User talk:RepordRider

RepordRider, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi RepordRider! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Backward Regions Grant Fund may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

of Panchayati Raj, Government of India)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre">. (Retrieved 02-11-20</span></ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for inappropriate use of multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:54, 28 October 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

The reason for which I'm blocked is false. What "other accounts" are you talking about? I have just as much of a right to use Wikipedia as you do, "Ponyo", regardless of your status. Please describe and provide proof of your accusation. Otherwise, unblock me immediately. Your dismissive attitude and failure to provide any explanation or any communication whatsoever violates the community spirit of Wikipedia. You are probably trying your best, but if you conduct yourself again in a manner that violates the community spirit of Wikipedia, I will file an official complaint and lobby to have your Administrator status revoked. RepordRider (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:20, 31 October 2014 (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.

Dear User:Jpgordon, Thank you for your response. I respect your decision but disagree with the assumptions you have made. The Wikipedia pillars encourage open and honest discussions. In keeping with that spirit, I offer you the following: #1: I live in a house with 5 roommates, all of whom have a computer. Please provide evidence that I (me, personally: ME) am operating more than one Wikipedia account. Please also direct me to the Wikipedia policy that prohibits different people who use the same internet connection from having their own Wikipedia accounts. Would you suggest that I talk to my roommates and tell then to not use Wikipedia? Because we all live in the same house, I suppose our IP address is the same. #2: Your notations of your decision are "Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts." Again, operating in the spirit of open and honest discussion, I find that your notation is cryptic and difficult to understand. I believe that a more community-based approach would have been to provide a more fuller explanation of what that means. And again, honestly, I think your notation was not in the spirit of Wikipedia's pillars; respectfully, I found it to be short and somewhat rude. #3: My apologies to Ponyo - I take back my threat to User:Ponyo and won't repeat it again; can anything be done to resolve this? Thank you both for your service. RepordRider (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make another unblock request, but I don't have to provide any evidence other than pointing out that checkuser evidence is quite clear regarding the abuse of multiple accounts. I double checked Ponyo's findings, and I'm a bit surprised your block is temporary rather than permanent. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you created at least one new sockpuppet account account since your block, and as you continue to deny your abuse of multiple accounts that is clear based on Checkuser and behavioural evidence, I have extended your block to indefinite as I don't believe a finite block period will prevent further disruption. You will need to provide a complete list of your alternative accounts and agree to stick to a single account moving forward if you would like an unblock to be considered.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Ponyo: I have been a good contributor to Wikipedia for over a year. I'm working on a project related to biological sciences. I got behind so I asked my roommates to create accounts and help. If you had simply accused a couple new accounts being created from the same IP address, it would have been no issue. But no. Instead, you and jogordon kept saying "you"; insisting that the absolute truth was that I personally was creating new accounts in some elaborate attempt to disrupt and deceive Wikipedia; and saying that your evidence (which both of you refuse to show) comes from a mystery computer program "Check user" that most of us editors have never heard of as "confirming" as absolute truth your accusations. Your accusations are complete and total lies.

It's clear from behavioral evidence that your extension of the block is caused by your dislike of me calling you out for your violation of the community spirit of Wikipedia and my promise to take enforcement action if your behavior continued.

I issued you a warning to be respectful and behave within the community spirit. You have not. Therefore, because:

(a) you have failed to communicate with me in a respectful manner which violates the community spirit of Wikipedia, (b) you have abused the administrative privileges afforded to your account by executing a punishment as a retaliation against a challenge to your conduct, and (c) Making false claims based on "proof" that you refuse to show,

I will take action to have your Administrator account status revoked. If you take any action that bans my account or IP address from filing complaints or communicating with such administrators who deal with such matters, I will add that to the list of violations above and then just drive to a coffee shop, create a new account, make clear the connection between the new account and my current account (and the reason why making the new account was necessary), and begin escalating the issue up the chain of command.

I will not be bullied. RepordRider (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]