Hello, Highstakes00, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, visit the Teahouse Q&A forum, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mar4d (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Highstakes00, and thank you for your feedback. There are a lot of options for choosing what to edit on Wikipedia. I'd suggest starting with an area that you're interested in - you can use Portals to focus on specific topic areas.

Yunshui 雲‍水 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay :)) --Highstakes00 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2012 (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).

Highstakes00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not that guy. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat says inconclusive. You block users who oppose you? I used my own 2 accounts in good way --Highstakes00 (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per your other unblock request: this was an invalid user of WP:Alternate accounts. As you have socked before, you are restricted to 1 account on Wikipedia (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:59, 3 March 2012 (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).

Highstakes00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Now every one knows both are me. Is it ok now? I will not create any more. --Highstakes00 (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have edited disruptively with at least two accounts (almost certainly more). You have persistently harassed another user (apparently in a revenge attack relating to what happened while you were using other accounts, but it really doesn't matter what the reason was: the fact that you did it is enough). Nothing in either your editing history or in what you have said on this page suggests that you have any plan to edit constructively. Whether or not you create more accounts, there is no reason to think that unblocking you would benefit the encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2012 (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).

Highstakes00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am not Nangparbat. I made my first account. That Darkness guy deleted my changes and added unsourced too so I deleted. Same dealing with every article not revenge. He sent me block threats when I started editing. But I agree to work peacefully but tell him not be rude next time by calling me sock and block threats. --Highstakes00 (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You won't get yourself unblocked by aiming accusations and demands at other editors -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2012 (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.

You may not be Nangparbat, but you weren't blocked as his sock in the first place - you were blocked because Checkuser found two other accounts belonging to you. Given the SPI results nobody seriously thinks you're Nangparbat. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 22:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One is unused and second was used in different place and good cause. I have consented to use my single account. --Highstakes00 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing admins, please also see my comment on the SPI case. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... and thankfully I've already declined one once, because the WP:NOTTHEM in the most recent unblock is absolute bollocks (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Highstakes00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I got blocked for many days. I am not aiming accusations and demands at other editors anymore If any one is rude I will ask an administrator to help because I have read the article WP:NOTTHEM now. I am not the man I was misinterpreted to be this has been investigated by wikipedia administrators. I will like to edit by rules if I dont know some new rules you will have to tell me. I hope you dont put so many new editors through this process if they are mistaken as a runaway thief in a foreign land. I was monitoring my pages you have caught the real editor today [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nangparbat so I have made this request. --Highstakes00 (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

