User talk:Erasmus Sydney

This is Erasmus Sydney's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
17	Steve Irons (talk)	Add sources
22	Sust (talk)	Add sources
824	German occupation of Czechoslovakia (talk)	Add sources
84	Lowy Institute (talk)	Add sources
612	Human rights in China (talk)	Add sources
6	Human Genetics Commission (talk)	Add sources
286	Stuart Robert (talk)	Cleanup
1,167	Xinjiang conflict (talk)	Cleanup
56	Reactions to global surveillance disclosures (talk)	Cleanup
324	Joshua Wong (talk)	Expand
215	Ethnic issues in China (talk)	Expand
174	Eddie McGuire (talk)	Expand
59	Katlang Tehsil (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
9	HIV exceptionalism (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
10	Cyber-dissident (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
38	Sentiocentrism (talk)	Merge
114	Han nationalism (talk)	Merge
377	Detention of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig (talk)	Merge
119	Rushan Abbas (talk)	Wikify
20	Counter-recruitment (talk)	Wikify
96	2018 Liberal Party of Australia leadership spills (talk)	Wikify
4	Melanie Clore (talk)	Orphan
7	Ťhomas B. Ťayebwa (talk)	Orphan
3	Santiago Graf (talk)	Orphan
21	Ben Morton (politician) (talk)	Stub
50	James Hamilton (barrister) (talk)	Stub
6	It's an Honour (talk)	Stub
165	Semantic Scholar (talk)	Stub
31	Trevor Evans (politician) (talk)	Stub
58	James Paterson (Australian politician) (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
56	Brendan O'Connor (politician) (talk)	Add sources
24	Malarndirri McCarthy (talk)	Add sources
42	Joel Fitzgibbon (talk)	Add sources
63	Australian Labor Party (Victorian Branch) (talk)	Add sources
4,502	United States Air Force (talk)	Add sources
153	Australian Strategic Policy Institute (talk)	Add sources
27	Eli Lake (talk)	Cleanup
31	Rudd Government (2007–2010) (talk)	Cleanup
23	Korea Development Institute (talk)	Cleanup
35	Liberal Party of Australia (South Australian Division) (talk)	Expand
724	Foreign relations of China (talk)	Expand
93	Opinion polling for the 2021 Dutch general election (talk)	Expand
948	KAI KF-21 Boramae (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
5,891	War of 1812 (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
129	COVID-19 misinformation by China (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
17	Medical diplomacy (talk)	Merge
13	Margaret Throsby (talk)	Merge
157	Eora (talk)	Merge
168	Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return (talk)	Wikify
133	NLF and PAVN battle tactics (talk)	Wikify
53	Science diplomacy (talk)	Wikify
3	Imams Online (talk)	Orphan
1	Paula Goodyer (talk)	Orphan
4	Anna Cheney Edwards (talk)	Orphan
982	BAE Systems Tempest (talk)	Stub
64	Keith Pitt (talk)	Stub
8	Marielle Smith (talk)	Stub
18	Mark Coulton (talk)	Stub
17	Pat Conroy (politician) (talk)	Stub
10	Rick Wilson (Australian politician) (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed blatant copyright violation images you added to the Amanda Stoker, Zed Seselja and Kimberley Kitching articles, and nominated several of these images you uploaded to Commons for deletion. These are obviously taken from recordings of parliamentary broadcasts, and so are clearly not the property of the YouTube accounts you are sourcing them from. The Kimberley Kitching image had all the identifiers of a parliamentary broadcast still on it. As you present as being familiar with Australian politics, it is a certainty that you are aware of this. I note that you also uploaded an image watermarked as being from ABC News to Commons as the property of a YouTube account, ~~which indicates that this behaviour is motivated by an utter disregard for copyright rules~~. Given this seems to be a significant problem with your contributions to Wikimedia projects, I have set the block duration as indefinite due to the risk you will post further copyright violation material here. I or other admins will consider unblock requests which demonstrate that you understand Wikipedia's policies towards copyright and will strictly abide by them in the future. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

