Misplaced Pages

User talk:Handpolk

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 104.156.240.142 (talk) at 15:43, 5 July 2015 (Undid revision 670063816 by 104.156.240.142 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:43, 5 July 2015 by 104.156.240.142 (talk) (Undid revision 670063816 by 104.156.240.142 (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

July 2015

Stop icon with clock
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.

User:TheGracefulSlick, "He completely denies any wrongdoing." That is not true. I have only denied being 100% at fault. Pointing out where others were also at fault does not mean I am denying wrongdoing. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Every comment has focused on your actions because you are the one entirely at fault. So in this case you were doing the tango with yourself, knocking into everyone else in the process. You need to learn to collaborate with others or you'll be having the same conversation with someone else. Don't ping me again, until you learn to look in the mirror. Bye.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
User:TheGracefulSlick, like I said, I'm only denying being 100% at fault, while you claimed I deny any wrongdoing. For instance when you vandalized my talk page, that was not 100% my fault. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It takes more than one person to edit war, that is true, but your behavior is often adding gasoline to a fire. I recommend that you read Misplaced Pages:Vandalism which says, in part, In Misplaced Pages, vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. ...Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Edit warring and even disruptive edits are not necessary vandalism and calling someone a vandal or troll can be viewed as a personal attack. Remember that just because another editor acts poorly doesn't mean you have to take the low road with them. This is a brief time-out but future blocks will be longer if you don't change your combative behavior. Good luck! Liz 10:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
It's always nice to have a dozen people arrive to point out when I screw up. What's odd is that not a single person is pointing out what anybody else did wrong and telling them to correct their behavior -- either here, on their talk pages, on noticeboards, nowhere. All of the focus is on my transgressions, with people like User:TheGracefulSlick specifically saying I am 100% at fault and nobody else did anything wrong. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 10:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps because it is the truth? You were already edit warring/removing other peoples edits when I warned you about it. Not only did you persist in the edit war, you also placed bogus warnings on my talk page. And you started edit warring there when I removed that bogus warning. While you claimed to have the right to remove (valid) warnings, you denied me the right to remove bogus warnings.
But as others have said before: please change your combative attitude. The only effect from that behaviour is more and longer blocks. The Banner talk 11:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)