User talk:HankMoodyTZ

February 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Okay, first of all, I admit some of my mistakes. I did make another profile, but I did not use it for disruptive editing. That can be proved. I just used it to repair some redirects and to add stats for Miralem Pjanić and Edin Džeko. I didn't know it was forbidden, and therefore I apologise. Second thing, I was blocked for "unsourced content" I added to some pages, since the user who did it only used soccerway as source. The editor pointing it out was Oleola, who is known to be stubborn and doing what he likes, deleting content as unsourced when he doesn't like it. Simply by looking at his talk page, you will see how many he edit-warred. The guy blocking me was Giant Snowman, who I think has a personal beef with my, because of Adnan Zahirović page, which I by the way improved a lot. As I have proven many times before, my knowledge about Bosnian players I edited is huge. For example, we had a dispute about Smail Prevljak's apps for U21, and it turned out I was right, and my data stuck on the page. Therefore, I am of opinion that I did nothing wrong, just helped for the right data to be inserted. It is true that we had a couple of wars because of Bosnia and Herzegovina or Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but that's completely other thing, unrelated to this, and hasn't yet been settled. So, if you could give me another chance, I would be on my best behaviour and try to stay away from disputes.HankMoodyTZ (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It appears you have just been getting more stubborn over the last three months. There is no case for unblock here; see WP:Guide to appealing blocks for what sometimes works. My suggestion is to wait six months (without any more socking) and consider applying for the standard offer at that time. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2016 (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 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).

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

Request reason:

To start my statement, let me first say that I take full responsibilty for my actions and consequences of those. I have done some things that are not permitted by this Community or its rules. For that, I am very very sorry and I am kind of ashamed for what I've caused. I have used this time to get to know the rules, limits, learn how to become a useful member of Wikipedia. When I was originally blocked, I was fairly new to this page, did not know how things work, I was aggressive, pushy, trying to do everything my way, thinking that is the only good way, right way. That is what got me in trouble, since I got blocked for persistent adding of unsourced content. Then I just created another account, not knowing that it would get me blocked indefinitely, which eventially happened. I was just furious, and made those rash decisions. The problem is that I thought that just because I know it, all of the rest should obey me, and trust me, when I should have used sources to support my claims. In the meantime, I have found all the right sources for what I was edit warring before, and do not intend to edit war in the future, but instead resolve any potential issues the right way. My second, and probably worse offense was sockpuppetry. I've gone a couple of months wothout it until I saw how the pages I used to edit were in bad shape, not updated in a couple of months, since I weren't there. And it went a little out of hand, using my IP I changed page by page, improving them, but nonetheless, commiting an offense. I really plead for WP:Rope to be applied here, since I have ackgnowledged my mistakes, understand them and promise not to repeat them, I would like for you to give me that last chance and the rope, you will see that I won't be hanged by it. It is not just a saying, I have learned a lot from this experience and I have grown. I'm sure that I can be an asset to the community, since I come from a small country and have interest in what fairly little Wikipedians do. I am now more experienced and know how to conduct myself and in which way to help others, please don't deny me that opportunity. In all this time, since I haven't been able to edit, I've realised how much it has grown on me, and how nice it feels to write something someone else will use. I'm certain that I would not be the worst case to get this last chance. If it's provided to me, I will do my best to prove my value, to contribute as one should, respect others and follow the community rules and standards. Please guys, let me come back! HankMoodyTZ (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The standard offer speaks of six months without sockpuppetry. This is closer to six days since the last block evasion I'm aware of; it isn't even six months from the original block. Did you really gain that much more experience in the past week to understand you shouldn't be evading a block? Huon (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2016 (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.

