User talk:Æo/Archive 2

Nickname: Aethelwolf Emsworth, block year 2018–2019

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aethelwolf Emsworth. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I never used my accounts abusively, since I never edited the same articles or talk pages with different accounts, per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. In addition, I would like to know the reason why you checked my account instead of the others.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Are you sure that those accounts in the Phoenixhill investigation case are all unrelated?--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the reason of the check user

@Bbb23: Per WP:GAB and WP:ADMINACCT, I ask you the reason why you checked my account (Amorphophallus Titanum) instead of the other ones for which I put forward the check user request, who are unquestionably connected and have acted disrupting Wikipedia. I also ask again your clemency, and a revision of my sanction.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Bbb23, but if I had seen that SPI case before him, I would have wondered how a "new" account was so experienced, how they found SPI so quickly, and would certainly have taken a close look at the account as well. The exact portion of the policy to justify such a check is WP:SCRUTINY. Also, you'll note in the case that he actually did check the accounts you presented, but found them to be unrelated. —DoRD (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: That's probably how things went in the case of my account Amorphophallus Titanum, which as I have written below I created to avoid retaliation from that organisation, given that there are some people in real life who know that I edited as Aethelwolf Emsworth. Though I am neither a known nor an important person in any given field of study (though I have academic preparation), I wanted to keep my privacy secured as much as possible. In the case of the other new accounts, they are certainly not socks if the CU did not find them to be related, but their actions are so similar, if not identical, that they are quite surely meatpuppets.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I made a ton of contributions with my accounts, especially this one and Eckhardt Etheling which are the major ones. I never used them abusively, since I did not use them to "deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies" (WP:SOCK). My accounts were all legitimate (WP:SOCK#LEGIT) and never interfered with each other, as I used them to edit different topics. I never used them in the same articles or discussions. I admit that Wddan is currently under topic ban but I did not use my other accounts to violate the ban.

The reason why I created them is that:

With Aethelwolf Emsworth I edited articles regarding religion in Asia.
With Eckhardt Etheling I edited articles regarding religion in Europe.
With Wddan I edited "religion in..." articles, and I admit I used it to deal with turbulent users, to prevent my main accounts from being targeted.
Amorphophallus Titanum was a temporary one that I created for the hot TF topic, to prevent my main accounts from being targeted.

I repeat that I never used them abusively. Though undisclosed, they fit perfectly under the WP:SOCK#LEGIT policy: "Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, editors who contribute using their real name may wish to use a pseudonym for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to better understand the editing experience from a new user's perspective. These accounts are not considered sockpuppets. If you use a legitimate alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not use it in an illegitimate manner according to this policy." ... "Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics ...". I never did any crossover.

I ask that my accounts are unblocked. I will close Wddan and Amorphophallus Titanum (the minor ones) and continue to edit using AE and EE which are the major ones. Since Wddan is under a topic ban, I ask that the topic ban is restarted and extended to both AE and EE.

Otherwise, If it will be decided to leave my accounts blocked, I will accept it and I will be happy to leave Wikipedia and enjoy my life.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is precisely "abuse of multiple accounts". They do not fit under WP:SOCK#LEGIT at all. Your understanding that they do is incorrect. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:26, 29 June 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.

