User talk:Uriah923/Archive2

Blocked

You were warned many times. There was a strong consensus against adding your links and you didn't like that. We all asked you nicely to stop, but instead you've spammed your link to more talk pages in a further ridiculous effort to get as many links to ON into Wikipedia as possible. Archiving your talk page to make the damning evidence less obvious doesn't help your case much. You can discuss this here even when blocked. And yes, I will put this up for review, so you don't need to go whining about it on 33 emails to admins. I can block you under a number of policies including linkspam and disruption. That I've been involved in the discussion is not as important considering how strong the consensus against adding your links is and the fact that you went and spread them over 4 talk pages again. - Taxman ^Talk 17:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I don't see any links on any talk pages. All I see are requests for objective comments. I archived my page to remove all of your worthless drivel. Guess I'll have to do it again soon. Uriah923 17:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course your "requests for objective comments" included the URL of your site, which, if different from linking, is so close as to make claiming a distinction bad faith. And requests for objective comments is laughable, considering how clear the consensus against adding your links is. No one is "voting" in your poll because the consensus has already been established. - Taxman ^Talk 17:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The requests for objective comments include the unlinked location of the site in question. This allows investigation of the case without any SEO effects. I can't imagine a better way to approach the situation. Also, just because you deem something "laughable" does not mean it should be reverted or I should be blocked. Uriah923 18:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to see the consensus that I should not be allowed to seek comments on adding certain sites as external links. Uriah923 18:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The statement leading the consensus was "there is a clear consensus that links to ON should not be in Wikipedia articles unless added by a longstanding contributor, and not prompted by Uriah." Do I need to spell it out more? Still trying to act like you don't reallize pasting the URL to your site has the same effect? Even if it wasn't obviously against the consensus statement, you could have simply requested editors look at the discussion and omitted the URL. Instead you chose to paste 4 more links to your site, exactly what I warned you not to. If your job is promoting your site, you really should reallize you're better of not making everyone hate you and your site. I am involved in marketing, and your behaviors pretty much violate everything in ethical marketing 101. - Taxman ^Talk 18:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Pasting in the URL without a link has no SEO effect. Thus, it is not against the consensus and not any sort of linkspam. Also, the "consensus" that you posted at the bottom of that page is far from it. The support you cited is completely out of context, as it is refers to not using OmniNerd links as references - a point I conceded long ago. I still see nothing with regards to me not being allowed to seek comments on adding certain sites as external links.

So, yes - you need to spell it out more. Spell out why it is that because there was a consensus that OmniNerd articles can't be used as references that means I can't ask for comments on whether or not they can be used as external links. Uriah923 18:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Because that is exactly how the consensus reads and that is exactly what people's comments were. Again, even if you asking people to vote for the link wasn't explicitly against the specific wording of the consensus statement, you could have just pointed people to the discussion. And yes of course getting the URL into text affects search engines, and given your job is SEO, we know you know that. And no, none of those supports were taken out of context. If you look at them they were all saying explicitly and clearly that they did not want any links to ON. Four people also signed the consensus statement directly. I can get a bunch more if needed, but I stopped because it was clear enough. You think Zora wouldn't sign that statement exactly as it is? - Taxman ^Talk 19:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Getting the URL in text form into a talk page is about as much a boost to SEO as me typing "OmniNerd" right here is. It's completely meaningless and definitely not worth blocking me or reverting. Also, for your information, my occupation is a product design engineer - not a SEO whatever.

I looked at each of the support instances and none of them say "Uriah should be blocked if he inserts an unlinked web address into talk pages." Neither does your "consensus." Uriah923 19:40, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

That's good news. So if that's your job, please go do it, and please stop wasting everyones time trying to get links to your site into WP. I don't need the consensus to say that and I never said it did. I blocked you because I warned you specifically against what you did, and in violation of the consensus you did it anyway. That's pretty clear cut. And we've told you countless times you're free to edit productively on anything else, but you choose to keep pushing the ON links. Don't act surprised that you got blocked. - Taxman ^Talk 20:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly what I have a problem with. You blocked me because I did something you told me not to do - something that is perfectly in line with policy - not because I broke any sort of consensus. I added no links. I did nothing related to SEO. I simply sought the thoughts of other users on adding certain external links. Take a minute to think of the possible outcomes of such actions. On one hand, users weigh in and everyone thinks the link would be a good addition to the page - in which case another user would add it. On the other, they weigh in and don't like the addition and so it isn't made. What is block-worthy about that? Uriah923 20:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I blocked you because it was a clear violation of the consensus. I happened to have told you specifically not to do that as a warning. You violated the linkspamming and the disruption policies, both imminently blockable. - Taxman ^Talk 20:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

We've already established that what I did (ask for comments from other users) was not in violation of any consensus. I didn't place any links, so there was no linkspam. I asked for comments very professionally and politely, which is hardly a disruption.

