User talk:Hand snoojy

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Please note: "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. When in doubt, assume it is related, and don't revert." Please self-revert or you may be reported. --NeilN ^talk to me 14:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN What rule am I breaking here?.The rule is one revert per day, that's not breaking the rule.I added some content and you deleted it without my permission then i reverted ONCE.Hand snoojy (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

The rule is one revert per 24 hours. You re-added previously deleted material yesterday and again in less than 24 hours. --NeilN ^talk to me 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN It's called adding new content not reverting it.Hand snoojy (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not new content as a sockpuppet kept adding the same thing. Very well, I will let you know when my report is done. --NeilN ^talk to me 18:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN A sockpuppet?Whats that a spambot?Hand snoojy (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you very well know. --NeilN ^talk to me 18:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN Why was the content deleted?I'm not anti anything, it just needed to be posted, think about it..Hand snoojy (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hand_snoojy reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^talk to me 18:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at WP:AN3#User:Hand snoojy reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to ISIL, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions on articles about the Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. PBS (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hand_snoojy reported by User:Legacypac (Result: ). Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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. seicer | talk | contribs 15:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:EW#User:Hand snoojy reported by User:Legacypac (Result: indef. blocked), user:Update stormtrooper and User:Absolution provider 1999. seicer | talk | contribs 15:22, 8 February 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).

Hand snoojy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Can we get checkuser please there is no evidence other than my edit warring.Because the ISIL article is read by many people it attracts many people who vandalise articles .I'm not one of them and there is not even a shred of evidence of me being a sock puppet.No suspected sock puppets and no confirmed sock puppets !?What's wrong !?.If I have no suspected or confirmed sockpuppets why am I being blocked? Hand snoojy (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(1) I see a large number of striking similarities between the editing of this account and that of known sockpuppets, making it improbable that you are a different person. (2) I also see other evidence that you are not a new editor. (3) Even in the unlikely event that you are a new editor, you are a disruptive editor, and unblocking you would not benefit the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:02, 9 February 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.

Checkusers will not do "clear my name" checks, since in most cases the user requesting them knows how to manipulate their IP to get a negative result. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it was just a coincidence that your first edits to the article restored (as "new") text added by a series of sockpuppets, right? --NeilN ^talk to me 15:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seicer User:PhilKnight No suspected sock puppets added and none confirmed.Why are we even here in the first place?.Hand snoojy (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For more background, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Absolution provider 1999. The common theme of the various socks is adding 'justification based on religious texts' to the ISIL article. Since User:Hand snoojy has now been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, it might be time to update and close the SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a person stands for something some people will stand for him and others will oppose him that's my current situation. First the material I inserted was not copyrighted in any way. Second, ONLY I was blocked for edit warring and none of the other users were even given a warning and now I'm blocked for sock puppetry. None of my actions were disruptive and I still haven't got any responses from any Administrators because they think I'm a sockpuppet. If you're gonna jump to conclusions and think I'm a sock puppet without providing any evidence I can very well accuse all the editors on wikipedia of sock puppetry. I request the administrators to unblock me right away. If you're going to delay this you'll waste more time .Hand snoojy (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston Excuse me can we get a move on please! Just because I supported some guys or girls edit doesn't make me a sock puppet.Hand snoojy (talk) 13:50, 9 February 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).

Hand snoojy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is getting really frustrating.Who the heck is solidpoop2 and absolution provider and malam kanam. I am a human being not a spambot, I can't operate all of these accounts.The Administrators on Wikipedia have their sums wrong because the gathered evidence is not conclusive. First malam kanam is accused of being a sockpuppet related to me through absolution provider and the next it is solid poop 2.No accused sock puppets page exists and no confirmed sock puppets page exists , WHY?.Can I get a checkuser to confirm that I'm not a sockpuppet. Your ignorance blinds you.Can any administrator look at my case and make a better judgement please..... Hand snoojy (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:DUCK sockpuppetry. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:43, 10 February 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.

As I said above, anyone requesting a "clear my name" check generally knows how to manipulate the result, so CUs will not perform them. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]