Regarding "I never did any cross over" this data shows differently. Also, you've been blocked twice for edit warring with the User:Wddan account, which you admit above you uaed specifically to spar with other editors to avoid connection to you main account(s). This is not a legitimate excuse under our policies. In addition, your behaviour as an editor cannot be reviewed as a whole in such cases because you've fragmented your accounts. For instance, copyright concerns have been brought up on a number of your talk pages, and edit warring is an issue to. You shouldn't be able to use multiple accounts to diffuse criticism of your edits if there is no WP:SOCK#LEGIT reason for all of the accounts.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ponyo: The data shows a very small number of edits in the same articles, due to the fact that AE is significantly older than EE, coming before the decision that I made to use AE for a set of topics and EE for the others. Wddan was not created "specifically to spar with other editors", I didn't express myself well: With that account I found myself engaged into a series of edit wars with a turbulent editor. The copyright concern above is not to be given weight: It was a screenshot that I uploaded temporarily to provide another user the access to the source, which he was unable to reach due to technical problems. That's all. My behaviour as an editor is proven by the fact that I never had problems for years, both as AA and EE.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to post "I never did any crossover" in your unblock request (in bold no less), then you can hardly be taken aback when its pointed out to be untrue. Yes, undisclosed multiple accounts are allowed for legitimate purposes, but I don't believe your use of such accounts meet WP:SOCKLEGIT especially given your actions with the Wddan account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: 1) The crossovers are in small number, old and not controversial. Please verify them. 2) If you check my edits under the Wddan account you'll see that they are good. The misfortune with that account was that I found myself engaged in edit wars.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were topic-banned for 60 days on May 17, 2018, from editing "religious topics" under the Wddan account. All three of your other accounts, including the latest one who filed the SPI, violated that ban. These accounts are legitimate only in your imagination, certainly not in policy. I suggest you start thinking about "leav[ing] Wikipedia and enoying [your] life."--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bbb23: I disagree on the unlegitimacy, since the policy allows the use of undisclosed multiple accounts. You are right about the rest. But I did not want to be disruptive, and I was not disruptive with my other accounts. Since I am a long-standing editor, please consider reviewing the block and re-starting the ban.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policy allows the use of undisclosed multiple accounts in certain circumstances. Your accounts don't fit those circumstances. I will not unblock you, nor will I consent to your being unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Bbb23: I was perfectly aware of the policy when I created them. The policy says "Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles" ... "Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, editors who contribute using their real name may wish to use a pseudonym for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to better understand the editing experience from a new user's perspective. These accounts are not considered sockpuppets. If you use a legitimate alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not use it in an illegitimate manner according to this policy." My accounts fit under the "privacy" reason. My fault was to not link them and to violate the topic ban of the Wddan account; I recognise this and I sincerely apologise. Please, be clement.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Another policy violation that I haven't seen mentioned is the second bullet bullet point here - Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. All four of your accounts have been used to edit project space. —DoRD (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @DoRD: Correct me if I am wrong, but that point says that the multiple accounts are not to be used in the same discussions, which is quite natural, as it would be a case of "sockpuppets talking to each other" to create a false consensus. This is not, absolutely not, what I made. I always kept the activities of my accounts separated.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And indeed, the full quote says Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates. Besides the prohibition to use multiple accounts in the same article discussions, which is quite obvious, the policy seems to imply that "discussions internal to the project" are policy debates. I never put policies into discussion, with neither of the accounts.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever will be the outcome of this discussion: This only demonstrates the arbitrariness of certain practices within Wikipedia. It is still not clear to me why I was investigated instead of the disruptive accounts for which I put forward the check-user request. Sometimes Wikipedia works as an arbitrary, chaotic machinery, with no relevance given to what really should be the important thing: The contributions to the encyclopaedia! People do not read, do not thoroughly study users' contributions, just as they do not thoroughly study sources and verify if they actually support the content of the articles. Since, given this arbitrariness, I think that I won't be unblocked, as no-one will engage checking the facts about my behaviour and the years of contributions, I ask two things to two users with whom I proficuously collaborated over the years (since my primary concern is that Wikipedia provides good-quality, real information, not any kind of self-promotion or petty disputes with users): CWH, please watch the articles that I contributed to write as Aethelwolf Emsworth; Wojsław Brożyna, please watch the articles that I contributed to write as Eckhardt Etheling.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: I don't understand why you closed my unblock request so quickly. The policy is clear: Multiple accounts are allowed. And my accounts never "talked to each other" or edited the same pages or discussions with the aim of creating an apparent consensus from different users.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it quickly because you are obviously incorrect in your understanding of what constitutes legitimate use of alternate accounts, your repeated assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon: Then, I sincerely apologise for having misinterpreted the policy. But it lends itself to different reading possibilities.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second unblock request

