→Standard offer unblock request: concurring with BWilkins |
|||
Line 291: | Line 291: | ||
*Chutznik, It's time you realised that there is hardly an active admin who works on unblock requests who is inclined to acquiesce to your demands. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 10:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC) |
*Chutznik, It's time you realised that there is hardly an active admin who works on unblock requests who is inclined to acquiesce to your demands. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 10:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC) |
||
Let me copy the text from [[WP:STANDARDOFFER]]. I suspect you haven't read it recently or are not applying it correctly to my request. |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
It's simple: |
|||
#Wait six months without sockpuppetry. |
|||
#Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. |
|||
#Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return. |
|||
How does it work? |
|||
#Contact a willing administrator or experienced editor (via email or IRC). |
|||
#If they agree a review is appropriate, they'll open a thread at an administrative noticeboard (WP:AN or WP:ANI). |
|||
#Discussion usually takes a few days. |
|||
Apologies aren't necessary, just basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
I have followed my three parts of the bargain. I have waited six months without sockpuppetry. I have promised to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban (vandalism, socking, and anything that gives even the appearance of "outing"). I have not created any extraordinary reasons to object to a return. |
|||
I am using the unblock template (rather than email or IRC, as I don't know who is the best administrator to email, and I don't have access to IRC) to contact a willing administrator. If you are not a "willing" administrator, then please ignore the request and let someone who is a "willing" administrator handle it. That administrator should rationally agree that review is appropriate because I have waited six months, I contributed a tremendous amount before and I am willing to contribute again. Discussion on [[WP:AN]] should take a few days. I am familiar with the processes of WP:AN and I understand that a consensus may be required to lift my block or to reduce its length from indefinite to a definite period. |
|||
"Apologies aren't necessary" - yet, if you actually read what I wrote above in the section "How we got here", I ''did'' apologize and I did promise to move forward productively in the future. You state that I did not understand the reasons for my block. This is partly true. I understand that my "real name" edit violated a policy which justifies a block of some length. I also understand that other people -- Neutralhomer and Youreallycan (see above) -- have done harassment or outing as bad or worse than what I have done, yet their indef-blocks were lifted after one week. I have promised to edit from only one account. That is a strong promise. The only reason I inserted the phrase "and you find out about it" is the obvious point that, if you don't find out about it, you can't enforce it. I want my promise to be enforceable. I do not want my wording above to be construed against me in such a way that by saying my promise should be enforceable, it's as if I made no such promise. I do promise not to create new accounts, and I have no old accounts or "sleepers" to call upon, so the only account I will edit from is "Chutznik." Since I have only that one account, if I were to vandalize -- which I will not do -- I would lose my editing privileges again and would not legitimately be able to vandalize a second time. Knowing the severe consequences, I will not vandalize at all. If I am feeling under stress, I will avoid Wikipedia and go for a walk or handle it some other legitimate way. |
|||
I am not making an unreasonable "demand", Kudpung. Previously I was told to wait for the six months so that I could make a "standard offer" request. I have done so. In exchange for my patience, all I am asking for is your side of the deal: let a willing administrator find that I have made all appropriate disclosures, that I have not edited, that I understand why I was blocked but I don't understand why I can't be unblocked, and the community should decide. If you feel something terrible will happen because of this, go ahead and rewrite the text of [[WP:STANDARDOFFER]] going forward, but please allow me the offer as it currently is written. [[User:Chutznik|Chutznik]] ([[User talk:Chutznik#top|talk]]) 18:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:07, 20 November 2012
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Chutznik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Dead Sea. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
Marek.69 talk 02:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Your request
I certainly believe that you're who you say you are, but if you are you know of at least three ways of contacting me that will prove it. Do so by one of them and I'll remove the template. And welcome/shalom. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Good work!
Thank you for translating the Baka, Jerusalem article! Please keep up the good work! Just one note however, if you have sources for the text, it would make it even better. Unfortunately, Hebrew Wikipedia works without sources, which is different from English Wikipedia. Thanks again and cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 20:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
Hi Chutznik. I noticed that when you copy-pasted the neighborhood of Jerusalem template you accidentally also included the category. As userpages don't belong in categories I removed it. Have a nice day. JinJerusalem (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comment regarding your !vote and the new "Source Analysis" table at the aforementioned AfD. Both may make you reconsider your !vote. Thanks, Dale 11:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Shihab Dehlvi
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Shihab Dehlvi, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —Paul A (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Previous username?
Do you have a previous username you would like to disclose? Hipocrite (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of "Beit Yaakov (Jerusalem)"
A page you created, Beit Yaakov (Jerusalem), has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is in a foreign language and exists on another Wikimedia project.
You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.