Hey @Huon! Thank you for your reply. First of all, I understand that sockpuppetry is a serious offence, and I am really doing my best to stay away from it. I'm glad that you have checked my edits made to Ognjen Vranješ' page and seen that they are correct. I also guarantee for all other content, because of the ammount of effort I've put into them, it was huge. I am also glad that Sir Sputnik has noticed that I've stopped with my problematic behaviour which got me into trouble at first place (unsourced content, edit wars etc). I mean, you can check every edit I've made, that have been righrfully reverted by Sir, and they are all correct and do in fact improve those pages. At least I hope you see that I have learned from my past mistakes and stopped with behaviour that got me blocked in first place. All the rest came because I did not know the rules and was too eager to show that I can be an asset to this Community and that I can help working on those pages that do not get edited in months. I'm really hoping that you will be lenient with me and allow me to come back, through rope or special circumstances regarding standard offer I am pleading for. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Huon:, it's me again. I was wondering would it be possible that you remove my block. I've waited some time before contacting you, kept myself out of trouble, and although it hasn't been six months, I was thinking that you could grant me a pardon, using exceptions regarding blocks. There is no more socking, and no more behaviour that led to the original block. It would mean a world to me if I'm permitted to come back, you can monitor my every move, I will do everything by the book, please. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will not review multiple unblock requests by the same editor, sorry. You are welcome to make use of the {{unblock}} template again. That said, I'm not particularly impressed by your commitment to do everything by the book when you cannot follow the advice at WP:OFFER and were evading your block about a week ago. Huon (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence, I really did not know that editing sandbox counts as block evasion and I stopped immediately when I was warned. As there were no actual changes to the pages, I thought it was allowed, I did it just to keep track of appearances and goals by Bosnian players. But no problem, I found another way to keep track of all the changes. You can see that since my last request I haven't done any sockpuppetry, and I haven't done the things that got me blocked in the first place for six months. I think that counts for something. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Is there any admin on Wikipedia to give me a vote of confidence? It has been a while since my last unblock request, and I've followed all the rules for months. I know I have been stubborn in past and done some things I shouldn't have, but that is now behind me. All I'm asking is that someone gives me a chance to prove I can be helpful to Community. Please, you guys! HankMoodyTZ (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are required to undergo 6 months without sockpuppetry and at the moment, by your own admission, have only gone 2 months. PhilKnight (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2016 (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.

Okay, I understand that, but there is one part that says something about exceptions in which the process doesn't take six months. I thini I have shown my readiness to obey all the rules. I would not be pleading so much if I intended to break the rules again. My contribution would be very big since I work on Bosnian pages, and there is not so many users who are from this area or have the knowledge. Just give me an opportunity, that's all. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you post here again before your six months are up, your Talk page access will probably be revoked, and then you'll have to go through WP:UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what I did to deserve this treatment, because I am being treated as a criminal, incredible. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

Okay guys, I have been patient, waiting for time to pass and to apply for standard offer. By my calculations, the time is up and I should be unbanned on standard offer grounds. I don't have to say how much I want to be back, since I have done so in recent requests HankMoodyTZ (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Six months from early July would be early January. I believe you are simply trolling now. As you were warned last time, your talk page access has now been revoked. Your only remaining avenue is WP:UTRS. Unlike all the unblock requests here, you'll want to wait until you've gone six months with zero edits anywhere other than this page, before appealing to them. Yamla (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2016 (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.

Sockpuppetry

Did you honestly think no one would notice this? Your waiting period for the standard offer restarts from today. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I try and try to explain it to you, I knew you would see, but I have kind of OCD and it generates physical discomfort to me when I see those pages neglected. You could have seen how much I have tried to stay away, for months, and I just cannot. People are making wrong edits, for example on Ognjen Vranješ's page. He plays for Sporting Gijón, and no one corrected it. All that I've done is useful, you can chech every letter, every source, everything just to improve and contribute. Okay, leave me blocked, but for the God's sake, leave those edits. I've read that if a blocked editor makes useful contributions they don't get reverted. ;HankMoodyTZ (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik, I have an offer for you, even though I know I'm in no position to make them, but I plead to your willingness to meet me halfway. Give me just one day to bring all the pages I've worked on up to date, source everything, correct the mistakes, and I'm gone for six months. Please, it will help me sleep easier. I hope you will understand where I'm coming from, and my situation. Just one day to make them all good, and I won't bother you until the end of waiting period. You could see that I've done everything by the book, following the rules.HankMoodyTZ (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:UP#CMT. You are not permitted to remove declined unblock request regarding a current block or notices regarding confirmed sockpuppetry from your talk page. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, did not know that, sorry. But what do you say about my proposal? Just give me one day to bring the pages up to date, and you will not hear from me.HankMoodyTZ (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Setting aside the fact that I am not an administrator and therefore not actually able to accept your offer, I'm also not particularly inclined. You are blocked indefinitely. That means you may not edit until and unless you can convince an admin that you are able to conduct yourself properly, and persistent sockpuppetry is a significant strike against you in that regard. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I read when I was exploring blocks and everything about it, that it is possible to allow a blocked editor to make useful contributions. How would you classify my recent edits if not useful? I haven't done any of the things I was blocked for. My block was for input of unsourced content and changing the country name into RBiH, for players born 1992-1995. I haven't done any of that. All I did is enrich the content of pages, put more references and more data, that's all.HankMoodyTZ (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote you what is currently the first line of this talk page: You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. You're asking me to ignore the fact that you are continuing the behaviour that got you blocked indefinitely. If you can't get your head around the simple fact that you should not be editing while blocked, I really can't help you. I'm sorry. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, really well. But that was a foolish mistake, I was fairly new, and didn't actually know that creating another account cn get me blocked indefinitely. I've said I'm sorry time and time again and did not continue my behaviour that got me blocked in the first place, unsourced content and edit warring about country's name. I keep coming to the fact that blocked editors can make useful edits, and mine have been useful, that's my only point. I'm sure that there have been worst cases who have gotten a second chance, why can't I? At least that rope rule could apply... I can be an asset for this Community for sure.HankMoodyTZ (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to end this discussion here as it clearly no longer serves any purpose. You seem either unable or unwilling to understand the point I'm trying to make about the severity of sockpuppetry. On the other hand, I'm not an administrator, so I am not able accept your offer, even if I were inclined to. If you want to be unblocked post a formal request using the {{unblock}} template. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will wait some time before making an unblock request. Thank you regardless, Sir Sputnik, you were the only one willing to at least listen to me. 18:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sandboxing

