User talk:Davoguha
October 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of data recovery companies, you may be blocked from editing. -- ferret (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for the heads up - My edits were not intended to be disruptive by any means - I've been attempting to reach a conclusion on this issue, but the other editor that initially mentioned there may have been an issue abruptly stopped communicating as I initiated contact and aimed to keep our disagreement within the guidelines of how Wikipedia recommends that disputes are handled. After the editor in question stopped/refused to communicate, I made a final edit and figured that was that. The editor then continuously reverted my changes and would make inflammatory comments like "Spam" - despite the fact that I was actively attempting to communicate and reach a resolution.
- I will note, I have reviewed the articles you linked, as well as many others, and have yet to find anything clearly suggesting that simply adding a relevant company to a list of companies is against the guidelines - however, as it does now appear to be common consensus, I have no further debate. Primarily, I felt quite attacked by Praxidicae's rudeness and inflammatory remarks, and felt that such a user should not be representative of the editing community as a whole. I attempted to talk it through properly, I attempted 3rd party dispute resolution, and ultimately, I have reported Praxidicae for edit warring, as they seemed to be the offender from my perspective.
- All I have sought here is clarity, and not to be bullied by one user who may or may not know all of the rules. I have quite thoroughly read everything I have been referenced, and it still seems unclear within the guidelines themselves, but as there are now 3 opposing opinions where yesterday there was only 1 - majority rules. Davoguha (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)- (Note, I copied this from my reply to Ferret above, as it seems equally relevant)
- Hello, thank you for the heads up - My edits were not intended to be disruptive by any means - I've been attempting to reach a conclusion on this issue, but the other editor that initially mentioned there may have been an issue abruptly stopped communicating as I initiated contact and aimed to keep our disagreement within the guidelines of how Wikipedia recommends that disputes are handled. After the editor in question stopped/refused to communicate, I made a final edit and figured that was that. The editor then continuously reverted my changes and would make inflammatory comments like "Spam" - despite the fact that I was actively attempting to communicate and reach a resolution.
- I will note, I have reviewed the articles you linked, as well as many others, and have yet to find anything clearly suggesting that simply adding a relevant company to a list of companies is against the guidelines - however, as it does now appear to be common consensus, I have no further debate. Primarily, I felt quite attacked by Praxidicae's rudeness and inflammatory remarks, and felt that such a user should not be representative of the editing community as a whole. I attempted to talk it through properly, I attempted 3rd party dispute resolution, and ultimately, I have reported Praxidicae for edit warring, as they seemed to be the offender from my perspective.
- All I have sought here is clarity, and not to be bullied by one user who may or may not know all of the rules. I have quite thoroughly read everything I have been referenced, and it still seems unclear within the guidelines themselves, but as there are now 3 opposing opinions where yesterday there was only 1 - majority rules. Davoguha (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Davoguha (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
While my only edit is attributable, it was never my intent to "advertise or promote" on Wikipedia; a brief review of my talk and comment history should show it is clear that I have been involved in a dispute of opinion, and am taking excruciating steps to try to maintain good standing with Wikipedia. Davoguha (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
To be unblocked, at a minimum, you would have to agree to stop your efforts to get the company a mention on Wikipedia. PhilKnight (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
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.
