User talk:Seattleditor
|
June 2015
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Roger Libby, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.Please do not remove templates on pages until the issues have been addressed EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Roger Libby. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
ANI notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically at this link. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Conflict of interest in Wikipedia; use of multiple accounts
[edit]Hi Seattleeditor. I work a lot on COI issues in Wikipedia, and try to help editors understand how this place works. Wikipedia is a strange place and not at all easy for new people to understand. (People protest too quickly that it is not strange.... but it is, really!). This is a long post (which is part of the reason I am posting it here instead of at ANI), but I ask you to read the whole thing, carefully, and then respond. I am going to start out by giving you formal notice of our conflict of interest guideline and the Terms of Use - I'll have some further comments below.
Hello, Seattleditor. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, 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.
- 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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.
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.
Comments
[edit]Reviewing what has happened, the following things are very clear:
- You have edited here under three different user names -this one, User:seattle24x7, and User:Searchwriter - both this account's userpage and Searchwriter's userpage say that each one is an alternate account for seattle24x7. (note: I just tagged Searchwriter's Talk page for a username violation and that account is going to get blocked) Your userpage says: "I'm afraid I did not understand what was incorrect or invalid about my former username which was the name of the Seattle-based e-zine I publish individually and which is called Seattle24x7".
- the seattle24x7 article on Libby is here. The section at the bottom of that piece describes the author of that piece: "<redact> is founder, publisher and managing editor of Seattle24x7, the founder of SearchWrite Search Marketing, an SEO, PPC and Social Media Thought Leader, and an SPJ award winner for Seattle magazine." The article talks a lot about the importance of the internet for doctors to connect with patients.
- the seattle 24x7 article also points to LIbby's website, which prominently features a link to the Wikipedia article on Libby and features the Wikipedia logo (which seems a bit problematic, but that is a side issue)
- as was pointed out by SlimVirgin at ANI, the image of Libby used in the WP article on Libby was uploaded by Seattle24x7 and it is licensed as Seattle24x7's "own work"; it is also used on Libby's website.
- You noted at ANI that "The "We" in my writing simply connotes that Dr. Libby sought my help since he was aware I had helped contribute to the original content."
If one looks at all that, it seems very clear that the Wikipedia article on Libby is part of a social marketing campaign for him.
Seattleeditor, I wrote above that WP is a strange place. I know it looks to SEO/marketing people like a perfect place to do their work, but it is not. Our mission is to crowdsource a neutral and reliable source of information for the public. We deeply cherish and fiercely defend our nonprofit status and mission - we are all volunteers here. This place is actually insane - the idea that something as important and truly useful as WP could be driven by volunteers not motivated by profit but idealism (and all kinds of other things, but mostly idealism) is a crazy miracle. But it is real. And ironically - one of the biggest reasons for its success. People would not give so much of their time and effort, if this were a for-profit enterprise. So, you have to get that into your head, that WP is very much not to be used for promotional purposes.
Your editing and talk behavior in WP violate the spirit of everything we do here, along with the letter of several policies and guidelines: WP:NOTADVERTISING (policy); WP:NPOV (policy); WP:VERIFY (policy), WP:SOCK, (policy), WP:NPA (policy) and WP:TPG (guideline) with regard to your comments to EvergreenFir, WP:COI (guideline); and very likely, the Terms of Use that each of us agree to, every time we edit here (see WP:PAYDISCLOSE for a description of the relevant part). That is quite a list.
As I said, this is a strange place and you either have completely misunderstood what we are about, or (to be frank) you are pretending you don't understand it - or you just don't care (we get people who are, as we say, WP:NOTHERE) You are very dug in at ANI, so I imagine it will be hard for you to change course. In my view, you have two options at this point. You can acknowledge everything I wrote above and dramatically change course going forward, or not. If you do not, then you will very likely face what we call an "indefinite block" for being NOTHERE.
