User talk:Dbranda

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for spamming or advertising. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--Orange Mike | Talk 15:31, 3 May 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for Spam/Advertising, but I did no such thing. First, the purpose of my edits were to restore the page for Gregory R. Ball to a state prior to it being vandalized intentionally by political opponents--this prior status was in long standing and considered acceptable by Wikipedia prior to it being vandalized. Second, the only additions I made contained reference to News Sources. Third, the content I submitted did not contain self-references to advertising/promotion/marketing sites, so my changes did not constitute Advertising under your policy. Fourth, I made no secret to who I was or why I made changes, which someone felt the need to point out when making vandalizing edits. Finally, the current edit activity of the Gregory R. Ball page and the current content of the Gregory R. Ball page are purposely intended to disseminate false or inaccurate information about the subject while withdrawing pertinent information, such as his election results, content which is permitted and, indeed, encouraged for other political figures but that Greg Ball's political opponents attempt to hide because his victories are all landslides. Also, the vandal editor links to "The Truth About Greg Ball," a website that engages in libel for political gain. Thank you for consideration.

Decline reason:

There is clearly a conflict of interest here, whether or not you think so. Further, the creation of a second account to continue the same activities is not acceptable. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:38, 11 May 2010 (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.

Since you have had time to review our policies on WP:Advert and WP:COI, what articles do you plan to edit if you are unblocked? Toddst1 (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read policies on WP:Advert and WP:COI, and there is absolutely no conflict of interest when a page exists before my employment, the integrity of that page is severely altered and degraded by a person working for our political opponents, and the only edits I do are to restore the original content. dbranda talk9:11, 11 May 2010

I looked at your request, and while I decided not to unblock, I left the request open for others to review. Your statement that "there is absolutely no conflict of interest" for you indicates that either you have not yet read the conflict of interest guidelines, or you didn't fully understand them, and that makes me reluctant to unblock you- this is a delicate operation, and replacing an anti-Ball article with a pro-Ball article is not as useful as having someone create a neutral article would be. I can't justify unblocking you in this situation, knowing that you don't understand the rules for a person in your position. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've created User:Coombsdm to avoid your block. I'm afraid that avoiding a block in this way is also against the rules, and will reflect badly on you as you work to help neutral editors create a neutral version of this article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact User:Coombsdm via email, and he will provide you with contact information, as will I if you email me, to substantiate that we are both who we say we are, and that his intentions are true. The original article that I restored in March and that he just restored was substantially written by a wikipedia admin. It's not a question of replacing pro-Ball versus anti-Ball.dbranda talk10:11, 11 May 2010