In fact, the spam policy clearly states one should follow the course of action I did in a case when one worries their contribution might be considered spam: "If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page. We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles. But if the above advice makes you concerned that others will regard your contribution as spam, you can find out without taking that risk: Describe your work on the article's talk page, asking other editors if it is relevant." Information on the disruption policy also does not support blocking in our situation. Uriah923 21:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and in order to be completely transparent, I put the block up for review on the administrator's noticeboard. You will be free to edit when the block expires, but if you go back to the same behaviors you will be blocked again and it will get longer each time until it becomes permanent. - Taxman ^Talk 18:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I want the situation here to be clear for any visitors, so let me give a simple summary of what has led to this point.

1. I added content to many WP articles using content from ON articles and subsequently cited the ON articles as references.
2. These references were removed but the content left. I protested.
3. A discussion was held to determine if the reference should be replaced and if content should remain. It was concluded that ON articles are not worthy of being used as references and that the content could remain. I conceded.
4. I opened discussions on four Talk pages to determine if some ON articles could be included as external links. No links were placed.
5. I was blocked by Taxman, citing linkspam and disruption.

The block certainly doesn't make sense to me, and it seems to be specifically prohibited in the blocking policy, as Taxman was directly involved in the dispute. Hopefully, someone will read this and be able to objectively evaluate the circumstances. As I see it, WP has nothing to lose from me being able to hold discussions on talk pages to determine if certain external links are appropriate. Uriah923 21:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocking rationale and future steps

Uriah923,

Your first edit to Wikipedia was on the 17th of May, 2005. Since this time, you have made approximately 550 edits to Wikipedia. From May 17th to July 31st you made a total of 157 edits. 83 of these edits explicitly included a link to the same external site. Hence, almost 53% of your edits during this period were made with the intention of referencing that external site. For your convenience, I have listed these below:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]

I am not as familiar with your editing behaviour beyond August 31st, 2005 as I am with your first 3 months of editing on Wikipedia. However, based on the quality of these edits, the overall semantics of your contributions, and the context in which they were made, it is reasonable for one to conclude that your primary intentions on Wikipedia are to promote the content of the external site. Your editing behaviour is consistent with creating a persistence of those references in Wikipedia, to the extent that they are difficult to detect and remove without thoroughly analysing the edit history of the pages you have contributed to. It is clear from the evolution of your editing style that your intentions are to further this endeavour in the interest that the external site receives more visibility, one method of which involves using Wikipedia as a vehicle to achieve this means.

I have no doubt it took an amount of effort and energy to make your contributions to Wikipedia to date. Some of your contributions are well thought out. However, during the first 3 months of contributing to Wikipedia, it should have become progressively clear to you that your editing style is inappropriate for Wikipedia. You were informed repeatedly the incompatibility of your contributions to Wikipedia. It is also evident that you are well aware of these warnings based on your repeated blanking of such postings on your talk page. For your convenience, I provide two examples, here and here - two of many such examples. It is not evident that you have acted to reciprocate the appropriate due diligence so many contributors have shown you on Wikipedia.

Now, this is not intended to marginalize your other more valued contributions to Wikipedia - for example, I found your contributions to Casing (oilfield) and Christmas tree (oilfield) quite interesting to read. However, your overall chronic resistance to modulating your editing behaviour despite multiple warnings exemplifies a lack of appreciation, understanding, and respect for Wikipedia's policies with regards to providing references and external links. Compliance with Wikipedia's policies involves understanding what is written, understanding the sentiment in which they were written, and understanding the purpose for which they were written for. For example, they are not intended to be used to justify repeated insertion of weblinks to a single external site.

Taking all this into consideration, once your block expires, you are most welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. It should be quite clear at this point that if your previous editing behaviour persists, you risk being banned from editing on Wikipedia. From my perspective, I consider a minimum initial block of 2 weeks in length reasonable if it is observed that you insert any weblinks to external sites pertaining to those listed above, or those inserted not for the purposes of necessity of creating encyclopedic content. Thank you for your understanding. HC 04:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation. However, let me make a some clarifications.

