User talk:Chutznik

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

My final word for now

Ultimately, it's your loss. I would not threaten to sock and evade my block. Such a threat would be pointless because if you thought I would do so, you would have no incentive to unblock me, since you would reap the benefit of my future contributions anyway. On the contrary, the worst thing I can do for Wikipedia is to make good on the block and never return. The BASC has allowed me a review with them in six months from now. If that succeeds, I will return to editing at that time. If not, you will never see me here again. I'm sorry for the poor decisions I made that led to this state of affairs, but I'm also sorry for you-all that you're not willing to give me one last chance to prove myself. ...

You have decided that an indef-blocked editor who contributed thousands of hours (admittedly, years ago) and has recognized why he was indef-blocked and promised not to repeat the behavior (to the point of disclosing socks that were not discovered by Checkuser, and to the point of committing to a voluntary single-account restriction) shall not be allowed back in, certainly not after six months and possibly not at any time. I think your mistrust in me is misplaced. I know you've been burned before by Betacommand and Jack Merridew, etc. but I would not repeat their misbehaviors going forward.

As my last word, I am sorry and I am contrite about all the vandalism and socking I did. If this is the last edit I ever make on Wikipedia, I ask you to remember me for the three hundred articles that I authored, for endgame tablebase that I brought to Good Article status, for thousands of hours of volunteer time doing everything from sockpuppet investigations to vandalism reverts, and for making a positive impact on the encyclopedia. Let not a few hours of misbehavior overwhelm a few thousand hours of good work. Chutznik (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Fact of the matter is that AN[/I] discussions tend to focus on the negatives. Good luck with BASC. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Nine months have passed since Raul654 indef blocked me for writing an offensive edit summary with a vandalism edit from a sockpuppet account. I have waited nine months without editing (except for this talk page), and three months since my last unblock request. If an "indefinite" block means "until the community is satisfied that the behavior will not be repeated," as I have been told, then I want to say the following very clearly: I recognize that I did wrong; I will not do it again; I will not vandalize Wikipedia again; I will not even give the appearance of "outing" another editor, even if their real name is already known in the community; and I will limit my editing to this account (User:Chutznik). I have given these assurances in the past, and I am honestly confused as to why nobody was willing to give me a chance to return under a one-account restriction. I have demonstrated self-control by not editing during the period of my indef-block. Nine months is a long time. It's time for the community to give me another chance. Although I have been told repeatedly that it makes no difference, I wish to remind you once again that I am one of the most prolific editors in the history of Wikipedia (30,000+ manual edits), and if anyone deserves a last chance, I do. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. talk) 01:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

See my comments below An optimist on the run!   06:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I did write above that I was going to wait until May to appeal to BASC; that remains an option, but I want to try here first. Chutznik (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I have placed your request on hold, not just to solicit feedback from the blocking admins but because I think this is the sort of request that should be reviewed by the community and I will be oipening a discussion about it in an effort to form a consensus on the issue. Any statement you wish to add to that conversation can be posted here and copied over. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeblebrox. Let me add a couple of points. First of all, in past discussions it has been said that I don't understand why I was blocked. This is false. I was blocked because I made an edit as Throwaway666 (talk · contribs) where the content of the edit was "The result of the [AFD] debate was [f___] you," and the edit summary was "Majorly's real name is [name]." I also made other edits around that time nine months ago from other sockpuppets that violated policies against vandalism and harassment. For everything I did wrong, I apologize to Majorly, to Sandstein, to the community at large, and to the individual editors who had to undo the damage I caused. Having done many hours of vandalism patrol, I recognize what a burden every vandalism edit places upon experienced editors whose time would be better spent improving articles. I was under stress in real life at the time I made those edits, but that is no defense. In the future, when I am under stress, I simply will not edit Wikipedia, or if I do, I will edit within policy.