Hello PhilKnight - of course not - my primary concern was the proper resolution of this dispute, and with now 3.. or 4 - experienced editors in agreement, I fully cede the debate. Please do take note that I have been attempting to address this properly and do believe that I have been operating within the guidelines of Wikipedia - My account does not exist purely for the benefit of the company I work for, I created the account as an attempt to resolve the original issue with Praxidicae with more than just an IP address. I am a huge fan of Wikipedia and do hope to be able to contribute in the future - It is unfortunate at this time however, as I can see how it appears I am here for advertising and promotional purposes. This blunder is my responsibility, and I own up to that - my primary goal has been to ensure Wikipedia is being used fairly and honestly. Davoguha (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Davoguha (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Apologies for not clarifying; I absolutely will NOT continue to make such changes. My primary concern has been the fair and honest use of Wikipedia, and I have gone through quite a bit of reading to try to ensure I have been diligently following rules/guidelines all along. As I had only the single opposing opinion that I am in dispute with until today - and now there are 3.. or 4 concurring oppositions, I cede that I must have been incorrectly interpreting the guidelines of Wikipedia. Please note, the initial edit was accompanied by a message to my IP address talk page, noting the rules I supposedly broke - Upon reading those rules, it seemed rather clear that it was much more of a grey area than black-and-white - when I questioned the grey area, I was treated rudely and told to stop spamming. After multiple attempts to contact Praxidicae and engage in discussion on the talk page, I found no success, and requested a 3rd opinion on the subject - This third opinion went unanswered for weeks before I decided to revisit the original page and implement what I believed to be a rightful change to the article. At this point, the editor in question continued undo-ing revisions with no contribution to the discussion or subject matter, and thus I felt they were acting in bad faith and therefore reported them for edit warring. I believe this fully summarizes what occurred and what led us to here. Davoguha (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You describe your views as to how we got here, and say you won't repeat that behavior, but not what edits you intend to make. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
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.
Davoguha (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
At this time, I do not have any further edits I intend to make - and I have ceded that the original edits I made are not within the guidelines. I will not be making any edits in relation to my business. I would urge you to read what I've posted on my talk page, here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Davoguha#A_Complete_Record_of_My_History_Leading_to_My_Block Davoguha (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not an unblock request. It appears, having failed to persuade anyone else that you should be allowed to advertise on Wikipedia, that your only purpose is to continue to argue that you should be allowed to advertise. That isn't acceptable. Anyfurther arguments along those lines will likely result in revocation of your access to this talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 12:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
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.
Davoguha (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
In my last declined appeal, admin stated, "It appears, having failed to persuade anyone else that you should be allowed to advertise on Wikipedia, that your only purpose is to continue to argue that you should be allowed to advertise." - In that same appeal, I stated, "I have ceded that the original edits I made are not within the guidelines. I will not be making any edits in relation to my business". I have made 2 edits on this account and associated IP addresses - Only one of which falls into the "promotional" category - though, was not intended as a promotion - I initially thought my contribution was earnest. I was never warned that I may be blocked at any point during these exchanges. I have been diligently researching the guidelines and procedures far more than I ever imagined I would - to try to work within the guidelines of Wikipedia. My initial "promotion" was an attempt to add to the completeness of an article. A slew of confusion followed, when an editor cited that I was breaking rules, which I was able to quickly identify *had exceptions noted within themselves that seemed to support the edit I made* - It was not until I was blocked that an admin commented on the talk that I started (over a month ago), citing a separate rule which stated my violation and incorrectness more clearly. At this point however, it seems to be too late entirely. I did NOT make this account for "Advertising and promotional" purposes. I made this account because I felt I encountered a dispute which deserved clarity, honesty, and directness. All I sought all along was a third opinion on the matter, because the second opinion involved did not inspire trust nor authority on the subject by citing the wrong rules, and subsequently being rude and unhelpful. Every appeal I have made, this issue seems to expand, I receive threats from admins when I ping them for clarity regarding their actions. I, a casual user, made a mistake, asked for help determining if it was a mistake - now I feel like that mistake is my entire identity to the admins I have dealt with thus far. I do not even know what argument to make anymore, as the goal posts have been moved multiple times. Wikipedia states that all users and issues should be approached "in good faith" - I was never given that benefit of the doubt. Wikipedia states that blocks are "not punishments" and are intended to prevent disruptive behavior... Yet statement after statement proves that I have no intent to continue disruptive behavior - and I remain blocked. The most disruptive thing I've done is contest this block, which I believe was implemented prematurely, and is wholly unnecessary, as it is not preventing disruptive behavior, and is rather creating it at this point. I have no patterns of promotion, I made 1 edit (multiple times) - and while I do have more history, at this point I am reluctant to associate this account with any other IP addresses I use regularly. I would like to ask that a expiration be set on my block, at the discretion of the admins of course. Davoguha (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This isn't an unblock request. You clearly do not understand the reason for the block, nor do you choose to recognize it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
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.