• The links I inserted were all very applicable links. Even if they were later deemed unworthy of inclusion, they were not blind blanket additions.
• The links are not to the same site but to different articles within the same domain - which is much different than adding a bunch of links to some homepage.
• In most cases I made significant improvements to the sites on which I added the links and in all cases I at least added missing content (e.g., [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112]). You should notice that I did not simply add the link but also inserted much content, formated references, and sometimes even reorganized entire pages.
• I made significant contributions to many sites on which a link wasn't even placed (e.g., [113], [114], [115], [116], [117]).
• I created the following pages from scratch (which are totally unrelated to any SEO motive): milk bottle, Cooper Cameron, Soy protein, Orbit (irrigation), Oil reservoir, Rainbird (irrigation), Production tubing, Production string, Wellhead - in addition to the two you mentioned.
• When approached rationally, I have always been willing to talk and to even put out a lot of work to facillitate the admins. This is evident in my setup of this page.
• My editing style has changed much from the time I first started editing. When the addition of links without content was protested, I added content and references. When the reference use was protested, I decided to hold discussion on talk pages instead of making decisions myself.
• Any erased material from my talk page was replaced later and is all present in the first archive.

That being said, I can understand WP's desire to avoid linkspam. It is obvious from the above, though, that I've done much more than sling links all over the place. In the future, what would be wrong with me suggesting a link to be used in an external link section and then allowing a different user to post it if a strong consensus is reached that it is wanted? --Uriah923 06:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Uriah, as an administrator of ON, do you seriously believe that anyone thinks it's just a matter of "applicable links" links to you? No, don't answer that, it doesn't even matter. To answer your question, it's because there already is strong consensus against that, and there always will be until ON becomes a much different website. Going around asking for links to your website repeatedly is not the way to build an encyclopedia, and it has to stop. Now. Dmcdevit·t 06:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup, so just to be really clear, you'll be free to edit once your block expires, but if you continue your activities that in any reasonable way can be considered to be promoting ON, you will be blocked for a longer period. So to stay safe, don't ask people to consider your links, don't post URLs etc, and don't talk about ON at all. Otherwise contribute as you like, we're all here to help Wikipedia and we would like to be able to do that and not waste any more time on this issue. - Taxman ^Talk 15:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

---

It's clear to me that certain people are more concerned with their power-trips than having reasonable and coherent conversations. I'm tired of countering the same arguments only to have them repeated. I'm done with it. Uriah923 21:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Final response

Respectfully, this is not the case here. The purpose for adding content to Wikipedia is often in itself not used to justify the addition of external links to Wikipedia. Your later edits follow this pattern substantially, where a reasonable amount of content is added to Wikipedia along with an external link to that site. Those references are intrinsically not primary sources, nor are they intrinsically of encyclopedic value. Although there may be some disagreement on this issue or interpretation, it should be quite evident that the reception towards your requests for discussion regarding external links has been at best lukewarm.

To put directly, your repeated initiation of discussion regarding external links you wish to put in Wikipedia are reasonably interpreted as an attempt to preserve their presence in Wikipedia - either directly, indirectly, or otherwise. Admittingly there is some skepticism of your editing intentions, and understandably a certain amount of trust has been lost.

I apologize if you feel that discussions since your first contributions to Wikipedia have not lead to a resolved convergence. However, as mentioned above, your block will expire soon, and you are free to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You are correct in identifying that these related threads have been drawn out, and I also consider this the last post required to establish the context and framework for moving on in the future. Certainly, if your future edits exhibit any sort of disruption to Wikipedia, you will be blocked. However, I am inclined to feel that this will not occur, and that you will not be blocked on an irrational basis. --HC 23:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Enough already

So the consensus against you and a 48 hour block for violating our policies wasn't clear enough for you? Asking people to consider your links is specifically against the consensus. Consider this your last warning before you get blocked for longer. - Taxman ^Talk 17:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You are being totally and completely capricious. I refuse to discuss this matter with you. Uriah923 18:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Good. Like I said, I'd rather not discuss it or deal with it at all, and that is all up to you. Spend your time on things other than trying to get ON links into WP and there won't be any issues at all. The choice is yours, please choose the more productive option. - Taxman ^Talk 18:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Uriah, do something besides try to insert links to ON, or go away. Jdavidb 19:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

And yes, that means you don't need to discuss it, anywhere on Wikipedia. There's no upside in that for you or for Wikipedia. - Taxman ^Talk 19:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Going to archive

I'm going to archive this page soon. I'm tired of reading Taxman's trash. Uriah923 18:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Also up to you, but you should reallize it reflects badly on you, as if you have something to hide. Your increasing personal attacks aren't helping your case either. What is the big deal, just don't promote ON here and there are no problems at all. - Taxman ^Talk 19:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Blocked again

Contrary to the above opinion, I am blocking you for 72 hours for this edit here: [118]. In order to have constructed that post, you had to consciously go into the edit history and deliberately search for that edit made on the 24th of July - an edit well more than a month into the past. This occurred despite the previous 48 hour block placed on your account, in which you had the time to absorb and understand the rationale behind its initial use, and to reflect on how to appropriately modulate your editing behaviour.

