User talk:Difulton

Welcome!

Hello, Difulton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful editing when you have a connection to the subject

Hello, Difulton. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Autism Research Institute, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Difulton, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Difulton! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You are engaged in tendentious editing advancing a fringe point of view. This is unacceptable per Wikipedia policies. As an editor with no other interests on Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further warning if this continues. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

In addition to the above, we now find, thanks to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Difulton, that you have been using multiple accounts. I have blocked this account until you give a full accounting of yourself and tell us how you intend to change in future. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Difulton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't fully understand the rules of Wikipedia, but I better understand now. The edits I performed were factual updates regarding a conference that is no longer taking place, moving Quackwatch to the "treatment" section. The citation for vaccines at the top of the page links to an archive page from an old ARI site that describes vaccine information - nowhere on the page does it assert that vaccines cause autism. The other link goes to a blog article by a physician - is this really a reliable source? Now that I fully understand the rules of editing, I respectfully request reinstatement. Might some neutral Wikipedia editors review the sentences at the top of the article, check the links which are third-party, but don't cite the organization, and take care that no agendas by other groups are being asserted here? Statements at the top of the article are about past activities and should be in the history section. I will not allow any "Meat Puppetry" in the future. I was not aware of it as a rule, but I am now.

Decline reason:

I have read your unblock request, with its measured, reasonable account of how you were acting in good faith to make factual corrections, and how you unfortunately came foul of editing standards that you had no knowledge of. Alas, your account is very different from what I see on examining your editing history. For example, you refer to "moving Quackwatch to the treatment section", but what I see is you removing the content about Quackwatch altogether, and looking at every one of your edits to that article, I do not see you posting it to another section. I also see edit summaries which misrepresent what you are doing to such an extent that there is clearly either incompetence or dishonesty involved. Everything about your editing indicates that your purpose is that expressed in the edit summary for the edit I have already linked to: "This page needs to accurately reflect ARI's current, stated mission as described in ... its website." No it doesn't: it needs to accurately reflect the general view of the organisation as seen by independent, third party sources. All told, there are numerous reasons to believe that unblocking you would not be to the advantage of the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I am not sure if you have read this yet but you should probably read WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Newspaper (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Difulton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am appealing this block again, as I now understand better the reason for the block and why my initial unblock request was denied. What happened earlier this year was that I was having trouble making the edits I felt were needed and having them stick, and a friend who wished to help and shared my lack of understanding of the process offered to make the edits for me. When her initial attempts also didn't stick, she created a second ID, not realizing the infraction. The individual used my laptop at my house, which is why the IP is the same. At the time, I wasn't at all versed in best practices for individuals with a conflict of interest and likewise didn't fully understand the editing process, so I didn't know that asking others to make the edits for me was against the rules and didn't understand why my own edits were being undone. I now see that it's discouraged for me to edit pages where I have a professional or personal interest, and I understand that my edit summaries weren't the accurate representations of my edits as I had thought they were. The issue with the edit summaries was a mixture of my not understanding what content is accepted on Wikipedia and not fully understanding the editing process, so I wasn't making the edits that I intended to. I now understand that the block was upheld after my last appeal because my editing history didn't match up with how I was describing it in the unblock request. This made me seem dishonest, but in truth it was my own misunderstanding of the edits I had tried to make. Also a factor was my lack of understanding of the Conflict of Interest rules on the Wikipedia site and my failure to educate myself about those rules after repeated prompts from other experienced editors. Over the past several months I have been seeking help from experienced Wikipedia editors and have been receiving guidance on best practices for individuals with a COI and general Wikipedia guidelines and will adhere to all rules going forward. I understand that my previous editing was problematic due to my affiliation with the organization, and the unclear or misleading edit summaries, and that other individuals editing on my behalf (“meat puppetry”) is unacceptable. I will not edit any articles for which I have a direct conflict of interest. Difulton (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt JamesBWatson spoke of. However, you may want to check out WP:ROPE - if the past problems recur, you will find yourself quickly blocked again. Huon (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question If unblocked, can you give an example of an edit you'd like to make? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I'm asking for the unblock is that I would like to discuss with editors via the talk pages about potentially changing the current "redirect" for Autism Research Institute to go to its founder's page, rather than the DAN! page. I don't intend to make any edits to ARI-related articles once I'm unblocked, and I don't have any plans right now to edit other articles, but I can imagine that I might occasionally be able to correct a typo in articles or add a reference if I find a useful link. Again, this would only be for articles where I have absolutely no conflict of interest. Difulton (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. "Unclear or misleading edit summaries"? I see nothing unclear about either your editing summaries or any other aspect of your editing. It seems perfectly clear what you were trying to do, and as was the case in your previous unblock request, your account of your intentions seems to me totally implausible. however, having declined one unblock request, I will leave this one to another administrator, and maybe you will be lucky enough to get one who is willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're not really going to be convinced by anything I say, but I do want to let you know: last time, I didn't know what I was doing and my edits weren't appropriate. I've learned more about Wikipedia since, and this time I would not make any edits to articles about ARI. However, I'd very much like the opportunity to be able to participate in discussions about the DAN! page. Difulton (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]