User talk:Diggernet/Archives

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

http://spam.ifiction.org

Adsense pub-8738641863212993

Accounts

Diggernet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links is prohibited under policy. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. You are, however, encouraged to add appropriate content to the encyclopedia. If you feel the material in question should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --Hu12 16:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI: Your links to ifiction.org are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#User:Diggernet_.2F_http:.2F.2Fspam.ifiction.org. — Alan De Smet | Talk 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Diggernet. I see you've received some of our standard warnings for promoting links to a site you own. As the conversation at WikiProject Spam shows, we have since discovered you asked specifically about adding these links. It seems the advice you were given was lacking. Our guidelines specifically ask editors not to post links to sites they are connected to directly to the article page. It is standard practice when promotion of a particular site is found to revert all additions and warn the editor. In the future if you believe a link to your site would be an improvement for a particular article, please suggest it on the talk page of the article in question so that non-connected editors can add it if they agree it is suitable. Again, I'm sorry for the advice you received. I hope you have not lost much time over this. -- SiobhanHansa 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi SiobhanHansa. Thanks for your moderate and understanding tone in that discussion. I did in fact read that section of WP:EL, which says you "should avoid" certain links, but doesn't completely forbid them. And in that same page, WP:EL#What_should_be_linked contains a significant motivation for the links: they are content that cannot be included in the relevant article. Meanwhile, WP:COI says, "if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution". While one could argue that I should have put more weight into "avoid", I most certainly did "exercise great caution". I went out of my way to research the guidelines and then submit my plan for independent review, leaving it up to a third party whether to "avoid". I also relied on WP:COI saying that, in case there was a problem, "the first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor". This absolutely did not happen.

Note that I have no problem at all with having the edits reverted. I thought they were a useful addition, but if someone else doesn't agree, that's fine. What I have a problem with is the unnecessarily extreme actions taken by Hu12. Now a Linksearch for ifiction.org shows spam.ifiction.org, leading to the possibility that some future well-meaning editor could get branded a sock puppet in another zealous overreaction. But that and a revert wasn't enough. Hu12 then escalated his response from an action against specific edits to an action against my account as a whole. He labeled me a spammer and sock puppet, and not satisfied with one of the lower level warnings available, made sure to give me an "only warning". As a first response to an isolated event nearly a month ago, not a continuous or ongoing problem. Which puts me at risk of being blocked without warning in response to any future inadvertent violation of guidelines, or even potentially as a side-effect if another editor is believed to be a sock puppet.

To top it off, after discovering the care I took before making those edits, Hu12 distorted the facts in ways that violate Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, and are quite offensive. He stated I "was aware of the policies" and had "added all but one of the links after being advised", without acknowledging that the advice was the links were ok. And "there is also a template in the works", even though in that linked conversation I mentioned the idea and then dropped it in response to feedback. And worst of all, and most clearly outright false, that "contributions to wikipedia by Diggernet consist entirely of adding external links to ifiction.org". While I want to give Hu12 the benefit of the doubt, I cannot grasp how a Wikipedia Administrator could make such a rookie mistake.

To be fair, Hu12 has since removed the spammer and sock puppet labels, but the utterly inappropriate vandal tag remains. Please tell me exactly which of WP:VAN#Types_of_vandalism I have violated. The only one that even comes close is Spam, and that's only considered vandalism if "continuing ... after having been warned". But what concerns me most is that while my edits are effectively gone when reverted, I fear Hu12's overreaction is not so easily undone. The warning process would be useless if users could simply erase them, so I have to assume that there is a way for administrators to easily view all past warnings a user has received. Which means that unjustified "only warning" is effectively an axe permanently hanging over my head. Have you any suggestion how I might go about restoring my good name?

