User talk:Handpolk: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Handpolk (talk | contribs)
Handpolk (talk | contribs)
Line 4: Line 4:
{{unblock reviewed|reason= Reason given for block is almost entirely inaccurate. TheGracefulSlick [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Handpolk&diff=669910210&oldid=669910125 blanked conversation on my talk page with a trolling edit summary], I warned them for this. The Banner [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Banner was edit warring across multiple articles], I warned them for this. Both warnings were warranted and both were heeded. I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGracefulSlick&diff=669912007&oldid=669910776 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. [[User:Handpolk|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#006BB6; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Handpolk</span>]] [[User talk:Handpolk|<span style="color:#FDB927">''¯\_(ツ)_/¯''</span>]] 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. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 18:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)}}
{{unblock reviewed|reason= Reason given for block is almost entirely inaccurate. TheGracefulSlick [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Handpolk&diff=669910210&oldid=669910125 blanked conversation on my talk page with a trolling edit summary], I warned them for this. The Banner [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Banner was edit warring across multiple articles], I warned them for this. Both warnings were warranted and both were heeded. I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGracefulSlick&diff=669912007&oldid=669910776 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. [[User:Handpolk|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#006BB6; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Handpolk</span>]] [[User talk:Handpolk|<span style="color:#FDB927">''¯\_(ツ)_/¯''</span>]] 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. [[User:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] ([[User talk:PhilKnight|talk]]) 18:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)}}


:[[User:TheGracefulSlick]], "{{xt|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 what I did wrong. For instance, I should not have restored removed warnings to the talk pages of others. [[User:Handpolk|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#006BB6; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Handpolk</span>]] [[User talk:Handpolk|<span style="color:#FDB927">''¯\_(ツ)_/¯''</span>]] 05:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
:[[User:TheGracefulSlick]], "{{xt|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. [[User:Handpolk|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#006BB6; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Handpolk</span>]] [[User talk:Handpolk|<span style="color:#FDB927">''¯\_(ツ)_/¯''</span>]] 05:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:25, 5 July 2015

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)[reply]
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 logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]