for various reasons. Have never used Kik, and wouldn't know how to start.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2019 (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).

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)[reply]

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)[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.

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)[reply]

You weren't asking to have your ban lifted, you were asking to have an admin lift your block. That's different. I won't copy your above request to the admin noticeboard but would consider copying a better thought out ban appeal. You'll find other admins also willing to do so. --Yamla (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]