Thank you. CalumH93 (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: Mahane Yehuda
According to WP:HE it should be Mahaneh Yehuda Market, but this is not the only naming convention that should be considered. They should definitely be consistent though. Please start a discussion about it at Talk:Mahane Yehuda Market. —Ynhockey (Talk) 17:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
G'day Chutznik
I noticed that you're brave / foolish enough to stick your hand up for the Arbcom this year - I'm planning on doing some short audio interviews with as many candidates as I can manage, so am hoping that you might be interested in having a 15 / 20 minute chat at a moment of your convenience? - I'll be using Skype to make and record the conversation, and my ID is 'Privatemusings' - I can happily call you on a landline or cell / mobile, but perhaps you are also on Skype, and don't mind sharing your ID with me? - the slowish start to nominations might give me a bit of a head start this year, so if you're up for it, lets find a suitable time, and give it a go! - maybe the best next step is for you to indicate some times you might be able to be available, or ask any questions you might have? Hope you're good, and good luck! Privatemusings (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- just checking in, and making sure you've noticed the above :-) - hopefully our paths might cross soonish... Privatemusings (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Alternate accounts
Hello Chutznik, just a query about your return and candidacy in the election. Given that you abandoned your previous accounts under the Right to Vanish and are now standing on their merits, would you object to them being restored so that editors can see the full context of your candidacy? Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 02:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply; per this comment, I have uprotected and redirected the following accounts to your current userpage, and restored and unprotected the talkpages where appropriate: User:Placeholder account, User:Shalom, User:Buki ben Yogli, User:Crystal whacker, User:Kivel, User:Shalom Yechiel. Regards, Skomorokh, barbarian 02:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Urgent notification
Dear Chutznik, It's just as well I looked at your questions page: you've transcluded the wrong page, which is full of corrections, strike-throughs, etc, is not thematically arranged, and does not include several late questions. The right transclusion is of the template. I suggest you copy over the answers you've already provided, where they are applicable. I'm sorry if there's been a misunderstanding, and if the instructions need to be clearer, please let us know at the election talk page. Tony (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Also, you'll find built in to the GQ template is a fresh section header at the bottom for your individual questions, which in your case appear to start with Kirill's. Tony (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC) PPS I suggest you add {{ACEQuestions}} to the top and cut and paste your existing answers upwards, where possible. Then remove the old set of General Questions. Tony (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Echoing what Tony said - you'll want to add {{subst:ACEQuestions}} to the questions page, then cut/paste your answers to the questions you've already gotten to. I know you have some individual questions as well - those will go below the proper header. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 00:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Minor factual correction
Hi Chutznik - I'm the ArbCom clerk for the case that involved Piotrus and I noticed you discuss his "ArbCom" desysop. For the record, ArbCom did not officially desysop him. He admin bit was temporarily removed for the duration of the case (a standard procedure whever an admin is a central subject of a case). A formal motion to permanently desysop him was then being voted on when Piotrus resigned "under controversial circumstances". Cheers Manning (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I can correct that in my statement. To the best of my knowledge ArbCom has not done this previously. It has allowed an admin to retain adminship while a case is pending. Thanks for pointing this out. Chutznik (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
If you're up late-ish
and have had the chance to get skype installed - I'm looking for you as I type :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Chutznik, I was just wondering what you meant by "not in hebrew wiki" when you deleted Kiryat Belz and Zichron Yosef from the template. I don't know as much about Kiryat Belz, so I can't comment as much on that... after a few minutes of research all I was able to find was "מרכז החסידות נמצא כיום בקריית בעלז שבירושלים" here: [1]. As for Zichron Yosef, it doesn't have its own article on Hebrew wiki, but it is definitely a neighborhood and should be on the template. It's often grouped with Nachlaot, and you can see mention of it in both the English and Hebrew versions. So what do you think... should we put them both back in? Breein1007 (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
December 2009
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to User:MBK004/RfA, you will be blocked from editing. If you have issues with me, bring them to my talk page. If you touch my subpages again there will be consequences. -MBK004 04:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted your subpage User:Chutznik/MBK004, as it is clear to me that it's only intent is to attack another editor. You should know much better than that, given the length of time you've been around Wikipedia. Do not recreate it. Parsecboy (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Parsecboy, what exactly are you playing at? As you may be aware I am not Chutznik's greatest admirer, but since when is commenting on another editor a "personal attack", especially given that MBK004 is making almost identical allegations about Chutznik based on an incident three years ago, and not being subjected to the same warnings? I wish the self-appointed Civility Police would actually read WP:NPA instead of assuming it means "anyone who's rude about people I like is An Evil Troll, anyone who's rude about people I like is a Fearless Defender Of The Wiki". Which part of Wikipedia's definition of "personal attack" (Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor; using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream; linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor; accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence; threats of legal action; threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats); threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages; threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others) do you think Chutznik is breaking? – iridescent 15:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
NFL color templates
Dude, name the team(s) that you don't want to use alt colors for on player infoboxes. And then edit {{NFLusealtColor}}, and you're cool. --bender235 (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
"Never" users
Just for the benefit of the tape, you're not one of the "never" users - a small group, whose members I'm sure you can guess. Wind the clock back and re-read the first sentence of That Oppose... – iridescent 15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Really? I'm surprised, but okay. Chutznik (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not going to reopen that page, but it's coming back to me. Chutznik (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Please contact me ASAP
Email would be best, and within the next 24 hours. My "email this user" works fine. Risker (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
I am blocking you for a week for creating socks and using them to disrupt an RFA. The next time you're caught using socks, given your history, you are probably looking at a block of months rather than weeks, and that's if the checkuser is feeling benevolent. Risker (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For your efforts in WikiProject Innocence. I remember seeing this a long time ago and hadn't checked what happened after that but I think your project may have made a contribution to Wikipedia policies. Keep up the great work. ~AH1(TCU) 03:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC) |
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun
The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.
Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.
Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!
Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
CSD
Hello, thanks for tagging article with CSD. However, I suggest warning the user using the warning located at the bottom. Example: {{subst:spam-warn|Tinted|header=1}} ~~~~ In cases that the article could apply with two criterias, use {{db-multiple|G12|A7}} and the warning {{subst:Nn-warn-multiple|Tinted|header=1}} ~~~~ will appear at the bottom.
If the user is warned, they may improve the page and they will why the article was deleted. Lastly, I believe you should've waited with Lorenzo Bartolucci to tag the article. Users often take their time and contribute to the page in multiple submissions. There are chances the page wouldn't have improved but it's safe to wait nearly 10 minutes. SwisterTwister talk 18:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your proposed deletion reason of R.A.H.C.
While I deleted the R.A.H.C. for being a copyright violation, your concern of "Who cares?" is not an acceptable reason for deletion. While you might not care about the book, there are others that may be interested in it such as the members of WikiProject G.I. Joe. Please use an appropriate deletion reason in the future such as not meeting the notability guidelines for books. Also remember that flippant remarks can be considered biting new editors. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- C'mon man, you know and I know that the article was complete garbage. I did nothing wrong. Thanks for stopping by my talk page, though. Chutznik (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
CSD log
I saw that you used only db in edit summery. You are doing great patrolling. I'd suggest you to use WP:TWINKLE for patrolling pages, vandal fight, etc. It has pre stored edit summery and you can also keep a log book (subpage) of your CSD work to see that what is your success in that. Thanks and Happy patrolling! Yasht101 03:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Unblock request
Chutznik (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have waited patiently for three months. I strongly believe that an indefinite block (as in "forever") is far too severe. I recognize that the edit I made in May 2012 was against policy, and I will not make similar edits again. My strongest argument for being unblocked - if you prefer, to have another chance to edit on the website that "anyone can edit" - is my tremendous positive contribution history. Under my various legitimate accounts (Shalom Yechiel, Crystal whacker, Chutznik, etc.) I have more than 30,000 productive edits, including more than 10,000 each to mainspace and Wikipedia space; I have created more than 300 articles; and I produced a Good Article and reviewed ten Good Article submissions. I have done far too much for this project to deserve a "forever" block for a single edit. Please allow me to return. I assure you that I have complied with the terms of my block, and I have not edited since I was blocked three months ago.