Diggernet 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Restoring" your name, however good it was, would first involve taking responsibility for your actions, learning from them and not try to distract attention away from your actions with accusations at others. (IE; extreme action, zealous overreaction, distorted the facts and rookie mistake). Comment on content, not on the contributor. I suggest reading WP:NPA and WP:CIV. That being said,it seems there is some confusion on your part so I'll explain. No one has labled you a "sock puppet", otherwise you would have had a "sock puppet" tage placed on your userpage. The warnings you recieved are standard, and appropriate. You recieved the "only warning" because adding any more links to a website that you own is prohibited under policy. The statement made, "contributions to wikipedia by Diggernet consist entirely of adding external links to ifiction.org", should have read "contributions in July..." which includes the discussions on ifiction.org at WP:EA. Notably your contributions as a whole, the majority are infact ifiction.org related only. You added 39 links exclusivly between 06:57, 26 July 2007 and 03:24, 28 July 2007 in aprox 6 & 1/2 hrs, you most certainly did Not "exercise great caution" as you claim above.

Ingnorance of policy, is sometimes acceptable, however,in this case, you were most certainly "aware of the policies". This is clearly shown on WikiProject spam [1], you stated so yourself... "Before asking my question at WP:EA, I read many relevant articles, including WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:NOT, WP:EL"-Diggernet 22:46, 16 August 2007 . Although the advice you recieved on WP:EA was lacking, you did at least ask. However, you chose to ignore them and add links after having read those policies. Wikipedia's fundamental purpose is to create an encyclopedia and Neutrality is an important objective. I encourage you to add content to the encyclopedia, move on and direct your edits towards those productive channels.--Hu12 04:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Hu12. Please realize that not once have I argued against your revert. My only problem with your actions is that I feel you went beyond simply undoing my edits to attack me personally, without making any attempt at a more measured response. In all that you've said on this matter, this is the first time you've taken the trouble to talk to me, instead of just slapping up tags. (If you'd just asked, I would have reverted the edits myself!) And so my responses focused on defending myself, my intentions, and good faith. Not to distract attention from my edits, but because I feel unjustly attacked.

To make it clear: I do accept responsibility for my actions. I added links to my site, in the belief that they added value. I did so knowing that others might disagree with my belief, and if one of them decided to take action, that is the result of me having made the edits in the first place. I learned that I should have suggested this to an editor involved with the articles, rather than doing it myself. And I learned that though I believe I can justify my actions with respect to each of WP:COI and WP:SPAM, I did not fully grasp the extreme sensitivity when both are involved.

But those aren't my only actions. I also recognized the conflict of interest, and that it could be a problem. And I researched the policies. And I sought advice from the community. One thing I did not do was "ignore" the policies. They are not absolute, and make a point of discouraging things but not outright forbidding them. And that's without even considering WP:IAR. I felt that specific statements in the policies supported adding the links, but recognized that it was unacceptable for me to make the judgement myself, and so turned to the community. These are the actions I describe as exercising caution, and it bothers me that you maintain I did not because you disagree with the advice I was given.

Thank you for clarifying your remark about my contributions. That helps a lot, and clearly invalidates my impression of a "rookie mistake". However, I still feel you put too much emphasis on those 35 edits (the first 4 were correcting already-existing links) in two days, which are effectively a single action, and are too dismissive of the previous year of contributions. Though I acknowledge that is my opinion of weighting, and that your 26/35 comparision (excluding Talk: pages) is factually correct. By the way, your emphasis that I was certainly aware of the policies calls my attention to an inadequacy in my own wording. I was not claiming ignorance of policy. I was attempting to show how your statement implies that I had acted against advice, when in fact I had not. Sorry for that confusion.

You say that no one has labeled me a sock puppet, because that specific tag wasn't used. But how else am I supposed to interpret the words, "Spam sock accounts" that my account was labeled with on this page? As for the "only warning", if that is "standard and appropriate", why do multiple lower levels of warnings exist? I have to imagine that severity, repetition and urgency are factors. We are talking about a fairly small number of links that were added in a single event last month, and nothing since then. Not a huge and ongoing problem that needs to be stopped quickly. Where's the crisis? What serious harm has Wikipedia been spared of by you pulling out the big guns? Sure, you couldn't know without doubt the problem could be handled by a level 1 warning with a polite request to remove the links, but given the size and age of the problem, what's the harm in starting there? It would have cost you less of your own time than doing the work yourself.

--Diggernet 22:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the confusion. I have explained all that above, however I do infact believe you're here to improve Wikipedia, So I will archive your talk page so you have a clean slate and both our efforts can be directed towards productive channels. Thank you for your honesty.--Hu12 23:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.