User talk:TheBestDeception

December 2009

Blocked indef as a single purpose account used only for edit warring. Secret ^account 13:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there was a report filed about the edit war, and you (and Rachelbirnbaum and another editor) were blocked for edit warring. If you'd like to appeal (as I imagine you will), you'll want to have a look at our guide to appealing blocks before posting an {{unblock}} template on this page. Sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to your concerns last night. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:55, 17 December 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

While it is correct that I, as a new user, have only edited this page so far, it is not correct that the single purpose of this account is only for "Edit Warring." The page above relating to SPA's further clarifies that new users should be granted "gentle scrutiny" before such declarations are made. As for the issue of edit warring: as Ultraexactzz had noted on Rachelbirnbaum's Talk Page, we had tried to engage in a discussion relating to how the prior article could be fixed to make it less-biased. However, Rachelbirnbaum decided not to engage us in discussion, instead reverting the page to a much earlier date. Read the discussion. There are various more-senior editors who saw the conflict of interest and falsity of the "original" version, and that it needed to be changed. Look at the article's history. I even tried to go to the wiki-editor that had left a warning on Rachelbirnbaum's profile, but did not receive a response in time to stop her. This is not an issue of me against another editor; there were no less than 5 different people undoing revisions made by Rachelbirnbaum. Additionally, I did not exceed the bright-line three-reversion rule in this editing. As a result of the foregoing, I feel that the indefinite block placed on my account should be considered in error. In the alternative, I can understand how my actions might be seen as violating the edit warring policy (though, not the 3R policy), and will attempt to use the official channels to cure such vandalism in the future.

Decline reason:

It is clear that you have engaged in sock puppetry with regards to the Valparaiso University School of Law article. The contributions indicate that you are not a new user here. MuZemike 09:29, 19 December 2009 (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.

If what you say is true, then I support your unblocking. Deadkord (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that WP:3RR isn't an entitlement, as you think it is. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 00:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your sentiments greatly. However, it should be noted that these edits were more of a stopgap measure than anything else. Deadkord (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never insinuated that I was entitled to three reversions. I merely pointed out I didn't break that rule. This is probative of the fact that I had good faith in attempting to maintain the integrity of the article, as had been agreed upon in the discussion page. TheBestDeception (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not understanding. It doesn't matter if you've hit three reverts or not - if you are edit-warring, you will be blocked regardless of how many times you have actually reverted that day. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 08:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]