Decline reason:
As you are blocked for abusing multiple accounts, you'll need to request unblock from your original account. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
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.
Mr. Gordon, that is not possible. I locked out the password to User:Shalom Yechiel more than two years ago. User:Chutznik is my main account and the correct one to request an unblock. Please review my unblock request on the merits. Chutznik (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Chutznik (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The decline reason given by Mr. Gordon is unreasonable. I locked out the password to my original account more than two years ago. I am editing now from my main account. Chutznik (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Declined based on the above - as that sockpupptry and threat of futher sockpuppetry occured in May, that's simply too soon. Please take the WP:STANDARDOFFER if you wish to be unblocked. Also please note that indefinite =/= "forever", but "until the community is satisfied the behavior that led to the block won't be repeated". - The Bushranger One ping only 19:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
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.
Despite all the positive contributions, you outed people, created attack accounts and threatened with mass sockpuppetry]. This is very serious stuff, how can we be sure that it will not be repeated, especially since you have had serious behaviorial problems before your current block? Max Semenik (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Request
.
Short version: Please do one of the following three actions:
- Unblock me; or
- Change my block to a definite length not more than one year from the block date (hence, until May 2013 or earlier); or
- Start a discussion on WP:AN or another appropriate noticeboard to seek community input, as per WP:STANDARDOFFER. Chutznik (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
As I do not wish to be accused of abusing the unblock template, I am using the "helpme" template instead. However, I still demand (respectfully) that I be unblocked.
Everything in the statements by The Bushranger and MaxSem is wrong or inapplicable. Let me explain:
1. "Declined based on the above - as that sockpuppetry and the threat of futher sockpuppetry occured in May" [sic] - Jpgordon's reason ("based on the above") is completely inapplicable. As I explained, I locked out the password to User:Shalom Yechiel more than two years ago. At that time I intended to retire. I also retired User:Crystal whacker. Later I created User:Chutznik and edited with that account. These were all legitimate accounts. I left the project, then I came back and edited some more. This is completely appropriate behavior and should not be considered socking.
2. "...that's simply too soon." No it's not. I have had a whole summer to think about what I did. I know it was wrong, and I will not do it again. Three months is a long time. In that time, I started and finished a ten-week internship; I composed a chess puzzle; I read the Torah at my synagogue many times; and I biked many times, including one 40-mile day. In short, I lived life to the fullest. All I am asking is to be permitted to engage in a hobby I find meaningful. You are treating me as if this is some excessive request from someone who should know better than to ask.
3. "Please take the WP:STANDARDOFFER if you wish to be unblocked." The "standard offer" says I have to wait six months, which is three more months from now. It also says I should contact an admin, who will start a discussion on the administrators' noticeboard. Why can't we just cut the six months in half, given my extraordinary level of positive contributions after thousands of hours spent (wasted?) as a volunteer? Face it - whoever you are reading this, you have done far less to help develop and maintain this project than I have done. Have a little respect for me.
4. "You outed people" - not true. I wrote in one edit summary (singular, not plural) "Majorly's real name is [Name]." This is not outing. How do you suppose I knew his real name? He freely revealed it on the Wikimedia mailing list and on Wikipedia Review. Although technically this does not count as posting it "on Wikipedia" as the policy requires, it is very close. This factor should mitigate my punishment. Furthermore, the act of "outing" had no effect. First, Majorly's real name is an ordinary name. If you don't know more about him (his age, where he lives, etc.) the name by itself does not provide much useful information. Second, the edit summary was reverted in a matter of minutes. Nobody who would care what Majorly's real name is got to read it on Wikipedia. Third, I revealed the content of the edit summary in a thread on Wikipedia Review, and an administrator read that thread and indef-blocked me. I seriously doubt whether a Wikipedia administrator has jurisdiction to indef-block a Wikipedia editor for posting on Wikipedia Review what was the content of a Wikipedia edit summary. What I do on Wikipedia Review is my own business. The blocking administrator did not read the edit summary on Wikipedia. My main point remains that this was the most trivial, technical violation of WP:OUTING and caused zero harm to Majorly.
5. "threatened with mass sockpuppetry" - no, I threatened to continue editing with a legitimate alternate account User:Chidon01 that I created in accordance with policy and made only legitimate edits from. Threatening to continue editing from that account was a "heat of the moment" mistake. I just learned that I had been indef-blocked for a single edit without warning. This seemed, and still seems, like the most excessive punishment imaginable, and the most excessive punishment ever given to anyone in the history of Wikipedia (aside from "innocent user" blocks, which have happened). I was angry and did not know what to do. I could have just carried on editing from User:Chidon01, but I wanted to make it clear that I was going to do that, that I did not respect the indef-block because it was -- and is -- excessive and unfair and disrespectful. I knew immediately after I made that edit that I would be checkusered and User:Chidon01 would be blocked. I didn't care anymore. I'm sorry for not just going quietly without making that edit, but I was angry, and I would ask you to try to put yourself in my role at that stressful and most unexpected moment.
