User talk:Rhghes2137

Bishop Ahr HS edits[edit]

Your recent edits to the article for [[Bishop George Ahr High School] removed sourced content and added material regarding the school's mission statement that is deprecated per Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. As such your edits have been reverted. Please review the relevant Wikipedia policies and feel free to contact me on my talk page with any questions. Alansohn (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to the mission statement, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines, which describes why Wikipedia policy is to exclude them as largely promotional in nature, and the school's version is an excellent example of this issue. Removal of relevant sourced content will be treated as vandalism. I'm not sure what "an unauthorized usage of the school's information policy" means, but school policy has no relevance here. These changes will be reverted again. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latest ANI notice[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't contribute any more edits like this or this. It is disruptive to the work of the encyclopaedia and you will be blocked if this continues. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Based on the identical spelling mistake made in this edit by another editor and this edit by you I can only conclude that you are operating two accounts as sockpuppets. I am therefore blocking both accounts; you may appeal via the process given in the notice below. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

Rhghes2137 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I assure you that I was not involved in any sock puppetry. Jcullinan and Jal529 simply share my viewpoints regarding Bishop George Ahr High School's page. When Jcullinan explained his/her reasons for removing specific content, I agreed. Consequently, when I went to remove the content again, I copied some of his/her explanation because I felt his/her argument was valid. Also, I have reviewed both of the edits in which a "spelling mistake" was supposedly found. I could not find such a mistake, so could you please point out the error you are referring to? Rhghes2137 (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:53, 18 October 2012 (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 would like to request more of an explanation. I do not see how I am a "verified abuser of multiple accounts." While I do understand how it might appear that way, I do NOT understand how such an accusation has been proven. Rhghes2137 (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling mistake was in the edit summary, not the edit itself. You typed "rule" when you meant "role" in all three edit summaries, even when the rest of those summaries were different. In other words the mistake can't be a copy-paste error but is much more likely a characteristic, signature spelling error committed by one individual. Even the wording of your unblock requests is very similar. Please don't insult our intelligence any further! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, the mistake was a copy-paste error. I was not, in any way, insulting you intelligence, and I apologize if you misunderstood me. I know for a fact that you are simply doing your job by trying to remove all forms of sock puppetry, but in this case, you are mistaken. I don't know if there is a way for me to prove it to you, but if there is, I would certainly like to do so. Rhghes2137 (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2012 (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).

Rhghes2137 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

False accusation. No administrator has proof of my being a sock puppet; they are making assumptions based on limited information. Rhghes2137 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Two people can have the same opinion, yes, but the chances of both just happening to use identical edit summaries (long ones, and with the same spelling error) is almost nil. As for "I copied it because I thought it was good", well, you have admitted that you cannot see the spelling error that you are telling us was made by someone else, which would be unlikely if you are two different people. And as both accounts (along with a number of others) are using the same IP address, as verified by CheckUser, the odds just don't stack up in your favour. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2012 (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.

Reviewing admin: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jcullinan. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:59, 19 October 2012 (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).

Rhghes2137 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Administrators still refuse to provide legitimate proof for my being a sock puppet. All of their explanations say things such as "much more likely" and "would be unlikely" and "the odds don't stack up in your favour." Such wording suggests that they are acting on behalf of simple assumptions, and that certainly does NOT justify anything. I will continue to petition for my cause indefinitely. Rhghes2137 (talk) 3:02 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Oh, please stop lying. I'm the checkuser who ran the confirmation check, and you've been editing with these accounts from the same computer sometimes within seconds of each other. Further abuse of your talk page for frivolous unblock requests will simply lead to your privilege to edit it being revoked. — Coren ^(talk) 02:04, 20 October 2012 (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.

Statement[edit]

I have been wrongfully accused of being a "sock puppet." As a result, I have been blocked. Administrators have done nothing to even attempt to see my side of this situation. I would like any users who happen to come across my talk page to know that I am not a liar and my efforts to improve Wikipedia have been earnest. That's all I have to say. Rhghes2137 (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]