User talk:Darkknight68

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

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/Safwwefe, 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.

HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 20:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm K6ka. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to User:HangingCurve, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. K6ka (talk | contrib) 20:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:HangingCurve with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. K6ka (talk | contrib) 20:34, 31 December 2013 (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).

Darkknight68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am deeply sorry for the disruption I've caused. I would especially like to apologize to HangingCurve. Before I was blocked, I already apologized to him on his talk. I will never be mean to him or any other user on Wikipedia again. I will make productive edits, such as to sport articles, when I'm unblocked. Happy new years, and I really mean it this time. Darkknight68 (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Super. This has nothing to do with the reason for your original block and ban. Please use your primary account and stop posting these unblock requests with your socks. Kuru (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2014 (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).

Darkknight68 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I cannot make an unblock request on my primary account as there is a block setting that prevents me from doing so. Of course, I am deeply sorry for my inappropriate edit to the Barack Obama page over 4 years ago, and I have not done something like that since and never will. Darkknight68 (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your account's only edits were to harass another user on here. Why would we want to unblock that? Your first edit insists that you will "never stop" harassing them, and your first edit to your user page was to say you hate them. No reason whatsoever to unblock. only (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2014 (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.

When sockpuppets/masters request unblock as you have, we usually ask that a) you pick one account and stick to it, and say so; and b) that you disclose all socks you created, whether we knew about them or not. Are you willing to do this? Daniel Case (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to do so and stick with Safwwefe. And yes, my original account is Safwwefe, and everyone in suspected and confirmed socks categories of Safwwefe are my socks, along with everyone mentioned in Safwwefe's sockpuppet investigation.

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Safwwefe. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.