6. "how can we be sure that it will not be repeated, especially since you have had serious behaviorial problems before your current block?" Look, I had the same crappy question asked at my RFAs long ago. One loser asked "how do we know you're not vandalizing right now?" when I had not vandalized for a whole year. It is patently impossible to prove to you that a certain event will or will not happen in the future. I can guarantee you that it won't happen, but you have to believe me, and if you refuse to believe me then it is useless for me to say. Nevertheless, I will try. I have had behavior problems in the past. These behavior problems have real-world implications that go far beyond the scope of Wikipedia. To discuss them would be WP:OUTING of myself. In the last year, and especially the last three months, I have been doing quite well and the behavioral problems are much reduced. The few lapses I have done on Wikipedia should not obscure the fact that the large majority of my edits, even within the last year, have been helpful and positive. As I go further into my education and career development, Wikipedia is becoming less important to me, and I have less occasion to edit here. Nevertheless, I am requesting permission to edit: the same permission that my 20-year-old sisters who almost never edit Wikipedia have, and indeed, the same permission that my 2-year-old nephew and niece will have when they grow up. It may even affect my real-world reputation if someone discovers that I am indef-blocked from Wikipedia (or indirectly, if I cannot discuss my Wikipedia editing with a prospective employer for fear of them discovering that I am indef-blocked -- although at this point, I will probably avoid the subject even if I am unblocked in the future). To summarize, I can guarantee you that I will not vandalize Wikipedia ever again. It is up to you to give me the chance to prove it.
If it makes a difference, I hereby offer to write a stub article on Low Income Taxpayer Clinics if I am unblocked. Chutznik (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, one more point. "Also please note that indefinite =/= "forever", but "until the community is satisfied the behavior that led to the block won't be repeated." This is simply not true. Indefinite means forever in the large majority of real-world cases. If you are suggesting that the community might someday be satisfied that I won't repeat my acts of vandalism and socking, do me a favor and start a thread on WP;AN and seek opinions from the community. You might find that the community is desperate for a contributor with the seniority and good judgment that I have exhibited over a contribution history dating back to 2005. You don't know until you ask, but I can assure you that when you wrote about the possibility of a community review, you had no intention of submitting my case for community review.
So that is what I ask for: a community discussion of my status, basically per WP:STANDARDOFFER but with the waiting time cut in half because I have done so much to help here over the years. Chutznik (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Sectionized, repurposed. Helpme gets you random editors who are not capable of actioning your request, which I've changed to admin hepl, which at least gets dealt with by admins. The 'New section' tab at the top makes it so that responders don't have to wade through the whole page to find where to edit. I have made this its own section. Dru of Id (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for changing the template. Chutznik (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your comments in point 3 above may not win over many people reviewing this request: "Face it - whoever you are reading this, you have done far less to help develop and maintain this project than I have done. Have a little respect for me." One can command respect, but one cannot demand it. 7 01:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you feel that way about what I wrote. I am trying to give a reason why I should not have to wait six months from the block date for my case to be heard. There are several reasons. The main reason is that I am different, based on my positive contribution record, than almost anyone else who has ever been indefinitely blocked or banned. The people in this "community" who consider themselves judges of whether I will be extended the standard privilege that "anyone can edit" have not done half as much for the project as I have done. Even the administrators fall short. Would it help you if I ran the edit counts and new article counts of The Bushranger and MaxSem (and yourself, 7) against my edit count and new article count?
- The mistake everyone is making is treating me like an ordinary banned user who has maybe 500 edits. It's no big loss to the project to keep someone like that out forever. But is this the way the community says "thank you" to one of its most dedicated contributors especially in the 2007 and 2008 years? Many newer admins are not aware of quite how much I did for the community back then. I wish they would look at the WP:SSP archives from May 2008, for example, to see how much I helped the administrative operations then, or at my new articles on Israeli highways. Again, is this the way everyone says thank you, by indef-blocking me for one edit?
- Don't respond to me that I did other things too. I was indef-blocked for one edit, and not only that, for an edit summary which was quite harmless, and not only that but I disclosed the edit summary outside of Wikipedia. This would be an excessive block if I had no other edits to my name. Even petty vandals get four levels of warnings before they are blocked, just in case they don't know that what they did was against policy. I should have been warned, not blocked, or maybe blocked for a short time, maximum one month. That I am even in this position, begging any admin to take my side, boggles my sense of injustice. Chutznik (talk) 02:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your comments in point 3 above may not win over many people reviewing this request: "Face it - whoever you are reading this, you have done far less to help develop and maintain this project than I have done. Have a little respect for me." One can command respect, but one cannot demand it. 7 01:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for changing the template. Chutznik (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your arguments are all wrong, and simply reinforce, in my opinion, why you are not ready to be unblocked any time soon. First off, a demand is a demand, which one dictionary defines as 'an insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right' [1]. This block is not a punishment - it's to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. The reasons why sockpupptry is not allowed are clear, and users operating multiple accounts are expected to declare them and cross-link to them and use them for legitimate purposes only.
- You do not appear to have learned anything from your 2008 RfA or from your 2010 block - a violation that I personally take a very dim view of. Your subsequent blocks do not inspire confidence that you would be ready to be unblocked without at least accepting the good will of the standard offer. The standard offer is neither a right, nor a policy, nor even a guideline for handling unblock requests, and although it is a concession that the community is prepared to consider, it is unlikely that a request to shorten the 6 months would be entertained. Doing so would upset the balance of the already delicate offer and would set a new precedent that other candidates for it would not hesitate to exploit. If you haven't changed in 4 years, six months is probably not even long enough.
- I will overlook the use of the 'admin help' template as a workaround for not abusing the unblock request system.
- Finally, there is no difference whatsoever between an 'ordinary' editor with 500 edits and one with 50,000, and I find your claim mind-bogglingly misplaced. Plenty of even greater content contributors and even those with additional high office have been sanctioned, blocked, or banned [2],[3]. Good work is not a get-out-of-jail-free ticket, and that would not be a precedent that community would be prepared to entertain either.
- You are welcome to seek further opinions from other admins and/or the community.
- ^ New Oxford American Dictionary
- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your time, Kudpung, but I disagree with some of what you say.
- "a demand is a demand...": Did I not add the word "(respectfully)"? Is there any real difference between a demand and a request? Either way, the admin is free to say no, as you have done.
