Hello! Please do not copy articles from the English Wikipedia directly. They should be simplified first, and attributed oncd it is created. Also, please read WP:ONESTRIKE; this applies to you. Vermont (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I know the reason for this block is sock puppetry, which has been found on the basis of strong CU evidence. As in English Wikipedia, I would still deny that the account Knightrisers10 and Betour13 do not belong to me. I was shocked to read when they said that the admins couldn't revoke tpa "in my original account". But I know that since the CU check links us, I cannot convince any person.
If you check my contributions on simple, they have always been constructive edits, mostly fighting vandalism. I never even thought of using simple Wikipedia for disruption. Since I used this account for good purposes only, I hope an admin can take a look at the appeal. Even if you are convinced that the accounts belonged to me, I want you to try to give me another chance if possible. You can block me again if you think I'm still abusing multiple accounts.
Decline reason:
Here is a quote from the En.Wiki Talk PAge of Betour13, which according to En.Wiki CU is a confirmed sock of this account. "What you will do , you will revoke tpa? Then I will make unblock requests from Knightrises10 account but I know you cannot revoke my main account's tpa. So better unblock and stop revoking tpa. I tpa is revoked in this account I will appeal from from Knightrises10 account . You cannot revoke Knightrises10 tpa.Betour13 (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)" As such I see no reason to reverse this block, as they have even admitted to this being their Sock. -- Enfcer (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]