I'll add here that I am eventually going to make a posting at WP:COIN (our notice board for conflict of interest issues) with a link to the client page of Searchwrite and will ask the team working at COIN to review any WP articles about those clients to ensure they comply with our content policies. You would save us volunteers a lot of time, if you would disclose if you (and your team if you have one) have edited other Wikipedia articles, under other accounts, so that we can focus our review on them.
By the way, you should read:
- WP:COI (if you have not already)
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world
- Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms
- Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia (which is an actual WP article about infamous COI editing scandals - events that many of us remember with anger or unhappiness)
Please know that paid editors are not banned from Wikipedia. (We have tried to create a policy to ban them, but we have not been able to come to internal agreement to do that). Paid editors are not welcomed by a big chunk of the community, but they are allowed to be here. Paid editors who stay and become members of the community abide by the Terms of Use and disclose edits they make for pay, and do not violate our policies and guidelines. (And our COI guidelines strongly advise paid editors not to edit live articles directly, but rather to offer suggestions on the associated Talk page. We have gotten some great contributions that way).
Like I wrote above, I am looking for a response from you. (I note that others might jump in here - I hope they don't right away, but people are free to do that) At this point, with the posting at ANI and many eyes on you, I recommend that you respond pretty quickly. We don't like to indefinitely block anyone, but we do it when people are intransigent.
If you decide to change course, I am willing to help you get oriented to how this place works. But you first have to come clean, completely. Best regards, Jytdog (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am one of those following this and waiting a reaponse to Jytdog's well-written statement. — Brianhe (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Brianhe: User responded at User talk:Jytdog#Parallelism_and_Circumstantial_Bias.2C_In_Response. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- I cut the response made at my Talk page and am pasting it here. It is better to keep threads intact. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Parallelism and Circumstantial Bias, In Response
[edit]Hello Jytdog, and thank you for your thorough explanation and education about how things work at Wikipedia. Please pardon this entry if this placement on your Talk page is incorrect. I would like to respond to any perceived conflict of interest and the issues that you have raised in complete candor. I do not find it strange, as you mentioned, for Wikipedia to take all due diligence necessary to validate the veracity of every page. As a pro bono community publication for well over a decade, Seattle24x7 seeks the same kind of accuracy from its editors and many contributors. You are correct that Seattle24x7 reported on Dr.Roger Libby (which was likely the inspiration for one of our staffers to author a biographical page on Wikipedia) but the Wikipedia article about Dr. Libby was not "designed" nor intended as part of a "social media campaign" and was submitted for consideration completely "on the merits." Indeed, Dr. Libby's academic and professional credentials, including the plethora of publications, articles, books, and research papers he has authored, and his foundational role in many of his industry's professional associations are extremely worthy of recognition. I suppose my point here is "don't shoot the messenger," or in other words, whether any member of our Seattle24x7 staff is a journalist, or moonlights as a publicist, or a press agent, he/she did not do so in the case of the Libby biography and your assessment of the quality of the page, and the research that supports it, should be independent of the persons submitting it. As far as my limited knowledge about Wikipedia operations is concerned, that ought to be the case. There was not nor is there any fiendish or diabolical attempt to misrepresent or mislead in any way, shape or form. In terms of "coming clean," I have served as the award-winning columnist for Seattle magazine where I authored the Internet "Link" column and won an SPJ award for my cover story "Who's Building Our Dot.com Empire," and was the Internet news editor for MARKETING, a Northwest business publication, for 16 years. Does that disqualify me from contributing to an article about a local professional as distinguished as Dr. Libby? I certainly hope not. In complete disclosure, and as you have "investigated," I am also a partner (semi-retired) in an Internet marketing firm, but this too, has not or would not prevent me from being an "honest broker" and an honest representative of any editorial work submitted to an organ like Wikipedia. In the final analysis, what you have here is a parallelism between a journalist, a "white hat" content marketer (again, not to be confused with the article in question), and a person who contributed, with other persons, to an article for Wikipedia, subject to your editorial review, critique and revision. I don't know what more I can say. I heard that Dr. Libby was very proud of the Wikipedia page and presume that is why he has linked to it from his Website. If that is not allowed, please let me know and I will pass it along. The many links and references in the biography speak louder than any writer or editor