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21942 was submitted on Jun 29, 2018 07:20:35. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee closed this unblock request through UTRS because there was already the open request below.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, UTRS is for cases where a user's talk page is inappropriate - usually because talk page access is revoked, or the appeal contains private information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, please review my case below, since I thought that with my accounts I was perfectly playing by the rules and I was never ill-intentioned.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry I don't have time to examine this in any detail, so I'll have to leave it to someone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 29 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I think that the former unblock request was closed too quickly. I ask the intervention of other, uninvolved administrators. I am a long-standing user with an academic preparation and many good-quality contributions both under the name Aethelwolf Emsworth and under the name Eckhardt Etheling. I never had any problems with these accounts. The WP:SOCK policy says: "Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles" ... "Alternative accounts have legitimate uses. For example, editors who contribute using their real name may wish to use a pseudonym for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated, or long-term users might create a new account to better understand the editing experience from a new user's perspective. These accounts are not considered sockpuppets. If you use a legitimate alternative account, it is your responsibility to ensure that you do not use it in an illegitimate manner according to this policy." I thought my accouts perfectly fit the policy: I created AA and then EE to edit different topics (AA those pertaining to Asia and EE those pertaining to Europe and Russia), and then Wddan to edit "religion in x" articles. This helped me focus on different topics without confusion. They were also created for "privacy" reasons, especially the recently-created Amorphophallus Titanum (note that the nickname is not some bad word; it is the scientific name of a flower) with which I edited about a controversial and powerful organisation (I admit I created it for fear of retaliation from that organisation). They never intervened in the same discussions to create an apparent consensus, and the accounts were used to edit different topics. I am perfecly aware that Wddan was under a topic ban, broadly construed, and by editing with the other accounts I violated it, though on different articles. I did not use them with the deliberate intention to violate that ban. I apologise for this. However, I also invite to reconsider that ban which I think was excessive: I ask a revaluation of my actions with that account. The fact that with the other ones I never incurred in any problems in five years of contributions should be a clear signal. I ask: * Possibility 1: The unblock of all my accounts. I will link them and continue to use them to edit different topics (I would really need this to avoid confusion), or I will close W and AT, the minor ones. At the same time I ask that the topic ban imposed on W is reviewed due to the reason linked above; otherwise, the topic ban should be restarted and extended to all my accounts; * Possibility 2: Some kind of WP:OFFER; * Possibility 3: An appeal to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. --Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You socked to evade a topic ban. That's a bright line. Consider appealing again in 6 months. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:07, 29 June 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.

@TonyBallioni: I will appeal in 6 months, however I did not sock with the deliberate intention to evade the topic ban. My accounts pre-existed the topic ban (which, by the way, was questionable) and I did not edit the same pages.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid community-based sanction that has not been appealed. Clear-cut violation from a different account: [1]. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never edited that page as Wddan. However, I certainly violated the broadly-construed topic ban, under another name. I can't deny this.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of archiving the old discussions as you tried to do earlier. If that is not to your liking, I'll be glad to undo it. —DoRD (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @DoRD: You did the right thing. Please do the same with User talk:Eckhardt Etheling with the exception of the section "unblock request". Thank you!--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know from Bbb23: Do you agree with the WP:OFFER given by TonyBallioni? I also notify that I have sent you an email with a question about privacy issues.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The offer is fairly standard. It means you can appeal your block no sooner than six months from now. It is not a guarantee that your appeal will be granted. In my view, you will need to show at least two things: (1) you have not socked during the period and (2) you understand why you can't have multiple accounts. To date, you haven't come close to satisfying #2. As for your e-mail, I don't reply to user e-mail. I doubt that your request would be granted, but, if you wish, you can e-mail the WP:OVERSIGHT team. Before e-mailing them, read the policy. If you believe your request should be granted per policy, how to contact them is at the top of the page.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read WP:OVERSIGHT. It is not such an extreme case, so it can wait. Regarding the multiple accounts, I have understood that it is not permitted to have multiple accounts (even less if undisclosed) for reasons such as that which I gave, i.e. to "focus on different topics to avoid confusion" (but I sincerely swear that it was my primary concern when I created EE and W; while AT was for serious privacy concerns), and if one has an alternative account (such as "Boing! on Tour", the alternative account of "Boing! said Zebedee"), it has to have a very similar name, be linked to the main account and be used only in WP:VALIDALT cases. I would like not to lose my other accounts, though, despite their different names, since I made some important contributions with them (especially EE): So I will possibly ask for a common renaming and keep the secondary one(s) dormant, if the unblock appeal will be accepted (and I hope it will, since the value of contributions should have more weight than punishment).--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, like Bbb23 said, the standard offer is not automatic and by suggesting you appeal in 6 months I was not endorsing an unblock. I'd likely be neutral at the time because I try to stay away from commenting on unblocks more than once in any capacity. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, TonyBallioni. I think that the final decision at the time of the unblock appeal should be taken by the blocking admin Bbb23.

