Crainsaw

August 2023

The facts are not in dispute: see this post to ANI, and subsequent ones. A block is appropriate. As I noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaiser von Europa, CU did not provide enough technical evidence for a block, but the subsequent discussion at ANI brought the truth to light--and let me just note how rare it is. There is some discussion at the SPI over what can be done here: for now I'll just link to WP:OFFER, and such conversation should take place here. Pinging some involved editors and administrators: Piotrus (thank you for your effort in the SPI, Piotrus), Volunteer Marek, Star Mississippi, MarioGom, Lourdes. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I admitted too being Kaiser because Lourdes said there might be a slight chance of me being unblocked, I understand why Lourdes thought I was a sock, because CU said so. There's no need for further wasting of admin and editor time. I'll go to WP:UTRS, and get unblocked. Crainsaw (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #77940

is closed. (long, protracted sigh) I mean, I want to believe appellant, but I'm renowned for my gullibility. This needs to be hashed out here and not UTRS. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

But the UTRS page says "3. If the block is a checkuser block, send it to review by checkusers", I wasn't requesting an unblock, I was requesting another CU report. There was no need to apologize on the appeals case. Crainsaw (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I also wrote this in the appeal "I request another Checkuser to review my case" Crainsaw (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

More than one checkuser already did. Interesting turn of phrase. "Admitted to." People smarter than I need to consider unblocking you. And that starts with the the unblock template. No, it starts with reading the Guide to Appealing Blocks. Then add the text

{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}

A member of the Unblock Request Team will look it all over. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not a check user block per se. It is not tagged as such. Any admin can unblock you. And the check users routinely review CAT:UNBLOCK. Please read the WP:GAB. It all starts there. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:Guide to appealing blocks#Sockpuppetry blocks only explains appeals if you're actually guilty for socking, and only your main account (In this case Kaiser von Europa) can get unblocked, if I were Kaiser, I would've logged in years ago to appeal or take the standard offer. The reason I admitted (falsely) to socking, was because I'm not an senseless idealist, and take every chance to not get banned. Lourdes said there was a slight chance I would remain unblocked if I admitted, and I took my chance. I'm not sure any admin (myself included) will listen to me after checkuser "confirmed" me being a sock. All this can be avoided through another simple checkuser. Also, as noted at the ANI by an user, non-CU admins aren't allowed to repeal blocks which were imposed due to CU.

For you to believe my requests, and not write them off as "cope", I have a number of reasons why I'll keep appealing till I can.

1. If I were a sock then I would've shut up by now, and taken my chances with the standard offer.
2. Because if I kept appealing, and losing, it not only would reduce my chances of acceptance with the standard offer.
3. My appeals would not only waste admin time, but also my time, what would I gain by continuously appealing despite knowing I'm a sock. The only reason is I'd want to waste community resources as a sort of revenge which is reminiscent of the mindset of an 10 years old.

If you're still not convinced, I can email you other more private means through which I can prove my innocence. Crainsaw (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I do wish you would please follow instructions and use the unblock template. Please do not email me. I don't seem to be communicating clearly enough for you to understand. Again, please use the unblock template as instructed. If anyone is to unblock you it will not be me. So far, you've not appealed at all except via UTRS. And debating with me is tedious and time wasting. I will not be likely to respond further. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, what will happen to my drafts? Is being banned a reason for rejection? Draft:House of Kaphengst, Draft:Westendhall, Draft:Franz Peter Adams and Draft:Chancellorship of Konrad Adenauer Crainsaw (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

No idea about the drafts, at a guess, WP:G5 might have come into play. Again, please follow instructions given. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

