User talk:Oscar22

May 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Justeditingtoday. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Justeditingtoday (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Justeditingtoday (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

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. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bencherlite: As the blocking admin, the editor has returned to their edit-warring as soon as their previous block ended. Shall I submit another report, or is pinging you enough? -- Alex^TW 20:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

If you wish to be unblocked, you must first sign in to this account. I removed the unblock request because it isn't clear it was from you. Additionally, that unblock request did not address the reason for your block. --Yamla (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2017 (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).

Oscar22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Like I said, I feel I have been blocked for personal reasons. I changed their edits since they were disruptive and they got more disruptive and blocked me for their own selfish reasons. Oscar22 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit warring, then immediately resumed when your block expired. You seem to be reverting at least four different editors - you will need to limit yourself to the article's talk page and form a real consensus. I don't see the discussions there as sufficient. Kuru (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2017 (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).

Oscar22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There was a consensus already formed on iron fist talk page which is to not summarize the critical reception. I edited the page according to consensus and 4 idiots have ganged up on me. Please unblock me now!!! Oscar22 (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If there really had been a consensus for the version you were reverting to, you wouldn't have needed to edit-war to turn the article into that version. Huon (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2017 (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.

.

Since you insist on removing declined requests, I have removed your ability to edit this page for the duration of the block. I'll leave the unblock request open for another administrator to evaluate. Kuru (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oscar22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #18273 was submitted on May 13, 2017 01:19:40. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bencherlite: It is unfortunate that I have to ping you again, but as the blocking admin twice now, the editor has once more returned to the edit-war as soon as their block concluded. -- Alex^TW 12:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Alex^TW 13:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2017 (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).

Oscar22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't get the warning before I was blocked. Sorry. Oscar22 (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You again jumped back in to the same edit war after waiting out a short block, then attacked other editors and vandalized their talk pages. If you felt any of that was not covered by previous warnings, or that you even needed a warning to understand the behavior was inappropriate, then editing here is probably not for you. Kuru (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2017 (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.

Comment: You didn't need a warning, you knew you were being deliberately destructive when you vandalized my user page. -- Alex^TW 13:17, 21 May 2017 (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).

Oscar22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Alex did the vandalizing first. Then he complains when i do it to teach him a lesson. Its the inconsistency of his actions that i ask to be unblocked while alex should be blocked.Oscar22 (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Absolutely irrelevant. You are to address your actions, not those of other editors. Looking at only that part of your unblock request, you are actually justifying leaving yourself unblocked indefinitely. You'll want to read WP:GAB before making any further unblock requests. Yamla (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2017 (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).

Oscar22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did what I had to do since alex encouraged disruptive editing over on the iron fist page. I had to teach him a lesson. Can you please unblock me now to prevent further disruptions? Oscar22 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is further evidence that you will continue with your edit warring and battleground behavior if unblocked. In addition, I see that you created Dannnyfard (talk · contribs) shortly before your first block. I haven't blocked that account at this point, but you need to understand that you are blocked from editing, and using any other account or editing while logged out is prohibited. —DoRD (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2017 (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).

Oscar22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was drunk when I messed up alex's page and I was drunk when posting my reactions. I'm very sorry for the trouble I caused. Oscar22 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your editing pattern is too disruptive, be it drunk or sober, to risk unblocking this account. As you have been warned already - though you chose to remove the warning (now reinserted below) - talk page access will now be removed. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:19, 21 May 2017 (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 very strongly advise you immediately remove the above unblock request. You have been told repeatedly to read and understand WP:GAB before making unblock requests. The above request is all but certain to be refused as it's not remotely a justification for your actions. And you have already been abusing the unblock request system, so you are very likely to lose access to your talk page after the next declined unblock. --Yamla (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]