User talk:Pedrote112

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2021 (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).

Pedrote112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why am I blocked????? My IP is 83.33.129.185 Can somebody explain to me what's going on??? Ymblanter this must be a mistake. Pedrote112 (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on what I see, I concur with the reason for the block. 331dot (talk) 08:11, 28 March 2021 (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.

To me it is pretty obvious that you are 193.52.24.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whom I blocked yesterday for a week eight hours before you have made your first edit. I hope the reviewing admin will figure out what is going on.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ymblanter. My IP is 83.33.129.185 and I edit from Madrid!! I have used my account in Wikipedia in Spanish for years!! Turns out that one day after my first edit in English I am blocked (It doesn't feel right :/) I have no interest at all in disrupting Wikipedia just contribute with my opinion and to be honest I am not even a regular user. I ask you to revert this block. I would appreciate it. Thanks.Pedrote112 (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I am not going to revert the block.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredible. Could anybody help with this?? (e.g. SPECIFICO)?? I am shocked!!Pedrote112 (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO can not, they are not an administrator, but someone will review your unblock request soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once another administrator reviews this case, who is gonna restore my dignity? I find all this pretty sad. Pedrote112 (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what's going on. I am being condemned for something that makes no sense at all. Am I being accused of being someone who lives in another country? Can someone tell me what I need to do to get my account back? Thank you Pedrote112 (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can file another unblock appeal, though I am afraid it will be declined as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that any request where you just argue IPs is not going to be accepted. You need to address the behavior. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What behavior? This is all very confusing for me. I don't understand what's going on.Pedrote112 (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your first contributions were related to the subject 193.52.24.13 was blocked for. This is difficult to accept as a coincidence. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I came across that topic and I found the case outrageous and wanted to participate. And I still think it's an interesting case..... But what does that have to do with this blocking of my account? Pedrote112 (talk) 09:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, that is difficult to accept as a coincidence or simply occurring by chance. But another heretofore uninvolved administrator will review your request. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But what coincidence are you talking about? Are you basing this block on coincidence or consistent arguments? You're turning a user away from contributing their opinions in a civilised manner simply because you have a personal suspicion or because you don't like my opinions? This is outrageous.Pedrote112 (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your exact opinion is of no concern to me insofar as this block; I know nothing about the specific issue. But I don't believe you came across the subject by chance. I don't really have anything else to say, and will leave this for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you are blocking me by chance? because of a personal belief? Pedrote112 (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the block has been explained to you, based on evidence, not personal belief. If that evidence has led to the wrong conclusion, please explain why. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But what evidence are you talking about? I am shocked. I am saying that I have lived in Madrid all my life (and now in the middle of a pandemic where I can't even leave my city!), and apparently that other user lives in France! What else do you need? Unfortunately I suspect I have been blocked for my ideas or my latest comments without any evidence. This is outrageousPedrote112 (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you missed it, but I will say again, "Your first contributions were related to the subject 193.52.24.13 was blocked for." One of them reversed the reversion of 193's edits. If you found that edit or the subject of rent control by chance, you are the unluckiest human on this planet. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE. My first contribution dates 06 Jul 2016! As I said, I am not a regular wikipedia user, and most of my contribiutions are in the Wikipedia in Spanish! Pedrote112 (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to your Contribution history. Edits on the Spanish Wikipedia are not relevant, as blocks on one version don't apply on others. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your first contribution to the English Wikipedia was yesterday 23:03 UTC, which is 00:03 Madrid time. May I please also note that you made other edits at 07:13 (old) Madrid time, though it is of course up to you when you want to sleep.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What? Honestly, this is ridiculous. I hope someone with common sense will reverse this. My contributions: [1], my IP: 83.33.129.185. Thanks Pedrote112 (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that the Spanish Wikipedia is a completely separate project from the English Wikipedia, except for the ability to use a single account for all versions? We are not concerned with your edits to the Spanish Wikipedia and as far as we are concerned your first edit is the one indicated on your local contribution history here. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. The whole thing is ridiculous, unfair, sad and depressing. You are banning me for a personal belief that I neither understand nor deserve my effort anymore. As I said, I hope someone with common sense will reverse this. My contributions: [2], my IP: 83.33.129.185. Thanks Pedrote112 (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked, not banned. (the words have different meanings here) You are blocked based on evidence based conclusions, not personal beliefs- and you still haven't explained why our conclusions are incorrect. Either you are the unluckiest person on this planet, or the reason for the block is correct. 331dot (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The one who has to consistently explain why I am blocked is you. I am blocked based on a personal belief. Your arguments are based on chance. Either you have an argument that is not based on chance, or the reason for the block is incorrect.Pedrote112 (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for your block is that you started editing hours after the IP was blocked, repeating these edits, and your first three edits were on a noticeboard, which new users are highly unlikely to find. In addition, you have a strange edit pattern for someone who is located in Spain. You need to convincingly explain to the second reviewing admin how this happened. I have a PhD in math and physics, and I know what the probability that these edits were random is. Also, insisting that you were blocked for personal beliefs, is not going to help you.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the block is a personal belief. My first edition dates 06 Jul 2016. I live in Madrid not in France. You can have a PhD in anything you want. I have another one. Either you have an argument that is not based on chance, or the reason for the block is incorrect.Pedrote112 (talk) 10:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit to this version of Wikipedia was March 27th. We don't care about the Spanish Wikipedia so please stop bringing it up. If you aren't going to tell us how you came to find the noticeboard that you did or remove the specific edit you did, there is nothing more for us to say. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I have anything more to add. I reiterate. I hope some Wikipedia administrator with common sense will reverse this. My contributions: [3], my IP: 83.33.129.185. Thank you.Pedrote112 (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has policies against BOTH WP:SOCK and WP:MEATPUPPET.