This block is unnecessary. As can be seen from all the source pages for these uploaded images, they all come published under the required creative commons licence. I can now see that argument @Nick-D: is making, and, in that regard, I thank the administrator. I need to find the original source of the images and whether they were made under creative commons licence. I am upset by the language used in this statement above. I find it unkind to have motivation attributed to my actions, that I am "motivated by an utter disregard for copyright rules." If I may speak for myself, I can say I am motivated by a desire to have clearer information about the world I care about on wikipedia, which, I hope all can see, includes biographies of important figures in Australian history and contemporary political life, from both sides. I know what motivates me. I like to assume good faith wherever I can. I can see I have made an error. I am not an expert in copyright law, and I can see that, something that looked really easy to do, was actually a mistake. I have taken this opportunity to become more familiar with both the law and the policies on copyright. I am very sad about the tone of aggression in this matter. It's completely un-needed. A note pointing out the error would have been more than sufficient.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, as copyright violations potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, we must take copyright violations seriously. You will need to demonstrate your understanding of copyright and when and how copyrighted content can be used on Wikipedia before unblocking you. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 25 May 2021 (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.

From following up further on some of the images, I am also concerned about the Andrew Hastie article. You have edited this article very heavily (adding 53% of the edits and 61% of the content ever added there), and long-running concerns have been raised on the talk page about this material being balanced towards the subject. From looking at some of the edits, I tend to agree. I also note that you have uploaded images to Commons under ORTS releases and then added some to the article which can only have been taken by people closely associated with Hastie. In particular, File:Rep Mike Gallagher with Andrew Hastie standing with statue of Sir David Stirling at Campbell Barracks in Western Australia on 10 August 2019.jpg was apparently taken at Campbell Barracks, which as the headquarters of the secretive Special Air Service Regiment is most definitely not open to the public, and I am surprised that anyone was able to take photos there. Other photos depict Mr Hastie in his parliamentary offices or conducting electoral and parliamentary business, and are typical of PR-type images of politicians. I think it's safe to say as a result that these images must have been taken by members of Mr Hastie's staff and/or other people with an association with him. The photos you have uploaded are credited to multiple photographers which demonstrates that you are in contact with multiple people associated with Mr Hastie. Taken together, this indicates that you have a relationship of some kind with Mr Hastie and/or his office and/or other associates of him. Can you please tell me where you disclosed this relationship as part of editing the Hastie article as required by WP:COI? Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nick-D: I have followed the advice of the Arbitration Committee in this matter, which I received on 29 January 2021.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your email. On the basis of it and some further checks of your edits, I think that you have violated Wikipedia's policy regarding multiple accounts. I also think that you have also violated WP:COI in a serious way. These issues are inter-related, and are quite serious. Given that you asked for privacy in your email, I will not disclose the details further here. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tried to the best of my ability to be upfront with admins about everything, while trying to keep principles of privacy. I have followed the advice I have been given. If you decide to crucify me now, so be it.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your email today, I will try to clarify the issues here. While you publicly disclosed a conflict of interest on one account, I can't see where you did so from this account (the diffs you have noted were from the other account). Unless I am missing something, there appears to have been no way for other editors to have known that the accounts were linked, and declarations of a conflict of interest need to be explicit anyway. Your editing from this account was then on topics with which you had previously declared a conflict of interest with (including one where you had explicitly done so), so this violated WP:COI. As you also implied that this account is separate from the other account on an article's talk page, and some of your edits from this account appear to have continued some disputed editing the other account was involved in, this violated the policy regarding the use of multiple accounts. I hope that this is helpful. I have also struck the comment above regarding motivations for uploading that image given that I, of course, do not know what your motivations might be and I shouldn't have suggested that I did. If you wish to discuss the matter further, I would ask that you do so on Wikipedia rather than by email. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Nick-D: Can I ask that you consider how this is playing out. You are - and fair enough - asking more about me. And the more I answer here, rather than in a private admin forum or an email, the more I reveal about myself. The more I reveal about myself, the closer we get to having my privacy compromised. That may be okay if the subject matter of the articles concerned was, 19th Century history, but it's not. And, as you know, I've already had the experience of being the subject of national media attention. Here in this place, we assure each other of our privacy and, more than that, of each other's safety. Along with that assurance, we promise to declare any conflicts of interest. I did that. I declared my interests on all the articles where there was a conflict. And then came the witch hunt by way of a trumped up sock-puppetry investigation, of which all were cleared; then, shortly after came the media outing. It wasn't safe so I asked admins about what to do, whether I should use another handle and, as I've shown in an email to you, they supported that decision. So that's what I did. I told them of my connections to the subjects and I asked them whether I needed to go ahead and disclose on every article, as I did before, knowing that that very practice is what lead to the both the intimidating, and false, investigation; and to my outing. I asked admins if that's what they wanted, and I received no reply. I took that to mean it was up to me. I had disclosed to them what my connections were. I am being open with you. And I am revealing more about myself. In so doing it is becoming less safe for me to edit here. I ask you to consider that as you judge whether I have done the right thing, step by step. I believe I have acted in good faith. I wonder if you might also be upfront with me. Is there another editor feeding you information to discredit me? If so, that feels creepy. Perhaps I'm being paranoid. Please be honest. I have been with you.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erasmus Sydney. It is unclear what you are expecting admins to do here. Since you have admitted to having a conflict of interest, that is something that has to be openly disclosed under our rules. You also seem to believe that the user name 'Erasmus Sydney' reveals your true identity to the media. If so, that is an issue between you and the media. Not much that Wikipedia can do in that case. Anyway, I agree with User:Nick-D that you seem to have made no COI disclosure regarding the present account. There is a COI disclosure by a different editor at the head of Talk:Andrew Hastie. If you somehow manage to clear up the copyright issues for which you were blocked by User:Nick-D, you would be expected to make an appropriate disclosure of any COI that you may still have at Talk:Andrew Hastie. If such a disclosure might lead the media to suspect who you really are, how is Wikipedia expected to fix that problem? I have not received any private information about you, I am just reading the talk pages. Your page is on my watch list due to a past 3RR case about Andrew Hastie. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there @EdJohnston: I'm really grateful for the support I've received from admins. At the moment I'm asking for three things. First, I am asking if admins would accept my apology for having made a stupid mistake. I uploaded images that had been published under creative commons, but I now realise that the people who published them didn't actually have that right. I didn't think it through. Second, I'd really appreciate some open-ness on how I have suddenly become subject to investigation from a number of admins. This has happened once before, with false sock puppet investigation, for which I and others were entirely cleared, and it all turned out to be be driven by one hostile editor. If that's what's happening here, I feel like I deserve to know, especially as I have been so open. Third, I ask for your advice about identity. I've heard from @General Notability: and others how, once identity is revealed, it can open the way to threats from people, even death threats. While I hear you say that matters to do with revealed identity are something between me and the media, I'm sure no one wants to see any editor experience death threats. This is why wiki gives all editors the assurance of privacy, so that sort of thing doesn't happen, or so it needn't happen. So, what do I do?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason=I respect the copyright policies — and a close look at the published sources indicates I have not breached them.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