- Because of the persistent disruptive, argumentative, self-serving unblock requests and comments by the user with an unusually large case of WP:IDHT, I have revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
A Complete Record of My History Leading to My Block
| This is an encyclopedia, not a courthouse |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Due to the sporadic and scattered nature of the interactions involved, I wanted to create a full account of what has occurred, beginning with my edit of the List of Data Recovery Companies article leading to the present. I have many concerns and frustrations regarding this incident - I have used Wikipedia for a long time, and made many edits over that time - I only recently created this account in reaction to the incidents following the edit of said article, in hopes of properly addressing and dealing with the situation as a whole. I would not consider myself a major contributor, but a casual one, and this is the first time I've run into any major conflicts. August 17th 2022: While doing market research on my company, I found the List of Data Recovery Companies article; containing a list of many companies in my industry which provide the services we provide, only a few of which contained linked articles - I followed suit and added our company to the list - I made a small error, which was corrected, resulting in 2 sequential edits. User Discospinster reverted the edits, noting "no article found" and removed several companies, mine included. In hindsight, this seems clearer now - but at the time, I assumed there was a formatting error of sorts. August 18th 2022: I did some research into the guidelines regarding lists, and upon review, felt there were no errors, and so undid the change by Discospinster. Praxidicae shortly thereafter undid the changes again with the note of "Spam". I was quite confused, as I had been checking the rules/guidelines and felt it was correctly implemented. Upon further research, I felt I had discovered a formatting error. August 19th 2022: I proceeded to edit the page once more, correcting the presumed formatting error. At this point, Praxidicae undid my edit once more, with this inflammatory comment, "No article = no inclusion, what do you not undestand?" and they made first contact with me to address the issue - The initial discussion to be found on my IP address talk page; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:173.160.59.125 - I proceeded to research the rules further, with particular detail to the rules Praxidicae mentioned - whereupon I found the rules were rather unclear, and even contradictory to the claim. August 22nd 2022: Thus I inquired further, noting my exact points of confusion between our interpretation of the rules. I feel at this point, things turned quite south - with the exact response I received being, "It's not in full compliance with Wikipedia rules. We aren't interested in your spam. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)" and so, I created the first discussion on the talk page of List of Data Recovery Companies - I dived deep into the rules, I expressed my COI clearly, and I started the discussion. On the IP talk page referenced, I invited Praxidicae to join me in proper discussion of the rules (well - that invite might not have been proper, I'm not sure they were pinged by it). August 24th 2022: After multiple days with no response and no activity, I felt it would not be improper to re-edit the page, the right steps were being taken, but I was also impatient to essentially resolve and forget about this. Praxidicae once more undid the change, declaring "this is just straight up spam now". I researched dispute resolution as it became clear to me that this was no longer being handled "in good faith", and I desired clarification and resolution. I never had a doubt that Praxidicae may be correct, but the treatment thus far felt more like bullying than constructive editing - I refused to accept their conclusion alone as correct, particularly after they declined altogether to engage in the actual discussion of the matter at hand and the differing interpretations of the rules presented thus far. Upon researching dispute resolutions, I found it was recommended that one could attempt to contact an administrator directly, and so I reached out to PrimeHunter - who redirected me to submit for the 3rd opinion on another page. I am mistaken, but I thought I had done that - then I did indeed reply to PrimeHunter, still asking for help, albeit sheepishly. September 28th 2022: After the subject has been at rest for over a month, I decided to revisit everything. I found there were no updates, no changes, no notations, no messages, etc. I once more made the edit to the page, with the note that there is an open discussion for any who wish to contribute. October 2nd 2022: Praxidicae once more undid the edit. Another user made a minor edit following. October 3rd 2022: This is getting ridiculous, I feel as though I am under attack. Yes, I have a vested interest in this page, but I have made no attempts to abuse it, only to have the list itself fairly and honestly represent our industry. Why is one Wiki editor so driven to ensure this change will not stick? I have been openly and honestly trying to discuss the subject, I have not hidden my own interests - I feel the change contributes to a more complete