User talk:Gotchynow
August 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hack_Forums, you may be blocked from editing. You mentioned: "Legal action is being taken." So I take you must be the owner or affiliated with the website. You are discouraged from writing/editing articles about your organizations (including campaigns, clients, products and services) in which you hold a vested interest. However, if you feel that there is material within an existing article which is incorrect, or not neutral in its tone, you should point this out on the article’s talk page instead of reverting edits. AvalerionV (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
August 2019
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Orange Mike | Talk 13:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Gotchynow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was warned about legal threats but not given the chance to comply before being blocked. Once I read the warning and read the policy I was and still am happy to oblige by the policy. I'm not a rule breaker. Unfortunately I have a problem on the Wikipedia page of my website HackForums.net which continues to be edited by a malicious person. Sadly using Wikipedia is confusing to me and figuring out the system has been time consuming and perplexing. This is far from an intuitive system and that's partly to blame for my "legal threats" which btw were not aimed at Wikipedia but instead at the malicious editor who still today edits the page. I kindly request unblock so I can try to talk to the correct people to resolve the matter. Thank you.
Decline reason:
The problem here is that you have specifically stated that you are taking legal action against another editor. In order not to prejudice any ongoing legal proceedings, this requires that you remain blocked, as allowing you to edit Wikipedia would cause you to have a conflict of interest. If you can categorically state that legal proceedings are not being undertaken in relation to this matter and state that you withdraw the threat, I would be happy to unblock you, but we cannot do so while a legal case remains unresolved. Yunshui 雲水 07:43, 10 August 2019 (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.
Gotchynow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The article from the website has been removed. No further legal proceedings are being taken. And note that I don't want to edit my sites Wikipedia page. I want to use TALK to convince other editors of bias and malicious actions currently taken on the page by this one person. I feel like I'm in an unfortunate circumstance but willing to listen and learn from the Wikipedia community on how best to deal with it.
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This is not sufficiently clear. You note no further legal proceedings are being taken. What about your existing legal proceedings? You need to be very clear. Please state for the record that all legal actions have been cancelled with prejudice. Additionally, please indicate that you will no longer violate
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.
Gotchynow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Existing legal proceedings have ceased and are no longer being pursued as a means of resolution in this incident. I state for the record that all legal actions are cancelled with prejudice. I will no longer violate
Accept reason:
Unblocked. Please also review our
Conflict of interest
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
As you have refused to follow the above instructions to disclose your
Wait what? The words libelous and defamatory are English terms in the dictionary which describe the quote perfectly. I made no legal threat. I have not "refused to follow" any policy. It's the opposite. I've spent many hours trying to learn and adhere to them. The edit you quote has no legal threat at all. Unsure about the COI disclosure policy and if I'm forced to make some syntax statement even on just a request. But I can see on the Talk page of my site the edit request already says I have a COI and it looks like I made the proper policy request to the page. Please lift the unfair block. I think you've misunderstood my intentions. Gotchynow (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- AvalerionV came to your defense over on my talk page. Let me copy what I said there in response. "I disagree. This edit says "defamatory and libelous". conflict of interest and the user's single purpose here, I strongly believe it's enough for the block. The user is free to request unblocking if they wish." I'll add that your block is a combination of things, of which your continued use of "libelous" and "defamatory" is only part of the issue. I've noted already I'm okay with an admin unblocking you under the terms I outlined above. And as always, other admins are free to reverse my block without my consent or approval, even if you are unwilling to abide by these terms, if you are able to convince them the block is inappropriate. --Yamla (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)]
- Btw, I want to address the fact I've been called a Single Purpose account. I take offense to that. I have used Wikipedia for years and have donated to the Foundation. Simply because I have joined with initial intent to fix a problem should not prevent me from future contributions. You say Single Purpose but really this is just my First Purpose and you should not assume (bad faith) that I won't make edits going forward. I've spent a great deal of time this week learning about the backend of Wikipedia. I don't intend to do that all for a single purpose. It makes more sense to use my knowledge to further improve the Wiki. Please assume Good Faith on my part. Please.
