User talk:Ribbesford

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Ribbesford House 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 ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:11, 29 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am writing to request that I am unblocked from editing the Wikipedia article Ribbesford House. The block results from me being ignorant of Wikipedia guidelines. The edit warring that I took part in was done out of ignorance on my part – I didn’t know that the 3-edit rule existed. I thought that editing attrition was a part of Wikipedia. I was wrong to think this. I (inappropriately) engaged in an edit war because I did not know that there was an arbitration process to settle disputes. Furthermore, it was alleged on @Ponyo talk page that I am being sued by the owner of Ribbesford House, Samuel Leeds Limited. This is untrue. I never had any business dealings with and am not involved in any legal action with Samuel Leeds Limited. I have never shared a link to the Ribbesford House page on Facebook. The court cases that were referenced (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/09/property-investor-samuel-leeds-accused-of-shutting-down-criticism-over-10000-courses) are widely known about and will be national news in the UK when they begin early next year. Finally, I would like to be unblocked so that I can positively contribute the page and wider Wikipedia. I will not edit the Ribbesford House article on a regular basis. I have purchased two out of copyright photos that I intend to upload to the site. I would also like to sort duplicate and poor referencing at the bottom of the article. I know that @Ponyo watches the page so I will not get away with any aggressive editing in the future. Ribbesford (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Decline reason:

Since KeepingitTrue was also blocked from the article, I don't think it would be fair to him to unblock just. Keep using the talk page and maybe you can work it out! You can work it out! — Daniel Case (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2022 (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 now modified your block to encompass the entire website due to your evasion of this block as well as your attempts to dox editors. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ponyo:

I am sorry for all the inconvenience that I have caused. I know it isn't an excuse, but it has been ignorance, not malice that has let me down. Rather than put them on a talk page, I have sent an email to Wikipedia with my allegations of paid editing. I have noticed that when you have blocked other people you talk about the standard offer, is that something I should be working towards?

Kind regards,

Ribbesford (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

The standard offer is available for editors looking for a path back to editing after being blocked, so yes, it does apply to you. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]