User talk:Rrindie126

Hello Rrindie126, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Blooded Edge ^Sign/_Talk 18:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

October 2008

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Dominic Luciano. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. The author of the page has requested that it be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Luciano. MuZemike (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Quixotic92 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Alexius08 (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Quixotic92. Thank you. MuZemike (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other contributors, as you did with this edit to User talk:MuZemike. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for inappropriate use of multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Alison ^❤ 01:05, 7 October 2008 (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).

Rrindie126 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

False accusations with no non-trivial 3rd party evidence proving sockpuppetry along with irrational circumstances have been carried out. I have already done necessary research that will easily prove that Wikipedia falsely accuses people of sockpuppetry just because they object to moderator and admin viewpoints, and I believe I am a victim of this slander.

Decline reason:

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Quixotic92 you have been proven to be using multiple accounts against policy. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:40, 8 October 2008 (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.

But you haven't really objected to moderator and admin viewpoints in any significant way. All you've done is disrupt a single deletion discussion. Who would bother to slander you? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok a couple things here:

1. I disrupted nothing. The definition of disruption in Wikipedia terms is "Anything that does not abide to the beliefs of the administrators (See also: Objection to Deletion)".

2. I have objected to mod and admin viewpoints because I OPPOSED THE DELETION. All of you DIDN'T. Voting to keep and delete are complete polar opposites, are they not?

3. You and your admins would bother. Please do not take that offensively, but I say that because it looks as if you were the one who nailed down the ban, and it also seems you have not read the logs and discussions. Also I have LEGITIMATE 3RD PARTY PROOF that even Wikipedia's founders have slandered and wrongfully blocked people.

So all I'm trying to really do is help you guys. I am getting ready to kick off a Wikipedia "reform" campaign tomorrow. I was asked to actually lecture a college class on the downside and corruption of Wikipedia, and I intend to do it. Now I can go easy, or I can play hardball and probably get Wikipedia blocked by my college, even though blocking in a college institution is illegal.

And don't come back and tell me that's an attack. If you wanna see an attack, I can point you to a page where an admin attacked ME.

I have done absolutely nothing wrong so thanks for the unblock. --Rrindie126 (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see the video of the class you're lecturing. If you put it on youtube, I hope you'll send me a link. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher, don't feed the fire. He doesn't get that the checkuser is not able to be overturned. He's blocked as he should be. Undead Warrior (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]