User talk:Judae1

Archives

AN/I discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban on Ronn Torossian to be extended to his company?. Thank you. Huon (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Babasalichai (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Darkwind (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please take a look at my edit history and see what I have contributed. This is patently unfair and I am being held responsible for what others have done. My edit history is solid, I have always disclosed my identify, and my edits have been within Wikipedia boundaries. I use talk pages for controversial items and have made basic changes, dates and references, to most issues in question. Additionally, I am hardly a sockpuppet. I am likely among the very few here on Wikipedia who uses a real name, real ID and openly shows who I am, where I am from and what I do. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 4:26 am, Today (UTC−7)

Accept reason:

At the time I reviewed and closed the SPI case, I was unaware of any wider discussion involving this company or this user. Given the much weaker technical and behavioral evidence connecting Judae1 (t c) to the more certain/likely sockpuppets, I can accept that Judae1 (t c) is editing separately in a manner that does not violate WP:SOCK. That being said, please be aware that any kind of conflict of interest is examined these days with a laser-like focus, so I encourage you to remain above-board in regards to any paid editing, or any editing of articles related to yourself or your company. —Darkwind (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's some disappointing behavior by your peers. Are you familiar with our terms of use? I'm having difficulty locating the required disclosure of your recent paid edits. I can also see other socks editing for clients of your firm, including ones making edits on your behalf. Would you be interested in disclosing any of those? It might be a good idea to sit down with your peers and discuss an ethical approach here. Kuru (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for what it is worth... i have not reviewed the recent SPI case but i looked at Judae1's edits in the past. he appears to me very distinct from the sockmaster Babasalichai. Very very different edits and interests; they do cross at the Ronn Torossian article but Judae1 has refrained from directly editing that article as far as I know due to his well-declared COI. I reckon blocking him as part of the sockfarm was a mistake. Jytdog (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I join my colleagues Kuru and Jytdog in urging that this block be repealed. It was imposed within the framework of a ban on all employees of Ronn Torossian and his PR company. The user has never made a secret of his affiliation, and has always been scrupulous about abiding by Wikipedia's guidelines for conflicts of interest.

The anger of the Wikipedia community at the unscrupulous and despicable conduct of the Ronn Torossian sockpuppet - an anger that I share - is perfectly understandable, and the corporate ban is justified. In the case of this user, however, I think it is reasonable to make an exception. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am urging no such thing. I'm seeking to understand the situation and offer Mr. Engelmayer an opportunity to disclose information that may be helpful in assessing the situation. Kuru (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ravpapa and Jytdog, and believe the block on this account is unjustified. While Juda and I have had our issues early on, my understand is that his edits are either on subjects where there is no 5W interest or housekeeping, non-controversial edits where there is interest.

However, I do agree with Kuru that there needs to be more transparency. The firm needs to disclose when an employee or a paid editor is making edits to a client article (or enemy article, like Yoshiyahu Yosef Pinto). Some of us are aware that Mr. Torossian is actively soliciting paid editors on Elance - that too needs to be disclosed each time. Mosmof (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot hold Judae1 responsible for what other people at 5W do. I actually asked him to see what he could do and he said he has limited influence - see here. btw, i think it is clear to everybody that the sockmaster is probably Torossian... if so, that would be his boss. right? Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I am grateful for your support. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Judae1. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not have been editing on Wiki for a long time now. Please let me know why? I work in a shared office with hundreds of people Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been an editor for ten years and I do know what is permitted and what is not. This account is not a SockPuppet, it is that if Juda Engelmayer, www.judaengelmayer.com - nothing hidden. I have not caused damage, but agree to not cause any damage. I understand that you blocked me because I have edited certain pages that someone thinks are connected to me, or from websites. I do not do that, an I will continue not to do that. I believe I have made useful contributions, such as finding references for linda park of Enterprise fame. I urge you to reconsider, and please look at my history and see that my edits are within your wiki rules and in keeping with the good community Thank you I'd like to have a discussion on this. When I was accused in the past it was being part of a firm where a single party was accused of trying to edit a page a certain way and engaged in edit wars and challenges. It wasn't me then. Here I don't even see edit wars and battles and any harm i have caused. There are no controversies, and with minor and appropriate exception, I have not edited pages of clients. Where I did, I admit it and made correct edits. This is a surprise. − The page says that a user should not mislead, deceive, vandalize or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction. I have not done any of this above, and I just went through some of the users you attribute allege are me too, and none of them seem to be in edit wars, trying to stir controversy, removing blocks or bans, not entering debates to create support and especially not to vandalize. All edits that I have been reading seem to be in keeping with updating Wikipedia with real information and useful data, properly referenced. This must be reviewed.Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I do not find your answers plausible. In addition to the evidence already pointed out to you, you attempted to get an article for one of the socks past review here. You know this person and were working with them two years ago before your change of office. The checkuser confirmed both of your accounts in the same place much, much more recently. You haven't made an adequate accounting of relationships to these other editors. Declined.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Berean Hunter I would like to regain my editing ability and appeal to you for this. I ask what you want to know? I have no COI, have no connection and no relationship to the person or company. What I can't understand is why because of an interest, no matter how fervent, does that mean a COI? it doesn't, but for reasons unknown, it is decided I have one. I'm not looking to fight, I just want to know what I need to do to get back to editing that would satisfy you? Thank youJuda S. Engelmayer (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, but here is my 2 cents.