could. For this reason I was dumbstruck by the notion that these facts themselves are not sufficient without secondary sources. It seemed to me these facts ARE self-evidentiary. In closing, I felt it was a shame to penalize Dr. Libby who is in the sensitive position of being a practicing psychologist through the process of pockmarking his biographical page with declarations of uncertainty or doubt. I also find it unfair to judge the work as unfit if one of the contributors to the page has ties to either a journalistic or marketing organization. Frankly, and with all due respect, it feels a little like a form of intellectual fascism to me. Feel free to judge and edit the article on the merits. But conducting a witch hunt or seeking to associate bias with a good willed Wikipedia contributor ought only to be justified if the information being submitted is inaccurate or misleading. This is the only article I have ever been involved in submitting to Wikipedia. To the best of my knowledge, it is 100% accurate. You are free to disagree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattleditor (talk • contribs) 18:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC) Seattleditor (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is very hard to read. Can you plainly answer 1) Do you have a financial relationship with Roger Libby including, but not limited to, providing marketing/SEO or other business services, or being financially connected to a business that does so (e.g. a partnership)? 2) Are you also operating the Wikipedia account User:Searchwriter? — Brianhe (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it's very hard to read - would a "professional journalist" have written something like that without using a couple of paragraph breaks to make it readable? No - but the publisher of a PR "e-zine" such as "Seattle24x7", "Seattle's Internet Business Directory and Calendar" might. A publication that is "pro bono" because it clearly allows the public relations people of corporations to place articles in it supposedly written by their CEOs. BMK (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Doubt a professional journalist would have written that stuff on my user talk page either... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well hm. For the regular Wikipedians here you are not doing yourself gracious credit by piling on here. For what's its worth my approach with editors with a likely COI is to try to actually talk with them, and sometimes it takes several rounds of back and forth. I grant you that SeattleEditor's reply was ... not what I wanted, at all. Combative and off point and digging their hole deeper. That is WP:ROPE for you. Back to ANI, I reckon. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
- Doubt a professional journalist would have written that stuff on my user talk page either... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it's very hard to read - would a "professional journalist" have written something like that without using a couple of paragraph breaks to make it readable? No - but the publisher of a PR "e-zine" such as "Seattle24x7", "Seattle's Internet Business Directory and Calendar" might. A publication that is "pro bono" because it clearly allows the public relations people of corporations to place articles in it supposedly written by their CEOs. BMK (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
In reply
[edit]I was not aware I was going to be cross-examined or ridiculed. My apologies for the lack of proper formatting. I do care about Wikipedia. It was not my intention to contribute anything other than a legitimate profile. There is a place for content marketing and PR in today's business world. However, I do not believe Wikipedia is that place! The references, publications and academic achievements are yours to adjudicate. I do not know how to attribute any additional secondary sources beyond what is shown. Part of it is the subject's age. You have my statement in its entirety! Thank you for your kindness and consideration. Seattleditor (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and any press releases that appear on Seattle24x7 are clearly labelled as such. Seattleditor (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- You pretty much missed the mark, SeattleEditor. My message to you was not about article you wrote, but about conflict of interest, which you barely addressed. You pretty much had one shot at getting that right, and you pretty much blew it. I am sorry that is what you chose. You are likely going to get blocked now. If you want to email me at any point to talk about what's happened here, my email is jytdog at gmail.com. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Please feel free to contribute to the deletion discussion
[edit]Hello, Seattleditor. I'm afraid there's consensus on WP:ANI for blocking you indefinitely for not being here to contribute to the encyclopedia. This applies to both this account and your obvious sockpuppet Searchwriter, which created the article Roger Libby. As a courtesy, I'm leaving you unblocked for now, in case you wish to contribute to the deletion discussion about the article. But when that discussion ends I will block you per the ANI discussion here, unless you can show me a good reason not to. Bishonen | talk 18:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC).
June 2015
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 20:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)- The deletion discussion is over and the article has been deleted. I've blocked you as promised, along with your other account User:Searchwriter. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC).