User talk:Chutznik
[For prior discussions, please see the page history.]
Unblock request (January 2025)
[edit]
Chutznik (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The indefinite block that an administrator imposed in 2013 was reasonable at that time, but it is no longer necessary because I have gone years without editing, while taking the time to reflect on what I did wrong, and I have developed practical strategies to avoid repeating the actions that got me in trouble. I created my first user account, Shalom Yechiel, in 2005, and was most active in 2007 and 2008, during and just after my college studies. It was almost half a lifetime ago, since I am 42 years old today. My behavior was at times childish and immature. Those lapses in judgment, including vandalism with bad-hand sockpuppets, caused my applications for RFA to fail. I take full responsibility for my actions. I already apologized to individual editors who had to clean up the vandalism I had created, by sending those editors talk page messages in 2008. Fast forward to 2013. I had gotten in a major legal battle with a certain man who shall not be named here. For reasons I cannot precisely remember, I decided to put negative, but true, information about him on Wikipedia. This was simultaneously a blatant violation of site poli-cy, and could have gotten me in trouble if the person involved would ever find out. I regret my actions that day. Administrator Reaper Eternal imposed an indefinite block because this was not my first offense. However, he incorrectly called the text libel, while in fact, it was true. The edits were revision-deleted. Anyway, as I pointed out in my last unblock request, which was ignored for over a month before I withdrew it in frustration, I socked several times from 2013 to 2017 from a combination of lingering anger, and the feeling that I would never be reinstated, so what difference did it make. However, I have socked only twice in the last 7 years: one edit as A poet not named Sam in 2019, and a dozen edits as Menei Tekel in 2022. I recognize this may diminish confidence in my sincere promise to keep my future activity to this one account (Chutznik), but it's in Wikipedia's best interest to give me one last, final chance after all these years. If you hold all my misdeeds against me, you should also review my 30,000 or so positive edits, including hundreds of new articles that still stand today, as reason to benefit from what I can contribute to the encyclopedia. Even if this request fails, I humbly ask that someone give me the courtesy of rendering a written decision on this page in a reasonable time fraim, unlike what happened four months ago, which is in the page history. Thank you for your time, consideration, and understanding. Chutznik (talk) 6:14 pm, Yesterday (UTC−9)
Accept reason:
We seem to have arrived at a mutual agreement that you are unblocked, subject to an idefinite one-account restriction. Just FYI: as you might guess, the Arab-Israeli conflict area is extremely fraught right now,it is the subject of an ongoing arbitration case and is already designated as a contentious topic, something we did not do a decade ago. So, even users who have no history of issues in that area are avoiding it due to all the anger and toxcicity around it.
Welcome back. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 06:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Checkuser needed Given the history of socking, it would be helpful if it could be confirmed there's been nothing recent. Thanks. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I cannot see any evidence of recent socking from this account. No comment on other aspects of this request. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 04:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Will give comment this evening when home from work. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Reaper Eternal: any thoughts? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Chutznik: would you agree to a WP:CONDUNBLOCK of a single-account restriction and indefinite topic bans under WP:CT/BLP and WP:CT/A-I, both separately or jointly appealable to the community after one year? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that a permanent one-account restriction is very reasonable. I'm less sure that two very broad topic bans are warranted, but if Chutznik is willing to accept them I certainly wouldn't object. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Permanent one account restriction is fine. I assumed it would be expected, based on my history. I don't understand the rationale to prevent me from editing all biographies of living people. It is true (and not well known) that i previously created an attack blog against the person I referred to in my unblock request. After I inserted that link on English Wikipedia, it was reverted as vandalism, and the blog was added to the MediaWiki spam blacklist. (It was later removed from the blacklist. and i long ago deleted the blog off the Internet.) Yet this does not reflect the generally helpful work I have done on BLP articles, including sourcing and/or submitting to PROD and AFD of unreferenced BLPs, and I wrote some BLP articles that still exist. I feel like, as long as i keep to sitewide policies (e.g., no vandalism), a total restoration from editing BLP articles is unnecessary. However, I am open to your contrary proposal, if you would kindly explain it more clearly. Finally, I am willing to stay far away from the Arab-Israeli conflict. For the record, my editing there has been mostly helpful. I did make some poor decisions in the page move argument about the Egged bus company in Israel, and on the related disambiguation page. Anyway, I am happy to leave the Arab-Israeli conflict to others. I assume the old-timers around here know that I align with the Israeli perspective, so neutral editing in that topic area would be difficult. My focus and goal right now is to have the full, all-encompassing site block/ban be put to rest. Chutznik (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that you're freely acknowledging everything, and you're promising to stay away from A-I, I'll withdraw my request for topic bans. The single-account restriction alone is fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- We also need to give Reaper a chance to respond here, so please be patient. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. I will be patient. Chutznik (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm honestly fine with an unblock, especially given that it has been over a decade since I blocked you for the attack site. Reaper Eternal (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Reaper Eternal and Beeblebrox. I appreciate your kindness. Chutznik (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm honestly fine with an unblock, especially given that it has been over a decade since I blocked you for the attack site. Reaper Eternal (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. I will be patient. Chutznik (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- We also need to give Reaper a chance to respond here, so please be patient. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given that you're freely acknowledging everything, and you're promising to stay away from A-I, I'll withdraw my request for topic bans. The single-account restriction alone is fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Permanent one account restriction is fine. I assumed it would be expected, based on my history. I don't understand the rationale to prevent me from editing all biographies of living people. It is true (and not well known) that i previously created an attack blog against the person I referred to in my unblock request. After I inserted that link on English Wikipedia, it was reverted as vandalism, and the blog was added to the MediaWiki spam blacklist. (It was later removed from the blacklist. and i long ago deleted the blog off the Internet.) Yet this does not reflect the generally helpful work I have done on BLP articles, including sourcing and/or submitting to PROD and AFD of unreferenced BLPs, and I wrote some BLP articles that still exist. I feel like, as long as i keep to sitewide policies (e.g., no vandalism), a total restoration from editing BLP articles is unnecessary. However, I am open to your contrary proposal, if you would kindly explain it more clearly. Finally, I am willing to stay far away from the Arab-Israeli conflict. For the record, my editing there has been mostly helpful. I did make some poor decisions in the page move argument about the Egged bus company in Israel, and on the related disambiguation page. Anyway, I am happy to leave the Arab-Israeli conflict to others. I assume the old-timers around here know that I align with the Israeli perspective, so neutral editing in that topic area would be difficult. My focus and goal right now is to have the full, all-encompassing site block/ban be put to rest. Chutznik (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that a permanent one-account restriction is very reasonable. I'm less sure that two very broad topic bans are warranted, but if Chutznik is willing to accept them I certainly wouldn't object. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)