I'm going to give you the opportunity to stop of your own accord this time, but if you want to be unblocked, you're going to need to stop editing your user sandboxes. I appreciate that you are trying to work within the context of your block, but this is still block evasion. This really should be obvious, but if you lack the technical ability to edit a page while logged in, you should not be editing that page while logged out. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, did not know that, I was just trying to keep track of the changes I should make when I'm finally unblocked. Since I didn't change any of the actual pages, I thought it was allowed. You can see I have stopped with sockpuppetry, but I did not know that editing sandbox also is form of block evasion. I will find another way to keep track of all the changes. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: Given that you are experienced and everything, how would you rate my chances of being unblocked if I were to make an unblock request at this time? Thanks! HankMoodyTZ (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, zero. Bbb23 was pretty explicit above in saying that if you post another unblock request before the six months are up at the end of January, your talk page access will probably be revoked. The standard offer may be reduced if the editor shows particularly good insight into the reason they were blocked. You've done the exact opposite. Given that I've had to tell you numerous times to stop editing while logged out, I don't think any admin is going agree to reduce the standard offer.

On a completely unrelated note, your attempt to ping me in your comment above didn't actually work. The ping template only notifies the editor in question, if the edit adding it the talk page also includes a signature. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it. I just thought that the fact that I am obeying everything and keeping myself out of trouble for the last three months can count for something and could reduce the standard offer time. Since I have really done nothing wrong in that last period and it's now pretty clear that I've got the message and that I'm ready to behave. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, HankMoodyTZ. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

HankMoodyTZ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17268 was submitted on Jan 05, 2017 08:34:51. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

HankMoodyTZ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17800 was submitted on Mar 16, 2017 20:20:48. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Beijing Renhe F.C. Squad

Template:Beijing Renhe F.C. Squad has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

HankMoodyTZ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #20338 was submitted on Jan 15, 2018 18:51:41. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018 unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Hey guys, I think I've waited long enough, I'm really eager to come back and contribute, so I'm applying for the standard offer. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Regrettably, the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User_talk:HankMoodyTZ_Standard_Offer_Unblock_Request ended unfavorably. Please familiarize your self with the issues raised there. Not sure about what to do moving forward beyond attempting to address these concerns. Sorry I could not bring better news. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2018 (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.

I will bring up your request at WP:AN for review. Please be patient. --Jayron 32 17:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I boldly declined this based on the discussion. I hope I did not exceed myself. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlohcierekim:. Course not. I wasn't even aware a discussion was taking place, but based on Ponyo's comments alone, there is no way this person would be unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. You should have been copied on this. Things slip through sometimes. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay guys, I would like to defend myself from all these accusations, but since I don't access my account that often, I was not able to do so earlier. First of all, I admit to have added unsourced content before and I have engaged in sockpuppetry, both of which I stopped doing long time ago, in orded to comply with the rules. I feel like there is a witch hunt here against me, especially from Sir Sputnik and Oleola, to whom I would like to politely say to get a life and stop refreshing Bosnian football pages on Wikipedia every minute. Further evidence is that Sir Sputnik blocked an account that was used to create a footballer page in sandbox, citing it was me. If you look the players' name up, there is no such footballer in Bosnia, just an user making a page about himself. It just proves that I am being scrutinized for things I did long time ago. As I have stated before, not every edit on Bosnian football articles is made by me. We are a small country that practically lives for the sport, and therefore we have a lot of "Wikipedians", or at least people who are trying to be that. Furthermore, all of our IP adresses are similar, and I don't get why I am being accused all the time... Oleola is such an aggresive user who is just bulying other people and enforcing what he thinks is right, he is more disruptive than I ever was. So, for all those who said I didn't make a case, here you go. HankMoodyTZ (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]