→March 2017: remove template |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
==Unblocked== |
==Unblocked== |
||
You have been unblocked after confirming your identity. Thank you for doing that. Could you please address the conflict of interest issue, as described by [[User:Jytdog]] above? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 22:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC). |
You have been unblocked after confirming your identity. Thank you for doing that. Could you please address the conflict of interest issue, as described by [[User:Jytdog]] above? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 22:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC). |
||
== COI and advocacy matters, elaborated == |
|||
Hi Sbelknap. So, I work on COI and advocacy issues along with my regular editing work. |
|||
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. |
|||
Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. You have now made it clear that you are Steven Belknap; thanks for doing that. |
|||
The peer review step 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. And no author at the top of the page, so that readers know who wrote an article, and can read the article in light of who the authors are. And likewise, no COI disclosures on a given article, as there are in scientific publications. |
|||
So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, ''can'' go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also ''tend'' to be driven to try to make WP articles they edit, fit with and express their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors. So what we ask editors with a COI to do, is: |
|||
:a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have (for instance, an article about yourself), please create the article as a draft through the [[WP:AFC]] process, disclose your COI on the Talk page, 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 propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement ''before'' it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the [[WP:COI|conflict of interest guideline]]. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at [[Talk:Finasteride]] and [[Talk:Dutasteride]] - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. You can also of course just do this manually by asking simply, or using the {{tlx|request edit}} template. |
|||
As noted above, [[WP:SELFCITE]] is part of our COI guideline; rather than adding citations of your own works to articles, as you have been doing, we ask that you propose that the work be used on the associated article talk page, per a) above. |
|||
Finally, I noted the [[Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine)]] guideline above, which discusses the issue of [[WP:ADVOCACY|advocacy]] in medical topics. The WP community has a fundamental policy against using WP as a "soapbox" to advocate any position on anything (please see [[WP:SOAPBOX]]); the COI-medicine guideline discusses that explicitly with regard to people like you, who are trying to change the perspective of the medical community on a given issue. Wikipedia cannot be a vehicle for that work. Please don't use it that way. |
|||
Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to have your own works cited in an article, and will you please keep in mind what I wrote above about advocacy? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:06, 16 March 2017
Welcome!
|
References
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/35px-Information.svg.png)
Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please stop removing the Cochrane review without consensus. The other review can also be added. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia. We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
- Use high-quality sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS). High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed.
- Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
- We use very few capital letters and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
- Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities.
- Do not use URLs from your university library's internal net: the rest of the world cannot see them.
- Include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article.
- Format references consistently within an article and be sure to cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books; see WP:MEDHOW.
- Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
- The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS.
- Think carefully before working on featured articles (these have a gold star at top right). It is often hard to improve featured articles.
- Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.
Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us. Please share these guidelines with other new editors.
– the WikiProject Medicine team Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Please also see
Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) - COI in WP works somewhat differently than it does in academia. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit war warning
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at Dutasteride 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) 00:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Copy and pasting
We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Considerable evidence exists from preclinical and clinical studies, which point to significant and serious adverse effects of 5α-RIs, finasteride and dutasteride, on sexual health, vascular health, psychological health and the overall quality of life.[1] was word for word from [2]
- You must paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Username/Conflict of interest issue
Hi Sbelknap. You are editing under the username "Sbelknap". You have been editing here over a long period of time - as far back as 2008, when you made this edit, citing a paper by Steven Belknap.
This month you have been editing a great deal, and fiercely, about sexual side effects of 5α-reductase inhibitors, and you have added references to papers by Belknap, a well-known advocate for the risk of these side effects being recognized (e.g. here), and referred to Belknap in the third person on article talk pages (e.g. here and here.
This raises a host of issues. By your actions you would appear to be him, yet you talking about him in the third person.
If you are not Belknap, there is an issue with regard to your Username, with respect to WP:IMPERSONATE which is policy.
If you are Belknap, your editing raises a host of issues, namely:
- WP:SELFCITE
- Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) with regard to advocating for a medical theory that you embrace in the real world, here in WP
- possible financial WP:COI, if you are serving as an expert witness in any of the 5α-reductase inhibitor litigation that is going on.
Under all three of those, you should not be editing directly, as you are.
