User talk:Andrés Djordjalian/Archives/2008/August

Blocked
Hello there. I have blocked your account from editing for 48 hours because you have devoted all your time and energy to promoting a link to your own website on the article S&P 500. Unfortunately, the link you wish to include is both inappropriate and redundant with more reliable sources that provide the same information your link does. Please use this time to consider your actions, and edit Wikipedia in a more productive context as you have at times in the past. Thank you. --Kyorosuke | Talk 23:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Kyorosuke. I'm almost speechless... I only wrote twice in a talk page in months. The link was not entered by me, but by an editor I don't even know. I only suggested it, about a year ago (this year I updated the URL), following the Suggestions_for_COI_compliance. Where are those other pages that provide those graphs? Price evolution is not the same as total return, plus there are graphs there for inflation-adjusted data. I prepared them at that time, because I couldn't find them anywhere else, even though I was expecting to find such a link in this Wikipedia article, for example. If I thought these actions were normal, I mean, that I'm presumed guilty of sock puppetry unless proven innocent, that my counter-arguments remain unheard and that I'm blocked this easily, then I wouldn't insist with WP, but I'm still optimistic (not much optimism remaining, though). Please review this case and my history more closely (I mean Googling more than checking WP, because I didn't edit much here, although I did a little more in the Spanish and laptop.org wikis). Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that you've only edited "twice in a talk page in months" is one of the issues here; the entirety of your edits since April, with one exception, have been to spam the S&P 500 article with a link to your blog. You have made 32 edits to Wikipedia, 25 of which have been to either add a link to your blog yourself or advocate others to add a link to your blog.  The critical issue is that you have progressed from open advocating for a link to your blog to vandalizing Wikipedia to try to hide the fact that your blog has been clearly identified as spam by other Wikipedia editors.  You deleted the entirety of the talk page discussion opposing the inclusion of your link (diff).  You replaced that discussion with a renewed request that your link be included.  This is a significant violation of community trust, and that, combined with your ongoing, repeated, and now disruptive efforts to include a link to your blog on this encyclopedia are nothing short of vandalism.  You brought up this project's policy of promoting the assumption of good faith earlier, but it's important you understand: that policy does not require that others "assume good intentions when there is evidence to the contrary."  Your intentional removal of content from an article talk page is unacceptable, and I believe it is fair to assume that you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to understand that fact.  Your motive for removing that content can also be assumed here: it is apparent you were attempting to remove a lengthy discussion that pointed out a significant number of reasons why your blog should not be added as an external link.  Your removal of that content had your desired effect: another editor, passing by, assumed that your request was in good faith and unknowingly restored your spam link to the article.  If you wish to edit Wikipedia, or if you wish to integrate verifiable and reliably sourced content into the S&P 500 article, your contributions would be welcome.  But continuing to attempt to spam your blog on Wikipedia in newer or subtler ways will not be acceptable.    user:j    (aka justen)   04:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Justin, once again I receive an avalanche of challenges/accusations from you, as if a lot of ungrounded arguments would make for a good one...


 * 1) Of my 32 edits, only one (1) has been to add a link and one (1) has been to suggest one, following explicit WP policy. The rest have been edits on other pages, contributions to S&P 500 unrelated to the link, and answering to you, as you challenged that one edit on almost every existing policy and disregarded most of my responses, forcing me to paraphrase and repeat myself.


 * 2) I cleaned the discussion last year because it was outdated and confusing (a sign of that is that User:LA thought I had entered the site myself again). I honestly thought the discussion was closed once I learned that I had a COI and thus refrained from adding the site. As I said before, you could have questioned that deletion last year or, even better, have added a recap of the arguments you considered remaining, after my summary. I don't see how you can find that talk page to be more informative now, with the re-inclusion of that past discussion. Wikiquette says "Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon" (my emphasis), so I understand it is not completely forbidden. In this case, I think it cleaning the outdated discussion was more than justified for the sake of that page, you had a lot of time to speak up if you didn't think so, I'm sorry if I was wrong. For example, we could have agreed on archiving the discussion and leaving a reference. By the way, you changed the title I had entered for the link suggestion, when I think the old title was more informative...


 * 3) On what grounds do you say that the site "has been clearly identified as spam"? When did that happen? By the way, it is not a blog.