With agreement from blocking admin, I have unblocked. But please remember you have agreed to stick to just one account - any further new accounts will get you blocked again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You created Sleek0 as an account as recently as February 29th; I will concede that you have not edited from it, so why did you create it?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I liked both names and I wanted to take them. Sleek was taken and I got Sleek0. I know it is bad to cast double votes and I caught a double voter from my Repitile1 account. I will like Sleek0 to be unblocked too wikipedia knows both are myself then is it alright to do that after this? --Highstakes00 (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, because you HAVE violated WP:SOCK, every single other account will need to be indefinitely blocked - you would be formally limited to a single account, and breaking that would lead to ALL you accounts being indefinitely blocked (in case you hadn't noticed, it's a pretty simple technical thing to check). The creation of any further accounts is considered proof you have no desire to follow the rules around here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I wish to keep this one then. --Highstakes00 (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello --Highstakes00 (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me now I have agreed to use only this account. I answered question by Anthony Bradbury. Agreed to edit by discussing as well. --Highstakes00 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted the blocking admin, and have placed your unblock request on hold. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks bro. --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INDENT Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will read it. I have seen your comment on admin talk page but I have not followed you to his page. Your tellin him future that I am *going* to follow you. --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ecx3)Which proves I was right, you are obviously looking at my contributions. Your first actions on Wikipedia were to edit war with me. I cannot help but believe that will continue. I will however give you the benefit of the doubt, we shall see were this goes. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am looking at your contributions and you are talking about me behind my back. We are even. No more fighting. --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you expressed a desire to use Twinkle. There are instructions on the twinkle page, working through the green Quick Info section should get you set up. Good luck. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanxx :))) --Highstakes00 (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mar4d (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx I have joined. --Highstakes00 (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to continue editing in the contentious topic areas of this project, you can drop a note on my talk page for help and clarifications anytime as I'm well aware of most of the disputes. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx bro I will :))--Highstakes00 (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow me to another article for the sole purpose of reverting me and you will be reported. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have this in watchlist for your kind information. see editing history of Repitile1. If you blame again I will tell admin. --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which has nothing to do with your following me to an article to revert me, I do not give a shit about your sock puppet or what you did with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will edit article I edit before you can not it call following --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning, reverting me again for no reason will lead to a report being filled. Adding CN and RS tags are not POV, it is standard practice. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your tag are pov reverting is not offense on wikipedia stop coming to my edits for revenge --Highstakes00 (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop following my fucking contributions, I have enough stalkers as it is without you joining the club. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You too STOP attacking me ok? dn call me sock again you are offender now --Highstakes00 (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dusty777 21:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both editor are in case. keep both name on topic --Highstakes00 (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:TPG you cannot edit other peoples comments, that includes their section headers. If you want to make a complaint about me feel free to do so. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TPG does not say that

Never address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. In general, avoid using editor names in article talk page headings.

Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, as it places their names prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. As edit summaries and edit histories are not normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, even though edit histories are excluded from search engines.[2] Reporting on another user's edits from a neutral point of view is an exception, especially reporting edit warring or other incidents to administrators.

dont be bossy with me now ok? --Highstakes00 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to do everything for you? "It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g. one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." WP:TPO a section of TPG. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using this account almost exclusively to follow another editor around the project to harass them. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation of my rationale is here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2012 (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).

Highstakes00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not follow he follow me I gave diff on ANI board. He also create attack page I reported it now he use excuses to get me block. My old edit are being use to get me block again. My disagreement was with explaining Darkness Shines has started this page now. This time it was because of his attack page so I report. I use procedure as agree before. --Highstakes00 (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Enough feuding, this unblock request confirms that the block was correct. Max Semenik (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2012 (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.

(edit conflict) If you are not requesting unblock, then don't use the {{unblock}} template. Your account appears to be mainly intended to harass another user. Harassment only accounts can and will be blocked. Furthermore you are giving no explanation why this page is an attack page; attack pages are supposed to attack its subject or some other entity and serve no other purpose. Bmusician 08:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was requesting unblock. I have give explanation this page was listing me in socks when I report [1]. more explaining here Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkness Shines/diffs --Highstakes00 (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and then your next unblock "request" was to continue to complain about DS, again, without addressing what you have been blocked for. You weren't blocked for "reporting an attack page", but you were blocked for harassing DS (so "I did not follow and harrass Darkness Shines" doesn't make sense). See WP:NOTTHEM; I really hope you can review WP:GAB and make major modifications to your unblock "request". Bmusician 14:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do it because he did not report when I go to rfc because he saw I had explanation so he report when I nominate attack page. That is the reason. ok thanx I have change the report and given reason. --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2012 (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).

Highstakes00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Look at his edit summary [2] [3] and his abusive language [4]. He make attack page and trap me so he can report and get me block. I was block after I report attack page where I was listed in socks. I did not follow and harrass Darkness Shines this report was revenge of before my last block. Bmusician say I was not blocked because of nomination if that is reasons I have noted that I went to rfc from request page other editor say that too. I agreed to mind my business he follow me to page. check diff on ANI board. unblock me because I am standing with my last agreement. this is not harassment account it is my personal account to edit. I have already serve block for old edit and I have not repeat. Report was not made when I go to rfc it was made for this page nomination problem solve now because all agree that page was not right. [5] you can unblock now. I was right about page and I follow procedure and inform editor. --Highstakes00 (talk) 5:32 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

User refuses to address the reason for the block. It'll be hard to find a more obvious case of following than this one. See [6]. I also think you've pretty much reached the limit of your talk page access so I suggest you be very careful what you say here. regentspark (comment) 18:49, 17 April 2012 (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.