Your last comment is more on point. The people using the checkuser tools found technical similarities in where these edits came from. The key thing in addition to that is behavior. The edits in the current case are the (depressingly) very typical promotional undisclosed paid editing by PR people, dumping pollution into Wikipedia. This is a different matter from the edits that were apparently made by accounts by or representing Torrosian that were overly-fiercely trying to manage his reputation here.

The contribs by the socks are both before and after the September 2016 date that you name on your userpage as when you left the old firm ( I would guess that you are with a different PR firm now...). This makes the "other people at my firm" reasoning hard to understand. And even if it is other people at the firm(s), you are caught up in that. Firmly. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, when you say "This makes the "other people at my firm" reasoning hard to understand" what are you referring to? I don't think I said anything like that. I did leave my old firm and I have begun my own company, and not a single entity, person, company whatever, that I edit is a client, pays me or whatever. As a PR person, I know the rules here too. Anytime i ever made changes for a client I disclosed it, and did it to change a fact or issue using real sources and in keeping with Wiki's standards; never to "dump pollution", but to improve and make better what is already there. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

above you wrote I work in a shared office with hundreds of people as well as ...I was being part of a firm where a single party was accused of.... I do hear you, when you describe yourself, and the edits from this account match what you say. Based on how you represent yourself and my experience of you interacting you, i was dismayed to see this case - you don't ~seem~ to me to be the kind of person who would do this. I had all that in mind, when i wrote what I wrote. This is hard, as the CU results are what they are and the associated accounts are obvious throw-away accounts for paid editors.

Do you have any way to make sense out of the editing of the associated accounts? The assertion "they are not me: I don't do that" is what every sockmaster says, and isn't helping you or the editing community. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog I never said they were in my firm, I am small with a few people working with me I do work in a shared space though, a We-work in the city. Also, when you say "they are not me: I don't do that" is what every sockmaster says..." but if it is true, then we are at an impasse. I hear this and know the issues, because I have been an editor for 11 years and have been involved in many edit controversies, but you cannot point to an edit that I have made that is polluting or trashing, or whatever. Even, as I said, the other IDs referred to, have not from what I see, been engaged in polluting with trash. I appreciate that you don't think I would do this, but even with that caveat, what have I done? I am not going to speak for anyone else, but the folks at Wiki ought to value the edits made at face value. They are mostly solid. To your point, and your experience interacting with me, how many WIkipedians actually admit who they are? I am among the few who has been open and never hid it. Now I am punished. What it does is force me to go underground. I enjoy Wikipedia and will continue, but obviously may now have to now sign up under a pseudonym and another email address. That is not what the people here want to expect. Everyone has always been able to watch me. That may not be possible anymore. Why is that better? I do appreciate your support though, and thank youJuda S. Engelmayer (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edits by the socks are pollution.

Pardon me for kind of shifting topics here, but the following is related. Part of PAID and COI is that editors who are paid or who have a COI need to a) disclose where they have a COI and b) not edit directly. You have been directly editing the article about Torrossian, which you should not have been doing. And if I look at the editing history of Jason Binn I see you and all the socks editing it directly and no COI disclosures from anybody.

