User talk:Handpolk

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)[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 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)[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.

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia: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)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= 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. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 08:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]