- If you wish to be unblocked, make an unblock request and an administrator will review your block. I believe you have violated ]
- Don't bite me please. [[2]] I am also communicating now with admins via email ticket. I do have a COI, I admit that. I'm sorry if somewhere I put the syntax wrong or made a bad decision to make an edit. You seem very reputable and it stands to reason that since you blocked me that my best course of action is that I convince you of my good intentions towards Wikipedia and have you remove it. I have communicated with you about the 3 WP policies you think I violated (NLT, COI, and SPA). If there is a very specific policy in one of those documents that I'm currently unaware of which I am violating please cite. I am absolutely trying me best here.
- (edit conflict; I wrote this prior to your COI disclosure) If you read WP:SPA is applicable here because, at least with this account, you are only focusing on Hack Forums. If that's your only goal here, we really aren't interested in unblocking you. I don't mean that aggressively. I understand you are frustrated with the way Hack Forums is written, and that's understandable. But I'm afraid, it's not your call; you have a conflict of interest there. Now, I'm not willing to unblock you without a topic ban in that area, but other admins might be willing. In particular, I wouldn't object to you agreeing to all of these terms including the topic ban, but then immediately appealing the topic ban to another administrator or to another appropriate venue (but only to one... no forum shopping if you don't like the answer you are given). To be clear, I don't think you are acting in bad faith, but I do think you are only here to ensure Hack Forums is modified to suit your interests. That's perfectly understandable; of course this is what you are interested in! So would I, if I was in your shoes. It just doesn't really fit Wikipedia's mission. Some parts of my response may be unclear and you are very welcome to ask clarifying questions. --Yamla (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)]
- (edit conflict; I wrote this prior to your COI disclosure) If you read
- If I am on a topic ban can I still use the Talk pages? If so then that's just fine with me. It will prevent me from being tempted. I also hope you see I made a COI disclosure on my user page. And I will be interested in creating content for Wikipedia after this is resolved. I'm a long-term content writer on the web and I have expertise in subjects like Cigars, Golf, Whiskey and many other topics. I might try to tackle creating Cigar pages for great brands that don't exist. I did look at your user history and I know you are not a biased editor in this situation and believe it or not I appreciate all your responses and input. Thank you. Gotchynow (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
HackForums.net Owner Disclosure
I am Jesse LaBrocca the owner of Hackforums.net. I have a COI [3] for the Wiki page of HF [4]. I promise not to edit the page and disclose my COI in the Talk page. I will also promise not edit any competing sites Wiki entries. Gotchynow (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) If you would like an administrator to address your unblock request, the quickest way for that to happen is if you add
{{Unblock Ticket Request System for your request. Best of luck in your unblock request! OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)]
Unblock offer
I think there are reasonable grounds for removing this block, based on your discussion with Yamla above. It's clear that you are at least attempting to comply with Wikipedia's COI requirements, and it would be in Wikipedia's interest for a discussion about the recent content on the Hack Forums article to take place - which it can't do easily while you are blocked. If you are prepared to completely avoid using language such as "libel" and "defamation" - as you can see, it doesn't go over well, and doesn't help your case - and restrict yourself to discussion the issues on the article's talkpage, I would be willing to lift this block. Yunshui 雲水 07:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm perfectly fine and accept that. I will also say I'm disturbed by new edits to add content again which was FINALLY fixed by Spintendo. He's the only one who gets it. There is no such thing as an "illegal hacking tool" and he comments this but yet it was added back again. The page is a serious mess and the comments being added are done so under malicious pretense. They are not neutral in tone. I'll repeat this sentiment on the talk page if unblocked. I'll not edit the page. I have also not asked anyone to edit the page for me. I'm just looking for a seasoned editor with experience to review what's going on. Spintendo fixed the page last night. Today it was desecrated again. Ugh. Gotchynow (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Gotchynow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
After much thought and review of the situation I am requesting an unban. It's apparent that I need TALK access on Wikipedia but I will not be editing any COI pages nor will use the words libel or defamation in my edits. Gotchynow (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Okay, I've lifted the block. Goes without saying that anything vaguely legalistic in your edits in future will see it reinstated, probably permanently, but you are free to discuss the issues on the article's talkpage as long as you avoid such language. If you haven't already reviewed