Misplaced Pages

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot  16:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RidjalA.The discussion is about the topic La Luz del Mundo. Thank you. Ajaxfiore (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism tags

Please do not place vandalism tags on my talk page as you did here. Please read WP:VANDAL to understand wiki policies. Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated at WP:DRN

Hi,

I am a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, helping to moderate a content dispute in which you may have been involved. There are open questions there that I think it would be useful to have your input on.

Thanks.

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be formal mediation. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be request for comment. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/RidjalA. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rschen7754 10:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I've been taking extensive breaks from editing Misplaced Pages, and coming back online only to stumble upon a quarrel happening on my favorite wikipedia page (La Luz del Mundo), which resulted in collateral damage.

I frequently have open communication with users who edit that page, and that alone is not grounds for lumping me with any of those users. Further, given that my voice is an antithesis to some very specific editors on that page (usually religious articles tend have such polarized differences), I have no reason to risk losing my editing privileges for something so low. That is not how I work. My philosophy is "boldness, communication, and honesty".

Given Wikinuevo's message on the article's talk page here, I noticed the user had trouble with the English language, and asked for that user to instead post their message in Spanish if it made it easier for them. (why this was grounds for tying me to meat puppetry, God only knows, and God is my witness that I am not involved in any way or form with this user).

I found that the user in question may have also been in a quarrel with a user who edits both the English and Spanish versions of that page, and it seems like the quarrel spilled over to the English version. That it happened during one of my breaks has nothing to do with me, and is purely coincidental. For all we know, that user's IP address is from Latin America since the CU was inconclusive. Regardless, I normally would state that "I feel" or "I believe" that something or someone is wrong. But in this case, I resolutely affirm that this block was erroneous.

What strikes me as odd is that this whole ordeal happened more than a month ago, too. Thus, because of the nonexistent evidence for meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, I kindly ask that this block be reviewed. Most respectfully, RidjalA (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A side note, I forgot to mention that the person who was (from my POV) hastily pushing to issue this block was the same person who volunteered in a recent DRN case which involved me. There, this user states:

"Again, I think a key component here is willingness to let bygones be bygones. This means not opening up old wounds or criticizing for past perceived wrongs, or even pointing them out. If this is going to work, given the heated nature of the discussion, everyone needs to cool down, and just start afresh."

After stating this the user still proceeded to try and get me blocked with weak evidence. This to me seems like a bad faith move. Further, I would not feel comfortable with that user taking it upon themselves to overlook the La Luz del Mundo page. Unlike other admins and senior editors who have contributed to that page, I feel that this user may have too much of an impartial POV to self-designate him/herself to overlook that page. In the best of interests, RidjalA (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2013 (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.

