User talk:Burntbacon

Reasonable suspicions of COI

Because of the suspicion that you have a WP:COI regarding the Nootrobox article which you refuse to clearly answer I did a little digging leading me to increasing concerns that such is the case. IO Device has suggested that you are in fact Geoffrey Woo, cofounder of Nootribox and who also happens to have a background as a "Stanford alumni with interests in entrepreneurship, startups, and investments" which matches the LinkedIn profile of Geoffrey Woo. One of your first contributions to Wikipedia was also the creation of the article 21714_Geoffreywoo which apart from a few edits to a small group of articles (less than 10, including some to Business Association of Stanford Entrepreneurial Students which Geoffrey is a board member of) are your only contributions. If the case is that you are Geoffrey, please do tell us. If the case is that you aren't Geoffrey, please let us know clearly instead of giving non-answers and accusing people of threatening you when all they seem to be doing is try to enforce the rules and prevent COI.

-- Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, you have been informed about the importance of declaring COI before by User:Tokyogirl79 at Talk:Nootrobox#Blatantly_Promotional. -- Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--- Apologies for the late responses Erik.Bjareholt. I was traveling this past week. How do I properly declare COI and what's the process? Burntbacon (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nootrobox

I request two things from you:

Please indicate on your user page your commercial ties, whether direct or indirect, to any nootropic vendor, particularly Nootrobox.
Look around and see just how common it is for such vendors to have their own Wikipedia articles. (It is not.) As a case in point, there exist major legit international pharmacies with huge markets that have existed for years that don't even have a Wikipedia article, and for good reason. After you do this evaluation, you'll inevitably come to the conclusion that the article Nootrobox cannot continue to exist. Your best is to immediately erase the entire content of the article yourself before I or someone else nominates it for deletion, succeeds, and then goes after you. The logic indicated on the article's Talk page will not save it.

Please, do go ahead and blank this page, as I know you will in your futile attempt to make it look clean. But remember that I am coming after you. You have 24 hours.

--IO Device (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IO Device. I don't see the reason for your threatening tone as it's unnecessary to "come after me". The Nootrobox article itself is well-sourced with credible, third-party, well-regarded journalists from well-known publications that demonstrate the notability of the subject. Let's kick it up to the broader community of moderators/administrators to decide whether an article should or should not exist.

-- Burntbacon (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're trying to tell me that you've no financial ties to Nootrobox, then I simply don't believe you. Be aware that Nootrobox's advertising activities on other websites outside of Wikipedia does not escape me either. You are here on Wikipedia for one simple reason - to promote Nootrobox, and not even an idiot will believe that you have no financial ties to them. --IO Device (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're representing the company, why don't you disclose your name on your user page (Geoffrey Woo)? You openly mention it everywhere else. --IO Device (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your vandalism and threats are not appropriate for the wikipedia community.

-- Burntbacon (talk) 09:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anyone who is threatening your presence on Wikipedia, it is you yourself. By engaging in basic ethics violations such as not openly declaring your ties, and moreover by reverting warranted cleanup, you're jeopardizing your future as an editor on Wikipedia, not that you would have any interest in it beyond your promotional corporate article. --IO Device (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To comment on recent events, this is what it looks like when someone is "coming after you" on Wikipedia. And I have a long way to go. I still recommend you save us the trouble and blank the article. And did you really think that repeatedly asserting that someone is "threatening you" will actually save your article? --IO Device (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be deleting the article. The only edits I will be doing are ones that will improve the article. Repeatedly asserting your 'threatening' me is to build a track record of your hostile behavior to have removed you from Wikipedia.

-- Burntbacon (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry; I'll proceed with the AfD and have it deleted for you. Your childish games and love of the word "threatening" won't save your spammy article. --IO Device (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nootrobox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fusion. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nootrobox

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Nootrobox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Orphaned non-free image File:Nootrobox Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nootrobox Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nootrobox Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nootrobox Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Burntbacon. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. I came here after reviewing the HVMN article, your contributions to WP, and [{Special:Contributions/38.99.38.134|the edits by the IP 38.99.38.134]] which look pretty much the same as your edits. Your edits are generally promotional, and I see that a few people have started trying to work with you but nobody worked things all the way through.

I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and our paid editing policy, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Burntbacon. 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).

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. 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 HVMN or its founders or management, 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) 02:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I declare a COI of having a direct connection to HVMN. How to peer review ?

As you have a close connection you should only make suggestions on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Burntbacon. 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. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 24 January 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).

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

Request reason:

I understand I was sockpuppeting and that is not allowed. The sockpuppeting due to a combination of 1.) not realizing it was problematic for wikipedia and 2.) not a heavy user and not remembering the account/password of my main account here. Requesting an opportunity to re-instate my account and contribute to Wikipedia properly.