Two concerns have been raised and, after reflecting carefully on my actions, on the wikipedia policies, and on some thoughtful advice from an admin, I’d like admins to suggest the following.

I request this block is removed, as no copyright policy has actually been breached.

When I received this block, I really did get a shock, and I didn’t reflect on the copyright policies, or on my actions. I’ve since taken some time to look at both. Below I want to set out (1) my understanding of the policies and some important details regarding uploading images published by Australian Parliament Fan (or AusSenateFan) along with (2) a proposal of meeting COI concerns.

(1a) About the policies: The whole idea of Wikipedia is that material may be freely viewed, freely distributed, and free perpetually. That can only happen if the information that is placed on wikipedia—whether the written word, an image or other media—is free from copyright restrictions. It’s a founding principle of the community. But it’s also about keeping wikipedia safe from exposure to legal issues. So, it’s not acceptable to use copyrighted material if the original copyright owner hasn’t given their permission. All media on wikipedia must be available under a suitable free licence (such as a Creative Commons Licence). I can see that admins are 100% right in holding to these concerns.

(1b) About images sourced from Australian Parliament Fan: the images discussed above are all owned, in the first place, by the Australian Parliament, and then published by Australian Parliament Fan (sometimes calling themselves AusSenateFan) under Creative Commons Licence. Just for context, an example of this, uploaded by another editor, is this image of Senator Glenn Sterle which may be seen here. The still image has been uploaded from a Youtube clip published by Australian Parliament Fan here under Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) but the original owner of the imagery is the Australian Parliament. What is being questioned, in the discussion above, is whether Australian Parliament Fan actually has the right to publish this material under the creative commons licence. So, I contacted them and they pointed me to where the Australian Parliament sets out its copyright parameters. What I can share here is that the Parliament (which owned the content in the first place, not Youtube or any TV network) makes its broadcasts available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence. However, there is only one type of image that may not be used under this licence — and that is an image of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, which, I understand, does not feature in any of the content we’re discussing here. I encourage all those concerned to read the details of the copyright information here: https://www.aph.gov.au/Help/Disclaimer_Privacy_Copyright#c

