User talk:Maxen Embry

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is Maxen Embry's talk page, where you can send them 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

October 2024

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Greetings to the administrators, especially @Drmies and @ToBeFree. In the months, I have been blocked, I have been reflecting on my actions here in Wikipedia, especially the obsessions I had with the pages relating to the Kennedys and the 1975. My hyper fixations in these subjects made me engage in edit warring and even made sock puppet accounts to satisfy this impulse to create control in my small space in the web. I have since sought professional help regarding these issues and made vast improvements in my lifestyle including my internet usage. In a way, I am grateful to have been blocked as it was the awakening I needed. I am requesting unblocking with the promise of never editing pages associated to the topics mentioned. I hope I can somehow payback and compensate on the damage I've done with advantageous contributions in the future. Thank you for your consideration.Maxen Embry (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on the below, it's very, very clear you haven't changed your behaviour at all. I'm sorry the block late last year wasn't the awakening you needed and I'm disappointed at your attempt to pull the wool over our eyes. Yamla (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not a CU anymore, and as the blocking administrator I wouldn't grant or deny it anyway, but there needs to be a better explanation here about the sockpuppetry, and a firm promise to refrain from that in the future. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: you're not a CU any more? Well, I am. The following accounts are Technically indistinguishable:
- Maxen Embry (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
- ThijsStoop (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
- Gaily44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
- Hellolexus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
- AzureAstor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
- Kate Gun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)
Other than Maxen Embry, all of these were recently confirmed by PhilKnight to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThijsStoop. Phil may have more to say about that, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Maxen Embry, it seems you were not truthful. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the technical data is they are

Confirmed. PhilKnight (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. I am back here to state my penance for sockpuppeting. I have created other accounts (i.e. BiasedBased and Sharonstonebasicinstinct) to continue editing despite being blocked. I have also tried to circumvent this block by appealing using a VPN which resulted to being conflated with other sockpuppets I know nothing of at all. These are against Wikipedia rules and my punishment is well-deserved. However, I promise to not engage in these behaviors again going forward. I hope that you can give me a second chance to prove that I have changed. Thank you.

Decline reason:

No. This is for sure ThijsStoop. I found another connection. And three is too many for chance. asilvering (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2025 (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.

Technical evidence shows no recent block evasion. --Yamla (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: That means they aren't related to the currently-active socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ThijsStoop, contrary to the previous checkuser's claim above, right. Assuming that's true I'm inclined to believe the claim above that the previous connection to that sockfarm was spurious, and process this as a reasonable standard offer request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, @Pppery, it should not be read as counter to Ivanvector and PhilKnight's earlier findings. -- asilvering (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having investigated that connection specifically, it does technically match the story above as technically possible. The question about whether to believe that these are technically identical but otherwise unrelated people using the same VPN endpoint comes down to whether or not you believe there is a behavioural connection between the this editor and the socks here: [1]. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again from a purely technical standpoint, I can't say that this account is unrelated to the pile of socks who are presently listed as "group 1" here: [2]. And while it's unlucky to get caught as part of one sockfarm once as an innocent bystander, it's starting to get strange if you're caught as an innocent bystander twice, against the same sockfarm. But CUing this country sucks, and if anyone is going to be that unlucky, it's going to be someone living here. -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience: BiasedBased, Sharonstonebasicinstinct. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if anyone needs anything from me here. Happy to weigh in, just literally sick and tired with the flu and a long day of travel. :) --Yamla (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla, I've merged the whole thing to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fairyspit. What's left to do there is just to retag a huge pile of socks. -- asilvering (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck. Thanks for your work! --Yamla (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2025

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).

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

Request reason:

Good day everyone! I am here to confess that I have created other accounts (i.e. BiasedBased and Sharonstonebasicinstinct) and used them to to circumvent my block. I am not ThijsStoop and merely used a VPN which resulted to being conflated with other sockpuppets I know nothing of at all. I know that these are against Wikipedia rules and my punishment is well-deserved. I am reiterating my commitment to not engage in these behaviors again going forward. Thank you for understanding. Maxen Embry (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Thank you for committing not to sockpuppet further. You can consider requesting unblock again in six months if you keep it up. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 2 December 2025 (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.