Wikipedia, and, if appropriate, would hope more companies were added. Remember when I first came across this page, there were multiple other companies listed without articles, and I simply added one more. I felt it was time to take action, with 1 final revision, I followed up by citing 3RR rules against Praxidicae - and attempted to briefly detail the preceding struggle I have had in *resolving* this dispute. That is primary here, I have all along been seeking *resolution* to the matter. I do not know Praxidicae, nor how involved they are on Wikipedia, but there was only 1 brief moment I ever felt Praxidicae gave me the benefit of the doubt, or the presumption of "good faith", and that was the first message they posted on my talk page. Since then it has felt that I have been utterly dismissed and/or bullied out of editing. This extends into my interactions since posting the 3RR complaint. Bbb23 implemented the block, noting the account is used for "advertising or promotion only" - and in response on the 3RR page, "Comment This self-admitted promo-only account has been blocked. -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)" - To which I am simply flabbergasted. First, I never considered my contributions to be promotional in the first place - I felt the list was providing incomplete information. Second, I created this account in reaction to the initial dispute, so that it could be handled with exacting clarity, and not be hidden behind an IP address. As I have contributed on many various occasions in the past, I intended to continue using the account for any future contributions I hoped to make - never before had I been concerned to have an account, I figured my first actual dispute would be a good time to make one - now I have been blocked for my clarity and honesty, and that block, I am sure will associate to any IP addresses I use with this account... There are ways around that of course - all of which are expressly against the rules - yet the fact is, had I not chosen to identify *in an effort to determine if I was right or wrong about the guidelines* - I would simply have a single blocked IP address and not a care in the world. Now if I wish to ever contribute to Wiki again without being in violation of rules, I *must* get this block lifted. The most frustrating part of this is that there is supposed to be a presumption that all users are acting "in good faith" - and I feel that I have received very little of that. I have been earnestly seeking resolution and clarification. I earnestly felt I was being mistreated by a more experienced editor, and I sought to have that addressed, while hopefully being able to obtain the clarity I sought. I received the clarity, not through any "good faith" interactions, but rather by an indefinite block, multiple snarky reactions to my attempt to report an abusive editor, and finally, a third, and fourth opinion on the original subject at hand. I can assure you, with that clarity, I will no longer be making any edits to Wikipedia that have any relation to my business. If any have taken the time to read this - thank you. What happened today was quite frustrating, and I wanted to make full record here on my talk page, so it would be easier to reference should my appeal make any progress. PhilKnight - I ping you, as you responded to my initial block appeal. Bbb23 - I ping you, as you implemented my block. Praxidicae - I ping you, oh great foe, so you might have opportunity to see this interaction through my eyes. ferret - I ping you, as you made the comment claiming "This self-admitted promo-only account" - a statement I entirely disagree with. As a long time user and occasional anonymous contributor, I feel this is far from the truth. I made this account specifically to be accountable towards the issue at hand while I sought answers and clarity. Davoguha (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC) I thought the User tag pinged people - @Praxidicae:@Ferret:@Bbb23:@PhilKnight: apologies, this is not meant to be a bother. I feel the information above offers the full clarity of the situation I've found myself in - I'd like help returning to a good standing - and I feel it may be beneficial to understand how events transpired from my perspective, particularly in regards to the presumption of good faith. Thank you. Davoguha (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
While not directly a question, everything in what I wrote is relevant to the block I received. Your decision to not even read it is quite disheartening. Directions on appealing blocks directly suggest that I do ping you. I am sorry if you find this annoying, but if I cannot find help from an administrator, where do I go next? "Don't ask questions within your unblock request; that's reserved to explain why you will not be a problem to the project, not to request clarifications about policy. Before requesting to be unblocked, you can ask the administrators that blocked you any clarification about their actions, and they're expected to answer them, though first you have to read the policies they have linked as the reason for the block. If you need to attract the attention of an administrator, you can write @UserName: in your comment and they will get a notice" Davoguha (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
|
is closed. What Bbb23 said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)