(2) Addressing COI concerns by using one declared account. I propose that, from now on, I only use the user account being The Little Platoon (I had used this account throughout 2020, but had concerns about my privacy when it was mentioned in national media. When I wrote to arbcom about this on January 29 2021, they wrote to me, supporting my suggestion to start using Erasmus Sydney as an alternative account.) All the relevant pages edited by the Little Platoon have a COI declaration. I will go further and put a statement on each the userpage of both accounts showing the relationship with the other.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, a far shorter request is going to be far more likely to be reviewed, and reviewed positively in this case. Your request + comment takes up my entire screen, and frankly I haven't read it. Reading the guide to appealing blocks will likely help - either explain succinctly why the block is in error, or demonstrate succinctly that you understand why you were blocked, and your plan to avoid that behavior going forward. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 12:52, 4 August 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Images of Parliamentarians in the Australian Parliament come under their Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence. As such, wikipedia policies have not been intentionally violated, but I now propose to no longer use such images. ::.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2021 (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.

Thanks for your guidance above @SQL:. To be brief:

I understand that I have been blocked for violating copyright policy. In particular, for uploading images of parliamentarians in the Australian Parliament without evidence of permission.
Australian Parliament makes all its broadcasts available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence: https://www.aph.gov.au/Help/Disclaimer_Privacy_Copyright#c
As the source was CC-licensed, I thought all CC licenses were okay, but I can now see that was my mistake. Going forward I intend to not use images that come with Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence, and to be far clearer in showing evidence of permission.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the above unblock requests do not sufficiently address this editor's actions in arguing that this account and The Little Platoon (talk · contribs) were unrelated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Little Platoon/Archive#09 October 2020 - in particular, this comment. Similarly, they also argued that what proved to be justified concerns were "harassment" at User talk:The Little Platoon. Moreover, based on what they have disclosed to me by email and above, any unblock would need to be subject to a condition that they do not edit articles on Australian politics, broadly defined, given that they have a COI with this issue that they have not successfully managed. In particular, The Erasmus Sydney account has been used to make a number of edits on topics with which the Little Platoon had a declared COI that were sympathetic to one side of Australian politics. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also blocked The Little Platoon (talk · contribs) per the above public disclosure. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone aware of the relationship between the two accounts: I don't really see this as sockpuppetry, per se, though I concede that there are undisclosed COI issues. I believe that the problems here were good-faith mistakes rather than done out of malice or intent to deceive. Nick-D, I would personally suggest a restriction like politics involving currently-elected politicians (so that they can edit about historical politics while avoiding COI issues) but I can't think of a concise way to word that off the top of my head. Maybe post-(some date) Australian politics? GeneralNotability (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that this account was used to add large quantities of material that was sympathetic towards the Australian politician with whom the same person had declared a COI with the Little Platoon account. They also did not address the problems with this material when concerns were raised about it on this talk page and the article's talk page, and reinstated some of this material when it was removed (for example, [1]). Their editing has not been limited to currently serving Austalian politicians (for instance, there have been quite a few edits to the John Anderson (Australian politician) article). More broadly, I think that broad-based topic bans as I have suggested are fairer to editors in situations like this as they are easier to understand and protect them against being subjected to Wikilawyering. An alternate formation might be a topic ban about Australian politics since 2013 or similar given their focus is on the current LNP government, but I worry that this would leave them exposed - for instance, if they edited the John Hewson or Paul Keating articles (chosen purely for illustrative purposes) it would be unclear if this was allowable or not, given that both are long-retired as politicians but remain active in current Australian political debates. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I can't tell you how distressing this is. I thought that, if I was open that would be the way to resolve things. And now. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D, @GeneralNotability: This has been sitting for six weeks without action; do either of you have a way to unblock this user? Some sort of topic ban does seem doable. There's been no further socking as far as I can tell. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the post immediately above this, the ball has been in this editor's court for that time. I cannot support them being unblocked without them agreeing to a topic ban on editing articles concerning Australian politics, but it may be the case from the above that they do not want to accept such a condition. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jpgordon:. The block was from me uploading an image that had a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence (but not the creative commons license that's okay with wikimedia). My mistake. And one I will not be make again.