Regarding the block, I don't want to be bothersome and repeat myself too much, but I think it is my right as a user to discuss possible ways to solve the situation: I have read (WP:APPEAL) that <"indefinite" does not necessarily mean "long" or "infinite". It means "however long is needed for the user to address the issue". This can be minutes, hours - or indeed the user may never do so. An indefinite block means the blocking administrator did not set a time limit on the block. The user needs to discuss the matter with an administrator before any unblock. It could be because the owner needs to confirm things are okay (and nothing's wrong). Or it could be due to some problem needing attention or the user needing to understand some behavior was inappropriate.> WP:INDEF says the same, with other words.

At the same time WP:OFFER says <The six-month threshold can be adjustable under special circumstances. If an editor shows an unusually good insight into the circumstances that led to the block, and sets out a credible proposal for how they will deal with those issues in future, then a return might be considered sooner.>

Given that:

I never denied, since the first day of block, that my accounts were effectively mine; at the same time, when I started using them in the first place, I did not pretend to be a new or inexperienced user with any of them, I just started editing different topics. I also think that the editing style of the accounts was the same, and probably many already knew that they were operated by the same person.
I recognised since the first day of the block to have violated the policy (bullet #5) by editing with three of the accounts while one was under a broadly construed topic ban.
I have now understood that I misinterpreted WP:VALIDALT and generally the entire policy by editing slightly different topics with undisclosed different accounts for "better focusing on those topics" (which is not contemplated by the policy). The account created in early June (Amorphophallus Titanum), at the same time, was for privacy, thus per policy it should be justified.
Blocks should be preventive and not punitive. I am an experienced and enthusiastic editor, with a high-level preparation, who has contributed writing a lot of high-quality new articles and improvements to existing articles over five years, never incurring in conflicts with other editors (with the exception of one who also had conflicts with others before), and I think I could contribute with further high-quality content.

I propose an alternative solution:

The possibility to appeal for an unblock sooner, at the end of August/early September, two months from now, which would correspond in time duration to a repetition of the topic ban which I evaded (per WP:BAN, usually when one evades a ban the ban itself is reset).
What would I do with the accounts? I would keep the three which were created after Aethelwolf Emsworth as edit records. I would use only AE. I would possibly ask a rename of all the accounts to similar names (such as "Xyz", "Xyz1", "Xyz2", "Xyz3").

What do you think? (the question is open to all the involved admins, Bbb23, TB, DoRD)--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Do you agree with the latest proposal (i.e. appeal on 28 August to 1 September)? I think it’s a reasonable way to solve this specific case. In addition I will authorise a CU in six months (1 January 2019) to verify that I will not have created other accounts. I wait the green light from you as the blocking admin.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this useful. I feel like you're a lawyer negotiating a contract. I see no basis for reducing the time from six months to fewer, and if you persist in dragging this out, I will revoke your access to this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as you prefer. I apologise. I was just trying to be helpful.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight request

DoRD, Daniel Case: I have sent to your email addresses a request for oversight/suppression. May either of you process it? Thank you. Regards,--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just found your message in my spam folder, but please send your request to the Oversight team via Special:EmailUser/Oversight or oversight-en-wp

wikipedia.org. —DoRD (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Slavo-Aryan Veda cover.png

Thank you for uploading File:Slavo-Aryan Veda cover.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019 unblock appeal

Dear arbitrators; dear administrator Bbb23,

I appeal for an unblock.

Why I was blocked

In June 2018, I was indefinitely blocked for having violated a two-months topic ban, which was due to a warmongering attitude and was preceded by two short blocks, themselves due to edit wars. I violated the ban through the use of undisclosed multiple accounts.

I had been using undeclared multiple accounts since about December 2015, and during the two months of ban I continued to edit through some of them, thus bypassing, violating, the sanction.

Today, I fully acknowledge my mistake and I apologise. I am aware that the sanction was attributed to the real person, and not to the single account, and so I should have stopped any activity of all my accounts and should also have disclosed them.

Regarding the use of multiple accounts, I was sincere in the discussions of June-July 2018, when I said that my intentions have never been malicious and that I used the accounts to focalise on different topics.^NOTE

I am not justifying my past behaviour: I am now aware that it is preferable to disclose all of one's accounts, since the edit history of a real person has to be clearly traceable, and should not be fragmented into different apparently unrelated chronologies.

