User talk:Jackie JP

Outdated image for Juice Plus bottles

Jackie, if you have an image which can be made available for free use anywhere and by anyone, you can upload it onto Wikimedia commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) and then link to it from the article, in place of the outdated image. I don't anticipate a problem with this - there may be some bluster from RhodeIslandRed but the article really should be up-to-date; even he will see reason on this issue eventually.

You may have seen the current 'discussion' about a new product replacing two older products (referred to as "Soft chewables"?). If you can supply details, plus a citable source (as per Wikipedia rules) this would perhaps go some way to defusing a growing argument on the Juice Plus talk page. The source can be a company website available to the public. --TraceyR (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi TraceyR, I'm not sure how to do this so I hope you see this note. I have definitely seen all the discussion happening. I'm out of the office until Monday but I do plan to upload the new image - thank you for the link, I wasn't sure how to go about that. Concerning the new Chewables. What would be considered a third party citable source? The new Chewable has replaced both the old Chewable and Gummi but all I have are internal documents and our own websites. Give me a little guidance I'll start working on that after I get the picture. Thank you!Jackie JP (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

re Chewables: The fact that the chewables are mentioned on the Juice Plus website shows that they are available; they are already mentioned in the article. Editors will perhaps insist on a reliable source (gives the criteria for reliability) stating that the other products really have been discontinued - perhaps a press release which has appeared in print perhaps or a statement on the web. I don't know the rules on this, but the link on reliable sources should give them. --TraceyR (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have already commented that I have no objection in theory to adding a new image but there is no reason to remove the old image[1] -- this is an active discussion on the talk page. I have to question the wisdom of taking this conversation offline from the article's talk page and offering encouragement to someone affiliated with the manufacturer to make edits on an article on which they have a clearcut COI, and to bypass objections in an active discussion about proposed edits. Not cool. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

re the outdated image: Can you say when the bottles in the outdated image were introduced and when they were replaced (presumably 2007)? This information is needed for a caption for the image which is (at present) at the head of the infobox. Many thanks. --TraceyR (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by MuZemike 19:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC))
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am appealing the block and accusation of being a sock puppet for Julia Havey based on unverifiable claims made by Rhode Island Red. I had included my corporate email address, Jackie@juiceplus.com, to my UserPage on Thursday, November 12, 2009. I realize that is almost a month after joining Wikipedia, however this is my first experience with Wikipedia and I’m learning how to use it slowly. You will notice on my contributions page that I have made three contributions to the Juice Plus+® Discussion Page and only one contribution to the Juice Plus+® article. My email address has since been removed and now only the Sock Puppet box remains. I have been transparent and open about who I am and my employment in the marketing department of Juice Plus+®. I never made a statement concerning the POV of the article, typed in all caps, or ended a sentence with multiple exclamation marks as RIR’s statement claims. I came to the Juice Plus+® Discussion Page on October 13, 2009 and offered to be a resource for the article. I was asked to provide an updated image, so I did. I stated that I would provide the image in addition to the current image and it would be left up to the other editors on the page to decide whether or not the image remained. When RIR moved the image to another location in the article, I did not say a word since I’m aware that it would be a COI to do so. I have not made any controversial edits to the article as RIR claims. Nor have I made any personal attacks towards any of the editors on the Juice Plus+® Discussion Page. My IP address is 208.88.85.100. You will find that this IP address is registered to NSA. NSA is headquartered in Collierville, TN – a suburb of Memphis, TN. We are not located in Nashville, TN as RIR claimed in his statement. I ask that this block be removed due to false claims and accusations made by RIR. Thank you.

Decline reason:

After considerable discussion, I have to decline this unblock request. While I am not convinced that you were a "sockpuppet" of another editor, Jackie JP, there is simply too much indication that Juice Plus marketers are attempting to work together to spin our article on Juice Plus they way they want. While I commend you for trying to be up-front and responsible about editing with your conflict of interest, the situation has degraded to the point where I believe there is nothing responsible someone with a COI can do besides to abstain from editing the article completely, and therefore there is nothing to be gained from unblocking you. Apologies, rspεεr (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

If you look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JuliaHavey, you will see the background to this block and the reasons given by User:Rhode Island Red in his request that you be blocked. --TraceyR (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(copied from User Talk:Rhode_Island_Red) A brand new account (6 days old) has all that detail and backstory, knows Wikipedia well enough to use acronyms and understand checkuser data and even knows the editing signature of the person she's claiming not to be? Either someone is coaching her or her unblock story is bunk and the behavioral evidence was correct. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with an unblock under the circumstances. Perhaps if the Jackie JP account would like to verify her identity and that she has the authority to release NSA copyrighted pictures under other licenses the OTRS team at info-enwikimedia.org? At the very least, she does need to confirm permission for the images. Shell ^babelfish 10:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(copied from User Talk:Rhode_Island_Red) I strongly suspect that this is a sock account based on the details provided in the original SPI and the points Shel raised above. A rep from this same company appeared back in 2007 and her M.O. was very different from that of this user. The company employee in that case gave a full name (Cindy Hofmeister-Thomas) and title (Director of Interactive Marketing, NSA) and e-mail with the company's (NSA's) domain (c.thomas@nsai.com)[2]. Coincidentally or not, on the same day the block of Jackie JP went into effect, a new anon IP/SPA began to vandalize the page,[3] and when the page was then semi-protected to block unregistered users, TraceyR directly made edits on behalf of Jackie JP, which bypassed ongoing talk page discussions.[4][5] There is clearly mischief afoot and some very disturbing patterns of user conduct and COI violations here.