They're all there . . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I've nominated the 4 submitted drafts (the first three mentioned above plus Draft:Jacob Philipp Caspers) for G5 to get them out of the AfC queue. If Crainsaw is unblocked, the drafts can be undeleted via WP:Requests for undeletion. Curbon7 (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You forgot Kreis Heilsberg Crainsaw (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't really have much to say any more, Deepfriedokra told me to use the unblock template. All relevant information is on this talk page, this ANI, and this SPI (maybe the discussion is archived by the time you read it). To condense all the information (I request the reviewer to read all relevant discussions) I got accused, I provided evidence to the contrary and questions which were left unanswered. Both me the Piotrus (the accuser) agreed we needed CU. CU surprisingly said I'm a likely sock. Since then, I've been trying to get another CU to review my IP. Above in the discussion with Deepfriedokra, I outlined reasons why my appeals weren't "cope", and had justification. All I need is another CU-admin to review my case and IP. Crainsaw (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC) :It's probably worth noting, due to the concerns raised below, that Wikipedia talk:CheckUser/Archive 6#Self-requests says that User AGK made this, changing the wording from authoritatively. I'm not sure what the policy is on that, but user AGK seems to be in pretty good standing, he was a former admin, and is part of the OMBUDS commission. Now don't come to me with the "you seem to know your way around, you're not a new user" argument, a simple archive search titles "request" at Wikipedia talk:CheckUser reveals the archive 6 thread, also I've been on Wikipedia for 6 months, which is more than enough time to get acquainted with Wikipedia. Also at the talk page of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Community expectation of Checkuser here, admins discussed checkuser innocence checks, and agreed they can be appropriate under certain circumstances and have been done before. Again admins, don't panic, this was linked at Wikipedia:CheckUser#See also Crainsaw (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per Drmies below. I would also add regarding the quoted CHECKME below that the linked RFC is 14 years old. I would not rely on it for current policy (and, yes, while there's always IAR, pinning your unblock request on it (even by implication) is never a good idea. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there any other way to appeal? Crainsaw (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Per WP:CHECKUSER: "On some Wikimedia projects, an editor's IP addresses may be checked upon their request, typically to prove innocence against a sockpuppet allegation. Such checks are not allowed on the English Wikipedia and such requests will not be granted." 331dot (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Sigh Crainsaw (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not a CU block, so drop that. You admitted you were a sock, and now you're unadmitting it? This is quickly becoming a waste of time, and the more you post here, the later the clock on the standard offer starts running. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

As I've written above I'm not an senseless idealist, and take every chance to not get banned. Lourdes said there was a slight chance I would remain unblocked if I admitted, and I took my chance. You don't need to waste your time if you don't want to, simply decline the request if you think that's right, be bold. Crainsaw (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Under the assumption that you're not a sock. Renewal6 (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Well. thank you for the Barnstar, this is the first one I've received, sadly it has to come under such difficult circumstances. Crainsaw (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of African countries by population on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hashing it out

The admins told me to hash it out here, that's what I'll do. Feedback, suggestions, and thought's by other users are not only welcome, but encouraged.

Revised rebuttal against Piotrus' original accusation

Replace the edit summary with description (edit summary is automatically generated), and that's how easy it is to add a description with the mobile version suggest edits

diff. Piotrus says I started to add templates as soon as a registered, which is true, what is false with the accusation is the way he presents it the diff he cited has the automatically generated edit summary "(#suggestededit-translate 1.0)" which is only available on the mobile version as a suggested edit under the "edits" tab. It also had the following tags: Mobile edit, Mobile app edit, Android app edit to prove they were mobile app edits. The diff of me "mass adding" German names to obscure villages (P.S. Cheb district isn't a town, or obscure village, it's similar to Counties) is also false, as those edits were done in a single afternoon, and ended with me admitting I was wrong in a friendly discussion with FromCzech. Piotrus correctly noted that the real mass addition stated on June 21, citing this list which contains ~110 pages, not much when compared to Renknms edit count of 8000 and mine of 3000. It's also worth noting Renknm was only a suspected Kaiser sock, and the list between me and Kaiser is a lot shorter. Also worth noting that the list between Kaiser and Renknm is also pretty short. (Something interesting I noticed is there used to be a sockpuppet case von Renknm, but I think it got deleted or something during the merge off the Kaiser von Europa sockpuppet case, and the clerk probably forgot to add the the Renknm is a Kaiser sock discussion to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaiser von Europa/Archive) Piotrus saying I'm not a new user because I cite the Talk:Gdańsk/Vote is false because the Gdańsk vote ended in 2005, way before Kaiser even registered his account. And the policy which replace the Gdańsk vote (I think) is WP:MPN, which itself mention the Gdańsk vote, so you can't escape it, it's plastered all over Wikipedia. Piotrus adds that I cited User:Rockypedia, which is true, but where he goes wrong is calling me "a brand-new user" by the time I cite him, I was editing Wikipedia for 6 months, and had a general overview of the active and formerly active editors in the topics I mostly edited. (Namely Polish history, Israel-Palestine and German history related topics) It's worth noting Volunteer Marek and Rockypedia had disruptive habit of removing/reverting German names from Polish articles, even though it's required by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines. Also why would Renknm, get banned a years later decide to create another account randomly, even when he could've taken the standard offer a long time ago, same with Kaiser, how can one be so patient, get blocked, wait years, despite being aware of the WP:OFFER, and randomly decide to sock [again]? Something doesn't add up. (Note to Materialscientist who's reverting all of my Polish edits, please be aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 411#gov.genealogy.net) Piotrus says I cited the "obscure" essay WP:BABY, another indication I'm not a new user, my reply, Talk:Zionism#Question. More is to come soon. Crainsaw (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

