User talk:RhodesAvenue

Archive-- permalink to removed discussions and block notices.

Indefinite block for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.

As per the above, creating User:Car1990 to continue editing is the final straw. Any new articles that you create with additional accounts will be immediately deleted and any edits you make will be reverted, regardless of their content. The only way you will be able to edit Wikipedia without this happening will be to appeal your block on this account and explain why you have consistently resorted to sockpuppetry when blocked. Number 5 7 23:24, 31 January 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I often update football season articles on a weekly basis which include teams from the La Liga, 2 Bundesliga for an example. i believe that unblocking this account i would therefore be able to contribute to wikipedia by updating these article on an weekly basis. i have therefore learnt by mistakes and therefore i have decided to only use this account in the future. i hope to be unblocked so i can continue my good work for wikipedia. (talk)

Decline reason:

Not good enough, I'm afraid. You have not addressed the multiple issues with your editing, and don't appear to understand why evading your block is not permitted. I'm not seeing any advantage to Wikipedia in lifting the block, and plenty of good reasons to keep it in place. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:08, 1 February 2018 (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.

This fails to address the reason why you were blocked prior to starting using sockpuppets. Will you stop creating articles with all the issues that you have been repeatedly asked to resolve? Number 5 7 11:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop using other sockpuppets and there will also try to fix the other articles which i have been asked to fix using this account. i therefore hope to be unblocked so that i am able to fix these issues. (talk)}}

Unblocking

Dear other Wikipedia editors, it would be so grateful if were to unblock my Rhodes Avenue account so that i will be able to contribute to Wikipedia by updating football season articles on a weekly basis. I will have therefore learnt from my mistakes in the past, so I will hopefully contribute to better articles in the future. I have therefore decided to delete my other accounts so that I can concentrate on only using this account. RhodesAvenue (talk) RhodesAvenue (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't decide to delete them. They were blocked because they were sockpuppets. Number 5 7 11:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will therefore decided to use only this account in the future to either update articles or to create new arcticles by only using this account. (talk)

It's too late to stop doing what you should not have done. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry destroys the trust of the community. We cannot trust you to now go forward as if nothing had happened. At some point the door may reopen for you to gain our trust.

Please list all user accounts you have used as a first step. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RhodesAvenue Car1990 Biglad1990

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).

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

Request reason:

I hopefully will be unblocked in the future so that i am able to update particular football articles on a weekly basis which will enable me to update the match results on these articles.I will stop using sockpuppet accounts and therefore concentrate on only using my RhodesAvnue account to update articles in the future.

Decline reason:

You've refused to accurately disclose all your sockpuppet accounts. You've falsely claimed to have deleted your other accounts when in fact this was forced upon you. You haven't explained why you decided to destroy the community's trust in you by setting up these accounts in the first place. No, it would be totally inappropriate to unblock you at this time. Your best chance is to refrain from all edits for at least six months and then apply under WP:SO. To be very, very clear, this means zero edits. Not "zero edits with this account", zero edits in total. Yamla (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I strongly agrre with the issues that i have been discused. i hope to be unblocked from this account so i am to edit football results on a weekly basis.I also hope to ask for help when it comes to putting in a refernce for a particluar article. I have learnt not to create sockpuppet accounts and tend not to create anymore in the near future. I have therefore asked if anyone else would be interested in putting in match results on the acticles which i have been editing while i am currently blocked.It would be much appreciated

Decline reason:

You still do not recognize the reason for your block. You were asked to list the account you had used, yet failed to do so. Also, asking editors to make edits for you via proxy while blocked is highly frowned on. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2018 (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.

Asking that others edit on your behalf while you are blocked, is a direct violation of WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. I'm disappointed; you explicitly claim to understand our policy on sockpuppets. As your unblock requests are going nowhere, I'm revoking talk page access. Another admin will be along shortly to review your block. If they decline your unblock request, you are free to request an unblock in six months, assuming you make zero edits in the meanwhile. You'll need to use WP:UTRS at that time. --Yamla (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User is now using sockpuppets to appeal: [1]. Talkpage access removed for all known socks. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20549 was submitted on Feb 06, 2018 17:17:13. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding block

@Number 57: Unfortunately it seems likely that RhodesAvenue has created additional sock puppets to avoid the block. This includes Football 258 (talk · contribs) (interaction utility) and Chesterfieldlad (talk · contribs). I also suspect the IP's 86.152.248.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (interaction utility) and 31.52.21.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (interaction utility) are RhodesAvenue as well (also, both IP's are from Chesterfield, which was previously mentioned by one of the socks). S.A. Julio (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Chesterfieldlad and Football 258 and reverted all their edits/deleted all their new articles. The IPs are probably him too, but perhaps worth asking someone like Bbb23 if a checkuser can be done. Number 5 7 15:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: RhodesAvenue and all the already-blocked suspected socks are

Confirmed. I found no other accounts.

No comment with respect to IP address(es). Given the number of accounts, it would be appreciated if you would open an SPI. After you do, I can confirm everything for the record at the SPI (please ping me if you create a case). Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Alright, thanks again. Now it seems as though RhodesAvenue has created another sock, Apple2662 (talk · contribs) (interaction utility). S.A. Julio (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Going through and reverting all contributions from that block-evading sockpuppet. --Yamla (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The account Derbyshire1112 (talk · contribs) seems to be the latest sock they've created. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now blocked. RhodesAvenue: The more socks you create, the less likely it is that you'll ever be unblocked. Take the advice above and give it a rest for at least six months and then come back. At the moment you're almost certainly heading for a site ban and never being allowed to edit again. Number 5 7 18:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They've most likely continued with the account Coffee1990 (talk · contribs), should an SPI be opened at this point? S.A. Julio (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, tagged, and reverted. The WP:CBAN procedures are likely to change in the near future. This user will almost certainly be banned once that happens, unless they immediately stop with the violations of WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. --Yamla (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it continues with Bigboy1112 (talk · contribs). S.A. Julio (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and all edits reverted. Seriously mate, give up – you're just wasting your own time now. Number 5 7 23:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now they've likely created the account Big1112 (talk · contribs). S.A. Julio (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, reverted. --Yamla (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are persistent, Football1112 (talk · contribs) seems likely to be the newest sock. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The newest sock is probably Newbold 07 (talk · contribs). It seems unlikely they will stop creating the sock puppets, should further action be taken? S.A. Julio (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New sock is RhodesAvenue1 (talk · contribs). S.A. Julio (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked and reverted, looks like. Wikipedia's policies are about to change, at which point this user will be WP:CBAN'ed. --Yamla (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20606 was submitted on Feb 12, 2018 22:43:45. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20610 was submitted on Feb 13, 2018 10:36:37. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20654 was submitted on Feb 18, 2018 09:10:50. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20826 was submitted on Mar 10, 2018 11:48:27. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent socks

I've just realised that CFC1990 (talk · contribs) is a RhodesAvenue sock (creating season articles with an identical sentence formula in the introduction), so have indef blocked them too. Number 5 7 23:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2017 FK Trakai season for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 FK Trakai season is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 FK Trakai season until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HawkAussie (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2013–14 FC Wohlen season for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2013–14 FC Wohlen season is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 FC Wohlen season until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HawkAussie (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2013–14 SC Eendracht Aalst season for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2013–14 SC Eendracht Aalst season is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 SC Eendracht Aalst season until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HawkAussie (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2017–18 PFC Beroe Stara Zagora season

The article 2017–18 PFC Beroe Stara Zagora season has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HawkAussie (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:2015–16 AEK Larnaca F.C. season

Hello, RhodesAvenue. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "2015–16 AEK Larnaca F.C. season".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.