User talk:Chutznik

[For prior discussions, please see the page history.]

Warning

This is your only warning. Your last three edits, which succeeded a gap of about three months, are disruptive and blatant trolling. One more and I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should know better than to call archiving of my talk page trolling. And it is fun to ban users who misbehave, and it is a concern that a user first came to Wikipedia in 2009. But I'm not asking for a block, and I will disappear into thin air once again. I have better things to do than to fight for my freedom to edit. Chutznik (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chutznik: The logic behind your statement at RfA was deeply flawed. There are any number of reasons why someone might not have edited Wikipedia before a certain date, from having been born relatively late to having an offline life! Jumping to the conclusion that anyone who registered an account after a certain point is likely to be a sock of a previously banned user is a serious violation of WP:AGF, and serious accusations require evidence - even at RfA. I know you're not asking for a block. The point is that unless you stop being flat-out nasty to people (as you also were at Pjoef's RfA, your edits are calling for one. I see you were unblocked this February in response to a promise to behave. Please do so and take the anger and assumptions as to others' motives (I see you stating elsewhere besides above that we consider it "fun" to block people) elsewhere. They are inappropriate on a collaborative project. Find something more constructive to do here, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chutznik, I've closed the discussion you started at the RfA talk page. The only reason I'm not blocking you for your continued trolling is because it would appear that Yngvadottir believes you should have another chance. Again, don't persist in your unconstructive behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's another reason why blocking would have no purpose. I hardly edit here anyway. I would appeal a block on principle because I have done nothing wrong, but what's the difference? If you think I've done something wrong, what can I say? Somebody is wrong on the internet... Chutznik (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for trolling and using edit summaries for vandalism and libel. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #62560

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #62793

is closed. Courtesy ping to the eternal one. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
needs to request unblocking via original account.
inelligible for unblocking at this time
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shalom Yechiel-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Any request must be to the ArbCom
-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm noting here that an appeal can now be made through the regular avenues, outside of Arbcom. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I've restored talkpage access for an appeal in an attempt to simplify some bureaucratic complications (original account has talkpage access but password is lost, this account had a password but no talkpage access, so together UTRS requests went nowhere). Administrators: please note utrs:89858. Maxim (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mahane Israel (disambiguation)

The article Mahane Israel (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:2DABS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request (August 2024)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked since 2013, ~~almost~~ eleven years, after I posted inappropriate content about a person I had a conflict with in real life. I would like to return to editing, albeit on a much more limited basis than prior to the block, so that I can improve articles and participate in discussions productively. I might edit only once or a few times in a year, but when I do, I will consider carefully what I am doing, and will do my utmost to keep my actions within site policy.

I have to disclose a few negative facts that may weigh against the allowance of this request. First, I have had many user accounts, most notably User:Shalom Yechiel, which I started in 2005, and retired in 2009 by changing the password to gibberish and disabling email. I wrote several hundred new articles under that username and involved myself at Requests for Adminship, Editor Review, the Signpost, and other community projects in 2007 and 2008. However, I had some behavior problems, including vandalism, which caused my Requests for Adminship to fail. I have created almost one hundred user accounts in my lifetime. Some of them have made only one or zero edits, and most of them are listed as suspected or confirmed sockpuppets of Shalom Yechiel (linked from the userpage). I can provide a list of the other sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly known, if you need it, but all those accounts are indef blocked, and I will not create any more user accounts.

After my indef block under the present user account User:Chutznik in 2013, I honestly felt there was no hope of ever being unblocked, and I made several short-lived sock accounts sporadically from 2013 to 2019. The only one in the last five years (since mid-2019) was User:Menei Tekel, which in 2022 made about twelve edits, mostly trivial spelling corrections. I recognize that socking while being blocked is a negative consideration in this unblock request. I apologize for socking and the inappropriate vandalism edits and edit warring I engaged in with those socks.

If you reinstate me, the most important difference is that I will take it slow. I am not ready to jump into contentions areas of dispute, such as Israel/Palestine, despite my extensive history writing peacefully in that space. Rather, I plan to keep a low profile and make minor edits to lesser known articles mostly. This is what has worked for me in the past. The other difference is that I won't expect anything in return for my time. I poured in thousands of hours in the hope that I would pass RFA and it would somehow improve my life. Obviously I will never pass RFA. The main improvement to my life that I seek is not the pleasure of posting material on the Internet (which I can do elsewhere), but simply to be a person in good standing. I have worried at times that being banned from Wikipedia could someday have real life consequences. The simplest way to avoid such issues is for me to be reinstated and keep a low profile so that I won't run in to any further trouble.