Above you wrote the somewhat confusing I have not edited pages of clients. Where I did, I admit it and made correct edits. Where have you disclosed the clients, on behalf of whom you have edited? Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog I have not made any recent changes for any clients, and when I edited RT's page I used the talk pages always and showed/proved my edits were merited. In the past, I have also notified on the talk pages If I touched it. COI's are not wise, but there has always been room for appropriate edits with proper disclosure. Where I was challenged and disagreed with, I didn't persist, but never made a secret of it. Then you assert - "I see you and all the socks editing it directly and no COI disclosures," but I can say with certainty I do not work for him and have no COI here at all. If the only answer here that is acceptable is a different opinion, it's unfortunate. Fact is that I have met him twice in my life, and I am 48, due to the nature of my work. I paid more attention to him recently because when I left my old firm I was looking at beginning a new publication in NJ and recognized how hard it was. Offline I would share with you the name of the publication which is active in another region, and what my involvement was, but needless to say, it is hard work and I became genuinely impressed with how this figure tapped into a market that is so challenged today and how it operates. That is my involvement. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that when I said "you and the socks" I was not asserting that they are all one person. You. The socks (which definitely appear related to one another - the only question here is if they are related to you). And it is a fact that there is no COI disclosure. These were all facts, so there is no need for "asserted" kind of discourse here.

but thanks for responding to me and saying how you have operated here with regard to clients.

Anyway, i am just upsetting you and i am not the decision maker. I hope that things work out. sorry again for upsetting you. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for listening. Apparently the admins here are not inclined to respond to me or discuss, and I sent them private emails and my phone number too.Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will say a last thing. If you read through the block notice carefully, it has a link to the sockpuppet investigation, and if you read that, there is a link there to "defending yourself against claims". I have now given you that link - please read it and then review the actual investigation and findings before you respond further. Please. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry[edit]

@Judae1: You are blocked for sockpuppetry, and that is all we should be talking about here. In short: our WP:Checkuser tool found several accounts (listed here) that are editing from the same location as you do. You say you don't know them. But, those accounts were editing the same pages as you did, making similar edits to Jason Binn. For example: You and ChasTayn both !voted to keep the Jason Binn article. It is absolutely not possible that five people who do not know each other are editing the same page from the same location by coincidence. You have to explain us what's going on. Saying "I don't know them" will not help you because it's not possible. In your response, please explain us what's going on. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for now having that conversation after you blocked and ignored me. if you read anywhere, I'm not sure you will ever once see me say "I don't know" them. I think I just inferred that I'm not them/him/her whoever. And I am not. I am also not sure editing an article that someone in my vicinity is editing is illegal or even voting to keep an article almost a year and a half ago is. I don't think Wikipedia rules say that two people in the same zip code, IP address or region cannot participate.

However, I can be clear because of this issue that I want resolved. I have a curious interest in how this man/subject has managed to run a publishing empire at a time when publishing print is dying. For selfish interest I have been studying him as I was/am looking at partneing in an unrelated magazine and learned the hard way how challenging it is. I work in a big branded shared office space building and I know a few people who edit and this person has been discussed. Wikipedia relies on people who have interests and knowledge, willing to research and share. My history here is filled with it, from early New York cooperatives and unions, Jewish and Israeli interest, my work on Ken Kraus, having learned about him from a book my father wrote, and Star Trek related articles. I have interests and i write about them. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not illegal, but it is certainly against Wikipedia's policy (see: WP:MEATPUPPETRY). We don't care if all those accounts belong to you, or they belong to different people who work with you and edit in the same way you do. From Wikipedia's point of view, it's the same. You are trying do defend yourself, but basically you are admitting you engaged in meatpupptry. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what language you speak, but you continue to out words in my mouth. I never said these work for for or with me. I know some and they don't work with me or for me. I will keep fighting this because you are wrong. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has been several years since I was involved in the Ronn Torossian sock puppetry episode. Judae1 was at that time a senior executive in 5WPR, Torossian's firm. Torossian engaged in blatant and malicious sockpuppetry, much of which was the editing of articles about 5WPR's clients. Judae1 was implicated but later exonerated.

Since then, Judae1 has been a positive editor of Wikipedia, adding a lot of stuff in a wide range of topic areas. He left 5WPR two years ago to found his own PR firm, and, as far as I know, is no longer associated with 5WPR.

The subjects of the articles that were edited by Judae1 and the apparent sockpuppets are not, as far as I can tell, clients of either 5WPR or Herald PR, Judae1's new firm. So there does not appear to be a prima facie conflict of interest here, something which would support the charge of malicious sockpuppetry. And, while Judae1's contention that the multiple users emerging from the same IP address are not him is a bit hard to believe, it is still possible.

Considering the absence of a clear motive for violating Wikipedia's rules on multiple accounts, and Judae1's own admirable editing history, it seems to me that this decision is overly harsh. Perhaps a severe warning would be more in order.