- "This block is not a punishment - it's to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia." It's easy to say that if you're not blocked. I believe that blocks in some situations are punishments. I see no preventative value in being blocked for more than three months for making one edit which I have acknowledged was wrong, even as I argue in my defense that it was not as badly wrong as alleged. Keeping me out does nothing to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. On the contrary, when I was editing legitimately I reverted hundreds of vandalism edits, including some that were hard to detect, and I maintained the integrity of the encyclopedia. This is the point that I really don't understand. If I wanted to just sock and sock and sock, it makes no difference whether I am allowed to edit or not. The only thing that blocking me prevents is the good edits. The bad edits are not prevented. It is my choice that I have not edited (good or bad) for the last three months, in the hope that by adhering to the terms of my block I would be allowed back in the future.
- I learned a great deal from my 2008 RFA about how members of the community have no hesitation about making false statements about me that assassinate my character. That was possibly the ugliest RFA in the history of Wikipedia, and not because it failed but because the allegations made by Iridescent and others are simply not true. See User talk:Iridescent from August and September 2008. The other thing I learned, of course, is that I will never pass RFA. On that, see WP:RFC/SY (use the page history). What did you think I should have learned from the RFA?
- If I recall correctly, after my 2010 block for one week, I actually sat out of Wikipedia for more than a full year. Although blocks are never expunged from the record, I would ask that my extended absence mitigate against the application of prior editing history to my current indef-block. I repeat that I was indef-blocked for one edit. You and others have tried to rationalize the indef-block by pointing to other bad edits, but the fact remains that before the "real name" edit I was completely permitted to edit, and afterward I was indef-blocked, and the change came without warning.
- I will be very disappointed if, in three months' time, I am not given the Standard Offer. Although I am leaving this thread open in case a sympathetic admin unblocks me sooner, I am also willing to wait. Your implication that I have done so many bad things as to lose the Standard Offer misses the whole point of the Standard Offer. Everybody does something to get indef-blocked. I have argued that what I did was not as serious as what some other people have done - certainly, what Ecoleetage/Pastor Theo did is a completely different level of real-world harassment and cannot be compared to an offhand edit summary.
- I have not abused the "adminhelp" template. I was asking for either an unblock or a WP:AN thread to be opened. I withdraw the latter request for now, and I leave up only the unblock request. For the record, I want to be unblocked as soon as any administrator finds it appropriate. However, I will not use the unblock template again until six months have expired from my original block.
- I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of the Special Offer. With me, that makes five admins already who are unwilling at this time to consider an unblock request.
- However, I see no reason why you should not attempt one final official unblock request which will draw the attention of other admins to this page, but please bear in mind that three requests are usually the limit, after which we generally block talk page access. You will almost certainly be required to accept the standard offer, and whether the period of your current block already served will be commuted to the 6 months will rest on the decision of the admins who review your request. Your eventual return may also be subject to other conditions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Unblock based on further passage of time, promise to be subject to restrictions, and new precedent with Neutralhomer
Chutznik (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am one month away from reaching the six months required for the WP:STANDARDOFFER. If this request is declined, I will wait until then. However, I think I have a compelling case to be unblocked today. I was blocked in May 2012, almost five months ago, for making one vandalism edit. I revealed on an off-wiki site that the edit summary of that vandalism edit was "Majorly's real name is [Name]." The account that made the vandalism edit was blocked, and the edit summary was removed from the page history. After I revealed on the external site that I made that edit, Raul654 indef-blocked all my accounts. The most recent previous block on this account (Chutznik) was in February 2010, more than two years earlier, for only one week. It should take something more severe than a one-off vandalism edit to escalate from a one-week block to an indef-block that has already lasted 4.7 months. You should grant my unblock request for two reasons not stated in my previous unblock requests (see above). First, I am committing not to undertake any behavior that could possibly be considered harassment. I will avoid Majorly entirely. Anyway, he does not edit Wikipedia anymore, but for what it's worth, I will not edit his talk page. You may impose the same restriction regarding any other named users (for example, Iridescent), but I think it's not necessary. If you remember anything about my prior editing history, you will remember that I performed 100 or more editor reviews, and I nominated RFA candidates, and worked with article writers on Good Article nominations, and reviewed sockpuppet cases at the old WP:SSP, and in every case my interaction with other users was collaborative and friendly. I never had any issues with harassing other users on wiki. The one exception was the conflict I had with Iridescent after she opposed my fourth and final RFA. Second, the precedent of Neutralhomer's recent unblock gives me an argument to say that what he did was far more egregious than what I did, yet he was unblocked in one week and I am still blocked after twenty weeks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Neutralhomer/Archive12#Let.27s_Try_Again and the recent ANI thread. Neutralhomer called the place of employment of an IP editor. This is real-world harassment. Yet, after multiple declined unblock requests, Drmies unblocked with a few restrictions such as no vandalism reverts. Neutralhomer promised not to call any place of employment or school, and the community believed him. He is currently able to edit under mentorship and restrictions. I don't really need mentorship. I am one of the most experienced Wikipedians in the community. I know the rules and I have usually followed them. I do need to be under restrictions, though. Those restrictions are 1. No interaction with Majorly (again, a moot point because he does not edit anymore, but I will stay clear of his talk page). 2. No revealing the real name of anyone even if (as Majorly) their real name was not a secret. 3. I will edit from only this account (Chutznik) and will not create any new accounts without the prior permission of Arbcom. Did I miss anything? My willingness to be subject to these restrictions shows that I recognize what I did wrong and will not do it again. In addition, the chance given to Neutralhomer -- like me, an outstanding content contributor with a problematic history -- is precedent for giving me another chance to show what I can contribute. Chutznik (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your repeated claims that you were indef blocked just for one edit shows that you really don't appear to understand why you were blocked. I think we'd need to see a significant improvement in your understanding of what happened even to be eligible for the Standard Offer when the six months is up, never mind for early consideration -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
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 don't see anything in your unblock request that addresses this "fun" stuff. Max Semenik (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict: I wrote this before the unblock was declined) Fine then, I will address it now. "Kirkegaard sucks" has no edits on English Wikipedia. I think the account was blocked by a checkuser on the mere possibility that I might have used the account to vandalize in the future. The username alone is not a reason to deny the current unblock request, especially since I promise not to create any new user accounts.