The odds of an admin wanting to wade through all this(and more!), at least in this format, are very low. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't ping anyone precisely because It's still in work. The mere fact that an admin replied within 3 minutes of me posting proves that admins will see this, if you have any formatting suggestions, they're welcome, and I think it's an admins responsibility to fully read unblock requests, and discussions they're involved in. Crainsaw (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Limitations off CU

When Checkuser claimed I was a likely sock off Kaiser, I was surprised and startled to say the least. Since then, I've explored Checkuser policies and guidelines on Meta-Wiki and Wikipedia, first realizing that IP data is kept for 90 days at most, and when in doubt, CU's should answer like Magic 8 Ball. Crainsaw (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Evidence to the contrary ignored, questions left unanswered

Piotrus and especially Volunteer Marek tried to paint a black and white picture claiming that adding German names, was inherently disruptive (Which is required by MoS )with Volunteer Marek going as far as to accuse me of "incessant irredentism", which is ironic given his track record, and the fact that I've removed the "before 1945, the area was part of Germany" from pages as well. I've also made multiple other positive changes to these pages, such as translating, and in some cases moving articles from their outdated name, to the newer ones from the Polish Wikipedia. Piotrus kept insisting that I picked up "wiki-skills" (boils down to Wikitext knowledge) to fast, which, let's be real, isn't rocket science, I have experience in coding, and Wikitext is very simple.

Unanswered question:

1. The random creation of this account, it wasn't a sleeper, or created when another account was banned/accused.
2. As pointed out before, the patience of Kaiser seems to be amazing, getting blocked over 12 years ago, yet still creating socks. Here's an overview, Kaiser logged his first edit in 2011, and got blocked in 2013. The first sockpuppet IPs were created in December 2014, and locked in January 2015. Already a 2-year distance. The first edits by Renknm were logged in 2012, but after making ~50 edits the account stopped editing, till 2016 when it randomly reappeared in March. 1 year distance. Plus Renknm is still suspected, but nothing's proven. Then there's the disproven Tino Cannst case, the first edits by all three of the accounts was logged on December 2017. Another 2 years distance. Then I got accused 1 year after Tino. Multiple years of inactivity between the blocks and sock creations.
3. My unusual interest in other topics, such as Israel-Palestine, Indian history, and local history related pages.
4. If I am Kaiser, why didn't defend myself at SPI's before? Getting banned 2 times by SPI would make a regular at SPI's, always there to see whether I'd been accused or not.

Citations will be added shortly, along with more responses. Crainsaw (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Bonus

Piotrus also mentioned that my case sounded like WP:DUCK, but WP:DUCK says if User A gets banned in an heated dispute, and then soon after User B registers, goes to that dispute and starts discussing it just like User A, User B's a sock. Let me remind you, Kaiser had years between getting banned and a new sock logging edits, realistically speaking, there is little to no chance Kaiser would still be socking with the same amount of patience. Crainsaw (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Unblock re

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This won't take more then 10 minutes of your time, I know, the unblock request seems quite long, but it's compact, and it won't take more then ~5 minutes to read, and another 5 to reach your decision.

I've been blocked due to this sockpuppet investigation, all relavent topics are convered in this resposnse or this talk page. Before taking any action, feel free to ask me any question regarding the response and if you, then before declining please ask me any question regarding any inconsistancies, reasons, polcies, or anything else which influenced your decision.

