My intention was not to reshape Wikipedia to reflect my idiosyncratic religious views. There were some articles that I felt were unbalanced and full of opinions and speculations when actual historic evidence was being ignored, and I felt those could be used to improve the articles to make them more neutral. The documents are Christian and religious in nature, and so there are not just secular viewpoints. I did not realize that ancient writings on Wikipedia were considered primary, not secondary sources, and so I was treating them as secondary sources. It was a mistake, but an honest mistake, and not the malicious intent some of the other Wikipedians have tried to ascribe to it. Nor did I understand "Personal Research" to mean anything more than introducing novel interpretation of sources. I perceived that views I expressed were not novel, but 2000 years old, though I realize that I had inadvertently done so in a way inconsistent with Wikipedia policy regarding ancient sources, which I understand better now and am willing to follow.

My intention for the second account was not to escape scrutiny, but because the particular editor (my accuser, Tgeorgescu) seemed to be hounding all my edits and targeting me specifically with policy bombing, targeting virtually all my edits for reversion across multiple pages, making exaggerated claims against me and my intentions, speaking of "de facto" banning me, but leaving in the reverted edits content and sources he was telling me were supposed to be banned (such as quoting from ancient sources relevant to the topic), saying I was removing reliable sources when I had removed dead end sources, and added multiple reliable sources in place. You can see administratively that I had stopped making edits to Wikipedia articles once I realized they had come under scrutiny, and was trying to ask questions understanding why the policies state things one way but editors were saying another (in fact, I never again made any edits to actual articles with this account, but kept to talk pages). I received a lot of hostility, and felt like I was being railroaded. I felt he was trying to game the system and revert my edits in bad faith, kept saying I was deliberately trying to break the rules, that I was probably a banned user that had come back (I am not), etc, basically accusing me of being a sockpuppet for a banned user, which I wasn't, instead of explaining clearly discrepancies I was asking about (saying sources must be 50 to 100 years old, ancient writings are banned, etc. which I could not find stated in the policies). Just kept answering WP this and WP that, and moving the goalposts. I made no edits at that time. When I thought I understood the rules, my intention was to delete this account and open another for a fresh start, but I learned the account cannot be deleted. I felt that there was good reason to believe that all future edits were going to be specifically targeted by that editor. At John 1:1, you can see from the edit history from the other account that I was truly making a conscientious effort to remove my mistakes and properly construct the article. Even after being banned, the editor taunted me in my talk section saying "Mwuhahahahah" (I have removed it) and wrote in the Gospel of John talk page that I was clearly an old user who had returned to stir up trouble, which is not true in any way. When he asked for the checkuser, he said that they should check multiple accounts because he felt there may be more. I really felt that all this was done to attempt to railroad me into being banned (not to excuse my own wrongdoing in the way I used the account to defend myself). I am willing to work within the community and abide by the rules.

I did not intend to keep one account as a sockpuppet for another, but to replace it altogether. I was under the impression this in itself was not wrong. I admit that I used comments in defense of myself in the third person, because I felt I had good rationale to continue the edit according to policies I had been studying, and I admit that it was wrong and promise it will never happen again. For that, I am truly sorry. My intention is not to promote religious views. I am a stickler for history and facts, with a general distrust for speculations and opinions, and I don't care about opposing views, only that the facts are stated correctly and evidence is presented where it actually exists. That was the position I was coming from. I have not received any benefit of the doubt from the beginning about this. I am also new, and so my mistakes have not been intentional, except this one in John 1:1, where I defended myself in the third person. It was wrong, and again I apologize Bdub2018 ( talk) 19:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC) reply

The Guide to appealing blocks says "Try to make it as easy as possible for the reviewing administrator to see why your block is not or no longer needed." When I look at your lengthy paragraphs, against JzG's brief and to-the-point explanation of the problem, I worry that if I unblocked you, you would continue this sort of weighty discussion elsewhere. Additionally, a checkuser holds private information that may be of importance when evaluating an unblock, which creates a further problem. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC) reply

I am very sorry, and in the past few weeks I have felt ashamed for acting the way that I did in creating a sockpuppet account. It was dishonest and unethical and there were better ways to deal with the circumstances; I chose the wrong way and wish I hadn't. I violated both my long-held, core ethics and worst of all my Christian faith in doing so. I never had any intent to be disruptive; that was not my purpose for creating this account. I acknowledge I made editing mistakes, but truly, they were honest mistakes and I have now read policy carefully to make a conscientious effort not to repeat them, and to be concise. I have had a lot of time to think about it. Thank you for your time and consideration. Bdub2018 ( talk) 06:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply

I think the Standard Offer is the best you're likely to get at this point. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 07:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC) reply