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)

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:

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.

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

Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen, in all honesty I do not see this block interfering with AE. As Gamaliel said, that's been open awhile. And it's not really going anywhere anyway. However I do find your block reason inaccurate, as you can see above. The only thing I'm guilty of that you named is making a single revert. Handpolk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)