- It is unfair for you to deny an unblock request, where the block was made for the actions of one sockpuppet, just because I also had other sockpuppets. At the time those other sockpuppets made their edits, the community did not consider the matter serious enough to warrant blocking my main account. Still, even if you consider the other sockpuppets' activity to be relevant, I am committing to use only one account, so there will not be any more sockpuppets. Chutznik (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, "Boing!", you are the one who needs to improve your understanding. Look please at the block logs. They clearly indicate that I was indef-blocked for the "real name" edit and nothing more. If you have any evidence to the contrary, show me the diffs and I will refute them. I don't need to show any clearer understanding of what happened. Yes, I socked. No, that is not why I was indef-blocked by Raul654. It's that simple, and you choose not to understand that fact at your own moral peril. Chutznik (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, I did not decline your request based just on User:Kirkegaard sucks - I did, in fact, have a fairly good look at your history here. And whatever the block log says, that is just the "proximal" cause - the event that triggered it. But it appears to me that the underlying reason (and the reason it was made indef with no real way out other than the Standard Offer) was your multitude of problematic actions over the years you have been here - the less acceptable an editor's overall behaviour, the stricter will be the sanction when it becomes necessary. Anyway, you said you'd accept a decline if that's what you got, and that is what you got. I'd strongly suggest now that your best hope is to disappear until the six month period is up, and then ask for a Standard Offer unblock - there's no guarantee you'll get it, but I don't see any more realistic possibilities. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I will disappear for another month or more, but not before making this final comment. You don't know what Raul654 was thinking when he wrote "Chutznik now banned" and cited the Wikipedia Review thread as evidence. You would have to ask him. The plain reading of what he did is to indef-block me for that edit. You are suggesting an alternate reading. To me, if Raul654 were taking my past history into account, he should have indicated as much either in the block log or in the follow-up at ANI. This is what he wrote at ANI:
- Whoa, so much drama while I was out. A few days ago, Shalom/Yetchel/Chutznik/whatever-he's-calling-himself-these days used a sockpuppet to post the RL name of a former editor (someone who had not edited in two years) to Wikipedia, and then bragged about that action in a well-known off-wiki forum. He's already admitted that earlier in this thread, but defended his actions by claiming that it was OK because that former editor had previously disclosed it on some of his emails. Wikipedia:Outing contradicts his defense.
- When I saw his bragging, I blocked him, and all of his sockpuppets that I could find (namely: user:Placeholder account, user:Crystal whacker, user:Chutznik, user:Shalom Yechiel, and user:Shalom) and tagged them as banned. In retrospect, I probably should have tagged them as indefblocked. It didn't really occur to me that people would get so upset about such a triviality. A little while later, Snowolf removed my original block comment (because it linked to the URL of the outing) but left it unchanged in every other respect. Raul654 (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- Note that all the accounts that Raul654 names are good editors, which is why they weren't blocked until then.
- Also, you have not explained why Neutralhomer, who also had a long block log, was given another chance after more serious harassment than mine. Chutznik (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough, having read, that I accept that Raul654's block was specifically for the outing. But I do think that when reviewing unblock requests, the whole of your history can and probably should be considered - which is what I tried to do. But if you think I was wrong to do that, I would consider it fine for you to post another unblock request, and I would be happy for a new admin to discount my reasoning. As for Neutralhomer, that's not relevant - all that is relevant here is your own block and the reasons for it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- I will disappear for another month or more, but not before making this final comment. You don't know what Raul654 was thinking when he wrote "Chutznik now banned" and cited the Wikipedia Review thread as evidence. You would have to ask him. The plain reading of what he did is to indef-block me for that edit. You are suggesting an alternate reading. To me, if Raul654 were taking my past history into account, he should have indicated as much either in the block log or in the follow-up at ANI. This is what he wrote at ANI:
- Firstly, I did not decline your request based just on User:Kirkegaard sucks - I did, in fact, have a fairly good look at your history here. And whatever the block log says, that is just the "proximal" cause - the event that triggered it. But it appears to me that the underlying reason (and the reason it was made indef with no real way out other than the Standard Offer) was your multitude of problematic actions over the years you have been here - the less acceptable an editor's overall behaviour, the stricter will be the sanction when it becomes necessary. Anyway, you said you'd accept a decline if that's what you got, and that is what you got. I'd strongly suggest now that your best hope is to disappear until the six month period is up, and then ask for a Standard Offer unblock - there's no guarantee you'll get it, but I don't see any more realistic possibilities. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect, "Boing!", you are the one who needs to improve your understanding. Look please at the block logs. They clearly indicate that I was indef-blocked for the "real name" edit and nothing more. If you have any evidence to the contrary, show me the diffs and I will refute them. I don't need to show any clearer understanding of what happened. Yes, I socked. No, that is not why I was indef-blocked by Raul654. It's that simple, and you choose not to understand that fact at your own moral peril. Chutznik (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
How we got here
I am writing prefatory comments now in anticipation of an unblock request in late November. WP:BASC says "An e-mail appeal must specify the banned editor's Wikipedia username and any other usernames he or she has used to edit Wikipedia in the past two years." Although the on-wiki unblock process is different, I see no reason to disclose accounts more than two years old. I was blocked for one week in February 2010 for using sockpuppets to disrupt an RFA. I decided to leave permanently and stayed away for two years. I returned to editing on 17 April 2012, as my contribution log shows. I edited productively through April 20. At that point, I decided to make a WP:CLEANSTART with User:Chidon01 and made productive edits with that account from April 22 through April 27. Please disregard the question of whether I was allowed to make a CLEANSTART because nobody told me explicitly that I could not. In any case I never intended to use the account for nefarious purposes, and I never did.
Some time afterward I lost my composure with the approach of law school final exams. I made the following sockpuppet accounts:
- (Added) Rasul Butler (talk · contribs) - two vandalism edits to articles on May 4.
- Kirkegaard sucks (talk · contribs) was created automatically on May 7. I used it to vandalize a foreign language Wikipedia with two edits, then clicked on an English Wikipedia page and the account was created by SUL.
