User talk:Kingshowman

I've removed talk page access. You can make any unblock requests using WP:UTRS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin, please note that I'm confident that Kingshowman is evading his block by editing as an IP on the talk page for Donald Trump. I'm semi-protected that page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been multiple additional instances of socking using ipv6 accounts, on this page and others.I've protected user space pages. Most content, including block, has been blanked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/MBUSHIstory, 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.

{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Kingshowman, 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.

Dr. K. 23:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email response

Hi Kingshowman,

In response to your email, posted here for transparency, if/when unblocked, you may be asked to log in here at Kingshowman. Once that happens, other admins can advise in terms of account names. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

King Showman was da man! Maestro! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Kingshowman, 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.

McGeddon (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I see that my talk page access has been restored, and so I am gratefully using this access to submit an unblock request. I have now been blocked for over a year, and I feel that I have served an appropriate sentence for my crimes. While I have socked, I was not blocked originally for socking but for flaming, which I repent for. As for my socking, I also repent for socking, but as the record will show, I always admitted my socks, and I never used multiple socks at once, and never socked to stack votes or create an illusion of support or anything of that nature. Furthermore, I only created socks because I wanted to productively contribute to the community, but had been blocked from doing so. When caught, I in all cases admitted my sock. You'll see that in all cases when I denied a sock, it indeed turned out not to be mine (Such as that 92.xxx ip address, which you still haven't unblocked for some reason even though the checkuser showed we were unconnected.) You will also see that I have a long record of productive contributions, in both areas of personal expertise which the encyclopedia could benefit from, such as philosophy, where my contributions have always been well received, and in areas where my interest is more of a hobby, such as politics, where I always come armed to the teeth with sources. Again, I never used multiple socks at once, always admitted my socks once accused, have always sought to contribute productively and backed everything I added with scads of reliable sources, and was only originally blocked for flaming rather than abusively socking or vandalizing, and have already served over a year in the hole. Isn't it time to welcome this much loved and highly productive member of the community back into the fold? I propose it is high time for the return of one of the greatest, most deeply beloved editors Wikipedia has ever known. Hear, hear! Many thanks for your consideration. Kingshowman (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been socking and evading your block continuously since the block was imposed, even in the last few days - just look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive! I strongly recommend WP:Standard Offer as your best hope of coming back, with no block evasion whatsoever for a minimum of six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 4 October 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.

Considering the fact that he had just socked again, I don't see that this user will follow the standard offer. Wiki Pancake 🥞 12:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second that! I just blocked Free and Fearless Speaker of Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – yet another blindingly obvious sock. Favonian (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kingshowman. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]