| Revision as of 14:25, 5 June 2015 view source192.249.47.187 (talk) →context for the AE discussion← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:01, 12 March 2023 view source Legobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,135 editsm Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <center> (1x)Tag: Fixed lint errors | ||
| (368 intermediate revisions by 50 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | == July 2015 == | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for disruptive editing, comprising giving out harassing and meritless "vandalism" warnings and then edit warring to keep them on the page, at ] and ]. I note the warning above has had as little effect as the other warnings you've received for this behaviour. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. ] | ] 13:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|reason= Reason given for block is almost entirely inaccurate. TheGracefulSlick , I warned them for this. The Banner , I warned them for this. Both warnings were warranted and both were heeded. I made of a removal of one of these warnings, which I acknowledge I should not have done and will not do again -- but that is hardly 'edit warring' nor does it merit being blocked. ] ] 14:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)|decline=Overall, I agree with the blocking admin's description of events leading up to your block. In future, if an editor leaves you a message saying that you are giving out too many warnings, don't respond by issuing another warning. ] (]) 18:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{Tmbox | |||
| ⚫ | == July |
||
| | style = background: #f8eaba | |||
| ] Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to ] has been undone by an automated computer program called ]. | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| {{clear}} | |||
| | text = '''''This account has been ] indefinitely''''' as a ] that was created to violate Misplaced Pages policy. See ]. Note that using multiple accounts is ], but using them for ] reasons '''is not''', and that all edits made while evading a block or ban ]. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on the page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include "tlx|". -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the ] first. ] | ] 08:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)<!-- Template:uw-sockblock -->}} | |||
| * ClueBot NG makes very few ], but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please ], , remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again. | |||
| * For help, take a look at the ]. | |||
| * The following is the log entry regarding this message: ] was by ] ] ] ANN scored at 0.887304 on 2014-07-20T03:09:42+00:00 <!-- MySQL ID: 1903388 -->. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning1 --><!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ] (]) 03:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1= Request a set of completely uninvolved, neutral and fresh eyes to review this. I am absolutely not a sock, this is absurd. Blocking admin is involved and should not be blocking me repeatedly. He's friends with the Gamergate editors (where I am topic banned) who clearly contacted him trying to get him to block me. It's not a coincidence all of them are hounding me and he suddenly took so much interest in what I'm up to. | decline = I have read te SPI case and the evidence is even more compelling than a CU - which we could still do but don't need to. Your overall behaviour besides your sockpupetry is totally unacceptable for this collaborative environent and I have extended your block to include withdrawal of your talk page access. ] (]) 10:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Gamergate Controversy Restrictions == | |||
| *I would provide evidence but I'm not sure what evidence I can provide that I'm me and not some other editor. It appears we were both interested in poker articles and User:2005 rubbed us both the wrong way with his abrasive editing style and the way he tries to WP:OWN all the poker articles. ] ] 08:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{tld|unblock|Another involved admin. We had a disagreement at RfA and he has been following me around everywhere. I request a set of fresh eyes, who has had no prior interactions with me. I am not a sock. ] ] 10:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
| Hi there! Editing the article and talk page of Gamergate controversy is limited to editors with 500+ contributions and accounts that are older than 30 days. The first requirement is an issue here, so I've removed your edit to the talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ping me here or ask them on my talk page. Cheers! <small>] has made ] outside this topic.</small> 03:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *The abve unblock request can be ignred.It was being posted while I was actually activating the TPA withdrawal. User can go to ] or ] if they really want to appeal. ] (]) 10:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not willing to copy what you've said to the page, sorry- that would be against the spirit of the restriction. The best way forward is probably just continuing your normal editing of Misplaced Pages until you've reached 500 edits. You can see the number of edits you've made ]. <small>] has made ] outside this topic.