User talk:Gregorybarry

This is Gregorybarry's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: American Cochlear Implant Alliance (January 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft reads promotionally.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:American Cochlear Implant Alliance and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:American Cochlear Implant Alliance, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gregorybarry! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Gregorybarry. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. Your edits to date were on a run about the American Cochlear Implant Alliance (ACI). 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.

Hello, Gregorybarry. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. 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 for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID). 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. 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. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with ACI, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

am pasting reply here, that was on my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am an unpaid volunteer for The American Cochlear Implant Alliance.

I have reviewed the materials on Wikipedia about Cochlear Implants and believe that they are slanted towards organizations for the Deaf that support American Sign Language. The costs and effectiveness of this intervention are over and under-stated, respectively.

I retired in November 2016 and am interested in Wikipedia, having spent all of my career in IT-related fields (including work on an ARPA-funded effort in 1974, called The Cambridge Project.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorybarry (talk • contribs) 01:26, 13 February 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 - 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 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. I know this is insanely archaic and 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) 01:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for disclosing that you are a volunteer for ACI; this relationship does constitute a conflict of interest in my view - it appears that you came to represent them, to help them out. (COI is not just "paid", but is about relationships). ACI is an advocacy organization, sponsored by companies that sell CIs.

I'd be happy to discuss specific content, but let's get the "ground rule" stuff laid out first, if that is OK...

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Gregorybarry - a redlink, because you haven't written anything there yet). Just something simple like: "I am volunteer for The American Cochlear Implant Alliance and have a conflict of interest with regard to that organization and cochelar implants" 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 ACI or yourself (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

I added a tag to Draft talk:American Cochlear Implant Alliance, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

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. 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 editors to do 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 (this is exactly what you did which is great. AfC is both for new users, and editors with a COI; you happen to be both); 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; 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, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please 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. (There are good faith paid editors here, who have signed and follow the Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms, and there are "black hat" paid editors here who lie about what they do and really harm Wikipedia).

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.

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 the XXX article or 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.

By the way, that page (User:Jytdog/How) has a section about writing a new article, which you might find helpful.

Best regards Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

am pasting reply here, that was on my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The work of the American Cochlear Implant Alliance is funded from a variety of sources. The major funding source is the annual clinical research conference attended by cochlear implant clinicians, scientists, government officials, insurance representatives and nonprofit organizations. Clinicians and scientists who attend are from CI centers in universities, hospitals, schools, nonprofit and commercial centers. Other sources of funding are derived from membership dues, donations from individuals and companies, foundation grants, and NIH grants. The support from CI companies is one of many sources of funds for the organization. Most nonprofit organizations derive at some support from for-profit companies in the field they represent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorybarry (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change you suggested in my page and resubmitted the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorybarry (talk • contribs) 14:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your note. Please let me know if you will agree to follow the COI guideline. If you disagree that you have a conflict of interest, please let me know (the funding is really a side issue, with respect to whether you have a COI or not). Also, please reply here, to keep this conversation together. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. User:Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

18.111.21.151 edited an draft that Gregorybarry created (and as drafts don't show up in search engines, it's extremely unlikely that the IP is someone else). That IP also added WP:REFSPAM to the article Cochlear implant which Dientboy would later re-add almost verbatim a month later, before going back to Gregorybarry's draft for another edit. These edits occurred in a close enough time frame that they have to be from the same person.

As you have a COI, it's obvious that the new account is an attempt to avoid scrutiny. I've gone with one week but the next block for sockpuppetry will be indefinite. While you are blocked, any edit you attempt to make on the site (except for this talk page) can be reverted as if it was vandalism. Your best bet of editing on this site is sticking to this account and deferring to users without a COI on matters of policy. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dientboy is now claiming that you recruited him. Is this the case? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Not sure who Dientboy is. I let people know what I was working on. I only have one account at Wikipedia and have followed all of the requested policies.

Decline reason:

It's either the case that you are lying or that Dientboy is lying, given that he claimed you recruited him and you claim you don't know who that is. Given the evidence available to me, I conclude your block is appropriate and should not be lifted. Yamla (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know who Dientboy is. There were a number of people who I sent the article to. The name is not close to the names of any of the people I sent the article to.

Decline reason:

So, you admit you were recruiting people to edit your draft (see: WP:TAGTEAM). In that case, this block is appropriate, Vanjagenije (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2018 (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.

That's no better! What on earth were you doing, violating your WP:COI in that manner?!? --Yamla (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was the third rail of Wikipedia. I just thought that I would let people close to me know that I had done something on Wikipedia. I did not open any other account, in fact, I did not attempt to conceal my identity in any way, nor did I post anything from any other account. I think you are starting to get very snarky. I just don't understand why I have to defend myself, who has followed every suggestion from the editor reviewers to the best of my ability. You should explain why you have blocked me from editing. Your shorthand is not exactly easy to get. I'm sure that is why the community, while large, is becoming insular.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was the third rail of Wikipedia. I just thought that I would let people close to me know that I had done something on Wikipedia. I did not open any other account, in fact, I did not attempt to conceal my identity in any way, nor did I post anything from any other account. I think you are starting to get very snarky. I just don't understand why I have to defend myself, who has followed every suggestion from the editor reviewers to the best of my ability. You should explain why you have blocked me from editing. Your shorthand is not exactly easy to get. I'm sure that is why the community, while large, is becoming insular. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was the third rail of Wikipedia. I just thought that I would let people close to me know that I had done something on Wikipedia. I did not open any other account, in fact, I did not attempt to conceal my identity in any way, nor did I post anything from any other account. I think you are starting to get very snarky. I just don't understand why I have to defend myself, who has followed every suggestion from the editor reviewers to the best of my ability. You should explain why you have blocked me from editing. Your shorthand is not exactly easy to get. I'm sure that is why the community, while large, is becoming insular. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was the third rail of Wikipedia. I just thought that I would let people close to me know that I had done something on Wikipedia. I did not open any other account, in fact, I did not attempt to conceal my identity in any way, nor did I post anything from any other account. I think you are starting to get very snarky. I just don't understand why I have to defend myself, who has followed every suggestion from the editor reviewers to the best of my ability. You should explain why you have blocked me from editing. Your shorthand is not exactly easy to get. I'm sure that is why the community, while large, is becoming insular. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Re shorthand: if that was the first instance of COI on this page, I'd see your point. There's conversations above where users use the phrase "COI" and you clearly understood that it meant "conflict of interest." As has been explained, there's no functional difference between sockpuppetry and recruiting. It should be obvious that we have no means of telling the difference between you actively recruiting and people deciding to help you behind your back for no reason whatsoever. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Candidly, this is silly

I sent people the link to the submission. I have used my real name and have followed every suggestion from editors. This whole thing is almost surreal. I can't respond to people's comments. It feels like catch-22. Gregorybarry (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand why you were blocked? (I am not asking if you agree with the reasoning, but if you understand it) Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. I did not solicit any editing to the page from others I sent the link to. I assumed that they would send me any changes that they thought I had overlooked. I didn't think that any of the people I sent the email to would have tried to edit any page. I wish I was so sophisticated in the Wiki world that I could do that. I am not. I did what I thought was a decent and truthful attempt to post an article on a topic that I am interested in. I find this whole episode to be insulting. I have made every attempt to work with you. I am not responsible for things that people I have sent a link to have done. Maybe this is just another sign of how things get out of whack.