Shortly after my block in 2013, I wrote an email to ArbCom apologizing for what I had done, and also explaining what led to it. One of the ArbCom members advised me to leave Wikipedia behind forever, and I understand his reasoning, but I feel there is a middle ground between a permanent indef block and the kind of excessive emotional investment I had more than ten years ago. I'm going to sleep now, but will be able to answer follow-up questions later in the day. Thank you for reading this message. Chutznik (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have been blocked since 2013, <s>almost</S> eleven years, after I posted inappropriate content about a person I had a conflict with in real life.  I would like to return to editing, albeit on a much more limited basis than prior to the block, so that I can improve articles and participate in discussions productively.  I might edit only once or a few times in a year, but when I do, I will consider carefully what I am doing, and will do my utmost to keep my actions within site policy.  

I have to disclose a few negative facts that may weigh against the allowance of this request.  First, I have had many user accounts, most notably [[User:Shalom Yechiel]], which I started in 2005, and retired in 2009 by changing the password to gibberish and disabling email.  I wrote several hundred new articles under that username and involved myself at Requests for Adminship, Editor Review, the Signpost, and other community projects in 2007 and 2008.  However, I had some behavior problems, including vandalism, which caused my Requests for Adminship to fail.  I have created almost one hundred user accounts in my lifetime.  Some of them have made only one or zero edits, and most of them are listed as suspected or confirmed sockpuppets of Shalom Yechiel (linked from the userpage).  I can provide a list of the other sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly known, if you need it, but all those accounts are indef blocked, and I will not create any more user accounts.  

After my indef block under the present user account [[User:Chutznik]] in 2013, I honestly felt there was no hope of ever being unblocked, and I made several short-lived sock accounts sporadically from 2013 to 2019.  The only one in the last five years (since mid-2019) was [[User:Menei Tekel]], which in 2022 made about twelve edits, mostly trivial spelling corrections.  I recognize that socking while being blocked is a negative consideration in this unblock request.  I apologize for socking and the inappropriate vandalism edits and edit warring I engaged in with those socks.  

If you reinstate me, the most important difference is that I will take it slow.  I am not ready to jump into contentions areas of dispute, such as Israel/Palestine, despite my extensive history writing peacefully in that space.  Rather, I plan to keep a low profile and make minor edits to lesser known articles mostly.  This is what has worked for me in the past.  The other difference is that I won't expect anything in return for my time.  I poured in thousands of hours in the hope that I would pass RFA and it would somehow improve my life.  Obviously I will never pass RFA.  The main improvement to my life that I seek is not the pleasure of posting material on the Internet (which I can do elsewhere), but simply to be a person in good standing.  I have worried at times that being banned from Wikipedia could someday have real life consequences.  The simplest way to avoid such issues is for me to be reinstated and keep a low profile so that I won't run in to any further trouble.  

Shortly after my block in 2013, I wrote an email to ArbCom apologizing for what I had done, and also explaining what led to it.  One of the ArbCom members advised me to leave Wikipedia behind forever, and I understand his reasoning, but I feel there is a middle ground between a permanent indef block and the kind of excessive emotional investment I had more than ten years ago.  I'm going to sleep now, but will be able to answer follow-up questions later in the day.  Thank you for reading this message.  [[User:Chutznik|Chutznik]] ([[User talk:Chutznik#top|talk]]) 05:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been blocked since 2013, <s>almost</S> eleven years, after I posted inappropriate content about a person I had a conflict with in real life.  I would like to return to editing, albeit on a much more limited basis than prior to the block, so that I can improve articles and participate in discussions productively.  I might edit only once or a few times in a year, but when I do, I will consider carefully what I am doing, and will do my utmost to keep my actions within site policy.  

I have to disclose a few negative facts that may weigh against the allowance of this request.  First, I have had many user accounts, most notably [[User:Shalom Yechiel]], which I started in 2005, and retired in 2009 by changing the password to gibberish and disabling email.  I wrote several hundred new articles under that username and involved myself at Requests for Adminship, Editor Review, the Signpost, and other community projects in 2007 and 2008.  However, I had some behavior problems, including vandalism, which caused my Requests for Adminship to fail.  I have created almost one hundred user accounts in my lifetime.  Some of them have made only one or zero edits, and most of them are listed as suspected or confirmed sockpuppets of Shalom Yechiel (linked from the userpage).  I can provide a list of the other sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly known, if you need it, but all those accounts are indef blocked, and I will not create any more user accounts.  

After my indef block under the present user account [[User:Chutznik]] in 2013, I honestly felt there was no hope of ever being unblocked, and I made several short-lived sock accounts sporadically from 2013 to 2019.  The only one in the last five years (since mid-2019) was [[User:Menei Tekel]], which in 2022 made about twelve edits, mostly trivial spelling corrections.  I recognize that socking while being blocked is a negative consideration in this unblock request.  I apologize for socking and the inappropriate vandalism edits and edit warring I engaged in with those socks.  

If you reinstate me, the most important difference is that I will take it slow.  I am not ready to jump into contentions areas of dispute, such as Israel/Palestine, despite my extensive history writing peacefully in that space.  Rather, I plan to keep a low profile and make minor edits to lesser known articles mostly.  This is what has worked for me in the past.  The other difference is that I won't expect anything in return for my time.  I poured in thousands of hours in the hope that I would pass RFA and it would somehow improve my life.  Obviously I will never pass RFA.  The main improvement to my life that I seek is not the pleasure of posting material on the Internet (which I can do elsewhere), but simply to be a person in good standing.  I have worried at times that being banned from Wikipedia could someday have real life consequences.  The simplest way to avoid such issues is for me to be reinstated and keep a low profile so that I won't run in to any further trouble.  

Shortly after my block in 2013, I wrote an email to ArbCom apologizing for what I had done, and also explaining what led to it.  One of the ArbCom members advised me to leave Wikipedia behind forever, and I understand his reasoning, but I feel there is a middle ground between a permanent indef block and the kind of excessive emotional investment I had more than ten years ago.  I'm going to sleep now, but will be able to answer follow-up questions later in the day.  Thank you for reading this message.  [[User:Chutznik|Chutznik]] ([[User talk:Chutznik#top|talk]]) 05:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been blocked since 2013, <s>almost</S> eleven years, after I posted inappropriate content about a person I had a conflict with in real life.  I would like to return to editing, albeit on a much more limited basis than prior to the block, so that I can improve articles and participate in discussions productively.  I might edit only once or a few times in a year, but when I do, I will consider carefully what I am doing, and will do my utmost to keep my actions within site policy.  

I have to disclose a few negative facts that may weigh against the allowance of this request.  First, I have had many user accounts, most notably [[User:Shalom Yechiel]], which I started in 2005, and retired in 2009 by changing the password to gibberish and disabling email.  I wrote several hundred new articles under that username and involved myself at Requests for Adminship, Editor Review, the Signpost, and other community projects in 2007 and 2008.  However, I had some behavior problems, including vandalism, which caused my Requests for Adminship to fail.  I have created almost one hundred user accounts in my lifetime.  Some of them have made only one or zero edits, and most of them are listed as suspected or confirmed sockpuppets of Shalom Yechiel (linked from the userpage).  I can provide a list of the other sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly known, if you need it, but all those accounts are indef blocked, and I will not create any more user accounts.  

After my indef block under the present user account [[User:Chutznik]] in 2013, I honestly felt there was no hope of ever being unblocked, and I made several short-lived sock accounts sporadically from 2013 to 2019.  The only one in the last five years (since mid-2019) was [[User:Menei Tekel]], which in 2022 made about twelve edits, mostly trivial spelling corrections.  I recognize that socking while being blocked is a negative consideration in this unblock request.  I apologize for socking and the inappropriate vandalism edits and edit warring I engaged in with those socks.  

If you reinstate me, the most important difference is that I will take it slow.  I am not ready to jump into contentions areas of dispute, such as Israel/Palestine, despite my extensive history writing peacefully in that space.  Rather, I plan to keep a low profile and make minor edits to lesser known articles mostly.  This is what has worked for me in the past.  The other difference is that I won't expect anything in return for my time.  I poured in thousands of hours in the hope that I would pass RFA and it would somehow improve my life.  Obviously I will never pass RFA.  The main improvement to my life that I seek is not the pleasure of posting material on the Internet (which I can do elsewhere), but simply to be a person in good standing.  I have worried at times that being banned from Wikipedia could someday have real life consequences.  The simplest way to avoid such issues is for me to be reinstated and keep a low profile so that I won't run in to any further trouble.  

Shortly after my block in 2013, I wrote an email to ArbCom apologizing for what I had done, and also explaining what led to it.  One of the ArbCom members advised me to leave Wikipedia behind forever, and I understand his reasoning, but I feel there is a middle ground between a permanent indef block and the kind of excessive emotional investment I had more than ten years ago.  I'm going to sleep now, but will be able to answer follow-up questions later in the day.  Thank you for reading this message.  [[User:Chutznik|Chutznik]] ([[User talk:Chutznik#top|talk]]) 05:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I have crossed out the word "almost" above, since I have now been blocked a full eleven years since August 30, 2013. I have learned and improved over this time period. I'm ready to return and edit sporadically and in compliance with site policy.