Having said this, I do not intend to continue using multiple accounts and I do not intend to continue with warmongering attitudes like those which, ultimately, led to the block.

^NOTEThere is also another reason for which I used multiple accounts, a reason which I omitted in the past discussions because I considered it unimportant: I got tired of the name Aethelwolf Emsworth (my oldest account, created in 2013) and, since I am deeply influenced by what I study during a given time (AE itself was inspired to Aethelwulf of Wessex), I wanted to experiment with new names. Thus, in December 2015 I created Eckhardt Etheling (at the time I was studying Meister Eckhart). Since I couldn't decide what of the two names I preferred, I eventually kept both the accounts and resolved by dedicating them to different topics and sub-topics. The same discourse applies to the account Wddan, that through which I got involved in edit wars, created in April 2017 and whose name is a High German or ancient Lombardic variant of "Wotan". The only exception is the account Amorphophallus Titanum: I created it in June 2018, short before the block, for privacy reasons, to edit the article about the Templeton Foundation, an organisation which is involved in the academic field of the study of religions. There is also a fifth account, Arcane Square, which I created as a temporary account in April 2017 (and its name is itself inspired to what I was studying at that time) to create one article only; I created it because on that day, at that hour, I could only use a public internet connection and I didn't want to log-in using my main accounts. I subsequently abandoned it, and I didn't mention it in the discussions of June-Juny 2018 because I regarded it as a dead account, which I would have never used again; I did not even remember of it.

Why should I be unblocked?

Beginning in 2013, I have given great contributions to Wikipedia; I have written many articles of good quality and fixed many others. I have academic preparation, degrees in philosophy and religious studies, and I wish to continue contributing with my good skills in the writing and formatting of texts, and in the search and use of highly reliable sources. My only purpose is to improve the encyclopedia. I am a good user and writer but also a reasonable person, sincere and trustworthy, and I will not incur again in the mistakes which led to the block.

In the case of unblock, I ask a temporary unblock of all the accounts, if possible. I consider them important edit archives and I want to ask a renaming of all of them under the same nomenclature, with numerical (or similar) differentiation. This has to be done on Meta, and they usually do not rename blocked accounts. After the rename, I would ask an administrator to re-block all the secondary accounts.

Addressed to the Arbitration Committee and to the check user Bbb23

According to the rules, this appeal has to be handled by the Arbitration Committee, since it was with them that I had the last discussion about the block, in July 2018. The arbitrators decided (quoting from the email I received from the arbitrator BU Rob13 on 26 July 2018): "you will need to provide us with good reasons why we should do so [unblock]. Additionally, we would expect to see evidence of insight into the conduct that caused the problems in the first place as well as commitment to changed and well-controlled behaviour".

However, I also inform the administrator Bbb23 (the administrator and check-user who first decided the block) about the present appeal. Bbb23, you proposed "you will need to show at least two things: (1) you have not socked during the period and (2) you understand why you can't have multiple accounts" as conditions for an unblock. Please verify that these criteria have been fully respected.

With a hand on my heart, I ask Wikipedia to forgive me for my mistakes.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019 update

@BU Rob13: (this has been sent by e-mail, too) Nearly two months have passed since I posted my appeal. I am not demanding to hasten the arbitration procedures, I just would like to know what point has been reached in the arbitrators’ discussion. If clarifications about my appeal and my past behaviour are needed, I am open to conversations (here or by email) with you or other arbitrators.

@Bbb23: As the check-user who blocked me, do you agree with an unblockage? As promised, I have not created other accounts or edited anonymously in the past 9-10 months, and, as I have explained in the appeal, I understand why multiple accounts should not be used.

