User talk:Paul2924

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for disruptive editing, including edit warring and self-promotion, as you did at e-Tools. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2013 (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).

Paul2924 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It is unfortunate that Wiki has decided to apply a block within only 27 minutes after MrOllie's biased complaint. This did not afford me any opportunity to post facts to further expand on the disruptive editing that was being performed by MrOllie. I was in the process of providing actual facts to his allegations that will clearly demonstrate that he is the disruptive editor. I would now like to provide them for your consideration in my appeal request: * FACT: This has been discussed extensively on the COI page where I provided "black letter" policy from Wiki. When MrOllie was asked to support his opinion in a similar way he has not been able cite any specific paragraphs of Wiki Policy that the post is in violation. :CONCLUSION: As the only one to actually provide specific chapter and verse within Wiki Policy, and properly argued why the edits were within standards, MrOllie is basing his accusations on opinion. * FACT: An issue on the changes was brought to the COI page for discussion. :CONCLUSION: The COI was a misunderstanding on my part and immediately resolved by removing any references to myself or websites. The discussion of ongoing grass-roots public domain support for the software is a significant change in the current status of the orphaned software that has not seen any updates since December 11, 2008. All enhancements and changes being released are done under the GNU Public License, so there is no conflict of interest in that I do not gain anything from it. * FACT: Based on reviews of edit history to my personal Talk page, MrOllie has gone as far as posting an unsigned statement that I was violating the edit warring policy. :CONCLUSION: By not signing his comment, it is clear this was an attempt of intimidation by implying that the statement was placed their by a system bot or system administrator. * FACT: In MrOllie's last reverts he removed the RFQ flag set on the related talk page. :CONCLUSION: This prevents highlighting the fact that input from the community is desired on the question of relevance. It is clear from MrOllie's these actions that he does not want further discussion on this issue from the community-at-large. * FACT: I received a tracking e-mail within minutes of my block being applied, informing me that my edits were reverted by an anonymous user "The Wikipedia page E-Tools has been changed on 11 July 2013 by anonymous user 50.151.230.203..." :CONCLUSION: Someone involved in this dispute has made changes to the page in a manner to circumvent tracking by Wiki. I have already request that the page be protected for one month, to prevent MrOllie's continued violation of the Editing Warring so that a consensus can be reached on the question. I have made all reasonable efforts to resolve this by consensus and not simply through MrOllie's continued intimidation and harassment. MrOllie cannot claim the same. Paul2924 (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blaming others very rarely leads to an unblock of account that has been blocked for edit-warring. You need to demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked and provide assurances that the disruption would not continue should you be unblocked. I see no such understanding or assurances here.Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:38, 11 July 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.

Please note the block is for Edit warring. I don't feel you have refered to this at all in the unblock statement. Mdann52 (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]