Dacheatcode
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Chicken fingers. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
edit
Hello, Dacheatcode. 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)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
December 2016
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Dacheatcode (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead Dacheatcode (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not a vaild unblock request; you've simply copied a portion of WP:GAB to the request. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
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.
- You can't overwrite a declined request, you need to post a new one.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 00:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Dacheatcode (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead. first reason for blocking was because i called someone john podesta and he was really mad about that, can't understand why since he originally made a personal attack on me. only other instance of "vandalism" stemmed from edits made 7 years ago that was reverted by myself anyway. indefinite block here is out of place Dacheatcode (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You're blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia. In your next unblock request, you might like to address this reason. PhilKnight (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
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.
Dacheatcode (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
ive made plenty of contributory edits to wikipedia, my recent attempts to create plausible redirects to chicken nuggets are based off of real world slang as well as documented memes. according to the page that talked about my banning, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Inappropriate_Redirects_from_User%3ADacheatcode) i was banned for vandalism. however, the only vandalism was for an article i edited 7 years ago that i reverted myself. my redirects were called "silly" but not "vandalism." I was also accused of being NOTHERE or whatever because im a 4channer apparently? while i did have an edit war with a user (many editors do) i stopped without any moderator interaction. i also stopped making redirect pages without proper citation. Dacheatcode (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I went looking for these useful edits you've made and wasn't able to find any. And while it does look like you stopped creating redirects, your following edit wasn't any better. I'm certainly not saying you can't ever be unblocked, but I am saying this particular unblock request is entirely unconvincing. You need to convince us you've learned your lesson and will contribute entirely productively from here on out, and this request completely fails to convince me. Yamla (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
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.
Dacheatcode (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
was blocked for getting in a flame war with some admin years ago iirc - probably doesnt need to be a permaban for a first-time offense from years ago. Dacheatcode (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This request also fails to be convincing. I am declining it- and you will likely get only one more chance before you lose access to this page too. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
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.
Dacheatcode (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The ban was given over 4 years ago. It was for getting into a flame war/edit war with someone - something that only happened once. I'm not here to continue to start flame wars with people. I think it would be weird to continue to permaban me over a first-time offense that i can't even remember the specifics of. The punishment doesn't match the offense in this case. All I can say is that I'm not going to get into flame/edit wars with people and will try to be productive - i dont use wikipedia often but there are some times where I see misinformation or people using the platform as a way to advertise their brand that I like to edit out as I have done in the past. not sure how else i can make this sound more convincing but ultimately i don't know what else to say - if i go back and vandalize a page i'd probably just get permabanned for real and for a more understandable reason than how i am now. Again i feel like enough time has passed and i'm not going to be edit warring or trying to "not build an encyclopedia" from now on or probably won't even be editing much at all. I understand that what was done in the past is not in line with how wikipedia wants its users to behave. Dacheatcode (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
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.