User talk:Knightrises10

Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.

Archives

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knightrises10. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:07, 13 October 2018 (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).

Knightrises10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe that I never used any other account. When I joined Wikipedia, I always spent times in reading policies and I am well aware of the fact that using multiple accounts for wrong reasons is not allowed. As you can see from my edit history, I always made constructive edits. I made improvements to articles, tried to save a few of them from deletion, while also participating in Afds. I had also been fighting vandalism and was learning more of it at CVUA. Similarly, I had been enrolled at NPP/S as well. I always wanted to help the project in the best way possible. I made mistakes, but never vandalised, and never made bad faith edits. For one of the socks claimed, I can see from the edit history that they had been vandalising Wikipedia, and I reverted their edits. As told before, I patrol recent changes, and might have come across like that. An example is this. In fact, I was the one who reported this account. For the next account, I just came to know that they once vandalised my talk page here. I don't know why I didn't see that time, but AE reverted those edits, and then the user began to vandalise their talk page as you can see here. I don't see any connection with me. Then comes the next account, which had actually nominated an article for deletion, and the only thing I did was voting,see this. I am well aware that Checkuser evidence saw those accounts to be my sock. But I think they were due to some shared IP address. I also edit at school and they can be a reason too. But I can never ever think of using Wikipedia for wring purposes. I created articles, and always wanted to create more. I hope a CU/Admin will review my request and will do with what they are satisfied. Knightrises10 talk 07:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The checkuser evidence is compelling, and holds across a range of different IPs. Neither coincidence nor the "other people at my school are vandals!" argument is a reasonable explanation. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:38, 17 October 2018 (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.

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

Block evasion

This user has engaged in block evasion, and lied about it, as Betour13 in January, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note this user has engaged in death threats and so would not normally be a candidate for unblocking at any time in the future. --Yamla (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding any future appeals

Should Knightrises10 make an appeal via any account, or via Arbcom, note that in UTRS appeal #26430 they made threats of violence using their account Javed Dogar.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Muhammad Faizan Sheikh for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Muhammad Faizan Sheikh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Faizan Sheikh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Störm (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]