Second, EdJohnston pointed out in the discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard three months ago that he would like to see an explanation of what I would do if I were unblocked. As a long-time editor (since November 2005) with 30,000+ edits, I should not need to explain what I have to offer. Nevertheless, I will. I am a law school student, so I might contribute in articles related to American law. Also, I am experienced at Wiki=gnoming, such as adding categories to uncategorized pages. I will not be editing every day or even every month, but I would like to come here once in a while to add content or to build the web by categorizing pages. I also have experience in community affairs such as RFCs and noticeboards, and would contribute there on occasion.

Third, an unblock discussion is not a Request for Adminship. Some users said in the previous discussion that they don't trust me not to create sockpuppets and vandalize again. I'm not sure how to respond to that, but I'll try this: you don't have to trust me. You just have to impose the restriction (no sockpuppets, no vandalism), and I am fully aware of the consequences if I violate the restriction (another indef-block, and this time I may never get out of it). Consider the risk-benefit ratio. The risk is perhaps one chance in a hundred that I will go crazy and vandalize again, and someone will have to revert the vandalism and block the offending account. Although this is not a good thing, I wish to remind you that administrators on Wikipedia deal with this type of situation literally every hour of every day. Conversely, the benefit is that I may contribute hundreds or even thousands of productive edits to Wikipedia in the coming months and years. Unblocking me would be on the same rationale that we allow unregistered users to edit; each individual editor probably will not vandalize, and if they do, it's worth it to allow the vandalism to get the benefit of the positive contributions that come from unregistered editors. Just to be clear, I promise never to vandalize again, but if you don't trust me to keep that promise, you can fall back on the risk-benefit calculus. Chutznik (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you want this copied to AN? NE Ent 21:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, NE Ent, please copy the statement to WP:AN. Chutznik (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Chuznik, Beeblebrox says over on WP:AN that at the time of the outing incident, you "brag[ged] about it at Wikipedia Review". Are you still active on Wikipedia Review or on Wikipediocracy? Prioryman (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia Review is on life support. It has gone offline at least twice in the last nine months, and only a few threads are posted to it per week. I don't think I've contributed there in many months, but I still login sometimes to see what's happening. That being said, I make no representation here about what my future role at Wikipedia Review might be. I might post there in the future; that has no bearing on the present request for unblock. I have never posted to Wikipediocracy, and I don't intend to anytime soon. Chutznik (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Prioryman (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've read the discussion on AN, and your sockpuppet investigation. Although AN isn't unanimous, consensus does seem towards giving you another chance. The latest CU comment [1] states Chutznik is not actively socking as far as checkuser can tell. On this basis I'm going to go ahead and unblock you. I don't think I need to go into any long prose about final chances or anything like that - you've been around long enough to know all that. An optimist on the run!   06:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Chutznik (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back, and have fun editing - don't be afraid to ask for help if you ever get stuck. Prioryman (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

PROD on Roma Gąsiorowska

I have declined your {{PROD}} on Roma Gąsiorowska on the basis of her Polish Wikipedia article. Although I cannot read Polish with any fluency, there is sufficient indication that this actress has played a significant role in several Polish films, with citations to back up the claims. As I have noted in a comment on the page, a translation of the material in the Polish article would be most helpful. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Close

Just be aware, your reasoning here: Talk:List_of_atheist_philosophers#Closing is actually a supervote because you are basing the decision partially on your own reasoning, but not policy. I don't necessarily disagree with the close (I lost interest :) ), just to let you know, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I guess I was trying to echo the reasoning presented by the majority. Chutznik (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

Just got pointed towards your kind words here (at least I think they are yours) and I would just like to say thanks! :). Good to see you are editing again! ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that was years ago. It's good to be allowed to edit again but to be honest I don't have nearly as much time for this project as before. Chutznik (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:George Maharis#Re-add "arrest"?

I relisted RFC based on two comments that contest your closure. --George Ho (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'm only trying to help. If my help is not needed, then carry on without me. (I don't mean that in an unfriendly way, but really, I don't care what happens from here.) Chutznik (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)