I want to point out a couple of things regarding the unblock process. First, my unblock request has appeared at the very bottom of the table at Category:Requests for unblock from the start until now, with the mysterious word "Unknown" in the far left column for "Request time." I don't know what, if anything, I might have done to cause this. If I might have entered the template incorrectly, I reformatted it several days ago, but it still shows up this way. There have been several other users (perhaps many) whose unblock requests have received replies from administrators, since their later-filed requests appear on the table above mine, which still sits at the bottom.

I have seen some other unblock requests rejected after two weeks as a procedural response since no admin was willing to unblock. I respectfully ask that this not be done in this case. It is unclear, now that two weeks have passed since I first posted the above unblock request, whether a single admin has actually read what I wrote.

I understand that reviewing unblock requests is a frustrating task because most requests lack merit and there is a long backlog. I believe that my request has merit. Even if you disregard the eleven-year term as irrelevant because of the sporadic sock accounts I created (and again, I am offering to list them), it has been more than two years since my latest sock was blocked, and I have made zero edits since then, except to this talk page.

This has been a long process for me. I tried several times with UTRS and ArbCom to get some movement over the last couple of years. I understand the reasons for their reluctance. At this point, UTRS and ArbCom are not involved, and the question of my future hear falls to the decision of whichever admin is kind enough to read this message. I also understand that because of my multiple socks that have been blocked in the past, a community review may be necessary to lift the ban (if a ban exists).

I'm trying to be patient. Thank you for your time. Chutznik (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I am requesting admin help because my unblock request has not been answered by anyone, almost three weeks after I filled it. My request continues to appear at the very bottom of the table at CAT:RFU. It is possible that nobody has noticed it down there. Other, later-filed requests for unblock have elicited at least an initial reply with, for example, an admin asking a follow up question.

TLDR, I joined this site in 2005 and wrote about 300 new articles on a range of topics including chess, chemistry, and Israel. I retired my original account in 2009 and cannot recover access to the password. Some months later, I started editing under this present account, and I added new articles about neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

I was blocked in 2013 (not the first time) for posting negative information about a real-world person who is not part of Wikipedia, in both an edit summary and a subsequent message on this user talk page. It was a serious lapse in my judgement, but the continuation of the block is no longer necessary, after eleven years have passed. I did "sock" sporadically in violation of the block. However, I have not edited at all since my last sock was blocked two years ago. Even before that, the sock activity was infrequent, with the next earlier sock having made one edit in 2019.

I wish to be reinstated so that I can make occasional contributions without getting involved in controversy. For example, I noticed that the first article I wrote, J. David Bleich, has become disorganized, with three redundant lead sections. If given the chance, I would be willing to clean up that article. Chutznik (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use the adminhelp template to draw attention to the fact that no admin has responded to your unblock request. You cannot "force" administrators to respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not do it again. However, there is no rule against doing what I did. I think 20 days is long enough to have waited for an initial reply from an admin. Again, this was not a matter of wanting to cut the line. As I explained above, my request was continuing to appear at the bottom of the table where admins review unblock requests. I'm asking for nothing more than other blocked users have received in the last three weeks. And I dare say, if you were in my position, wearing my proverbial shoes, you might have done the same thing, which I again point out is not in violation of any rule that I have seen on this site.

I am willing to wait as long as necessary. Please don't hold my request for some admin to acknowledge the request against me. Chutznik (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not review this unblock request because of my prior interactions with you, but I will do my best to try to make sure it is addressed within a reasonable time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate both aspects of what you just wrote, Newyorkbrad. Chutznik (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chutznik, do you think your unblock request can be addressed based on the information available on-wiki, or is there non-public information involved such that the block review should go to ArbCom? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom has previously referred me to seek unbloock via the public community process, and Maxim unlocked this page so that I could edit it and make the above request. Having said that, if Arbcom wants to take back jurisdiction to consider sensitive information, I would be happy to discuss what happened with them.

There are three issues that stand in the way of a simple "standard offer" unblock. First, the blocking admin accused me of libel and deleted the relevant edits from page history. I admit that the edits were not appropriate on this sire, but I reject the accusation of libel. If anything further needs to be said about this, it should be communicated off wiki.

The second issue is my post-block abuse of sockpuppet accounts. I can identify the accounts on wiki, but I need to get on my laptop first, since right now I am on my phone.

The third issue is that I had some health issues that may have contributed to the decisions I made. In addition to learning from life experience over the last decade, I can address the health issues, but of course that, too, would need to be emailed to the committee off wiki.

It was my hope that I could briefly address the socking on wiki, and get unblocked in exchange for transparency and a one-account restriction. However, if that is insufficient, a referral to Arbcom off wiki may be best. Chutznik (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]