Revised rebuttal against Piotrus' original accusation

Replace the edit summary with description (edit summary is automatically generated), and that's how easy it is to add a description with the mobile version suggest edits

diff. Piotrus says I started to add templates as soon as a registered, which is true, what is false with the accusation is the way he presents it the diff he cited has the automatically generated edit summary "(#suggestededit-translate 1.0)" which is only available on the mobile version as a suggested edit under the "edits" tab. It also had the following tags: Mobile edit, Mobile app edit, Android app edit to prove they were mobile app edits. The diff of me "mass adding" German names to obscure villages (P.S. Cheb district isn't a town, or obscure village, it's similar to Counties) is also false, as those edits were done in a single afternoon, and ended with me admitting I was wrong in a friendly discussion with FromCzech. Piotrus correctly noted that the real mass addition stated on June 21, citing this list which contains ~110 pages, not much when compared to Renknms edit count of 8000 and mine of 3000. It's also worth noting Renknm was only a suspected Kaiser sock, and the list between me and Kaiser is a lot shorter. Also worth noting that the list between Kaiser and Renknm is also pretty short. (Something interesting I noticed is there used to be a sockpuppet case von Renknm, but I think it got deleted or something during the merge off the Kaiser von Europa sockpuppet case, and the clerk probably forgot to add the the Renknm is a Kaiser sock discussion to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaiser von Europa/Archive) Piotrus saying I'm not a new user because I cite the Talk:Gdańsk/Vote is false because the Gdańsk vote ended in 2005, way before Kaiser even registered his account. And the policy which replace the Gdańsk vote (I think) is WP:MPN, which itself mention the Gdańsk vote, so you can't escape it, it's plastered all over Wikipedia. Piotrus adds that I cited User:Rockypedia, which is true, but where he goes wrong is calling me "a brand-new user" by the time I cite him, I was editing Wikipedia for 6 months, and had a general overview of the active and formerly active editors in the topics I mostly edited. (Namely Polish history, Israel-Palestine and German history related topics) Volunteer Marek and Rockypedia had disruptive habit of removing/reverting German names from Polish articles, even though it's required by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines. Also why would Renknm, get banned a years later decide to create another account randomly, even when he could've taken the standard offer a long time ago, same with Kaiser, how can one be so patient, get blocked, wait years, despite being aware of the WP:OFFER, and randomly decide to sock [again]? Something doesn't add up. Piotrus says I cited the "obscure" essay WP:BABY, another indication I'm not a new user, my reply, Talk:Zionism#Question.

Limitations off CU

When Checkuser claimed I was a likely sock off Kaiser, I was surprised and startled to say the least. Since then, I've explored Checkuser policies and guidelines on Meta-Wiki and Wikipedia, first realizing that IP data is kept for 90 days at most, and when in doubt, CU's should answer like Magic 8 Ball.

Evidence to the contrary ignored, questions left unanswered

Piotrus and especially Volunteer Marek tried to paint a black and white picture claiming that adding German names, was inherently disruptive (Which is required by MoS )with Volunteer Marek going as far as to accuse me of "incessant irredentism", which is ironic given his track record, and the fact that I've removed the "before 1945, the area was part of Germany" from pages as well. I've also made multiple other positive changes to these pages, such as translating, and in some cases moving articles from their outdated name, to the newer ones from the Polish Wikipedia. Piotrus kept insisting that I picked up "wiki-skills" (boils down to Wikitext knowledge) to fast, which, let's be real, isn't rocket science, I have experience in coding, and Wikitext is very simple.

Unanswered questions:

1. The random creation of this account, it wasn't a sleeper, or created when another account was banned/accused.
2. As pointed out before, the patience of Kaiser seems to be amazing, getting blocked over 12 years ago, yet still creating socks. Here's an overview, Kaiser logged his first edit in 2011, and got blocked in 2013. The first sockpuppet IPs were created in December 2014, and locked in January 2015. Already a 2-year distance. The first edits by Renknm were logged in 2012, but after making ~50 edits the account stopped editing, till 2016 when it randomly reappeared in March. 1 year distance. Plus Renknm is still suspected, but nothing's proven. Then there's the disproven Tino Cannst case, the first edits by all three of the accounts was logged on December 2017. Another 2 years distance. Then I got accused 1 year after Tino. Multiple years of inactivity between the blocks and sock creations.
3. My unusual interest in other topics, such as Israel-Palestine, Indian history, and local history related pages.
4. If I am Kaiser, why didn't defend myself at SPI's before? Getting banned 2 times by SPI would make a regular at SPI's, always there to see whether I'd been accused or not.