</small> 04:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hi Handpolk, I expect you're somewhat confused by this exchange. Let me clarify: Peter was one of the editors who helped craft the lede. He's fiercely resisted any change and denied any bias, despite a number of editors like yourself objecting. In fact, his account has few edits outside this topic area (as his signature indicates) and is likely an alternate account, created specifically to edit this and related articles. If you're genuinely interested in contributing I'd suggest contacting a different editor. A word of warning however - in addition to the above requirement the article is subject to 1RR and guarded by a number of editors similar to Peter. Editors who've attempted to bring it into compliance were repeatedly reverted, and either left in frustration or banned from participating. Good luck. ] (]) 05:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's clear there is strong bias on the article, however in his actions here I don't see any problem. He is just enforcing the rules of the article. And he's probably right that it would be against the spirit of the restrictions for him to paste in what I said. ] (]) 05:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages follows principles rather than precise rules, and the principle is that there has been too much repetitive discussion of settled points at ] (38 pages of archives since September 2014). ] clarified in ] (]) that "{{tq|The editing requirements for the subpage will be the same 500/30 requirements as for the article and the Talk page}}". That applied to the ], but the same principle applies to any other "meta" discussion moved to a subpage, such as ]. In your comment at ] you included a link to a reddit.com page which you described as showing 136 people speaking in unison—it is precisely that kind of off-site campaigning that led to ] and the need for the 500/30 procedure. ] (]) 12:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==My RfA== | |||
| :I understand why it exists. That is not a reason to dismiss the feedback of those 136 people. One viewpoint is winning on this article. That is the opposite of neutrality. ] (]) 12:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" |{{#switch:{{lc:Oppose}} | |||
| == Gamergate Talk page and subpages == | |||
| |support= ] | |||
| |neutral= ] | |||
| Hi Handpolk, the Gamergate Talk page and (now) its ''Meta'' subpages are all subject to the same 500/30 restriction. It wasn't clear before so no worries about your edits at the subpage up to this point, but now that the 500/30 restriction is clear, please abide by it. Thanks... <code>]]</code> 12:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |oppose = ] | |||
| :Wasn't that restriction put in place via arbitration? I don't understand how you have the authority to unilaterally alter their decision. ] (]) 12:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |] | |||
| ::The 500/30 restriction was enacted as an Arbitration Enforcement action, under the authority of the ] decision. <code>]]</code> 12:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| :::Right, and you just went against their decision. Unless it specifically mentions meta and sub pages. ] (]) 12:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |<div class="center"><u><big>'''Pavlov's RfA reward'''</big></u></div>{{Break}} | |||
| ::::Your AE appeal is now reformatted, you may make your arguments there. <code>]]</code> 13:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Thank for !voting at my recent ]. You voted '''Oppose''' so you get {{#switch:{{lc:Oppose}} | |||
| |support= a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! | |||
| == Your appeal request at Arbitration Enforcement == | |||
| |neutral= a reasonable two cookies, just cooling off. | |||
| |oppose= only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) | |||
| Hi Handpolk, you appear to want to appeal an Arbitration Enforcement action at ]. AE is the correct noticeboard to do this, but you have to use the Appeal template (in the Editnotice you get when you create a new section at AE) to format your request properly. Please reformat your request or it may be closed without action. Thank you... <code>]]</code> 12:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| | ... to have a cookie anyway. | |||
| :I couldn't figure out how to do that after reading through that wall of confusing text for over five minutes. So I just deleted it all and stated what I was asking for. I think I was very clear. ] (]) 12:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| }}{{Break}} | |||
| ::The AE page is unlike most other Misplaced Pages pages because AE does not host threaded discussions, but rather individual statements, and the formation of consensus happens among uninvolved administrators rather than the general community. The template supports those points, that's why we ask that AE requests use the template. Would you mind if I formatted it for you properly? <code>]]</code> 12:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 19:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :::I wouldn't mind at all. I would appreciate it. So long as you don't alter my message. ] (]) 12:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ::::Done. <code>]]</code> 13:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you. If I understood that correctly, I could have appealed this to you. I was not aware either that you were the enforcing administrator nor that I could have appealed it to you. I just saw somewhere it could be appealed there, so I did it. ] (]) 13:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::No problem. For the record, had you appealed to me directly, I would have declined the appeal and encouraged you to keep editing productively in other areas (as you have been!) to build up to 500 edits. <code>]]</code> 13:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == context for the AE discussion == | |||