Please, accept my apologies! I think Wikipedia is a great project and I would like to return to give my contribution.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things. First, the Committee is able to verify whether you've been socking. If they need more information, they can always ask me. Second, because the appeal is sitting with the Committee, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to take any action, and that includes whether I "agree" with unblocking you. Again, the Committee can ask me for my input if they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arbitration Committee and Premeditated Chaos: I ask further clarity about the answer that I recently received via email: "we would expect to see an explanation of the conduct which lead to the original block, how you intend to avoid such conduct reoccurring and what productive contributions you would make instead". I thought my February 2019 appeal was complete regarding all the three points. I explained the whole problem about the use of multiple accounts, and the fact that I was indefinitely blocked after having violated, through them, a topic ban which was given (to the account "Wddan") after a series of squabbles and blocks shared with another user. I recognised my fault and promised that I will never do sockpuppetry or simply use multiple accounts again. I also explained why, in my humble opinion, I should be unblocked and what productive contributions I would provide to the encyclopedia. If by "original block" you mean those given to the account "Wddan", I admitted in my appeal that I had a rather "warmongering", uncooperative behaviour with another user. And I apologise for this. This was an exception, not the norm. I can be, and I have been, a fully cooperative user, as it is demonstrated by my behaviour with the other accounts, none of which, over five years, has incurred in behavioural blocks.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: My appeal has been further postponed to August 2019; I can accept this and wait patiently. However, the response that I received is almost identical to that I received in July 2018, after my first appeal. The appeals were different, with that in February 2019 being much more complete and thoughtful, satisfying what the Committee demanded in July 2018: insight into the conduct which caused the block. Since I think to be a good user and I love Wikipedia, and thus I want to come back as soon as possible, I want to know what I made wrong in the February 2019 appeal that did not convince the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, I would like that my case is treated with more transparency, since it does not involve serious privacy issues (I thought differently when I first contacted the Committee; this was possibly a mistake, and I have since changed my mind), so I ask, if possible, that my case is delegated by the Arbitration Committee to Bbb23, so that we can discuss it publicly.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: If by "original block" the arbitrators meant the two-months topic ban which followed a series of squabbles which I had with another user, which escalated in a series of short blocks and in the said topic ban for both of us, then my public apologies go to this user, FrankCesco26 (private apologies will eventually follow, if possible), whom I admit I treated aggressively as I unduly assumed his bad faith. For what's worth, I hope to be forgiven.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you are conveniently excusing yourself one year after your block just as a last try to appear changed to the eyes of the administrators. I tried a lot of times in the past to reach a compromise with you but you always reacted aggressively. I am sorry but I am not buying that. However, I just said what I wanted to say and I will stop here. FrankCesco26 (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FrankCesco26: I think to be blocked for reasons which are far more complex than our squabbles through the account "Wddan". However, as you say, I was excessively aggressive (I am as aggressive as I am precise, by nature) with you and have always assumed bad faith after our first encounter. I sincerely apologise for this, and I think that despite our periodic squabbles some articles we worked on were improved thanks to our, at least unconscious, co-operation.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Today, I have received this message from BU Rob13 of the Arbitration Committee: "Your block is a CheckUser block, meaning it can be lifted only by a CheckUser or the Arbitration Committee. You could certainly ask Bbb23 if he'd be willing to unblock, and it would be up to him if he was willing to do so." This is a sort of delegation, or imput from the Committee to handle the case. With this, do you think that, given the premises (the fact that I have not sockpuppeted and I intend to never use multiple accounts again, as I understand why this should not be done; cf. the appeal and the latest messages), I have learned the lesson and I am now apt for an unblockage?--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's taken a bit out of context. The Arbitration Committee has declined the appeal. In response to a direct question of whether we could delegate the appeal to the blocking CheckUser in the future, I noted that an appeal to a CheckUser remains one avenue of appeal available to a CU blocked editor, in addition to an appeal to ArbCom. It is entirely up to CheckUsers whether they wish to consider such an appeal, but I would not object to one doing so on the basis of a block no longer being needed even after an appeal to ArbCom. This was not a delegation of hearing future appeals; I was simply noting the options available to all CU blocked editors. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @BU Rob13: I prefer that my case and possible future appeal is handled by a check-user. I feel that the appeals to the Arbitration Committee have only complicated the matters. If I am not unblcked by Bbb23 or another check-user in the next days, my next formal appeal (the date determined by the latest decision of the Committee is 13 August) will be addressed to check-users.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:AAB: "Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only. Once they are over and learned from, they are in the past (unless repeated). Wikipedia and its administrators and arbitration committee have a real wish for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing."

@Bbb23: Do you consider the block of my user account to be still necessary, and why? After I was blocked, a WP:SO was proposed, and in the past 10 months I have fully respected the premises: I have not socked and I have learnt from the past errors.

