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).
I'm improving the article. He keeps deleting my sourced improvements to add libelous material, I'm trying to get a third opinion but since I've been blocked it's impossible to do it. Jvstvs (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
I see that you were adding large chunks of text that was likely inappropriate for the article, and was not accepted. As per WP:BRD, it was then your direct responsibility to NOT re-add it, but to attempt to gain WP:CONSENSUS for your changes. I see nothing in the other person's edits that meet "libelous", and thus you were not absolved from WP:EW. The block is in face correct, and this request is most certainly not WP:GAB-compliant (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:53, 31 January 2013 (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).
I've added relevant lumps of text. The article was completely incomplete and biased. As per Wikipedia:BLPCRIME, A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law.". Jorge Nuno Pinto da Costa was acquitted of all acusations in a court of law, and thus mentioning them in his article's summary is inappropriate and misleading. The Apito Dourado affair and other legal issues have their own specific section within the article. In the introduction of BenficaNNossaPaixao edition, he writes; "He is the sporting president with most acquired football titles in the world and one of the few convicted for corruption" - which is, by all means, libel. The article also has a section for the whole affair, and the affair has its own article. I understand I was engaged in a editing war, but my edits were being deleted with no explanation, while he had been already warned in November of last year. Jvstvs (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Decline reason:
I don't see anything libelous that would have allowed you to continue edit-warring. That the other person was warned earlier, that there was no edit summary, that's immaterial. You were warned an hour before you got blocked and should have known better. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2013 (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.
