User talk:Bennydarko

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Scubadiver99 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hey, so I logged in here to be surprised that I had been blocked. I am an actual person named Ben Cooke. I think I got blocked because I was making a case for keeping Dr. Brian Boxer Wachler's page on here as a resource for people looking for information about him and his treatments. It appears he was deleted anyway which is really too bad because he has saved people's vision countless times and often quite publicly. Anyway, if defending him was what got me blocked I apologize. I am not a "sock puppet" and would appreciate restoration of my account. Anything else I need to do to prove to you this not an "alternative account" I am happy to do. The username is tied to my email bennydarko@yahoo.com. Thanks for you help!

Decline reason:

You are blocked for meat puppetry which is a bit different than sock puppetry but still not allowed. You may make another unblock request that addresses the actual reason for the block. HighInBC 19:40, 24 May 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I guess I'm confused as to how can I be a meat puppet for posting objectively legitimate information. I've had this account since 2007, rarely have I made edits or suggestions and then when I do I get accused of abusing multiple accounts, which is simply not true according to the sock puppetry/meat puppetry guidelines. If I am to remain blocked I would at least request that it not be indefinitely.

Decline reason:

It is perfectly clear that this is one of a group of accounts whose sole purpose has been to use Wikipedia for promotion of one person. Numerous accounts were set up long ago, kept in waiting until the promotional article was likely to be deleted, and then put into action. At least some of the accounts are known to have been used by people paid for this promotion. At least one account has been used by someone who has lied about his or her connection to the other accounts. Whether this account was used by the same person as one or more of the other spam accounts, by a different person acting in collaboration with them, or by a separate person recruited independently makes no difference. Accounts that exist for the sole purpose of promotion are unwelcome, and accounts which attempt to give the misleading impression of independent support for an opinion when in fact they are not independent are likewise unwelcome. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

none of the things JamesBWatson has mentioned here are valid in my case. I am an independent person, I was not paid by anyone. My account was not solely created for the promotion of one person. I respect the devotion to keeping Wikipedia clean of spam accounts. My account is not spam. I am not for hire. I did not set this account up long ago waiting for some inevitable day for a promotional page to be deleted. Nor am I apart of any other conspiracies! At this point I feel I am done proving myself a real human being who cares about the integrity of Wikipedia, I am beginning to see the truth in the criticisms of Wikipedia's devout yet overzealous editors who are all too quick to shut down accounts for reasons, while perhaps well intentioned, are also completely false. Furthermore, the deletion of a page regarding an actual cure for blindness including for a person who went on to win a gold medal in the Olympics is shameful. Why are countless other pages devoted to nothing more than entertainment or one time beauty pageant winners deemed more important than medical advances? I'm sure I damned myself with my final plea here, but honestly shame on you guys for this and for falsely accusing me of being spam. It is clear that useful information, facts, and truth are of little value here. thanks.

Decline reason:

Unless I'm missing something, your account has made exactly one edit since it's creation. Whether or not you were paid to participate in the discussion is moot; it's at the very least a duck case of WP:MEAT. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:05, 2 June 2016 (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.