Please do not test the boundaries of permissible activities on Wikipedia. You have been more than adequately informed of what is appropriate editing behaviour here. Once the block expires, you are welcome to edit constructively on Wikipedia. Anticipate another block in the event that another inappropriate edit is made by you. Should this occur - as this has been ongoing for long enough - I will kindly mention that banning you from editing Wikipedia will be one of the alternatives taken into consideration. Thank you for your understanding. --HC 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I see nothing innappropriate with that post. I posted no links and caused no trouble. I simply made Jmabel aware of the situation. Are you telling me that not only am I not to post any links but that I am to take a vow of silence concerning the issue? That's preposterous. In the words of someone I can't remember, "You don't own me." If I get banned, I get banned. I'm not really concerned about it. Uriah923 04:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Your last post on your talk page highly concerns me, and of note is the last sentence in that post. It is indicative of your lack of observance of what has been discussed. Your account is blocked on the basis of its actions - that is to say, a block is caused by the particulars of actionable or inactionable editing. I would hope that once the current block expires, you would choose not edit disruptively on Wikipedia.

Please consider these below:

1. Since you wish for Jmabel to take part in this discussion, I will post another request message on Jmabel's talk page later today on your behalf.

In retrospect, it seems superfluous to follow through with the first request. Jmabel has already expressed previously here that his opinions have already been expressed here. As such, the first request will be considered to have been sufficiently acknowledged and followed through. HC 15:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Respectfully, if you feel that Wikipedia is not a good fit with your editing style or perogatives, please either modify them, or refrain from editing.
2. If you wish to request a permanent block on your account, it is sufficient to leave a message on this talk page, and an administrator passing by will follow through with it.

Thanks for your understanding. --HC 14:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This block really seems ridiculous. ON was not mentioned by name. Posting something on a user talk page seems quite reasonable. The consensus was established by a fairly small number of people. I don't have an opinion on ON myself; I haven't looked at it enough, but cutting off all communication is really going too far. Maybe you guys need moderation. I'm going through moderation which may include some amount of web site spanning, so I do have sympathy with the complainers, but they are going too far.

I have communicated with Uriah923 on a web page on which he didn't mention ON. I don't know him otherwise. Nereocystis 15:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Communication has not been completely cut off. While a user is blocked, they are able to edit their talk page. The previous block is not permanent, and will expire soon.

As with any such blocks, it is reasonable to say there is always some level of disagreement or controversy over them. Nereocystis, if you feel the block is out of line, you are free to find another administrator to unblock this user and assume responsibility for monitoring Uriah923's edits. There is already a notification posted on WP:AN regarding this - that might be one of the places you might want to start off with if you wish to carry this further. Thanks for expressing your thoughts here. --HC 15:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Nereocystis, if you think the block is ridiculous then you simply haven't followed the issue closely enough. The only reason the consensus wasn't from more users is that no one bothered to draw users in. The reason that wasn't done is that the issue is so clear and the consensus was so clear. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising or promotion of other sites. When the block expires, Uriah will be free to edit anything he likes as long as the edits don't promote or discuss ON in any way. We have an encyclopedia to build and we don't need to waste time dealing with crap like this. He's been given many chances to stop and so far has chosen not to. - Taxman ^Talk 15:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Uriah, you need to show your principles by taking a "vow of silence" concerning the issue. Wikipedia needs to be edited by people who are committed to Wikipedia and its ideals. You are committed to ON, and that's it. You basically declare above that you have zero commitment to Wikipedia. That being the case, you don't belong here. No, we don't own you, but you don't own Wikipedia, so follow the Wikipedia rules or go away. Jdavidb 16:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Follow the rules? Whatever rules you are referring to aren't on any WP policy page. But, I think I've finally grown to understand of what these unspoken "rules" consist:

• All conflicts are decided not by written policy but by the admin involved.
• If more than one admin is involved, the admin with the most friends wins.
• Written policy is considered more of a 'guideline' and is easily overruled by an admin.
• Given the above, any protest via logic, reason or WP policy is useless.
• The only effective protest can be accomplished by recruiting more admin friends than the admin whose actions are being protested.