| Before I comment at the AE, I am wondering if you would let me know what your response to my answer about policy would have been. -- ] 13:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :That's a valid argument. Media coverage has been very one sided so the article reflects that. However there must be some guideline or policy for dealing with situations where the media themselves are extremely biased. I can't imagine the Ron Paul article, for example, portrays him as a nutjob, as the media does. The difference of course being that Ron Paul sympathizers likely run that article, whereas it seems abundantly clear that anti-Gamergaters run this one. So in the end my response would be an appeal to objectivity. I would ask everybody to put their views, beliefs and biases aside and try to create the best encyclopedia that we can. Here that means telling both sides of the story. Neutrally. ] (]) 14:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::No one "runs" an article. If you look through the talk page and its archives, you'll find editors with a wide variety of opinions on Gamergate, both editors who are critical, those who are sympathetic and those who are in-between. We do rely on reliable sources and if they don't exist to support some interpretations, those points of view won't be represented in the article. That doesn't mean that additional, different reliable sources won't appear in the future. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 20:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Consensus runs an article and humans make up consensus. If consensus is one viewpoint, that viewpoint runs the article. That is happening on this article. As is asserted, with various wordings, by every GG supporter I have seen discuss this article on Misplaced Pages or off of it. They are not all lying or wrong. The anti-GG crowd all uses the same language you used. 'We are just using reliable sources and enforcing Misplaced Pages policy (to have the article written EXACTLY as we want it)". So, let me guess, you are anti-GG. Right? ] (]) 01:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Out of curiosity, how do you know they're not all lying or wrong? You seem to be appealing to an ] -- if so, and the audience accepts for the sake of argument that an argumentum ad populum is rational, how do you square GG's obvious rightness with the also-implicitly-obvious rightness of the "anti-GG crowd"? | |||
| ::::Also, why are you relying on their assertions rather than investigating the article, the sources it uses, and what wikipedia policy allows it to actually say?] (]) 14:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Edits at Tamil films == | |||
| Handpolk, regarding your edits ... Removing overlinking is helpful, of course, but can you explain why you're choosing to do it one link at a time, instead of all in one edit? <code>]]</code> 13:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:01, 12 March 2023
July 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Handpolk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Reason given for block is almost entirely inaccurate. TheGracefulSlick blanked conversation on my talk page with a trolling edit summary, I warned them for this. The Banner was edit warring across multiple articles, I warned them for this. Both warnings were warranted and both were heeded. I made a single revert of a removal of one of these warnings, which I acknowledge I should not have done and will not do again -- but that is hardly 'edit warring' nor does it merit being blocked. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Overall, I agree with the blocking admin's description of events leading up to your block. In future, if an editor leaves you a message saying that you are giving out too many warnings, don't respond by issuing another warning. PhilKnight (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2015 (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.
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Misplaced Pages policy. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/DegenFarang. 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 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. Bishonen | talk 08:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
|
Handpolk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Request a set of completely uninvolved, neutral and fresh eyes to review this. I am absolutely not a sock, this is absurd. Blocking admin is involved and should not be blocking me repeatedly. He's friends with the Gamergate editors (where I am topic banned) who clearly contacted him trying to get him to block me. It's not a coincidence all of them are hounding me and he suddenly took so much interest in what I'm up to.
Decline reason:
I have read te SPI case and the evidence is even more compelling than a CU - which we could still do but don't need to. Your overall behaviour besides your sockpupetry is totally unacceptable for this collaborative environent and I have extended your block to include withdrawal of your talk page access. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2015 (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 would provide evidence but I'm not sure what evidence I can provide that I'm me and not some other editor. It appears we were both interested in poker articles and User:2005 rubbed us both the wrong way with his abrasive editing style and the way he tries to WP:OWN all the poker articles. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 08:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
{{unblock|Another involved admin. We had a disagreement at RfA and he has been following me around everywhere. I request a set of fresh eyes, who has had no prior interactions with me. I am not a sock. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)}}
- The abve unblock request can be ignred.It was being posted while I was actually activating the TPA withdrawal. User can go to WP:BASC or WP:UTRS if they really want to appeal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
My RfA
|
Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) |