@BU Rob13: As I have written via email to the Committee, I don't understand why my last appeal has been declined. The responses of the Committee are structured like a standard offer, and I think that my February 2019 appeal fully met what the Committee demanded after the first appeal, which is quoted above in the second appeal. Please explain why this was not enough.

In other words, the point is that I really want to come back to Wikipedia, and I am determined to demonstrate that I am a user who can be fully trusted. In the past 10 months I have waited quietly, respecting the premises which were given for an unblock from both Bbb23 and the ArbCom (no sockpuppetry, good understanding of the situation). I think to have fully understood my mistakes. Therefore, I want to know why I am judged to be not yet ready for a re-admission to Wikipedia.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not unblocking you. Your persistent comments still sound like wikilawyering, which is partly why I find your apologies/insight into your misconduct to be unconvincing. Please do not ping me again, and please do not e-mail me again.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just try to understand and apply rules, it's not wikilawyering. I don't understand how I can demonstrate that I am sincere and I do not intend to continue with my past mistakes if I am kept blocked. I will not ping or email you again, but in the next months I will post an appeal to check-users, and I probably will inform you too.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Chinese folk religion

Portal:Chinese folk religion, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Chinese folk religion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Chinese folk religion during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would have approved the deletion of the portal since it was unuseful, like many other portals, however, the fact that I am “blocked for sockpuppetry” shouldn’t have been among the reasons for a deletion. All the others are good reasons, but that is not, in any case (not just mine). First of all, as you can read through my history, I did not use sockpuppetry in a malicious way: I kept the accounts’ activities completely separate. Second, when I created the portal in 2014 I was not even sockpuppeting. I started sockpuppeting in 2016.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One year of block: please unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Precisely one year ago, on 28 June 2018, I was blocked indefinitely. I ask to be unblocked. My block is a check-user block, editable only by check-users. Therefore, I ask any check-user (or Bbb23 himself, if he wants; he asked not to be pinged) to handle the case, consider my apologies, and lift the block. In previous discussions with other administrators I was asked to provide more insight into the original problem that caused the block. I apologise for the incompleteness or unfitness of the previous appeals. I recognise my misbehaviour with the account Wddan. I recognise that I had an aggressive attitude towards another user (FrankCesco26), which culminated in a series of edit wars (and related blocks), which ultimately led to a two-months topic ban. The latter, imposed on both of us, was a decision of the community. Then, I violated the topic ban with the use of the multiple accounts, and I was consequently blocked indefinitely by Bbb23. I formally apologise for the behaviour that I had towards the user FrankCesco26; I was excessively aggressive and uncooperative and always assumed his bad faith, breaking the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. I have written a private email of apologies to him. I would not continue this personal war. I have already apologised for the use of multiple accounts, and explained the reason of the practice (which I started in 2016) in my previous appeal, specifying that my intentions were not malicious and I kept the activities of the accounts separated. I have also already explained that I do not intend to continue using multiple accounts (though I ask a temporary unblock of all of them for a renaming). I have been active here and on Wikimedia Commons since 2013. I have always been an enthusiastic contributor since I believe in the distribution of – reliably and academically sourced – knowledge. Contributing to Wikipedia, always trying to provide high quality edits, occupied much of my spare time, and I would like to resume this activity. Contributing to Wikipedia is like leaving traces of oneself in the project, and I would like them to be honourable, not a shame. Being excluded from Wikipedia (or any human project) and losing the trust of others is a hurting experience; I have suffered seriously, mentally, from this experience. Please, consider with clemency my appeal to be unblocked, and assume good faith. Please, give me a chance. You have my word that I have learnt from my mistakes and I will not indulge in the same misconduct which led to the block. Other talk pages: *User talk:Eckhardt Etheling *User talk:Wddan --Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please see the community review option below. I'm closing this since we haven't heard from you but if you appeal to the community this close won't matter.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2019 (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.

