User talk:Finball30

June 2018

Information icon Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Carl Hiaasen have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Information icon Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Sulla— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Change.org. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism.
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 ~~~~}}.  -- ferret (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block Appeal

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).

Finball30 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like another chance on this account. I have been using alt accounts to evade the block on this account and if you unblock me, I will patrol the recent changes page like I did with my most recent account Hyperius1255. Finball30 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, there has been way too much disruption from your accounts to allow an unblock at this time. —DoRD (talk)​ 13:12, 15 February 2019 (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.

other accounts?

What other accounts? Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When will I be ready for block deletion? @Dlohcierekim:

Response

I used sockpuppets for evasion, such as TNT999

You said accounts; please list any and all such accounts. 331dot (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go to this accounts sockpuppet

Here is my sockpuppet list Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finball30/Archive

Block Appeal- Number 2

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).

Finball30 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Check my contributions on my latest sockpuppet, Hyperius1255, all my contributions on that account were in good faith and no vandalism was committed from that account. I have been blocked on this main account for about half a year now and would like a second chance to become a good editor of Wikipedia. I was a recent changes patroller on Hyperius1255 and have even beaten User:Cluebot NG. If you unblock me, there will be one more editor reverting vandalism on the wiki. I am sorry I committed vandalism from my old sockpuppets and this account. Please, may I have one more chance on Wikipedia. Thank you. Finball30 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're kidding, right? I don't find this very funny. You were violating WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK just two weeks ago. You've clearly demonstrated you can't be trusted. Your best option is to wait six months from your last unblock request (as of today, that's six months from today) then apply under WP:SO. At that point, you'll need a substantially more convincing unblock request, one which addresses your deliberate violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE as well as your vandalism. And stop claiming good faith. Evading your block is a clear example of bad faith. Yamla (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2019 (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 accepted the request.

Finball30 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have realized that using sockpuppets to evade my block was wrong and that I should not have done that. I promise to never evade, vandalize, or sockpuppet ever again as this is wrong and I would like another chance. Finball30 (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am going to give you a second chance. Please make good use of it. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What positive contributions can we expect to see from you, if we choose to unblock you? All I see are a bunch of accounts blocked for vandalism. ST47 (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: I will patrol the recent changes for vandalism

You will still need to list any and all accounts you have used; linking to the SPI is not sufficient, as you may have ones that have not been detected. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: All the accounts that I have used were found in the SPI

For what it's worth, I do not see any evidence of recent sockpuppetry on this account. SQLQuery me! 00:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: @ST47: Where can I check the discussion for my unblock?

FYI, if you don't sign your comment when you make a ping, the users in question won't get a notification. I'll help you out this time, @331dot and ST47:. SQLQuery me! 02:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is occurring here. Is there anything else you want to do aside from RC patrol for vandalism? 331dot (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Find hoaxes and tag them for deletion Finball30 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: This one is quite a while ago. Based on this account's contributions, I worked this as an AIV report, not as something I came across in my own editing. I had no involvement as far as the later SPI work goes, so cannot really offer an opinion on the user's behaviors. In a general sense however, I do support letting people have a second chance. -- ferret (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I blocked the editor indefinitely because of their history and because of their recent editing. I misread the block log; I thought you had unblocked them in 2018. In any event, you might want to reconsider your unblock. I have just been reverting their edits at several articles where they had speedy tagged articles with absurd tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Finball30, you might mean well, I'm not sure, but most if not all of your speedy deletion tags make no sense on their face and you continuing to add them is disruptive to Wikipedia. If your poor judgement in this area continues, you will be blocked again, if not by me, then by someone else. 331dot (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I am sorry about that, I thought they were eligible for deletion Finball30 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason you seem to be focused on hoaxes. What is it about Halifax Lake that caused you to think it was a hoax or made up? Did you check the sources given? One source given was a Canadian government website. Did you think that the Canadian government was making up the existence of the lake? 331dot (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to gang up on you, I'm trying to understand your thinking so we can help you understand what it is you are doing wrong. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: No, I just thought that Halifax Lake was not important so it shouldn't be here. Finball30 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think an article subject is "not important", that is different than thinking it is a hoax or made up. In the case of a lake, most geographic features like lakes are notable according to the notability guidelines for geographic features. In this case, though, you might actually be able to make a case that Halifax Lake does not meet the notability criteria, as the article did little more than state the lake exists. However, you would need to do that in a Articles for Deletion discussion, not using speedy deletion criteria that don't apply. If you are using a speedy deletion tag, you must be certain that the one you want to use actually applies. Check the article carefully and look at the sources. I don't want to block you for misusing speedy deletion tags, but if it continues I will have no choice but to do so in order to protect Wikipedia. Please proceed very carefully, and perhaps look at some other tasks that may need to be done that are less of a judgement call. 331dot (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Information icon Hello, I'm Cyphoidbomb. I noticed that you recently removed content from Abby Hatcher without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Diff: [1] Whatever your reasons are for removing this content, please use edit summaries to explain them, and if you find yourself removing this content often, please open a discussion and seek consensus for the change you prefer. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block Appeal