Again, it has been a good while since I was involved in this issue, and the blocking administrators may know much more than I. But I felt it was appropriate to add my two cents to the discussion, albeit belatedly. Ravpapa (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I hope my pleas are heard. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Vanjagenije I just can't understand how you keep reading things I don't say. None of my staff is on Wikipedia and none edit or participate. None of the people you're referring to work with me or for me. Do you know what WeWork facility is? It's independent people. My company has nothing to do with anyone else other the collegial talk in the vestibule. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC) Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And how is possible that those "independent people" are editing the same article as you, and with similar edits? Vanjagenije (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Vanjagenije You have whatever answer you want to believe, and nothing I say mattera. So I ask you how do I resolve this to your satisfaction? I would like to work this out. Thank you Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due Process[edit]

This User_talk:Sundartripathi is an example of due process and how it should be done. The way mine was handled is wrong. I am disappointed in this system, where no one has to prove an COI, just make claims to it. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No that is entirely different. This is not helping you. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know that there is a serious claim against me regarding the use of multiple accounts, and I know some of the users involved and do not know others. However, I do know that the charge against me was levied due to editing an article that I have no COI with at all; no money, no agreements, no involvements, no contact. I have an interest in the article's subject and I researched and studied it. It was no different than Jacob Ostreicher, a man I never met, but heard about his plight and went to a rally to see and hear more. Nor is it different from Kenneth Kraus, a man a read about, then reached out to for speak about his ordeal - for nothing other than subject matter interest. The only difference here is that the most recent subject has a media empire and is/was not an underdog as the other two are, so to speak. For some, that makes it a problem because of perception, but it is no different. I have no conflict other than interest, and having interest in a subject is what makes any Wikipedia editor worthwhile - interest enough to study, find valid sources, useful photos and more information. If you look at the page I was editing, there is wrongful information on it that I had tried to change, and it was reversed by an editor with little regard to Wikipedia fact checking. However, I do not want to debate it and I want to edit general pieces again. I will emphatically say that I will do my very best to avoid any topics that are of controversial nature, I will keep to myself and not engage in edit challenges, and I will not use multiple accounts. I would like objectivity here, some review of my eleven years as an editor, and some real valuation of my contributions to this terrific forum. Thank you. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been blocked for sock puppetry and this appeal, as with many of your comments above, fails to properly address this. Therefore I am declining your appeal. Blocked users have access to their talk pages solely for appealing their block and/or dealing with matters that are directly related to their block. Your discursive conversations have become unproductive and wander off into matters that are not pertinent to your block and, consequently, are unhelpful to the appeal process. I am therefore revoking your talk page access. If you wish to appeal again then you now must use WP:UTRS. My advice is to address, point by point, the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Judae1/Archive and to describe, precisely, your relationship with each of the named users. Just Chilling (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19112 was submitted on Aug 30, 2017 16:17:26. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user has said that they are not a sock but these Special:Undelete/User:Draykyle/sandbox edits show this editor working with this piece of work that was an undisclosed paid editor and this was less than a year ago. They didn't come clean in previous sock blocks / unblock requests but insisted they were uninvolved. Not believable.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a different user being discussed above. This in not Draykyle's user talk page.70.208.71.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user made edits there-- (diff) 2016-12-28T20:46:04 . . Judae1 (talk | contribs | block) (28,497 bytes) (more refs and cleaned)

*(diff) 2016-12-28T20:22:07 . . Judae1 (talk | contribs | block) (27,645 bytes) (→‎Contemporary history (2012–present): fixed ref break)
*(diff) 2016-12-28T20:18:51 . . Judae1 (talk | contribs | block) (27,643 bytes) (Added and moved MMOG to better place)

(diff) 2016-12-28T19:40:07 . . Judae1 (talk | contribs | block) (26,430 bytes) (possible enhancements)

cheers, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20067 was submitted on Dec 14, 2017 22:19:52. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20103 was submitted on Dec 18, 2017 15:25:47. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is suspected that it is compromised. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you are able to confirm that you are the user who created this account, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section), then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20154 was submitted on Dec 25, 2017 17:29:07. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20279 was submitted on Jan 09, 2018 15:23:00. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20614 was submitted on Feb 13, 2018 22:50:31. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your email[edit]

I have received your email - and the only advice left to give you would be to contact the arbitration committee. I would address the situation to them with complete honesty if you choose to email them. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Judae1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21825 was submitted on Jun 15, 2018 04:48:43. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]