Bonus

Piotrus also mentioned that my case sounded like WP:DUCK, but WP:DUCK says if User A gets banned in an heated dispute, and then soon after User B registers, goes to that dispute and starts discussing it just like User A, User B's a sock. Let me remind you, Kaiser had years between getting banned and a new sock logging edits, realistically speaking, there is little to no chance Kaiser would still be socking with the same amount of patience. Volunteer Marek's evidence about me and Tino Cannst being socks if nothing more then sloppy reading, The diff about the Ore Mountains was me adding the CZECH and German names too the lead, I didn't notice they were already in the infobox. The rest are diffs about me adding German names to Czech districts, which was wrong, and which I've addresses above, linking to the disscussion with FromCzech. One off the diffs was him adding the town was occupied by Czechoslovak troops in 1918, which is true, but I didn't agree it sould be on every Sudeten towns page, so I added it to Republic of German-Austria#Borders.

Diffs

Interestingly

I noticed that Kaisers' IP was availble on this website, and it traces to Berlin (1), while I'd made it very clear, I'm from Hessen, through my content creation like Castle Eppstein (G5 deletion), and sginifciant contributions to articles like Taunus, and Hofheim, additionally, see my uploads at commons. And also, not that I'm making any accusations, but I was on holiday in another continent when the CU check was done, for which I have private evidence to back up, so I'm still skeptical of the CU results.

Conduct statement

This is my second Unblock request in 3 days. After getting banned, I made one WP:UTRS appeal, which was declined, and the admin told me to "hash it down here". After that I made one unblock request, asking for CU innocence check, which was also (understandably) denied. After realizing that IP addresses were stored for 90 max, CU could do nothing. I haven't made disruptive edits like the socks, and have worked collaboratively to the greatest of my abilties. I hope the admins will carefully reconsider my request, and make the right choice.

Regards,

Crainsaw (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have seen information which makes it clear, "beyond all reasonable doubt", as criminal lawyers say, that this account is a sockpuppet. JBW (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

Crainsaw (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Two brief notes: 1) "IP data is kept for 90 days" - correct, but we log data (of course not all) on CU Wiki, which is closed for public view. 2) "when in doubt, CU's should answer like Magic 8 Ball" - every checkuser has their own take on this instruction. In practice it is considered more of a joke rather than guideline. Materialscientist (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Aren't the logs simply when and on which user a check was performed? Crainsaw (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

No, those are CU activity logs, they are kept forever. Materialscientist (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Then what does the CU wiki store? Or is that a secret? Crainsaw (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We keep there some information from actual CU scans and related comments. It is a Wiki, and hence it keeps all its data, while CU scans are limited to 90 days. Materialscientist (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Its been over 3 weeks Admins... Crainsaw (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as an uninvolved admin/checkuser that regularly patrols this category - I've passed this request without reading it a couple times because it is FAR too long despite your claim that it is not in the intro. 1359 words and 40+ references/links is (in my experience) probably going to dissuade other volunteers from reviewing this request as well.

If your concern is about CU behavior, contacting the arbitration committee would likely be your best path forward. SQL^{Query Me!} 19:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Or, you could review the unblock, it's barely 3 pages long. I'm not eager to send a ton of sensitive information to ArbCom, I'll do that if my request is denied. Crainsaw (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• It's funny when I realized, the confession was extorted out of me by Lourdes, who gave me the false hope, that I might get unbanned if I confessed, so I did, even though I'm innocent. Now, s/he's a banned sockpuppet. Crainsaw (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• @JBW: The average human reads 200 words per minute. To read my 1359 words, it should take you ~6-7 minutes, don't tell me you can't do that. Crainsaw (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  [5] ach, ist jetzt egal Crainsaw (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Just popped in my head, if I am Kaiser, why was I the one to request CU ([6])? And why am I going thtough all this hassle to get unblocked? I could just lay low for a few years and come back, like Kaiser has done before. Crainsaw (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  I even tried to conduct a small study/survey on IP vandalism patterns. (G5 deletion) Crainsaw (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Political userbox category, mistakes of an inexperienced editor. Crainsaw (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Talk:Kostrzyn, Greater Poland Voivodeship#Requested move 21 July 2023 Crainsaw (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  [7]