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=I've been erroneously mistaken for another user. A CU was inconclusive, but I was blocked anyway (??). I've been taking extensive breaks from editing Misplaced Pages, and coming back online only to stumble upon a quarrel happening on my favorite wikipedia page (]), which resulted in collateral damage. I frequently have open communication with users who edit that page, and '''that''' alone is not grounds for lumping me with any of those users. Further, given that my voice is an antithesis to some very specific editors on that page (usually religious articles tend have such polarized differences), I have no reason to risk losing my editing privileges for something so low. That is '''not''' how I work. My philosophy is "boldness, communication, and honesty". Given Wikinuevo's message on the article's talk page , I noticed the user had trouble with the English language, and asked for that user to instead post their message in Spanish if it made it easier for them. (why this was grounds for tying me to meat puppetry, God only knows, and God is my witness that I am not involved in any way or form with this user). I found that the user in question may have also been in a with a user who edits both the English and Spanish versions of that page, and it seems like the quarrel spilled over to the English version. That it happened during one of my breaks has nothing to do with me, and is purely coincidental. For all we know, that user's IP address is from Latin America since the CU was inconclusive. Regardless, I normally would state that "I feel" or "I believe" that something or someone is wrong. But in this case, I resolutely affirm that this block was erroneous. What strikes me as odd is that this whole ordeal happened more than a month ago, too. Thus, because of the nonexistent evidence for meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, I kindly ask that this block be reviewed. Most respectfully, ] (]) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC) ::A side note, I forgot to mention that the person who was (from my POV) ''hastily'' pushing to issue this block was the same person who volunteered in a recent DRN case which involved me. , this user states: :::"Again, I think a key component here is willingness to let bygones be bygones. This means not opening up old wounds or criticizing for past perceived wrongs, ''or even pointing them out''. If this is going to work, given the heated nature of the discussion, everyone needs to cool down, and just start afresh." ::After stating this the user still proceeded to try and get me blocked with weak evidence. This to me seems like a bad faith move. Further, I would not feel comfortable with that user to overlook the La Luz del Mundo page. Unlike other admins and senior editors who have contributed to that page, I feel that this user may have too much of an impartial POV to self-designate him/herself to overlook that page. In the best of interests, ] (]) 03:20, 21 February 2013 (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=I've been erroneously mistaken for another user. A CU was inconclusive, but I was blocked anyway (??). I've been taking extensive breaks from editing Misplaced Pages, and coming back online only to stumble upon a quarrel happening on my favorite wikipedia page (]), which resulted in collateral damage. I frequently have open communication with users who edit that page, and '''that''' alone is not grounds for lumping me with any of those users. Further, given that my voice is an antithesis to some very specific editors on that page (usually religious articles tend have such polarized differences), I have no reason to risk losing my editing privileges for something so low. That is '''not''' how I work. My philosophy is "boldness, communication, and honesty". Given Wikinuevo's message on the article's talk page , I noticed the user had trouble with the English language, and asked for that user to instead post their message in Spanish if it made it easier for them. (why this was grounds for tying me to meat puppetry, God only knows, and God is my witness that I am not involved in any way or form with this user). I found that the user in question may have also been in a with a user who edits both the English and Spanish versions of that page, and it seems like the quarrel spilled over to the English version. That it happened during one of my breaks has nothing to do with me, and is purely coincidental. For all we know, that user's IP address is from Latin America since the CU was inconclusive. Regardless, I normally would state that "I feel" or "I believe" that something or someone is wrong. But in this case, I resolutely affirm that this block was erroneous. What strikes me as odd is that this whole ordeal happened more than a month ago, too. Thus, because of the nonexistent evidence for meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, I kindly ask that this block be reviewed. Most respectfully, ] (]) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC) ::A side note, I forgot to mention that the person who was (from my POV) ''hastily'' pushing to issue this block was the same person who volunteered in a recent DRN case which involved me. , this user states: :::"Again, I think a key component here is willingness to let bygones be bygones. This means not opening up old wounds or criticizing for past perceived wrongs, ''or even pointing them out''. If this is going to work, given the heated nature of the discussion, everyone needs to cool down, and just start afresh." ::After stating this the user still proceeded to try and get me blocked with weak evidence. This to me seems like a bad faith move. Further, I would not feel comfortable with that user to overlook the La Luz del Mundo page. Unlike other admins and senior editors who have contributed to that page, I feel that this user may have too much of an impartial POV to self-designate him/herself to overlook that page. In the best of interests, ] (]) 03:20, 21 February 2013 (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=I've been erroneously mistaken for another user. A CU was inconclusive, but I was blocked anyway (??). I've been taking extensive breaks from editing Misplaced Pages, and coming back online only to stumble upon a quarrel happening on my favorite wikipedia page (]), which resulted in collateral damage. I frequently have open communication with users who edit that page, and '''that''' alone is not grounds for lumping me with any of those users. Further, given that my voice is an antithesis to some very specific editors on that page (usually religious articles tend have such polarized differences), I have no reason to risk losing my editing privileges for something so low. That is '''not''' how I work. My philosophy is "boldness, communication, and honesty". Given Wikinuevo's message on the article's talk page , I noticed the user had trouble with the English language, and asked for that user to instead post their message in Spanish if it made it easier for them. (why this was grounds for tying me to meat puppetry, God only knows, and God is my witness that I am not involved in any way or form with this user). I found that the user in question may have also been in a with a user who edits both the English and Spanish versions of that page, and it seems like the quarrel spilled over to the English version. That it happened during one of my breaks has nothing to do with me, and is purely coincidental. For all we know, that user's IP address is from Latin America since the CU was inconclusive. Regardless, I normally would state that "I feel" or "I believe" that something or someone is wrong. But in this case, I resolutely affirm that this block was erroneous. What strikes me as odd is that this whole ordeal happened more than a month ago, too. Thus, because of the nonexistent evidence for meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry, I kindly ask that this block be reviewed. Most respectfully, ] (]) 22:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC) ::A side note, I forgot to mention that the person who was (from my POV) ''hastily'' pushing to issue this block was the same person who volunteered in a recent DRN case which involved me. , this user states: :::"Again, I think a key component here is willingness to let bygones be bygones. This means not opening up old wounds or criticizing for past perceived wrongs, ''or even pointing them out''. If this is going to work, given the heated nature of the discussion, everyone needs to cool down, and just start afresh." ::After stating this the user still proceeded to try and get me blocked with weak evidence. This to me seems like a bad faith move. Further, I would not feel comfortable with that user to overlook the La Luz del Mundo page. Unlike other admins and senior editors who have contributed to that page, I feel that this user may have too much of an impartial POV to self-designate him/herself to overlook that page. In the best of interests, ] (]) 03:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}