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:
- Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
- 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
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY (TALK) 08:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
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)