User talk:Wikiuser5991

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Wikiuser5991, 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:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi Wikiuser5991. Thanks for your note on my talk page, disclosing a conflict of interest with regard to Cleveland Clinic.

I spend time working on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. I am not an administrator.

Lots of people come to Wikipedia with some sort of conflict of interest and are not aware of how the editing community defines and manages conflict of interest. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step, which you have begun.

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Wikiuser5991 - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I have a conflict of interest with regard to Cleveland Clinic." would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about the clinic or yourself (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

We look for disclosure centrally (at each user's userpage) and locally, at the article talk page. I've added a tag to Talk:Cleveland Clinic, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done, and we can move on to the second step. I'll pause here, to avoid giving you too much at once. I'll look for you to add the disclosure at your userpage, and will continue after you do that. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I have added the conflict of interest statement to my user page and am ready to proceed to the next step to start making contributions to the page Wikiuser5991 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will start a subsection for the 2nd part, as this section is getting long and there is too much scrolling... Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2nd step[edit]

Thanks for making the disclosure on your userpage.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review per perhaps better, "prior review". This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask of editors who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page (I already did this for you at Talk:Cleveland Clinic); and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section on the talk page, put the proposed content there formatted just as you would if you were adding it directly to the article, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies.

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important. There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where a company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I agree to these guidelines and will continue to review before making or suggesting changes. I’ll participste in the Talk page for more substantial changes. In the meantime, I’ll make a few minor changes directly: please let me know if you don’t feel they are minor. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great. Thanks for your patience and graciousness in going through this "orientation" Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising[edit]

Above I warned you not to edit directly, as you will get into battles with other editors.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Cleveland Clinic, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have not directly edited to add new content or remove existing content from the page. I have only undone edits made by editors who claimed to have been acting on consensus. If you believe I have added promotional materials since our last conversation, please provide specific examples. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to edit directly, you are extremely likely to end up topic banned. You can hear that, or not. Everybody chooses their own road here. Jytdog (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please answer my original question? Additionally, I strongly believe the new Reputation section has harmed the impartiality of the article--something that another user has expressed on the talk page. It also seems you are enforcing rules for this hospital page that are not enforced for any other hospital page. How is that fair? I am asking for the original Reputation section to be restored until actual consensus among the users on the Talk page has been reached rather than unilateral action being taken. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your "original question" is; if it is about content it belongs on the article talk page. This thread is about your behavior. You should not be editing directly on anything controversial. You did. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My original question was if you could provide specific examples of me editing in promotional material. I think you are mischaracterizing my 'behavior.' The only changes I made that could be consider large scale were reversions to massive changes you made that did not have consensus. Otherwise the state of the Cleveland Clinic page is the same as before I contributed. If anything, it resembles your preferred version more closely with the lack of a rankings table. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are wasting my time. You know that you reverted another editor and added yet more content in that same diff, and finished the revert in a 2nd diff , and that was not anything like the kind of fact-based, uncontroversial edit we discussed above. I have nothing more to say to you and will take the next issue that arises to the administrative boards. You have exhausted my patience. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do admit to reverting edits made by you and others that substantially changed the content of the page without arriving at consensus on the Talk Page. I did so because I don't believe making significant changes unilaterally on such a contested page is justified. This is reflected in my contributions that you have linked. I maintain that I did not add any substantial content, and certainly did not add any promotional material. I admit I may have become overly defensive, but it was only because I had the impression that editors who were honest about their COI were severely hamstrung in their contributions based on your repeated warnings. Yet, you and others were able to make huge changes to the page without consensus and with impunity.

I am not sure why you feel the need to be so openly hostile and threatening with me. If I had ill intent, I would not have first reached out to you about the COI before even participating on the TALK page of Cleveland Clinic, let alone the actual page. There has been no attempt at deception or obfuscation on my part. I even backed off a few days ago when you made those unwarranted threats about banning. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I started out being nice. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing while logged out[edit]

Please disclose if you have edited while logged out since you created this account. Please be aware that if you have done so and do not disclose that, you will have violated our policy on evading scrutiny, called WP:SOCK and will be subject to a block, the length of which is at an administrator's discretion but is generally indefinite. If you disclose it, it is OK but you must do that every time so there is no ambiguity. Please reply. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No I personally have not edited any pages while logged out. However, I am on a shared network, so I cannot speak for anyone else who may have done so. I have been quite transparent with my potential conflicts of interest throughout this process and have always signed off when making contributions. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Is there anyone on your shared network with whom you have been discussing what is going on here? WP:MEAT is also a violation of the same policy. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have definitely not discussed my contributions and participation on Wikipedia with anyone online or in-person, let alone someone at the Clinic. As you probably know, the Clinic is a large institution with over 50,000 employees. It has also been in the news recently for a variety of reasons (medical news, rankings, etc.), which I suspect has generated increased interest of its related pages by both affiliated and unaffiliated individuals.Wikiuser5991 (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing to an AfD[edit]

At the top right corner of the AfD you should see a box with orientation materials.

In case you don't, here are the links:

Please read those and follow them in future contributions.

There is no "free speech" in Wikipedia -- as I noted above you are obligated to try to learn the policies and guidelines and follow them. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are very free to make a !vote there; please base it on the relevant policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Please stop restoring the WP:OFFTOPIC content at the AfD

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]