| Revision as of 00:33, 15 June 2015 view sourceHandpolk (talk | contribs)1,588 edits →General note← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:01, 12 March 2023 view source Legobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,004 editsm Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <center> (1x)Tag: Fixed lint errors | ||
| (203 intermediate revisions by 37 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)}} | |||
| Can any kind Wikipedian give me general advice on filing AE's and ANI's when you yourself have ways in which people might attack you -- so that the decision does not focus 100% on you, while completely ignoring the valid complaints that you made? ] (]) 07:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :Please note, if you think WP:BOOMERANG answers my question, it does not. That essay promotes this type of outcome. ] (]) 07:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{Tmbox | |||
| == What is the solution you found? == | |||
| | style = background: #f8eaba | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| | 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 -->}} | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| Hi Handpolk, you appeared to say you were going to retire this account, but then you undo that with the edit summary "think i may have found a solution". What is the solution you have found? Thanks... <code>]]</code> 16:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *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) | |||
| :is there a way i can tell you privately? Curious if it will work. ] (]) 17:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::You can go to my User Talk, click on "email this user" from the menu on the left, and email me. <code>]]</code> 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks. On mobile now will do that later. | |||
| :::To be clear to everyone; I am not attempting to break any rules or find loopholes in them or evade any sanctions or anything like that. I'm just trying to return to the Misplaced Pages I had up until a couple weeks ago. The battleground of GGC is being brought to my entire editing experience and that isn't reasonable. ] (]) 19:16, 14 June 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)}} | |||
| ==General note== | |||
| *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) | |||
| Could the editors that Handpolk knows from the area they are topic-banned from please back off a bit? I'm not asking this as an WP:AE request or in my capacity as an admin, but just as a favor in good faith to an editor trying to disengage from the topic. Thanks... <code>]]</code> 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :These stalkers are claiming this line "In May 2012, Ellen Pao, an employee, sued the firm for gender discrimination in Pao v. Kleiner Perkins, which KPCB has vigorously denied. On March 27, 2015, after a month-long trial, the jury found against Ellen Pao on all claims.: in ] makes that huge article and the article of everyone and everything related to that article a 'Gamergate' article and as such I cannot edit them. Please make a ruling on this. To me that seems absurd. This is harassment. None of my edits had anything remotely to do with Gamergate. ] is the owner of the Warriors and there isn't a word on that article that smells anything like Gamergate yet my good faith edits are being reverted by stalkers who are telling me that's a gamergate article. ] (]) 23:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not being a stalker, Handpolk, just passing along some information. The fact that these pages are covered by the Gamergate discretionary sanctions was just discussed a few hours ago and your edits occurred ''before'' the warning notices were placed on their talk pages. See ] for the discussion. And now I'll leave. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">] ]</font></sup> 23:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you Liz. However that is just the opinion of a couple of my stalkers. No admin sanctions or decision. Any good faith editor would see that I'm not editing anything having to do with Ellen Pao. ] (]) 23:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you didn't keep blanking your talkpage you'd be able to refer back to Euryalus's topic ban notice, which states that you're banned from " (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate." As you note above, Ellen Pao sued over gender discrimination, and you're actively editing a gender-related dispute or controversy. Why should I not block you for a violation of your topic ban? You got a second chance over the notice that was here last night, this is a fresh violation. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 23:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::These articles have nothing to do with Ellen Pao. If you want to ban me from editing the article on the lawsuit, that makes perfect sense. How ] is in any way related to gamergate, I do not understand. ] (]) 23:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] are you assuming good faith in my actions? If you looked at my contributions over the last day, I don't understand how you could think anything other than that I am acting in good faith and being stalked and harassed. I am trying as hard as I can to abide by this topic ban and to disengage from those harassing me. They won't leave me alone. Can't you see they are trying to get you to block me? Zad even left a notice here asking them to back off. They are not backing off. If any action should be taken -- it is against those harassing me. ] (]) 23:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"Broadly construed" means just that. You are the one who brought up Ellen Pao up the page. You continue to sail very close to the wind. You may ''not'' remove sanctions notices whether you disagree with them or not, that is a clear-cut topic ban violation. I do not count your edits before the notice was placed, giving you the benefit of the doubt. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 23:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Please respond to the other things that I said. Namely: those harassing me. Do you agree I am being harassed? Do you think something should be done about that? Also, how is Joe Lacob 'broadly construed' as a gamergate article? ] (]) 23:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::You're not being harassed. You've been trying to edit an article about a firm at the center of a gender-related controversy while ignoring editors' expressions of concern about a breach of your topic ban. You made the choice to edit the article, you were warned, and selectively ignoring the issues associated with the article in favor of "the owner of the Golden State Warriors" is not credible. Criticism is not harassment. '''<font face="Arial">] <small>]</small></font>''' 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Ok, the firm I understand. That firm has dozens of partners, one of which is Al Gore. Some work part-time or less. ] is one of those whose main job is Owner of the ]. Even 'broadly construed' that article is not related to gender discrimination. If you view the article and my edits, I think you would agree. I would like permission to edit that article please. ] (]) 00:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == BLP Sanctions Notice == | |||