It's not fair for anyone to use the SP term here, because I wrote to Arbitration Committee asking if I could move handles in January, because of privacy issues, and this was approved by Arbcom on 29 January. I haven't SP-ed. I stopped using one handle entirely because of a privacy issue.

While I had disclosed all my COIs on my earlier user name, I didn't do so with Erasumus Sydney. That is a more serious mistake, which I really regret. The way I'm offering to resolve this is to abandon Erasmus Sydney entirely. I won't be using it. I'd like it deleted if possible, but, if not, all will be able to check that it is dormant.

My thanks again to @Nick-D: and @GeneralNotability:. I can see you've both given plenty of time and thought to this matter. I appreciate your feedback and direction.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you are maintaining that you did not violate the rules on using multiple accounts and have not committed to abide by a topic ban on Australian politics I am not willing to consider an unblock. Please note that you are currently blocked for both copyright violations and sockpuppetry, and unblock requests should be made at the account you intend to use in the future. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please @Nick-D: if you can, gently, can you explain how is there a violation with regards accounts? I wrote to Arbcom and asked their permission to use a separate account, my reason being that user name I had used was being mentioned in the media in connection to matters of security. I asked them if that was understandable and they emailed me back with their approval on January 29 of this year. Is there something else I should have done at that point? Honestly, I'd like to know.Erasmus Sydney (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained this above: please see my posts from 12 and 13 August, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @Nick-D: I've read through your comments on those dates. You'll need to be clearer with me. My question is simply this. I wrote to Arbcom asking if I could have their permission to cease using one handle, and use Erasmus Sydney instead. They wrote to me on January 29 and said yes. As you know it is wrong to use multiple accounts without a good reason. I had a good reason. They approved of that reason. Is there something else I should have done?Erasmus Sydney (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, I'd be in favor of unblocking with a "modern Australian politics" topic ban (though I don't know what a good cutoff date for that would be) and a one-account restriction. I believe that Erasmus Sydney has made several mistakes, but I don't think they were made with malicious intent or intent to deceive (and I say that as one of the more aggressive anti-COI/anti-UPE editors). The copyright issue, too, stemmed from what appears to be a misunderstanding of "Creative Commons license is automatically OK" (in this case, the license was CC-NC-ND, which is not acceptable). That said, I'm not going to act in an admin capacity here - I've privately communicated with this editor with advice regarding both the account switch and just general suggestions about editing, so I'm not confident in my own neutrality. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will accept that. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What would be a good cut-off date for "modern"? I'm not knowledgeable enough to suggest one. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just some comments which I hope make the conditions under which I will agree to an unblock clear:

Unblock requests need to be made at the account for which an unblock is desired. In this instance, it is The Little Platoon. This is necessary on procedural grounds, not least to confirm that the person requesting being unblocked is the same person who operates that account (and hence is also agreeing to any unblock conditions, with the commitment being on the relevant talk page). As such, this discussion should move there.
As the COI violation was egregious here and I am concerned from the above whether the editor really understands this, I think that a clear-cut topic ban is needed. As I noted above, I think that this should be a ban on: 'editing articles concerning Australian politics'. This will protect Wikipedia and other editors from a reoccurrence of the problematic editing here, and is also in the interest of the editor as it will protect them from being targeted by Wikilawyering regarding what's in and out of the topic ban.
I agree that a commitment to only use one account (The Little Platoon) in future is also needed.
I'm comfortable from the above that the issues around copyright violations will not re-occur.
While not necessary for an unblock, it would be good manners for this editor to apologise or agree to apologise in future to the editor(s?) they wrongly accused of "harassment" and similar for connecting the two accounts. This was a very serious allegation to make, and should not have been made. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer use or contribute to Wikipedia and have recently been alerted that my log ins have been part of a security breach. Given the sensitivity of some of the subjects I have edited, I would like to delete this account and the other account I have used: Erasmus Sydney. For the purposes of administration I have attempted to comply with the above instruction from @Nick-Dand leave a message at the bottom of my user page for Erasmus Sydney, however, I am unable to do so as the IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia. My personal apologies to anyone who has been been aggrieved in the matters discussed above. At this point, it's important for me to move on and for my account to be wiped. Erasmus Sydney (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Little Platoon. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]