How did you just appear on the English Wikipedia and WERE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE IP WAS BLOCKED? Your fifth edit was to user Ymblanter's talk page complaining about the block on the IP. [4] I also find it beyond any reasonable probablity that you would find an interest in the same subject, at the same Noticeboard discussion, and know that the IP was blocked - which isn't noticeable or discoverable from either of the Rent Control articles, or the discussion board. (disclosure: I am NOT an admin.) ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 18:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Aren't you an administrator? I don't understand what interest you have in me explaining my tastes and I don't understand why I have to explain my interests to you. I am not a regular content creator but I visit Wikipedia often to read whatever articles in English, Spanish, Catalan and other languages I want, thanks. My account dates 2016. I'm interested in economics, football, politics and many other topics. I am interested in the topic of that debate. May I? And I have been following this discussion with interest for a week now. Can I? As I had an opinion I wanted to express, I expressed it. May I? If I knew that the IP is blocked it is simply because in the discussion the IP said that another user wanted to block it and attached the link!! [5]. As I found it outrageous, I said so, and expressed my opinion in the free encyclopaedia. Can I or is the right reserved for certain users? Now you can continue to accuse me for your personal belief. It's up to you. I just hope that some administrator who applies common sense will reverse this senseless blocking, which is unfair, sad and ridiculous (and which I hope will not be ideologically motivated). I hope that my account will be returned to me and that whoever blocked me will apologise.Pedrote112 (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention in the Noticeboard discussion of the IP being blocked is when YOU mentioned it. If you "have been following this discussion with interest for a week now." then you'd know who I am, as I had commented in that discussion.

As I stated above, MeatPuppettry (recruiting a friend of yours to edit/argue for your position) is also disallowed in Wikipedia. So if you are editing for your friend the IP who told you about this situation, that would fall under the same category. WP:MEATPUPPET "...recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE. Here is the exact moment in the discussion where the IP mentions it : For your information: an active user who acts as a custodian of these articles seems to want to silence me in order to prevent the false claim from being deleted and the article from being labelled as a Template:POV. The thread is here: [38]193.52.24.13 ---- (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I am tired of all this. Good night. Pedrote112 (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2021 (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).

Pedrote112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

For some reason (maybe my opinions), I have been taken by an IP that is not mine and I have been blocked. I just edited my own IP user talk to show evidence that this is my IP. I ask you to reconsider this case again. [6] Pedrote112 (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting to recover my account. I would greatly appreciate it if some administrator could take the time to review my case carefully, find out what is going on, and make an informed decision. I am surprised that with impunity, for giving my opinion in a civilised manner, I have been blocked and I wonder if this happens often on Wikipedia. It really is a problem.. Many thanks. Pedrote112 (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many blocking cases are seriously reviewed here. According to this data [7], we average only 0.002% of unblocks per day. If the system were working properly, this would imply that 99.998% of the blocks are correct, which is highly unlikely. I think that Wikipedia does indeed have a serious problem. I hope that my block is just a mistake by some (non-ideologically motivated) administrator, although I have my doubts. Indeed, it seems that Wikipedia has a problem of lack of administrators [8], which would explain the impossibility of reviewing each case conveniently. This surely explains why there are indiscriminate blocks and why cases are hardly properly analysed.Pedrote112 (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In order to make a convincing unblock request, you're going to need to explain how you came to make your first half dozen edits on English Wikipedia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:25, 12 April 2021 (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.

Administrators are volunteers, just like every other editor, doing what they can do when they have time to do it. You will need to be patient. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2021 (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).

Pedrote112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Replying to Rosguill. I have already explained it above on this page. I made my edits because I am in the free encyclopaedia and I have the right to participate wherever I want. Now, if you want, you can keep appealing to your religious and personal beliefs to keep me silenced.Pedrote112 (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is one of the worst appeals I've seen in a long time. This is a private website, you don't have any inherent "right" to participate. I suggest you review WP:GAB if you plan on making any further appeals. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:10, 14 April 2021 (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 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).

Pedrote112 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In response to Jezebel's Ponyo. I have explained everything above in this thread (read and study the case, your response is uninformed). My account has been blocked for a personal belief, without any proof. The edits previous to the moment I was blocked for are legitimate and respectful. If what you want is for me to apologize, or say that my edits were illegitimate, or that I am that other IP living in another country, or explain why I like economics and decided to edit on Rent control's talk page... if that's what you want, I won't do it, because neither am I the other IP, nor have I done anything wrong, nor are my contributions bad. In fact, if you study the case, what happened is that an ideologically biased user reported me to remove me from the debate where the neutrality of a page is still being discussed [11]. Pedrote112 (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm afraid that your persistent claim that you are not related to the edits submitted by 193.52.24.13 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is unconvincing, and for that reason, I am declining this unblock request and will be revoking your talk page access. Mz7 (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2021 (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.