| ==My RfA== | |||
| Not sure why you have a problem with ]. The article is about a company that is involved with a high-profile case involving a living person. The BLP notice is very much applicable. — ] (]) 23:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| :'The article is about a company that is involved with' -- do you know how many articles I'd be prevented from editing with that type of logic? All of them. ] (]) 23:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" |{{#switch:{{lc:Oppose}} | |||
| ::The notice is applicable to the article. Same notice applies to ] and you're still not prevented from editing there. — ] (]) 23:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |support= ] | |||
| :::I can't wait to hear this one. How is ] related to gamergate? | |||
| |neutral= ] | |||
| :::You guys are trying to make everything I touch a gamergate article because I touched it. That's not how this works. You are not assuming good faith and you think I'm on some gamergate crusade here. I'm not. I'm disengaging from that topic. ] (]) 23:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |oppose = ] | |||
| ::::{{ec}} It's not. You're not listening to what I'm saying. This notice has '''nothing''' to do with Gamergate, and the notice itself has nothing to do with you or preventing you from editing articles with it on it. It's only purpose is to let editors know that the article is about, or contains material about, living persons, and reminds them of the relevant policies. — ] (]) 23:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |] | |||
| :::::Ok, my mistake. Thank you for clarifying. I thought that meant it was subject to gamergate sanctions. ] (]) 23:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |<div class="center"><u><big>'''Pavlov's RfA reward'''</big></u></div>{{Break}} | |||
| == "rmv stalker" == | |||
| Thank for !voting at my recent ]. You voted '''Oppose''' so you get {{#switch:{{lc:Oppose}} | |||
| |support= a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! | |||
| Deleting people from your talk page is considered bad form if you don't address them. No one is "stalking" you. We are ''watching'' you because you are a ''newbie'' with a proven ''bad history''. People are ''desperately'' trying to help you, and whenever you remove stuff, calling people "stalkers" - that's not looking good for you. It's looking very bad for you. I'd advise you to stop it.--] (]) 00:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |neutral= a reasonable two cookies, just cooling off. | |||
| :The people who are trying to get me blocked from editing ] are not trying to help me. They know and I know that article has absolutely nothing to do with Gamergate nor do my edits there have anything to do with Gamergate. They are harassing me. | |||
| |oppose= only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) | |||
| :You however I don't know for sure. So I will assume good faith that you mean what you just said. If you do mean those things, I apologize for grouping you together with those harassing me. Liz also seems to be acting in good faith. ] (]) 00:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| | ... to have a cookie anyway. | |||
| ::] is associated with ] and the sexual harassment case involving her. That falls ''entirely'' under the umbrella of "gender issues, broadly construed". Continued editing there will absolutely ''violate your topic ban'', which, at this point, will earn you a hard and very, very permanent block from Misplaced Pages.--] (]) 00:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| }}{{Break}} | |||
| ::''No one'' is trying to get you blocked. In fact, many people are bending over backwards trying to make sure that doesn't happen. Don't let them be wasting their time.--] (]) 00:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 19:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| :::So is Al Gore then, he's a partner at Kleiner, too. Also Facebook, because Kleiner invested in them. Also Steph Curry, because he plays for Joe Lacob's team. Also every other NBA player, because they play in the same league as Steph Curry. I can't edit any of those articles either, or any articles related to them in some way? ] (]) 00:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ::::This is what we're talking about when we mean "weaseling" and "lawyering". No one cares if you are actually working in bad faith or not; it simply ''appears'' that you are, and that's enough. Stop trying to figure out loopholes. You're caught, busted, and trussed. If you ''truly'' want to improve the encyclopedia, you'll start editing in non-controversial topics entirely. One of the easiest ways to do that is to ''not'' work on articles about ''living people''. You walked the Gamergate line and got burnt, hard. Now you're up against ''another'' electrified rail. As your attorney, I'm telling you to walk away. --] (]) 00:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's exactly what I was doing. Editing the article of the owner of the Golden State Warriors is not something in my wildest dreams I thought somebody would call related to gender discrimination. ] (]) 00:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"No one is trying to get you blocked." see when you say that you lose credibility. People are arguing for my block right now in AE. And you know that. People are absolutely trying to get me blocked. ] (]) 00:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, people are trying to stop you from harming the encyclopedia. Blocking is ''preventative'', not ''punative'.--] (]) 00:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::'people are trying to get me blocked' 'nobody is trying to get you blocked' 'they are trying right now' 'people are trying to stop you from harming the encylopedia by getting you blocked' -- you just agreed with me. People are trying to get me blocked. ] (]) 00:30, 15 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.) |