Would you please clarify the situation? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- And I second Jytdog.Winged Blades Godric 13:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- User:Sbelknap you have edited since I posted above but have not replied here. I will seek a block on your account until the IMPERSONATE concerns can be addressed. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog and Bishonen, re: Belknap referring to himself in the third person, he didn't. He referred to the paper as Belknap et al. (e.g. [3]). It's standard to do that when you're one of the authors. Rather than blocking, someone could email him at a work email address and ask whether the account is his. SarahSV (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- It remains ambiguous as to whether this user is Belknap. While it may seem rather obvious to some that they are the same, in view of the community's very strong concern to protect privacy we need to be careful and ditto the RW reputation of Belknap, which is the point of IMPERSONATE policy. Resolving this will also clarify if the disruption is just advocacy or COI-driven advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- With regard to "someone emailing him" there are issues with bringing that kind of off-wiki evidence into play, which is why there is a process to confirm identity as described in the block notice below. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't block him for referring to himself in the third person, Sarah — that's got nothing to do with it. It's a standard username block intended to protect the real person's privacy. They'll be unblocked if they either provide proof of identity, or change their username. Bishonen | talk 21:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC).
- It remains ambiguous as to whether this user is Belknap. While it may seem rather obvious to some that they are the same, in view of the community's very strong concern to protect privacy we need to be careful and ditto the RW reputation of Belknap, which is the point of IMPERSONATE policy. Resolving this will also clarify if the disruption is just advocacy or COI-driven advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Jytdog and Bishonen, re: Belknap referring to himself in the third person, he didn't. He referred to the paper as Belknap et al. (e.g. [3]). It's standard to do that when you're one of the authors. Rather than blocking, someone could email him at a work email address and ask whether the account is his. SarahSV (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- Bishonen and Jytdog, thanks. I looked for an email address and didn't find an obvious one on his work site (admittedly after a ten-second search). You're probably right that it's best to wait for him to organize it anyway. SarahSV (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/28/Information.svg/45px-Information.svg.png)
If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username. If you choose to do so, we ask the following:
- Please be willing and able to prove your identity to Wikipedia.
- Please send an e-mail to info-en
wikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles e-mail is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate.
If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).
A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.
You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:
- Adding
{{unblock-un|your new username here}}
on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page. - At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
- Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.
- Adding
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Unblocked
You have been unblocked after confirming your identity. Thank you for doing that. Could you please address the conflict of interest issue, as described by User:Jytdog above? Bishonen | talk 22:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC).
COI and advocacy matters, elaborated
Hi Sbelknap. So, I work on COI and advocacy issues along with my regular editing work.
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.
Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. You have now made it clear that you are Steven Belknap; thanks for doing that.
The peer review step 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. And no author at the top of the page, so that readers know who wrote an article, and can read the article in light of who the authors are. And likewise, no COI disclosures on a given article, as there are in scientific publications.
So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also tend to be driven to try to make WP articles they edit, fit with and express their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors. So what we ask editors with a COI to do, is:
- a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have (for instance, an article about yourself), please create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page, 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 propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. You can make the edit request easily - and provide notice to the community of your request - by using the "edit request" function as described in the conflict of interest guideline. I made that easy for you by adding a section to the beige box at the top of the Talk page at Talk:Finasteride and Talk:Dutasteride - there is a link at "click here" in that section -- if you click that, the Wikipedia software will automatically format a section in which you can make your request. You can also of course just do this manually by asking simply, or using the
{{request edit}}
template.
As noted above, WP:SELFCITE is part of our COI guideline; rather than adding citations of your own works to articles, as you have been doing, we ask that you propose that the work be used on the associated article talk page, per a) above.
Finally, I noted the Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) guideline above, which discusses the issue of advocacy in medical topics. The WP community has a fundamental policy against using WP as a "soapbox" to advocate any position on anything (please see WP:SOAPBOX); the COI-medicine guideline discusses that explicitly with regard to people like you, who are trying to change the perspective of the medical community on a given issue. Wikipedia cannot be a vehicle for that work. Please don't use it that way.
Will you please agree to follow the peer review processes going forward, when you want to have your own works cited in an article, and will you please keep in mind what I wrote above about advocacy? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)