• I see how Darkness Shines created this page to throw a block at poor highstakes. Highstakes was followed this time. Darkness Shines has a problem with tagging new editors as sock of Nangparbat, he did same with me and result was negative. MFD was reasonable. I advise highstakes to stay away from Darkness Shines and I appreciate that he tried to stay away after last unblock. --I am Agent X 12:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow really? I created this page to try and get another editor blocked?[7] Page created 13:50, 7 January 2012. Highstakes created his account [8] 18:06, 24 January 2012. Do you perhaps think I posses a time machine? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop playing with the meanings of sentences. You know what I am saying. Current face of page is something to delete. You listed me and him on your sock list. I would have done the same if I saw it first. --I am Agent X 12:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx bro for confirm my editing. I did not follow. --Highstakes00 (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As a neutral observer, I do not entirely agree with this sanction. Highstakes has noted on RFCs that he/she arrived through the request for closure board and that is actually correct per his/her editing history. It is evident that Darkness Shines may have followed HS to the Soviet war article, which according to HS, is an article he/she had a prior interest in or were associated with. I think HS was sticking to his unblock condition as clarified at ANI. In any case, I believe that the blocking admin has jumped the gun by handing an indef block. HS is a new user who is still learning and who has a lot of potential to contribute constructively, so as such, the blocking admin should re-consider this scenario. Mar4d (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your neutral? Pull the other one. And a few days ago you were accusing me of following anther editor to that article[9] Make your mind up. And as I have already explained twice[10] how I got to that article I can only assume that you have made a mistake with what you have written. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many editor do you follow? --Highstakes00 (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good joke --Highstakes00 (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to do you a favor here read WP:NOTTHEM and change your unblock request accordingly. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:NOTTHEM before. Request has relevant diff to this case because my action was nominating your page with procedure and you abuse and report? --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines will no longer post to this page. In return, you will not address comments to him, or talk about him to others, with the exception of answering the reviewing admin's questions. Otherwise, talk page access will be revoked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But one thing problem solve [11] now. This was in report. every one agree on MFD that this page is not right. All this because of this page. it is over now. report was not made when I go to rfc because I explain there about request board. report was about this page nomination it is solved now. --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not talk about Darkness Shines now. I replied to Bmusician questions. --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Darkness Shines, stay off this talk page, starting now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2012 (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).

Highstakes00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I offer to consult other experienced editor if I see Darkness Shines name in editing history when I edit new article until my editing count is 1000-2000. If he comes to article I have edited before, I will report at ANI board following procedure or ask admin. Does that address concern for which I was block? I have provide explanation for other issue. If I go to rfc where he edit I will note like before how I get there. --Highstakes00 (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not whatsoever. You're now saying that rather than use good personal judgement, you're going to require the community to advise you every step of the way. No thank you; we're very busy. Your comments above show that your ability to work collaboratively is quite questionable to begin with. You should consider being mentored, and in fact a full-bore interaction ban - perhaps go edit some of the millions of articles that won't get you in trouble? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:54, 20 April 2012 (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).

Highstakes00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have agree to consult experienced editor before editing new article of Darkness Shines I also agree to Bwilkins advise of mentor. I will ask experienced editor on articles to help. I have serve a long block now please unblock me. I will not put any extra burden on editor for advise. I will ask the editor who agree to give advise. I should be allow to edit. --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't know if this a language barrier issue ot if you just don't get it, but it should be clear to you by now that what we want from you is a commitment to stay away from Darkness Shines indefinitely, to not edit any page he has recently edited, and to not comment about him anywhere on Wikipedia. I think your chance of being unblocked without such a commitment is near zero. You should also be aware that there are a limited number of times you will be allowed to appeal here before you are blocked from editing this page as well, so your next unblock request is probably the "make or break" last chance to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2012 (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.