  [8]

  Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1189#Vandalism documentation

  Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1180#Wiki-project revival

  Crainsaw (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Email

Hi - I received your email. I'm busy just now, and don't have time to review the lengthy threads above so offer no opinion as to whether or not you should be unblocked. If there is private evidence that you wish to submit, you can email arbcom with it - there are instructions on how to do that at WP:GAB. Best wishes Girth Summit _(blether) 12:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I also recieved an email, and I also do not particualrly wish to involve myself personally here. I can't find any mention of you being blocked from emailing the committee under this name or the name of the account you have been identitifed as being a sock of, and I'm not one of the people who handles incoming emails to the committee so I can't really speak to that either. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not seek any particular ArbCom members involvement, though, I have very confidential evidence proving my innocence. And I was unsure who I should send it to. I asked Girth Summit as above, and he told me I should send the evidence to the ArbCom en email list. I kept getting the notification that either the group didn't exits or I didn't have the permission to post in it. That's why I needed a middle man, eho could send it to the mailing list on my behalf. Crainsaw (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Well? WP:CONTACTCU does say "The English Wikipedia checkuser team, which can be suitable if you need other checkusers to be aware or you do not know any checkusers personally to judge which individual to contact. You may do so by emailing the English Wikipedia checkuser VRT queue at checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org. Not all checkusers are subscribed to this list. If it is sensitive beyond that, then it may instead be sent to the Arbitration Committee mailing list or any arbitrator." Could I send the information to you, and you could forward it to arbcom-enwikimedia.org? Crainsaw (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Catalog of my other activities

1. [9]: Removed "removed Before 1945 the area was part of Germany (East Prussia)"
2. [10]: Move from old to new name, which I found out about at the Polish Wiki article.
3. [11]: Move from old to new name, which I found out about at the Polish Wiki article.
4. Talk:Zionism/Archive 21#Question: Topic never touched by Kaiser and his Socks.
5. Talk:Ma'ayan Harod#Requested move 5 July 2023: Topic never touched by Kaiser and his Socks.
6. Talk:Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism/Archive 4#Sources...: Topic never touched by Kaiser and his Socks.
7. Talk:British Raj/Archive 11#Mussulman term: Topic never touched by Kaiser and his Socks.
8. User talk:Kautilya3/Archives/Archive 19#British Raj: Topic never touched by Kaiser and his Socks.
9. [12]: Translated sizeable chunk of a local article. Kaiser and his Socks never edited local pages.
10. [13]: Translated sizeable chunk of a local article. Kaiser and his Socks never edited local pages.
11. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Political userbox category: Misguided new user.
12. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1189#Vandalism documentation: Question at Teahouse.
13. User:Crainsaw/IP vandalism patterns (G5 deletion): Study on IP vandalism patterns.
14. Talk:Kostrzyn, Greater Poland Voivodeship#Requested move 21 July 2023: WP:COMMONNAME
15. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1180#Wiki-project revival: Question at Teahouse.
16. [14]: Translated a large chunk of articles/topics never touched by Kaiser and his Socks.
17. [15]: Translated a large chunk of articles/topics never touched by Kaiser and his Socks.
18. Castle Eppstein (G5 deletion): Article creation, a local history topic never touched by Kaiser and his Socks.
19. Philipp Ludwig Adam (G5 deletion): Article creation, a local history topic never touched by Kaiser and his Socks.
20. Draft:Jacob Philipp Caspers (G5 deletion): Article creation, a local history topic never touched by Kaiser and his Socks.
21. Draft:House of Kaphengst (G5 deletion): Article creation, a historical dynasty never touched by Kaiser and his Socks.
22. Draft:Westendhall (G5 deletion): Article creation, a historical topic never touched by Kaiser and his Socks.
23. Draft:Chancellorship of Konrad Adenauer (G5 deletion): Article creation, historical topic never touched by Kaiser and his Socks.
24. Draft:Franz Peter Adams (G5 deletion): Article creation, a local history topic never touched by Kaiser and his Socks.

Crainsaw (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)