User talk:Deepdish7

COI suspicions

Yes, I agree that there is a reasonable suspicion of COI here. There have been similar suspicions before, so it's not a surprise. Also, it seems that User:Videsutaltastet could be his sockpuppet. So now have multiple accounts pushing the same POV, and some usual suspects who have suddenly arrived to defend the SPA. That's pretty worrying. Nanobear (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice re ANI

A discussion concerning you has been initiated at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Paul Klebnikov

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Paul Klebnikov. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Off2riorob (talk) 05:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Two Weeks for Edit Warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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).

Deepdish7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I engaged in edit war on Paul Klebnikov page with Off2riorob because he violated wikipedia Deletion policy and deleted well sourced material, so my edit warring was justified (why isn't he blocked as well by the way????? and why nobody pursues him for violating wiki deletion policy?????)Besides, we are in a broader edit war with Off2riorob and Kolokol1 on Berezovsky-related pages on Wikipedia. This is currently being looked into on the administrators' noticeboard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Article_or_topic_ban_for_two_users I'd like to ask you to lift my ban until a broader resolution is achieved there (as now I'm unable to defend myself). Otherwise it should be fair to ban Kolokol1 and Off2riorob as well so that everyone was in equal position to protect himself in that dispute. Thank you Deepdish7 (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You seem to forget that the ONLY justified edit-warring involves the biographies of LIVING persons, and verifiable outright vandalism. Otherwise it's a content dispute - such as the one you're involved. As per the guide to appealing blocks this unblock request must address your behaviour, and your block - whether or not someone else is blocked has no bearing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

You may add to that discussion the same way all blocked users can: by posting below what you want to add to the discussion, and use {{helpme}} to request it be copied/pasted to ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My ANI Input

now deepdish would like to defend himself

• First of all, despite not having received any warnings (I didn't know it's so important to give a warning here and whether they matter at all, but Kolokol1 clearly knew what he was doing because he saw me getting blocked for exactly same things as he was doing), Kolokol1 has violated multiple wiki policies, such as conflict of interest, one-purpose account, edit warring, deletion, advocacy. He does not only have issues with civility as lifebaka++ mentioned, it's far from that.
• If you want en example of him being engaged in edit warring, check history of Berezovsky page.

In the last couple of days, or check it It's just obvious what he was doing. Or check this report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive164#User:Kolokol1_reported_by_User:Remotehost719_.28Result:_Remotehost719_blocked.29 he wasn't blocked simply because I reported him from another account. You can say it's wrong to report from sockpuppet account and I understand that, but apart from strict wiki rules there's truth and lies, and the truth is that he's been engaging in absolutely same edit wars, but his friends would always report me before I reported him. If that only fact vindicates him in your opinion, then go on block me and don't block him, would be logical. Notice also, that some sockpuppets were protecting Berezovsky on the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29/Archive_2#Major_POV_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jw2035 would not be surprised if this Jw2035 turned out to be Kolokol1's sock puppet.

• Unless you clearly want to see only rules broken by me and intentionally ignore rules broken by him you will notice that Kolokol1 broke at least as many rules as I did. I don't see that many issues with BLP that I wasn't ready to discuss/edit. The problem always was that Kolokol1 never wanted to discuss anything - he would simply cut text from the article. But since they would be the first to report, it was me who was getting blocked, though again we were engaged in absolutely same edit war, as I reverted his edits as he never responded, just kept saying that everything that Klebnikov said regarding Berezovsky should be erased because some magazine accused Klebnikov of anti-semitism (which doesn't make any sense since he never mentioned Berezovsky's ethnicity, spent his youth in the USA where any racism is strictly prohibited and was a chief editor of Forbes Russia magazine).
• I still haven't heard any opinion on whether Off2RioRob should be banned as well. Carefully check Berezovsky's page edit and you'll see him again engaging in same edit war. He also engaged in edit war with me yesterday on Klebnikov page and I got blocked while he didn't simply because he reported me first. Check history of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Paul_Klebnikov&action=history. Moreover he even had enough audacity to revert my edit today, once he already had 4 reverts in the last 24h.
• Even if you decide to block me (make sure you block Off2riorob as well as he, again, engaged in same edit wars as Kolokol1), there must be official judgement from Wikipedia whether Paul Klebnikov has right to be represented on Berezovsky's page, since all information which used him as a source was cut from the article by Kolokol1 and Off2riorob. Editors to Berezovsky's article have full right to restore information based on Klebnikov there, and there must be a resolution by wikipedia confirming that, so that Kolokol1/Off2riorob/other users in their company would not vandalise page further and cut everything Klebnikov-based
• "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" that Kolokol1 is trying to use to justify his actions doesn't work here - he was erasing simply everything, not just unsourced or poorly sourced material. And he will continue doing so, I'm 100% sure

"For the record, I have seen no evidence linking you with the RusGov, in contrast to Rusavia, as explained above" by Kolokol1 is lies again. Check below link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_%28businessman%29/Archive_2#Anti-semitic_Bias "From your above comment it is clear that you are on a mission to expose the criminality of Mr. Berezovsky and establish the superiority of Russia over Britain in matters of the rule of law and freedom of the press. While I do not question the sincerity of your zeal, Wikipedia is not a Kremlin propaganda outlet but an objective source of information."

• Would also be happy for the page to go into arbitration in case we're not banned lifetime with Kolokol1 on working on this page. Without arbitration there will be a mess if we're both or only I alone am banned, as Kolokol1 doesn't listen to anyone and erases all negative information on the page and inserts white lies in order to whiten Berezovsky's reputation (with whom he confessed of being connected, and as his nickname suggests he works for Berezovsky's Kolokol website).
• "And I am not against MENTIONING it, I am against repeating the slur WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. Is this NPOV and BLP?" this is again lies by Kolokol1, he deletes all negative material on Berezovsky without paying attention to whether it's NPOV or not, he just deletes everything. Just read Berezovsky page history for the last two days

"Well, I did not edit war with Russavia, He seems quite reasonable for a Russophile :). I am sure, I could work with him" - lies again, he doesn't "work" with anyone, but deletes sourced material at his discretion