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).

Finball30 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry about the disruptive A3 templates, I will stop, If unblocking now is not an option, could I not be hit with a perma-block or have sanctions on my account saying no more speedy deletion templates?

Decline reason:

Gandesbergen was not "empty" when you tagged it for A3. That was obvious. There is no speedy category for municipalities. You should have learned that by now; the indefinite block is justified. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2019 (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.

@Drmies Is this a permanent ban from Wikipedia? Finball30 (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but how many times have you been blocked? Have you never considered actually reading the policy under which you were blocked? Fourth paragraph from the top. And after that, please look up WP:CIR, which should be added to your log if it's not already in there. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked

I have indefinitely blocked you because you persist in tagging articles as A3 when that tag clearly does not apply. You've had warnings and explanations, but either you wilfully ignore them or you are not competent to understand them. The most recent example is again a place: Gandesbergen. In the now-deleted article Zedleta, you did something odder. The article was properly tagged as A7. You reverted the tag and then multi-tagged it as A7 and A3. It was not an A3. I deleted it as an A7.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23, Could I be unblocked but with a sanction saying no more A3? I do not understand what it means, I am extremely confused Finball30 (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC) @Bbb23, Also, because A3 is so unclear and almost never used, it should be removed from Wikipedia. Finball30 (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then don't edit here if these simple things confuse you. Did you actually read the template that your action placed on the article? And don't go around telling us what is and isn't used on Wikpedia; you don't know. It is certainly not unclear. Bbb, I'm all for revoking talk page access; these questions are just a timesink. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, Is this a permanent ban forever with no chance of redemption?

  • I would suggest you take some time to mature as an editor and person before attempting to request unblock. The block is not a "permanent ban"; the block will remain until the concerns are resolved and an admin is convinced you will be a constructive contributor. Being unblocked (in the future) would likely require you to agree to not use any speedy deletion tags at all, not just A3. If you don't understand A3, it's dubious as to if you understand the others. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, Could you put a sanction on my account that states that I am banned from using any kind of speedy deletion?

Please sign your posts. You can make an unblock request where you agree to such a sanction, but you will also need to indicate what edits you will make if unblocked, and address the competency issues you have demonstrated. If you do not understand A3 and when to use it, how can we be assured that you understand other Wikipedia policies? I would strongly suggest you wait a significant amount of time before requesting unblock(at least a year). 331dot (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Would the 6 month standard work or no? Finball30 (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Six months would be okay, but I suspect a longer wait would be more beneficial. I think you would need at least a year to mature as a person and editor. 331dot (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot So, how come I haven't been banned by the community or been sanctioned by ArbCom to not use speedy deletion tags? Finball30 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finball30, if you edit this page again to make useless/trolling comments, I will revoke your access to this page as recommended by Drmies. No need for you to reply or acknowledge this warning. Just stop editing this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23, One, I was not trolling. Two, could you give me advice instead of threatening to revoke TPA? Finball30 (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've been given advice, I suggest you follow it. I don't think you want this to go to a community discussion or ArbCom, it certainly will not lead to a better result. Neither body has to be involved for you to agree to an editing restriction. I suggest that your next post not be for a long time. 331dot (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #57279