There are now in the English Wikipedia nearly four million articles. Please explain, after all that has happened between you, why you would even consider editing an article which DS has recently edited? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing happened I edited a few article of DS which relate to each other and he thought I was hounding him. My first revert were just when I was a newbie I do not know this guy. I agreed to keep away from his article but I can edit things that I know I do not know much about other topic. I have knowledge about this topic but I will try to stay away or ask a mentor to help. In current case he edit article that I edit and report me that is not my fault. --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend you take the WP:STANDARDOFFER. Come back in six months and then post an unblock request. To admins, I think it would be best to put the unblock request on hold for now. Highstakes00, you need to stop feuding with other people. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   13:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have agree to everything. Wait will not be useful I understand how to edit now I have said I will not edit new article of darkness and I will ask mentor if I need to edit. --Highstakes00 (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Highstakes00 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have agree to all offer and stay block for 15 day. I have read interaction ban link please ban our interaction so that I am free to edit what I know about without blame of following. I will not edit darkness shine edit according to interaction ban and not comment on him and he can not do on me I will continue editing normally on old article without comment on darkness. If I edit new article of darkness I will confirm first that I am not breaking ban. Will Darkness agree to ban of interaction now? I have satisfy admin comment on last unblock. it is useless to wait 6 month still. my side is clear --Highstakes00 (talk) 6:31 am, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

See comments by regentspark below. Danger! ^{High voltage!} 05:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they cannot even accept the very very generous WP:OFFER - which is above and beyond, considering their level of disruption and abuse - then I see no reason to continue to allow this editor to make unblock requests. Decline, lock, throw away the key for at least a year. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I agree with BWilkins. Highstakes00, If the community's patience with you is already at a narrow end, come back after 6 months and then post an unblock because you've lost the trust on this project. Simply put, log out of Wikipedia and find something else to do on the internet and then come back on Wikipedia in November for an unblock. Because I am not an admin, hopefully admins will direct you to mentorship after your unblock (that is if you agree to consider the standard offer and stay away from Darkness) and then this will all be done and over with. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   13:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I am unsure were BWilkins gets that HS was all that disruptive, apart from following myself he was not. I would support an unblock for HS now if he agrees to abide by a 1RR restriction when editing involves myself, quite simply all he has to abide by that and think he will be fine. I think another chance ought to be given. He has been blocked for a while and has no doubt learnded his lesson. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Highstakes00, Darkness is right. If you want to come back I believe this is what you need to agree to. Khvalamde :   Holla at me   14:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Since the original report and disruption was to do with DS, Highstakes, if you agree to a 1RR restriction on any edits that DS makes, I'll unblock you (or some other admin will). Please commit to that on this page. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 16:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok RegentsPark. I agree to 1RR for Darkness shines revert. I will keep on my agreement to ask experience editor before editing new Darkness shines article until I get experience but I have plan to stay away from his new article. keep in mind he is old editor he can have edited many article before me and I can go to them from wikilink I will keep to my agreement and ask advise if that happen. If Darkness follow me like soviet war article again or create a page of sock list and add me in it like before I will reserve the right to report or ask for deleting. If issue is more then ban our interaction. Is it okay now? --Highstakes00 (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you have to keep away from DS. He seems quite comfortable with your editing the same areas as he does. Just don't follow him around and remember to stick to 1RR. I suggest you not report or comment directly on DS because this unblock is a very lenient one and would not have happened if DS hadn't requested it (you should thank him!). Stick to content issues, keep to 1RR, and you'll be fine. Good luck. (I'm unblocking you now.) --regentspark (comment) 01:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]