User talk:Muttscheck

October 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not see any justification for this block Bbb23. I added a g11 tag this afternoon to Amit Ray, which was immediately and repeatedly removed by the account User:NicolaMiller which is clearly owned by the person that the spam page describes. Have you read the Talk page? By blocking me and removing the deletion notice, you're signaling that this type of entirely fake Internet reputation deserves a Wikipedia page. Muttscheck (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's not what anyone is saying at all. What we are saying is that you edited disruptively and are now making accusations against other editors. I'm not certain there is a pathway for you to be unblocked that does not involve agreeing to not edit that article, but I will let others decide that. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2021 (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.

Unblock discussion

You've taken a lot upon yourself in tagging for CSD and making these accusations. Firstly, it is usually unwise to tag a long standing article for CSD. For another, the content did not meet WP:G11. As the tag was not removed by the article creator, it should not have been replaced. Edit warring to replace it and accusing the other editor of vandalism shows you are not ready to tag articles for speedy deletion. If you have a concern with a conflict of interest between another editor and an article, you can report at WP:COIN. Finally, the impassioned unblock request shows that if unblocked, you would continue to edit disruptively. I'll leave it for another admin to decide on accepting or formally declining. In the mean time, you might want to reword your unblock request.--Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly did not know about it being "unwise to tag a long-standing article for CSD" — this doesn't seem to be stated anywhere on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Apart from this, doesn't this content perfectly meet the criteria for WP:G11? If I take the exact words of the criteria, it is (1) a page that is exclusively promotional, (2) it would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as an encyclopedia article rather than an advertisement, (3) the subject is not notable, and (4) the content could not plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view. I don't particularly care about my Wikipedia account being blocked, I don't use it very much if at all — but please, at least start a discussion on the deletion of the page itself. It's absolutely ridiculous that this could stay on WP. Again, this blatantly-obvious fake blog is what this person considers a source. Muttscheck (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review 331dot. Again, I don't mind the block. I mind the fact that sentences like "He is against the inequalities, discrimination, exploitation faced by the girl child across the world. He said, smiling face of every little girl is the signature of God’s presence." seem to be considered less disruptive for WP than my deletion suggestion, which this user immediately reversed two times in a row. Muttscheck (talk)

Hello, Muttscheck,

I agree that this article is promotional and while speedy deletion might not have been the answer, I have added a Proposed deletion tag.

I think if you would like to edit again, please review Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, it really explains what you need to do and say to be unblocked. Above all, do not blame other editors for being blocked, that's the biggest tip I can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]