- Noclaimor (talk · contribs) - one vandalism edit on May 14.
- Throwaway666 (talk · contribs) - one vandalism edit on May 16. I think this was the "real name" edit.
- I win again yes i do (talk · contribs) - one vandalism edit on May 15 and a personal attack edit on May 17. At the time of the May 17 edit, I was unaware that Raul654 had blocked my main accounts some hours earlier. Note that I am disclosing this account here for the first time; it was not detected by checkuser.
- Throwaway777 (talk · contribs) with two edits on May 20 evading a block. If I could do it again, I would not have made those edits, and would instead have posted an unblock request on this talk page.
I did not use any other accounts in the year 2012. I have not edited without logging in. I have kept to the terms of my block, and I will continue to wait patiently until the community gives me another chance.
I regret the vandalism that I did. The edits were inappropriate and against site policy. I cannot defend them. I am embarrassed by what those edits say about me. I am a better man than that. Even though I was blocked for only one of those edits, I now recognize that the totality of the circumstances justifies a more lengthy block than what I would have deserved for only one bad edit by one sockpuppet.
Nevertheless, I believe in redemption, and I believe in second chances. Until now, I have never needed or asked for a second chance. Over the years, until 2010, the community decided to tolerate my vandalism and sockpuppetry because I was sincere in regretting it and I was making substantial positive contributions to the encyclopedia and project administration. For a year in 2007 to 2008 I did not vandalize at all. Then in late 2008 I vandalized again with new sockpuppets. Sam Korn blocked the sockpuppets but let User:Shalom Yechiel and User:Crystal whacker survive. For the next few months I edited from Crystal whacker, then I retired, unretired as User:Soberknight and User:Kivel, then those accounts were blocked and I started over yet again as User:Chutznik, and even under this account in 2009 I was socking to vandalize but the checkusers allowed this account to continue editing. I have email records which support my account. I thought mistakenly that I could continue this charade as long as I wanted because the community would value my positive contributions enough to look the other way when I strayed. I learned the hard way that the community's patience ran out in May 2012.
In late November, I will celebrate not only the seventh month from my indef-block (making me eligible for the Standard Offer) but also the seven-year anniversary of my first edit to Wikipedia as User:YechielMan, later known as Shalom Yechiel. I wish to celebrate my seven-year anniversary by editing the encyclopedia again.
My entire problem is based on my habit of creating sockpuppet accounts. If I knew I had only one account, and that vandalizing from that one account would spell the end of my time here, I would be very careful not to vandalize from my only account. Lest you wonder whether I will be tempted to vandalize again the next time final exams come up, I assure you that Wikipedia is a minor part of my life now, and I have more convenient ways to destress. Therefore, I believe that subjecting myself to a one-account restriction (something which I was never subject to until now) would solve the problem. At least, I will ask the community to give me a chance to show I can behave properly.
The foregoing is not an unblock request, but I will ask that it be considered when I make my next unblock request. In the meanwhile, I would like to hear comments from anyone who is watching this page. Chutznik (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- My entire problem is based on my habit of creating sockpuppet accounts.: Obsessive creation of accounts is a problem. Whether used or not, the potential to misuse them and/or create more is always a risk, and generally the community is distrustful of users who needlessly create many accounts for no obvious legitimate purpose. SPI consume time, patience, and goodwill that could otherwise be invested in creating content. You may find this current discussion interesting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- That sounds to me like you understand the problems and are committed to not repeating them. When the time comes, I'd be happy to support an unblock on a 1-account restriction. (And I do think you'll maximize your chances by waiting the full six months - it's not long now) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Youreallycan was unblocked despite reciting the real name of an editor whose name was already disclosed to the Wikipedia community
User:Youreallycan was indef-blocked for reciting the real name of User:Prioryman. Less than a week later, he was unblocked after it emerged that Prioryman's real name was linked to from an Arbcom decision. I was able to glean Prioryman's real name from that discussion. I did nothing worse in "outing" Majorly. He revealed his real name repeatedly on the Wikimedia email list. Furthermore, Youreallycan recited Prioryman's real name repeatedly on a talk page, but I recited it only once in an edit summary. Recall also that Neutralhomer was unblocked after a week despite doing real world narassment. See above.
I reiterate that, to the extent my indef-block stands for the "real name" edit, it is unfair and should be lifted when I apply for the standard offer. Chutznik (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Standard offer unblock request
Chutznik (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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.