Hello. Could any of the administrators/CUs who manage the requests for unblock run a CU and review my case?
@Dlohcierekim: Could my accounts be renamed? I do not ask the unblock of all of them (contrary to what I wrote in the request above, as I thought it was necessary to have them unblocked to be renamed), but I would like to have them under the same nomenclature, as I have nothing to hide (the reason why I used multiple accounts is well explained in the February 2019 appeal) and I consider them important edit archives.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Sorry, no, we do not rename unblocked accounts.~~ Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dlohcierekim, you may have meant "Sorry, no, we do not rename blocked sockpuppet accounts." You took the words right out of my mouth. :)
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community review option

Aethelwolf, no checkuser has accepted your request for more than two weeks. I have consulted with Bbb23 and you have the prerogative of appealing to the community and requesting their review at AN per the standard offer. If you consent to this, you should consider the wording of your request and change it accordingly, if necessary, before asking any admin to copy it to AN on your behalf.
You had socked to evade a community-enforced topic ban so appeal to the community for unblocking is appropriate, however you should be aware that if they deny the request then you shall be considered as banned by the community per CBAN. Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". This also means that any future appeals must be directed to the community at AN for their consideration. Please weigh this carefully.
I have checked your account and did not see any recent evidence of socking. I also note that you have made useful contributions to Commons during your block which follows the advice given in the standard offer.

Please consider the above and let us know what you decide.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019 AN appeal

@Berean Hunter: Thank you for the review. I myself think that the AN solution is appropriate. I have carefully reflected and I have chosen to put trust in the community’s judgement. Therefore, please report or link the following reworded appeal on AN.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the Wikipedia community.

On 28 June 2018 I was blocked indefinitely by a check-user for having violated a two-months topic ban by using undisclosed multiple accounts. I ask the community of Wikipedia to give me a second chance, giving consent to an unblock.

“Aethelwolf Emsworth” is my oldest and main account, active since 2013, with a lot of contributions. I have no past history of blocks with all but one of the accounts that I used. The account with a history of blocks is “Wddan”, with which I had conflicts with another editor and with which I often had a battleground attitude. I recognise that I had an aggressive attitude towards this other user (FrankCesco26), which culminated in a series of edit wars (and related blocks), which ultimately led to a two-months topic ban. The latter, imposed on both of us, was a decision of the community. Then, I violated the topic ban by continuing editing with the main account (Aethelwolf) and others, and, after this was discovered, I was blocked indefinitely.

I apologise for the battleground behaviour that I had towards the user FrankCesco26; I was excessively controlling, aggressive and uncooperative, and always assumed his bad faith, breaking the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. A few months ago I wrote a private email of apologies to him in order to make peace and, if unblocked, I would not continue my past battleground attitude, neither towards him nor towards any other editor.

I apologise for the use and misuse of multiple accounts. I explained in detail the reason of the practice (which I started in 2016) and the reasons of all the accounts (five in total) in this appeal, specifying that my intentions were not originally malicious and I kept the activities of the accounts separated. The purpose of the accounts was to focus on different sub-topics; another reason was to experiment new nicknames, as I tend to get tired of them. The major alternative account was “Eckhardt Etheling”, active since 2016 and with which I provided significant contributions, often in cooperation with other longstanding editors; I started “Wddan” in 2017 with the aim of focusing on another subset of topics; I started “Arcane Square” in 2017 to connect from a public line, and then I abandoned it (it was a dead account); I started “Amorphophallus Titanum” in June 2018, during the topic ban, to deal with a controversial article. If unblocked, I would not continue using multiple accounts, I would restrict my activities to “Aethelwolf Emsworth”.

Both with “Aethelwolf Emsworth” and “Eckhardt Etheling” I have also provided a lot of contributions to Wikimedia Commons, by uploading images created by myself, or appropriately licensed images from Flickr, Panoramio, or other websites from which I requested appropriate permissions. I have always been an enthusiastic contributor since I believe in the distribution of – reliably and academically sourced – knowledge. Contributing to Wikipedia, always trying to provide high quality edits, occupied much of my spare time, and I would like to resume this activity. Contributing to Wikipedia is like leaving traces of oneself in the project, and I would like them to be honourable, not a shame.

Being excluded from Wikipedia (or any human project) and losing the trust of others is a hurting experience; I have suffered seriously, mentally, from this experience. I understand the difficulty that others could have in restoring their trust in me after my mistakes. Please, consider with clemency my appeal to be unblocked, and assume good faith. Please, give me a chance. You have my word that I have learnt from my mistakes and I will not indulge in the same misconduct which led to the block.

Other talk pages:

Done The thread is posted here. By the way, pings only work when they are made at the same time with a current signature. The one above did not work but fortunately I saw it today anyway.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the consensus here, you are unblocked. Welcome back to editing. I hope you have a productive and enjoyable career here. GoldenRing (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and thanks to the Wikipedia community.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]