It is because I've finally come to realize the above that I stated that I'm not concerned if I get banned. Such a ban would not be a reflection on the accuracy or factuality of my arguments or posts, but only an indication that I have less admin friends. And, I am not concerned with the size of my admin posse.

But you're right, I will have to modify my approach to edits in the future (if I choose to make any). If an edit (or even a talk page post) is questioned or reverted by an admin, instead of arguing my case using logic and fact, I should take one of the following actions:

1. Email as many admin friends as possible and quickly mobilize against the "enemy." Refrain from taking any action until I am positive I have the numbers to "win."
2. Abandon the conflict immediately as any argument without the above mentioned admin posse will only serve to turn more and more admins against me - making option 1 less and less of a possibility.

To close, I have a suggestion. Instead of "admins" you should call yourself "sophists." It would be much more accurate and might save you the "pain" of having to deal with others like me who (for some odd reason) expect objectivity in discussion. Uriah923 17:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an admin.

The rules are that you not use Wikipedia for self-promotion. Don't act like we're stupid. You have never used Wikipedia for anything other than promoting ON.

We don't care if you get banned, either. As I said, either contribute appropriately to Wikipedia, or go away. You'll conform to this either by choice or by banning. Jdavidb 18:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for advertising. All we have asked you is to stop trying to promote ON here and get links to ON into Wikipedia. That is according to Wikipedia policy. But clearly getting ON links in and promoting ON is the only thing that is important to you or you would have stopped long ago. You are free to do anything else here you like, besides promoting ON. If you want to play as if you've been persecuted you can, but that is a gross mischaracterization of the situation. - Taxman ^Talk 18:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's the deal

If the Taxman sophist posse will cease any and all posts on my talk page, user page and any subpage therein from this post on, I (Uriah923) will agree to succumb to the omni (break to avoid the horrendous SEC ramifications that would result in its absence) nerd gag-order. Uriah923 22:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is going to agree to refrain from correcting you if you violate Wikipedia policy in the future, nor apologize for correcting you for violating Wikipedia policy in the past. You don't seem to understand. Dropping your incessant promotion of ON is not optional. It is not a favor we are asking you to do for us, for which we are willing to do favors for you. You will comply with Wikipedia policy, either voluntarily or through banning. Jdavidb 23:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

As you are a self-avowed sophist lackey, I won't count your inability to understand as a break of the potential agreement. Next time, before posting, try thinking about what you read. If you had done so in this case, you might have realized that if Taxman's sophist posse were to refrain from posting on my pages, they would then concurrently have no reason to post as I would be in adherence to the gag-order. See how that works? Uriah923 01:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Childish insults aside, I am for the greater good of Wikipedia so if you follow Wikipedia policies (including ceasing all promotion and mention of ON) then I won't post to your talk page again, and indeed there wouldn't be a reason to. I don't care what you do as long as you make positive contributions. That said, of course, if you do violate policy then no agreement such as this matters. Don't bother testing the limits either. If you make truly postive contributions there won't be any question of whether you are violating policies or not. - Taxman ^Talk 12:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

And oh yeah, just so we're clear, calling someone a lackey could reasonably considered to be a personal attack. It seems we have policies against that. I would recommend removing the insult. That's just one example of violating our policies that could justify setting aside any agreement as would be promoting any non Wikimedia website including or besides ON, or any other generally disruptive behavior in case that was your plan. I've already pointed out archiving your talk page in a case like this makes you look bad because you're hiding criticism, but do what you like. - Taxman ^Talk 17:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that personal insults are inappropriate, so I'll not consider this a break of the agreement. However, the use of "lackey" above is not such an attack. It was used to differentiate between the Taxman sophist posse (TSP) and Jdavidb, who indicated he was not an sophist. The differentiation was necessary to not consider the Jdavidb's post a deal-breaker. Oddly enough, I have had to do a couple other backflips in an attempt to keep the deal on because the TSP just can't get enough of posting on my talk page. Now that the "personal attack" is settled and the third back-flip completed, I dub any and all considerations dealt with. Any further postings on my talk page, user page or subfolder therein by the TSP will obviously be for the purpose of breaking the deal and will definitely succeed. Uriah923 18:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It's agreed

So, from.... NOW on I expect no posts on my talk page, user page or any subset therein by a member of the Taxman sophist posse - as long as I follow the O-nerd gag order. As things should now get very quiet around here, I will archive this talk page in a few days to signify the beginning of the new arrangement. Uriah923 13:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)