User talk:Romello Brooks

March 2020

Hello, I'm Thepenguin9. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Yo Gotti, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Thepenguin9 (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Evergreen, Memphis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hyde Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

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.

Drmies (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Oh so thats why I was blocked because I made multiple accounts. But I i understand now that I shouldn't make multiple accounts. I respectfully agree with you and the wikipedia policy. This why I should be unblock because I agree with yall.Romello Brooks (talk) 11:43 pm, 22 June 2020, Monday (10 days ago) (UTC+2)

Decline reason:

No, you do not understand it now. You were blocked on 22 June for using multiple accounts for advertising. Yet, on 28 June, you created new account to WP:evade the block. Thus, you can't be trusted. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2020 (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.

Is anybody going to unblock me or what Romello Brooks (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been attempting to continue evading their block using multiple other accounts. This should count against them in any further unblock request. An appeal under WP:SO could be made no sooner than 2021-01-07, and only if they refrain from all further edits until then. --Yamla (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Romello Brooks:-- short answer, "no". Long answer, please see all the declines you have already received and the WP:guide to appealing blocks. {reply|Yamla|}} Can we note the various socks here, or does a gentleman not ask? Noting this is a checkuser block. With all this socking, are we at the level of a WP:CBAN as well. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Please see above. too tired. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Romello Brooks listing one account and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Romello Brooks listing four. In the past couple of days, they've requested unblocks here, at User talk:Brooks224 (at time of writing, there's one still open there), at User talk:LilT06, and at User talk:ProBro99 which was abusive enough for them to lose talk page access. --Yamla (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not going to make another page I swear bare with me. Can y'all just trust me. Just please bare with me. I can't wait 6 months. Just please bare with me. Romello Brooks (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your totally inappropriate action on this page shows you don't plan to contribute productively. I have revoked your talk page access. Yamla (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2020 (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.

The fact that you created multiple accounts is why we don't trust you. Perhaps explain why you created numerous accounts, after being told not to? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, note this user has made multiple unblock requests across their various other accounts, making me doubt they have any understanding of WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Those accounts are not mine only the Evergreen Group Station and PBG Productions is mine. Romello Brooks (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; this was a second open unblock request at the time I revoked talk page access. Yamla (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2020 (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.

UTRS and unblock discussion

https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/31920 is now closed.

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. it's like CaptainEek said, "the fact that you created multiple accounts is why we don't trust you. Perhaps explain why you created numerous accounts, after being told not to?" On your talk page you have an open unblock request where you say you will not write about yourself anymore. In this request, you said, " I just want to describe myself on wikipedia." This does not alleviate our inability to trust you. Given information in your deleted user page, I see you as not ready to contribute constructively to the building of Wikipedia, the world's largest free-content encyclopedia. I believe it will be a considerable amount the time before you are ready. At no point will you be allowed to write about yourself or Evergreen Group Station or any other subject with which you are connected. Thanks,

PS- Recommend declining unblock request on this talk page if it is still open. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for one to promote oneself. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC) PPS:IMO. six months is overly optimistic. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just revoked TPA for another of their socks. I see an unblock in...maybe a year should they behave. Too many issues to unblock rn, but as I've already decline several of their socks and blocked them, I'm not going to respond to this main request. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

This was totally inappropriate and shows you have no intention of contributing productively. As such, I have revoked talk page access. If you can explain that, WP:UTRS is available. I suggest waiting at least six months, even though you said you had no intention of doing so, then applying under WP:SO. I'll note any further sockpuppetry or block evasion may lead to your ban under WP:3X. --Yamla (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banned under WP:3X. --Yamla (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

In reply to your question at UTRS, this little stunt here is why you lost talk page access. Conceivably, someone could have seen that and unblocked thinking you were left blocked by mistake. Aside from unblocking someone who should not be unblocked, it would have caused confusion and disruption. So, in addition to having destroyed any trust and assumption of good faith that was left, we just don't want the disruption you might have caused to be repeated/continued. Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]