User talk:Handpolk - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Favonian (talk | contribs) at 14:44, 18 July 2015 (Protected User talk:Handpolk: Persistent sock puppetry ( (indefinite) (indefinite))). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:44, 18 July 2015 by Favonian (talk | contribs) (Protected User talk:Handpolk: Persistent sock puppetry ( (indefinite) (indefinite)))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

July 2015

You have been blocked 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 User talk:The Banner and User talk:TheGracefulSlick. 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 make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

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).

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)

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.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC).