User talk:Xsyner

April 2008

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Tim meh ! 19:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Since it appears demonstrably obvious that you are the same person as the vandal that has been edit-warring at Vic Mackey, I have blocked this account indefinitely. You showed up five minutes after the vandal accounts and IPs were blocked and the article was semi-protected. The fact that you hadn't edited in almost two years before this makes this even more suspicious.

Unless you can explain this exceptional timing, I advise against requesting an unblock. Blueboy 96 15:29, 8 March 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for no reason. I noticed the constant edits so I restored what kept being deleted and added sources and now I log in and I am blocked because I am believed to have been deleting the Trivia section? As I said before I have been blocked for no reason. Please review. An indefinite block is stupid when I haven't done anything.

Decline reason:

You suddenly came off a nearly two year break to participate in an edit war. So you are blocked for edit warring and probable sock or meat puppetry. Please address these concerns if you wish to be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Again since Beeblebrox can't read. I said I have been blocked for no reason. I didn't get involved in an edit war. I edit mostly from my ip address and when I saw the article was locked I logged in. All I did was source the article.

Decline reason:

Having read your unblock request (and ignoring the personal attack), I find that it does not adequately address the reason for your block. You'll have to be more specific with your unblock reasons before your request will be granted. I would also suggest not commenting on other editors. TN X Man 20:34, 8 March 2010 (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.

That's a really good idea, resorting to a personal attack is sure to get you unblocked, well done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you think so. However that wasn't a personal attack. You clearly didn't read what I said. Cheers! Xsyner (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you said, you said I couldn't read it, not that I didn't. And since I obviously can read it can only be concluded that this was a deliberate misrepresentation on your part. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No actually. You made it appear as if you couldn't read by ignoring a big part of what I said. You misrepresented yourself. You should really take the time to fully read unblock requests since you are admin. Xsyner (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the recent history of the article, I can't help but notice that it was recently semi-protected because a certain IP-hopping user was repeatedly edit warring to insert some tidbits of trivia. Shortly after that at least one of those IPs was blocked for violating the three-revert rule and the article was semi-protected to lock out anonymous users, you turned up and started reinserting a bit of trivia that looks awfully similar. Even ignoring the fact that your account hasn't edited in over a year, prior to that, a reasonable person could reasonably infer that you are the same person or somehow associated with them -- it's really no stretch of the imagination.

Even more to the point, what do you intend to do if we unblock you? If you're going to go right back to edit warring, that won't accomplish anything much except another block. Would you instead be willing to use talk pages to seek consensus support for your submission? – Luna Santin (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Checkuser evidence has Confirmed that you are the same person as User:Cyber54 and User:Owlman21. Abusing multiple accounts, especially for the purpose of edit warring, is unacceptable. I was about to decline the unblock request for this reason, but Tnxman beat me to it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]