RheieWater2005

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Welcome!

Hi, RheieWater2005. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Moxy 🍁 01:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RheieWater2005. Thank you. Cryptic Canadian 02:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RheieWater2005

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RheieWater2005, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ——SN54129 13:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I really want my sockpuppet page to be deleted because I am not hellickhook.🇺🇸✝️RheieWater2005✝️🇺🇸 (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Just give it some time. This is just a suspicion another edit has about this account beeing connected to hellickohook. If there is nothing beehind it, the SPI will be closed, with the result, that you are not a sock. But requesting deletion of that page won't make matters better. --Info-Screen::Talk 14:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

But I am not really Connected to Hellickhook. Also, How Do I Become Admin?🇺🇸✝️RheieWater2005✝️🇺🇸 (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop messing around

It's only a matter of time before one of the grumpy admins notices you and blocks you indefinitely. So, please stop causing trouble on English Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

From now on, I will stop doing my vandalism, do you trust me that I will?🇺🇸✝️RheieWater2005✝️🇺🇸 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I Also Just Warned Myself.🇺🇸✝️RheieWater2005✝️🇺🇸 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 🇺🇸✝️RheieWater2005✝️🇺🇸 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Unblock Request

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).

RheieWater2005 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Username Change to Rheawate2006 🇺🇸✝️RheieWater2005✝️🇺🇸 (talk) 10:52 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Your username is not the reason for your block. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

(edit conflict) You are blocked for sockpuppetry, but there is also an issue of questionable competence. TBH, I had you pegged as a sockpuppet at once, but if that doesn't pan out, there will still be the WP:CIR concerns. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 16:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)}}

If you Find me On Spanish Wikipedia, Do Not Block Me There As I Have Been Fine There.🇺🇸✝️RheieWater2005✝️🇺🇸 (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

2nd Unblock reQuest

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).

RheieWater2005 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I Will Now Be More confident on Wikipedia🇺🇸✝️RheieWater2005✝️🇺🇸 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your confidence is not the reason for your block. I am also disabling talk page access, so further unblock requests will have to go through the Unblock Ticket Request System, but you should really read the Guide to appealing blocks before doing so. El_C 16:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Advice

I didn't see your messages on my talk page before you got blocked, but with everything that's happened and the information about your previous account being discovered, I've decided to respond with some advice, since you're (generally) acting in good faith. I know you can't respond anymore, so I'll try to make this as clear as possible.

To put it simply: you're not ready to be a serious Wikipedia editor. You keep getting blocked because you don't seem to know what you're doing.

I think your deletion nomination of the sockpuppet investigation page was very telling. The final outcome of an SPI investigation is only to be decided by the SPI clerks, the checkusers, and the admins. You and I are none of these things. Without evidence, they can't simply accept anything at face value, especially not someone who disagrees without evidence, because sockpuppets are known for lying all the time to hide their background. The SPI folks still needed time to find the truth. Moreover, trying to get the page removed from existence just makes you look guilty (and thus, it appears you were).

The above contrasts rather sharply with your question on my talk page about how one "earns" the status of an admin. Adminship isn't something you necessarily "earn", it's a responsibility you accept from the community once you've proven your commitment to the project. They're given a massive amount of power here on the English Wikipedia, which is one of the most significant websites in the world, so there's a lot of risk with giving someone the keys. Therefore, they can't just give it to random, newer editors with a history of not following the rules, and I will warn you beforehand that a history of abusing sockpuppets is something that will seriously come back to harm you in any future RfA.

You should not be editing Wikipedia with the expectation that you will become an admin, because the individual chances of anyone getting there are low. Despite many years of editing Wikipedia, I, myself, would not be considered for adminship because of the limited scope of actions I take here. At the very least, you need a solid record of caring about the quality of Wikipedia, not because you want the power (or apparent prestige) that comes with being an admin.

From your history here and on your other account, it's clear that you like to revert edits, request page protection, nominate pages for deletion, etc. for the sake of doing so, not because you necessarily care about protecting the integrity of Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, hunting vandalism is fun (for some of us, anyway). But, after seeing this, this, this, this, and this, I think you need to understand that you have to investigate whether something needs to be done before blindly doing it. For example, not everyone who triggers a filter is doing so on purpose, or even realizes they're doing it. (Recently, I encountered an unregistered user triggering the "rapid reverts" tag over and over again, a typical sign of vandalism. Yet, when I looked further, he was doing the exact opposite, and had racked up barnstars for reverting the real vandals.) Not every page with a contentious edit history needs to be protected if the disruption is old, or limited to a particular user. Pages that you disagree with aren't eligible for deletion on that basis alone.

This is what your block for "lack of competence" means. It means that you aren't a vandal, but you don't know the internals of Wikipedia well enough to just start doing these things. Your actions are disruptive, and you continue to ignore everyone trying to guide you in the right direction.

Due to a combination of your sockpuppetry and the above problems, you are banned from editing the English Wikipedia. You will never be allowed to edit here again, unless you convince the community otherwise. This is different from a block, because a single admin cannot overturn it at their own discretion.

There are ways for you to climb out of this, if you so choose.

If you truly are interested in being a productive contributor to the English Wikipedia someday, you do have options for getting unbanned, but do understand that it will be a long time before anyone will take you seriously, because you will need to demonstrate that you have learned from the information everyone has given you. Before you decide to make a case to get unbanned, I suggest waiting at least a year, and reading your whole talk pages a couple of times. Make sure you truly understand what we've been telling you, why you've been criticized, and the appropriate guidelines/policies regarding the things you want to do. And do realize that, if you keep making more sockpuppets, it will further diminish your chances of being allowed to come back.

This message may have been blunt at times, but my intentions are genuine. If you do happen to come back in the future and prove yourself, I would be happy to award a barnstar. Best of luck, Cryptic Canadian 01:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)