Danieditor
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nuclio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclio until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MER-C 15:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 15:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Danieditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, you blocked my account indefinitely because you think I'm advertising. I have used the account since 2013 to contribute about data and analytics. Surely “advertisers” don’t contribute over six years! In the past year I’ve been editing about serverless computing and Nuclio. Nuclio is open source, there is no financial gain in explaining what it is. Hundreds of people use Nuclio and work together on its Slack channel and over 2,500 people follow it on Github. Please join the Slack channel to see https://lit-oasis-83353.herokuapp.com/ and a link to Nuclio’s Github is in the article. I also ask that you recognize I am not looking to advertise and unblock my account. Serverless computing is the future of cloud computing. Please let the article stay!!! Other open source serverless frameworks should be on Wikipedia as well, but nobody in the community wants to try adding them because they view Wikipedia is skewed towards corporate offerings. Wikipedia should encourage articles about open source technologies. Finally, I contribute about political issues as well as technology, but usually do that anonymously.
Decline reason:
Your account was registered six years ago, but you haven't constantly edited since then. You are promoting serverless computing in this very unblock request- and you seem to have some sort of connection to Nuclio even if you aren't paid per se. From what I know now I don't think you are going to be unblocked unless you disclose any conflict of interest that you have, agree to not edit about Nuclio or any other subjects within your seeming conflict of interest, and tell what you are going to edit about instead. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 21:26, 10 March 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.
Danieditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Why is it wrong for me to promote serverless computing within the unblock request? I thought that was the issue here and am trying to explain that there is no financial motivation in open source technology. It's shared in the community, people contribute code in the same way they contribute articles to Wikipedia. Are the editors of articles about democracy or socialism motivated by advertising? Yes, I've contributed to Nuclio and care about serverless technology. Is that a conflict of interest? That's like saying a citizen shouldn't write about democracies. Who else would do it? And you're right that I don't edit constantly, I edit very sporadically. Must Wikipedia be edited only by people who are dedicated to it? If yes then I shouldn't be here. I edit Wikipedia when I see something missing that I think should be included, sometimes through this user and sometimes anonymously. Topics have been related to politics and technology, those are the subjects I care about. You should welcome different types of editors, I've seen horrible statistics for women editors and then this happens and I understand why. I don't understand why this must be a combative environment. You assume the worst instead of being inclusive. I did nothing wrong! I wrote about open source technology which I care about.
Decline reason:
As explained below, it doesn't matter whether you have a financial motivation for promoting stuff. What matters is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promotion. And yes, the article you wrote was blatantly promotional. Since you seem to be unable to see the problem, even in retrospect, it is likely that the problem would recur if you were unblocked. Huon (talk) 16:08, 12 April 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.
Danieditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
And now you make presumptions about my future abilities! This post about Nuclio was not promotional, as there is no financial gain in "promoting" open source technology. All the editors making this decision and judging this post - and my - inclusion here have been men. The entire process has been confrontational and condescending. Wikipedia will always be a man's encyclopedia if only men edit it and as such, will unfortunately keep out worthwhile open source software as well. Everybody loses, but you don't care about everybody.
Decline reason:
You do not seem to grasp the point that Wikipedia policy does not permit editing t promote anything, whether there is potential for financial gain or not. You also do not improve your chances of being unblocked by being hostile and combative while requesting an unblock, and certainly not by making sexist attacks on editors for being men. (And incidentally how do you know that all the editors involved are men? To know that you must have access to information that I can't find anywhere.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:20, 18 April 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.
My only point in mentioning the six years is that you have not constantly edited in those six years which you cite in your first request; your statement made it sound like you had. It certainly is not required that you edit constantly, as this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can. You don't have to have financial gain from something to be promoting it; merely telling the world about something is considered promotional here. Wikipedia does more, it is interested in what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that are notable as defined by Wikipedia, and has no interest in just spreading the word about things. Someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't edit about serverless computing to 'spread the word' and I added several reliable sources in the Nuclio article - media sources that Wikipedia accepts as notable. I then added stats in my first unblock request about the number of people involved in it as open source to prove it is not a niche project. Your last comment shifted from saying the article was advertorial to promotional. Does an article about democracy promote democracy? Wikipedia should encourage new articles about popular open source projects.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieditor (talk • contribs)
- Only one open request is needed; subsequent comments should be standard comments without the unblock request formatting. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please do not remove other's comments; if you wish, once the conversation is over you may remove the entire conversation, but not bits and parts. As I said, you only need one open request. You are free to alter your existing open request, but additional requests are not necessary. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Advertising and promoting are basically considered the same thing on Wikipedia; the two words are a distinction without a difference. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't mean to remove your comments (and ultimately didn't!), I thought I was to open a new request so corrected myself. Thanks for explaining. Surely the difference between advertising and promoting is a greater philosophical discussion. In my mind every single article on Wikipedia is a promotion of it. Can we agree to disagree? That would mean enabling my article and me as an (inconsistent) editor. It would also mean recognizing that Nuclio is a topic of interest to many people, as proven by the reliable sources I included. After all, that's why they're called reliable. The reason most editors are men is this combative environment, we can't even agree about how to disagree. Wikipedia's managers host all sorts of events to figure it out when the answer is right in front of them.
- If you can convince the next admin that reviews this to unblock you, they may do so without consulting me. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
What happens now? Am I supposed to do something to reach out to the next admin...?
- Your request is visible and open; it will be reviewed in due course. Administrators are volunteers just as you are, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, it's been a couple of weeks since this happened. I'm still blocked and the post in question about Nuclio has been taken down. I want to say how disappointed I am in Wikipedia's handling of this case. First you block me and then the whole thing is just ignored. At least 331dot was responsive. This is a mistake on Wikipedia's part from the getgo, both in what you did and how you did it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieditor (talk • contribs)
- I'm sorry you have had to wait, but until administrators or Wikipedia editors in general get paid for what they do here, that's just the way it is. Stuff gets done when someone has time to get around to it. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no access to your internal information about gender, it's good old fashioned female intuition that led me to this conclusion. I stand behind my allegation of your prejudice: things are either black or white, you condescend to know what I will do before it happens and prefer to work with your own kind instead of thinking of things differently. Open source software is just like women, but here too you have not considered whether the entry is worthwhile due to its hundreds of users, you probably haven't even bothered to read it. You're too busy looking for ulterior motives. I have no motive, just like I have no access to Wikipedia's data about gender. This exchange will end up getting discussed in one of your many conferences about why there are so few women editing but that's the bottom line. You have a comfort zone and women aren't in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieditor (talk • contribs)
- I was going to fix your request for proper display(it was missing a bracket), but it isn't really an unblock request. You don't seem to be listening to what you are being told; if you do choose to make a new unblock request, it should actually ask to be unblocked and address the reason for the block. If you are only going to use this page to attack others or otherwise not request unblock, I will remove your ability to edit this page.
331dot (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Go ahead and remove the ability to edit. We're done. I wish I could say "you win" but that's just not true, everybody loses.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieditor (talk • contribs)