User talk:Josh.172

Welcome!

Hello, Josh.172, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing 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! Giant Snowman 18:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Proposed deletion of Naanol Tesfaye

The article Naanol Tesfaye has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL

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. Giant Snowman 18:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Naanol Tesfaye for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Naanol Tesfaye 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/Naanol Tesfaye until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Giant Snowman 20:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shimelis Bekkele, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

- TNT^❤ 14:32, 24 February 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).

Josh.172 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please, I ask for a second chance, I will not violate anything, I am truly asking for a second chance in Wikipedia.

Decline reason:

You already had a second chance. And a third. You've shown you can't be trusted. Your only hope now is WP:SO which requires six months with zero edits, along with a clear explanation, in six months time, why you can be trusted to stop violating WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 19:19, 11 March 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.

You can consider WP:Standard offer. Best wishes. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As is said above.

WP:sockpuppetry is a serious matter. My advice would be to list all other accounts you have edited under.
Abstain from editing for six months.
After six months request the WP:standard offer. At that time you will need to address any other issues I might not be aware of.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Josh.172 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please - I was told to ask unblock on this account. - former: I have not created an account for months now, all my edits are patrolling and helping the community - Comment: please view my contribs. I have even closed 2 AfDs and helped with many, I have also created and edited many articles. Please do not let something I did 2-3 months ago give me a block today - I was hoping to edit this moring but I see I know have a block. I have already haved and served a 1 month block, why am I getting another 6 months when I have done 270 edits in only 3 days as a very active wikipedian and helped a lot?

Decline reason:

A new CheckUser has determined you have been block evading as recently as a few days ago. You will need to wait six months, and then the community will need to review your unblock at AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 22 April 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.

comments on accUser:ATZNA

You had better use Josh.172 to edit. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We blocked not only your accounts or IP but also your person. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to request unblock from your original account, *not* create new accounts while that one is blocked. I have revoked talk page access for this account. User:Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You "have not created an account for months now"? You created User:ATZNA just days ago, and were socking with it until it was blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee:Yes I have not created more socks - After I was blocked a few months ago I stopped editing in Wikipedia. I came back a few days ago with User:ATZNA as my main, and now I'm blocked but I have not done anything rong and I have helped tons with AfDs, reviewing, fixing etcetera... view my User:ATZNA contribs if you'd like. Josh.172 (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new account while your old one is still blocked *is* doing something wrong. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee:Please - Comment: please view my contribs.- I have helped so much and I am very sorry for my sock creations 2 months ago, I had a clean start with User:ATZNA and I got blocked only because of my previous ban. I have only the best intentions to create and help in Wikipedia and I have served a 2 month ban. Could I please now get my unblock so I can continue edit activ as I've did here view my contribs. Thank you. Josh.172 (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did *not* have a clean start with User:ATZNA, as a clean start is *not allowed* while you are under existing sanctions. User:ATZNA was a prohibited sock account. I suggest the WP:Standard Offer is your best chance now. If you continue to refuse to listen to what you are being told, you are going to lose access to this talk page too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: - I served 2 months, WP:Standard Offer says 6 moths - is it not possible for me to get an unblock now? you can view my contribs. on my ATZNA account, all edits are very much for the community and I have done 270 edits in 3 days, and plan on editing much on my free time. I feel I have been blocked for 2 months which is enough. - May you let me edit on my User:ATZNA - The reason why I created a new account as a fresh start is because this account block says it will not expire. Josh.172 (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you are still refusing to listen, I have revoked your talk page access. The admin who reviews your unblock request can reinstate it if they think it is wise. Failing that, contact WP:UTRS after a minimum of six months and ask them to reinstate your talk page access so you can make a WP:Standard Offer request. And that's six months from your last edit with User:ATZNA - I will tell you for one final time that you have *not* served a 2-month block, as you have been socking with User:ATZNA as recently as just days ago. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]