| Revision as of 07:37, 16 June 2015 view sourceHandpolk (talk | contribs)1,588 edits →My recent edits← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:01, 12 March 2023 view source Legobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,894 editsm Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <center> (1x)Tag: Fixed lint errors | ||
| (154 intermediate revisions by 31 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 --> | ||
| 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) | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| ⚫ | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for ]. 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 ~~~~''}}. |
||
| {{Tmbox | |||
| This was lifted. I would like it please to be re-instated. I need a wiki-break. ] (]) 05:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| | 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)}} | |||
| :I've reblocked you for 48 hours starting now. If you would like longer, please say. Have a nice wikibreak. ] (]) 05:49, 15 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) | |||
| {{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)}} | |||
| == My recent edits == | |||
| *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) | |||
| It has come to my attention that editors acting in good faith are on high alert for anything related to Ellen Pao, given the recent events at reddit. In that context, I totally understand why people presumed what they did about my edits. I apologize for assuming bad faith and that people were merely stalking me. A very unfortunate coincidence that the Golden State Warriors are in the NBA Finals, which led me to edit the article of their owner, who happens to be a partner at that firm. | |||
| ==My RfA== | |||
| I will work hard to assume good faith in the future, as I understand people are a bit suspicious of my intentions. I would really appreciate it if others can also try to assume good faith in mine. I really am not a Gamergator. I really am not here to spread their lies on Misplaced Pages. Honestly. And I honestly have no interest in going anywhere near that topic. ] (]) 07:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" |{{#switch:{{lc:Oppose}} | |||
| |support= ] | |||
| |neutral= ] | |||
| |oppose = ] | |||
| |] | |||
| }} | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |<div class="center"><u><big>'''Pavlov's RfA reward'''</big></u></div>{{Break}} | |||
| Thank for !voting at my recent ]. You voted '''Oppose''' so you get {{#switch:{{lc:Oppose}} | |||
| |support= a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! | |||
| |neutral= a reasonable two cookies, just cooling off. | |||
| |oppose= only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) | |||
| | ... to have a cookie anyway. | |||
| }}{{Break}} | |||
| All the best: ''] ]'',<small> 19:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC).</small><br /> | |||
| |} | |||
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.) |