 * 4) What do you mean by "ongoing, repeated, and now disruptive efforts to include a link"? I included it once, and then suggested it, once, to fix that COI breach after I learned about it. Which of my present actions are disruptive? Asking you why you had deleted it or responding to accusations in talk pages?


 * 5) Where is that "evidence" that I had not acted in good faith?


 * 6) I already explained the motives for removing those paragraphs in the talk page. You can suspect another reason, but I don't see grounds for assuming one. Moreover, I think you are giving too much credit to your arguments there, I properly responded all but the "too many ads" issue (so I removed them even though it was your own subjective opinion) and the COI issue (so I refrained from adding the link myself). Besides, a lot was outdated, like the paragraphs about the possibility of adding the site myself or not. The arguments you give now were already answered in our previous discussion, as I will indicate once I'm able to edit that other talk page again, so I understand there were no remaining arguments that I could have mischievously deleted.


 * 7) Isn't the other editor, who entered the site, as qualified as you to evaluate if the link is spam? Couldn't she or he be even better qualified than you to analyze an investment issue?


 * Please take it as someone who is trying to clear his name, if no-one of the three other editors who have collaborated with this issue, or someone else, steps in favor of the link, I think I will drop this even though I'm convinced it is a positive contribution and I don't deserve the treatment I'm receiving. It wasn't worth it before, because the time wasted, and now that your accusations are getting to a ugly level, it is not worth risking my online reputation. I will respond on the talk page because you misquoted me and referred to an argument that, once again, I had already answered. Also to User:LA's misunderstanding. But it will be just to save my reputation. Justin, I really think you have not shown, in this issue, enough carefulness with your accusations, energy into understanding the counter-arguments that are given to you, proper quoting and humbleness to consider that you might not be right in your assumptions. I hope we can all learn something from this. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have discussed each of your statements above with you, previously. Let me clarify the Wikiquette recommendation on editing talk pages, though: removing or modifying another editor's posts to your own user talk page is frowned upon but usually allowable.  Removing a vast swath of discussion from an article talk page in an attempt to "clean," "clarify," sway, or mislead other editors who visit that talk page is unacceptable and is vandalism.  If you are convinced that your content is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, integrate the content, not a link.  I think many editors would agree that adding sourced content is a very positive contribution.  If you feel you need to "save [your] reputation," do so by adding actual sourced content to Wikipedia.  Take care.    user:j    (aka justen)   17:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No Justin, you haven't provided validation for these and other accusations. Repeating yourself does not make your claims to be valid, more so if you disregard the counter-arguments given in the process. You should rectify what you are unable to support, it is more than a project's policy: it is the civilized and legal thing to do. Besides the moral damage you're inflicting, other editors are being confused. To add to LA's example given previously, Kyorosuke says here there are other resources that provide the same info as the page in question, which was one of your arguments, but I had explained to you that the Yahoo link you evoked shows something completely different, consult it with people who know the subject if you still have doubts and need to. Also, ¿on what do you base that "clarification" now? Not only the Wikiquette page says nothing about being applicable to our own user page only, but if you read under "Discussion page vandalism" in VANDAL you will see that the word generally is used there too, explicitly applied to other talk pages. To save my reputation, I demand not to be wrongfully defamed. Your suspicion of people who suggest a link in WP without contributing an amount of other content that you consider enough, is secondary to that. Moreover, a proper link does add value, in accordance with External_links, but you are disrupting an evaluation of the one I suggested, by other editors, when you surround it with fallacious challenges and long, outdated discussions. Not to mention that you deleted someone's inclusion, stating a reason that was properly objected in the past. By the way, I did contribute other edits, including several that were classified by you as "to either add a link to your blog yourself or advocate others to add a link to your blog" although they were unrelated to the link (I mean other edits to S&P 500). Anyway, nothing justifies the unfounded challenges and aggravations my actions have received from you. I fully understand the need for your anti-spam effort, as I moderate a few sites that are subject to spam, but I really hope you can draw some conclusions to do it more appropriately in the future. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 04:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(←) Your link is spam. If you continue to add it or advocate adding it to any article, it will be removed and your link will be added to the spam blacklist. Best regards. user:j   (aka justen)   07:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * For who-knows-what reason, in this discussion, you're obviously considering yourself beyond arguments, as if repeating "your link is spam" a lot was valid replacement for the need to understand the other person and ground one's words. Not to mention that what you call "advocating adding it" conforms to WP policy, as stated in SCOIC and in EL too. Take care. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)