has been open for some time. As no one has as yet declined, I have told appellant that I will restore TPA and carry the request to WP:AN when they indicate readiness. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Finball30/Archive. At some point a checkuser check will be prudent. Possible stale now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
is closed. I restored TPA. Probably will need to go to WP:AN. I will watch the talk page in case TPA goes pear shaped. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COntact us here. On your talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Admin noticeboard is for discussion of matters requiring admin action. I can't see how that responding to requests there would be fruitful. How else could you constructively contribute. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Community portal#Help out has links to things that badly need doing. You could perhaps find something interesting there. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It might ne best to defer recent changes patrolling until you've had experience helping out as above. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

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).

Finball30 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, While I have made some mistakes in the past, I have learned from my prior mistakes, and know what I should do to not repeat said mistakes. Recklessly tagging articles for speedy deletion without proper knowledge of the correct procedure for its use did nothing but cause unneeded stress and wasted time for the administrators of Wikipedia, when they could have been doing something more productive for the project, such as responding to requests on the Administrator’s Noticeboard. If you have any conditions that require my input in order to go through with the unblocking procedure, please let me know and how I can contact you, and I will gladly assist. After being unblocked, I plan to contribute to articles related to the National Football League and video games, as well as just looking over the Recent Changes page to revert any vandalism that gets past the automated systems. Thank you,Finball30 (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Stale unblock request. You can make a new one if you want. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2022 (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.

Checkuser data is indeterminate here due to use of proxy/vpn. --Yamla (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to expand on that a bit. There's  Possible block evasion happening here via logged-out editing. --Yamla (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you turn off your VPN? You should turn off your VPN --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: Alright, I will not use the VPN while editing this, or any pages in the future. I am using NordVPN by the way. Finball30 (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla could we have a re-run CU using the most recent edit? Either we might get some more info based off IPs from the last edit, if they're no longer using a proxy...and if they're still using a proxy then they've misinformed us and we can decline the unblock on those grounds Nosebagbear (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are no longer using a proxy. This, unfortunately, does not specifically clarify anything. There's still possible block evasion from last month. However, it's only possible. This isn't a checkuser block, but I'm sufficiently confident with assuming good faith here and considering the possible block evasion as unlikely and proceeding on that basis (evaluating the unblock request on its merits). Of course, Deepfriedokra is the blocking admin in this case. --Yamla (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Yamla.
  • Whether through AN or direct review, I'd advise a fairly broad set of partial bans, 1RR (inc no logged out editing). Given their refusal (including seemingly not even thinking it a good thing to do first), to RTFM first, I'd be reticent to even have them doing anti-vandalism until they'd demonstrated a few hundred productive edits in mainspace first. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: I could work with that for the foreseeable future. Finball30 (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just reset the talk page for unblock discussion. Bbb23 is the blocker. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

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).

Finball30 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, While I have made some mistakes in the past, I have learned from my prior mistakes, and know what I should do to not repeat said mistakes. Recklessly tagging articles for speedy deletion without proper knowledge of the correct procedure for its use did nothing but cause unneeded stress and wasted time for the administrators of Wikipedia, when they could have been doing something more productive for the project, such as responding to requests on the Administrator’s Noticeboard. If you have any conditions that require my input in order to go through with the unblocking procedure, please let me know and how I can contact you, and I will gladly assist. After being unblocked, I plan to contribute to articles related to the National Football League and video games. I also want to learn more about how the site works before really doing major work on it, as that would cause disruption like it has in the past. Finball30 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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 suggest that you first learn more about how things work here before attempting to make edits; if you need time to do that, I would suggest withdrawing your unblock request until you have done so- take all the time you need, there is no deadline. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Which pages do you recommend I check out before being re-activated?. In the mean time, you can go ahead and decline the unblock request. Finball30 (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably start with Help:Introduction/All. Maybe others will have better suggestions. I would also read about speedy deletions. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]