Decline reason:

It's not just sockpuppetry, it's that you knowingly edited with that account and via that IP address without declaring your conflict of interest. Your issues around WP:COI have been going on for just short of three years. Honestly, this looks like a deliberate violation of both WP:COI and WP:SOCK. I strongly believe it would be inappropriate to unblock you unless you are willing to abide by the following. No further use of alternate accounts, even if those would normally be permitted by WP:SOCK. No editing while signed out. No editing any article for which you have a conflict of interest, broadly construed. This would include, but not be limited to, HVMN. If you are willing to abide by these terms, please post another unblock request and indicate what else you'd edit instead, and I'll take it up with the blocking admin. If you are not willing to abide by these terms, you are welcome to request an unblock anyway; another admin will review your request in that case. Yamla (talk) 13:48, 18 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.

Note that your conflict of interest certainly extends to at least Brianna Stubbs, Ketosis, and Hematocrit. --Yamla (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you are unwilling to be bound by the terms I suggested, I'm not going to unblock you (or, more accurately, I'm not going to discuss unblocking you with the blocking admin). However, I've already reviewed one of your unblock requests so I'm leaving the one above open for another admin to make an independent judgment. --Yamla (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla I believe I agreed with your suggested terms. Not sure where to disconnect is. To be clear, I agree to not edit pages that I have WP:COI. I would like to engage in the Talk pages so I can suggest edits or raise new information that non-conflicted editors can judge and incorporate themselves. That to me seems reasonable way to highlight developments to areas where I have specific knowledge and interest, but have a clear WP:COI. Could you please clarify ?

Just to weigh here. Burntbacon I apologize for not responding right away, when you replied to me above. Above you wrote I will ensure that HVMN employees create accounts. From this it sounds like you have line authority at HVMN which is more substantial than what you wrote in reply to me way above, namely that you have a direct connection to HVMN.

Also I am not sure you aware of this but your (and my, and everyone's) entire contribution history is very easy to see. Yours is here. That is.... horrible. You very aggressively edited in the interest of HVMN and personally attacked editors who were trying to pursue Wikipedia's interests.

As Doc James noted above (and what I would have explained had I answered timely), we look for editors with conflicts of interest to declare them (just like people do when they publish in the scientific literature) and we further ask them to not to edit directly where they have a conflict, but to put things through prior review (this is not like normal editing of Wikipedia, but it is very similar to scientific publishing, where things are peer reviewed before they are published). Further, everyone here, even people with conflicts of interest, are obligated to learn and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and to try to edit neutrally, and to pursue Wikipedia's mission. This is how Wikipedia works - we all pull together in the same direction.

For you, that would mean that when you post proposals for others to review, your posts need to be aimed according to Wikipedia's mission, not at promoting your company (or anything else). The mission and policies and guidelines are explained as briefly as I can do, here: User:Jytdog/How.

I am not sure that you can do this, or that you have any interest in doing that, as you have three years of doing the opposite... Your first maybe ten edits were about other stuff, but all the rest seem to be promotional and related to you and fiercely so since 2015. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog

Jytdog I've corresponded via email with Doc James directly and now understand that the proper channel for WP:COI is to suggest edits and review in the Talk page as opposed to direct edits and engagement on the live page itself. I previously did not understand the subtleties there. Happy to declare WP:COI where appropriate and move forward in good faith.

In response to Burntbacon's questioning, I can see that I didn't communicate clearly. By this, I don't mean "actually you failed to read what I wrote", I mean honestly that I didn't communicate clearly. My intention is that you should be subject to a topic ban for all areas for which you have a conflict of interest. That means staying away from those subject areas entirely. No editing the article, no suggesting edits on the article's talk page, no using other employees at the company to edit (which is covered by WP:SOCK). You are absolutely not obligated to accept those terms. Your unblock request remains open and you might very well be able to convince another admin to unblock you under less imposing conditions. --Yamla (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla OK, thanks for clarifying. How do I go about making the case to another admin that suggesting edits on articles (where I have and declare WP:COI) talk page is reasonable? cc: Doc James

You have an open unblock request, so another admin will be along shortly to review it. You are very welcome to strengthen your case by editing it, if you wish. If you do so, I suggest moving your unblock request to the bottom of the page. That's where we expect to find them. :) --Yamla (talk) 22:00, 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).

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

Request reason:

Per suggestion from Yamla, I'm moving my unblock request to the bottom. To refresh my request, I agree to not edit or contribute while signed out and agree to not use any alternate accounts. I'm mainly interested in improving pages relating to human performance, metabolism, computer science, and entrepreneurship topics, and I have some expertise in these areas. For pages that I have conflict of interest, I agree to only contribute in the Talk pages as suggested by Doc James. I agree not to edit conflict of interest pages directly. Looking forward to resolving and going through proper WP:COI disclosure and contributing.

Decline reason:

You've been CheckUser blocked for socking on a COI case. You should wait a minimum of 6 months from the time you were blocked before asking to be unblocked, and not edit at all, either with IPs or other accounts. After that, consider placing an unblock appeal here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:47, 6 March 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.