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 was indef-blocked on 17 May 2012, and I evaded the block with two edits on 20 May 2012. It is now 20 November 2012 (UTC), six months later. In a previous unblock request (see above) I was advised to take the [[WP:STANDARDOFFER|"standard offer"]]. The standard offer requires me not to edit for six months. I have not edited in six months. If you need any confirmation of this, I wish to point out that I have always been honest with this community and with ArbCom when asked about my editing under alternate accounts, and if that does not satisfy you, go ahead and find a Checkuser. This request has substantial merit for the reasons stated in the sections above. First, the block should not have been indef because the edit that precipitated the indef-block was not so egregious as to warrant a permanent dismissal from the project. Second, I have contributed thousands of hours of my time, and although I will never put in full days editing like I once did, I wish to contribute my experience to help the project on occasion. Third, I have disclosed all the alternate accounts I have used in the last two years (see above), which is what [[WP:BASC]] requires appellants to do. Fourth, I committed in a previous unblock request that I would limit myself to one account. I reiterate that promise and I am willing to be bound by it. If I make one edit, even a good edit, from an account other than [[User:Chutznik]], and you find out about it, you may reinstate the indef-block. Fifth, I commit not to vandalize pages on Wikipedia. |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 was indef-blocked on 17 May 2012, and I evaded the block with two edits on 20 May 2012. It is now 20 November 2012 (UTC), six months later. In a previous unblock request (see above) I was advised to take the [[WP:STANDARDOFFER|"standard offer"]]. The standard offer requires me not to edit for six months. I have not edited in six months. If you need any confirmation of this, I wish to point out that I have always been honest with this community and with ArbCom when asked about my editing under alternate accounts, and if that does not satisfy you, go ahead and find a Checkuser. This request has substantial merit for the reasons stated in the sections above. First, the block should not have been indef because the edit that precipitated the indef-block was not so egregious as to warrant a permanent dismissal from the project. Second, I have contributed thousands of hours of my time, and although I will never put in full days editing like I once did, I wish to contribute my experience to help the project on occasion. Third, I have disclosed all the alternate accounts I have used in the last two years (see above), which is what [[WP:BASC]] requires appellants to do. Fourth, I committed in a previous unblock request that I would limit myself to one account. I reiterate that promise and I am willing to be bound by it. If I make one edit, even a good edit, from an account other than [[User:Chutznik]], and you find out about it, you may reinstate the indef-block. Fifth, I commit not to vandalize pages on Wikipedia. |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 was indef-blocked on 17 May 2012, and I evaded the block with two edits on 20 May 2012. It is now 20 November 2012 (UTC), six months later. In a previous unblock request (see above) I was advised to take the [[WP:STANDARDOFFER|"standard offer"]]. The standard offer requires me not to edit for six months. I have not edited in six months. If you need any confirmation of this, I wish to point out that I have always been honest with this community and with ArbCom when asked about my editing under alternate accounts, and if that does not satisfy you, go ahead and find a Checkuser. This request has substantial merit for the reasons stated in the sections above. First, the block should not have been indef because the edit that precipitated the indef-block was not so egregious as to warrant a permanent dismissal from the project. Second, I have contributed thousands of hours of my time, and although I will never put in full days editing like I once did, I wish to contribute my experience to help the project on occasion. Third, I have disclosed all the alternate accounts I have used in the last two years (see above), which is what [[WP:BASC]] requires appellants to do. Fourth, I committed in a previous unblock request that I would limit myself to one account. I reiterate that promise and I am willing to be bound by it. If I make one edit, even a good edit, from an account other than [[User:Chutznik]], and you find out about it, you may reinstate the indef-block. Fifth, I commit not to vandalize pages on Wikipedia. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Note to the reviewing administrator: if you are willing to reinstate me after reviewing the prior history, please do so. This is a block, not a ban. If you are not willing to reinstate me, please post to WP:AN so that the community may discuss my request for reinstatement, as the Standard Offer dictates. Chutznik (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Further note to the community: If you are unwilling to reinstate me immediately, please consider resetting my block to expire six months from today as an alternative to permanent denial of reinstatement. Chutznik (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- No, indef means until the community is convinced the behaviour will not recur (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Rather than flat-out decline - and possibly lock this talkpage from your use - let me point out the most important fail of the above: you have undoubtedly read WP:GAB - understanding the reasons for your block is key. In the unblock request above, you actually argue that the block should not have occurred, which shows you do not understand the reasons behind it. You also directly state "If I make one edit, even a good edit, from an account other than User:Chutznik, and you find out about it, you may reinstate the indef-block" ... I'm a little concerned about the phrase "and you find out about it". That's not quite good enough here: you will not and cannot edit from another account or anonymously, whether or not we "find out" about it. This is not negotiable. If you cannot hold yourself back from WP:SOCK, then this is not a place for you to be. There is so much more that's wrong with the above, I personally could not recommend any acceptance or even further discussion of this unblock request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
- Chutznik, It's time you realised that there is hardly an active admin who works on unblock requests who is inclined to acquiesce to your demands. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Let me copy the text from WP:STANDARDOFFER. I suspect you haven't read it recently or are not applying it correctly to my request.
It's simple:
- Wait six months without sockpuppetry.
- Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
- Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.
How does it work?
- Contact a willing administrator or experienced editor (via email or IRC).
- If they agree a review is appropriate, they'll open a thread at an administrative noticeboard (WP:AN or WP:ANI).
- Discussion usually takes a few days.
Apologies aren't necessary, just basic courtesy and a willingness to move forward productively.
I have followed my three parts of the bargain. I have waited six months without sockpuppetry. I have promised to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban (vandalism, socking, and anything that gives even the appearance of "outing"). I have not created any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.
I am using the unblock template (rather than email or IRC, as I don't know who is the best administrator to email, and I don't have access to IRC) to contact a willing administrator. If you are not a "willing" administrator, then please ignore the request and let someone who is a "willing" administrator handle it. That administrator should rationally agree that review is appropriate because I have waited six months, I contributed a tremendous amount before and I am willing to contribute again. Discussion on WP:AN should take a few days. I am familiar with the processes of WP:AN and I understand that a consensus may be required to lift my block or to reduce its length from indefinite to a definite period.
"Apologies aren't necessary" - yet, if you actually read what I wrote above in the section "How we got here", I did apologize and I did promise to move forward productively in the future. You state that I did not understand the reasons for my block. This is partly true. I understand that my "real name" edit violated a policy which justifies a block of some length. I also understand that other people -- Neutralhomer and Youreallycan (see above) -- have done harassment or outing as bad or worse than what I have done, yet their indef-blocks were lifted after one week. I have promised to edit from only one account. That is a strong promise. The only reason I inserted the phrase "and you find out about it" is the obvious point that, if you don't find out about it, you can't enforce it. I want my promise to be enforceable. I do not want my wording above to be construed against me in such a way that by saying my promise should be enforceable, it's as if I made no such promise. I do promise not to create new accounts, and I have no old accounts or "sleepers" to call upon, so the only account I will edit from is "Chutznik." Since I have only that one account, if I were to vandalize -- which I will not do -- I would lose my editing privileges again and would not legitimately be able to vandalize a second time. Knowing the severe consequences, I will not vandalize at all. If I am feeling under stress, I will avoid Wikipedia and go for a walk or handle it some other legitimate way.
I am not making an unreasonable "demand", Kudpung. Previously I was told to wait for the six months so that I could make a "standard offer" request. I have done so. In exchange for my patience, all I am asking for is your side of the deal: let a willing administrator find that I have made all appropriate disclosures, that I have not edited, that I understand why I was blocked but I don't understand why I can't be unblocked, and the community should decide. If you feel something terrible will happen because of this, go ahead and rewrite the text of WP:STANDARDOFFER going forward, but please allow me the offer as it currently is written. Chutznik (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)