Jackie JP initially stated that her purpose was to serve as a resource for the Juice Plus article, but all she did was provide a low resolution image, with suspect copyright details, to be included in the article. It would be suprising if a true company rep would go through all this trouble just to provide a single low-quality image with suspect copyright details. Furthermore, there is no compelling evidence to believe that this user:(a) is actually employed by the company, (b) is officially authorized to represent Juice Plus here. I am also not comfortable with the way TraceyR (who has been recently engaging in WPA violations[6]) appears to to be colluding with this alleged company employee.[7][8] It looks VERY fishy to me when one editor with an apparent COI acts as an advocate and defender for another editor with a definite COI and actively campaigns to unblock a slew of sock puppets (some of which were also vandals and NPA violators).[9][10][11][12]

Jackie JP stated that she wants to "serve as a resource",[13] but never replied to any of my comments or requests for information, and actually ignored my guidance regarding the placement of the new image she wanted to post[14]; it seems that she wishes only to be a resource for one editor in particular -- the same editor who is now unilaterally campaigning to unblock Jackie JP and several other blocked SPAs/SPs.

The controversy regarding Jackie JP has come amidst repeated flagrant policy violations (including vandalism and NPA violations) on Juice Plus by various SPA/SPIs, who have now been blocked. Unblocking Jackie JP is unlikely to positvely impact the article; quite the opposite IMO. 16:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely this can be settled by a checkuser/identification of the user's IP address. The rest is just supposition and speculation. --TraceyR (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your arguing so strenuously on behalf of unblocking this COI editor, as well as to unblock other sock accounts identified in the SPI, makes it that much more convincing that the blocks were justified. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you! My suggestion was aimed at settling the matter. In no way would a neutral observer construe my suggestion as a "strenuous argument" for an unblock. If she's genuine, fine; if she's not, also fine. Please read what I wrote again, calm down and moderate your tone. Your reaction is so predictable (and boring)! --TraceyR (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I get it (and my tone is fine). The matter is settled -- but one editor is now arguing for sock puppets to be unblocked. SPI considers more than just the IP address. SPI looks for patterns and incriminating evidence and if there's enough of a hint of suspicion to warrant a block, then a block is imposed. It's not my policy, it's WP policy. WP is not a a democracy and no one has the right to edit here or complain that their rights are being violated by being blocked; it's a privilege. In this case, there is apparent reason for suspicion and no apparent reason why the Juice Plus project would be better served by unblocking this COI/SPA user or any of the other sock puppets that were blocked. Don't try to convince me otherwise though; it's ultimately not my decision to make. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Interest declared in first post; COI violation never occurred

The supposed COI violation assumed above never took place. Here are some verbatim citations from WP:COI (underlines added for emphasis), which show that no violation took place:

Photographs and media files

Wikimedia Commons encourages parties with potential conflicts of interest to upload digital media files, such as photographs, illustrations, audio files, and video clips, so long as the media is of good quality, is in a format we use, and the copyright holder is willing do so under one of the free licenses we accept.

While Commons prefers full resolution media, reduced resolution images are acceptable when the copyright owner is unwilling to freely license a full quality image. See Commons:Welcome for detailed requirements.

Once media files are uploaded to Commons, they can then be incorporated into Wikipedia articles where appropriate. The best approach is to mention the availability of the image or media files on the article's talk page. But it is usually acceptable to edit the article directly to add one or two images that illustrate the existing article content....

Declaring an interest

Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. They do this in various ways. Many Wikipedians show their allegiances and affiliations on their user pages. You may choose to reveal something about yourself in a talk page discussion.

Reasons to declare an interest

• You will benefit from the assumption of good faith.
• Most editors will appreciate your honesty and try to help you.

No further comment required. As for sock puppetry accusations, this user only edited the article once [15], to replace an existing image with a newer one. It was totally unnecessary to include her in a sock puppet investigation and the outcome (see above) brings nothing but shame on Wikipedia.

TraceyR, I agree with you here in principle. Jackie JP did nothing particularly wrong. I even started a discussion to unblock her, which quickly turned into a three-ring circus. There were even legal threats against Wikipedia from Julia Havey.

If Jackie JP were the only person involved here, she would be unblocked by now. However, it has become clear that there is a tangled web of people working together to insert inappropriately favorable coverage of Juice Plus into Wikipedia. In that environment, it makes no sense to unblock the person who we know is a paid promoter of Juice Plus. Nobody is going to stir up this hornet's nest again. There are situations where it's okay for people to edit Wikipedia with a COI, but the Juice Plus situation is no longer one of them. rspεεr (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As you say, Jackie JP did nothing wrong. She declared her interest in the first sentence; she explained that she wanted to provide an up-to-date image; she did that (in her only edit), was accused of being a sock puppet and blocked. The 'legal threats' by Julia Havey had nothing to do with the SPI nor did the other arguments it stirred up. I doubt very much that, even if the admins involved now did the right thing and unblocked her, she would ever want to contribute to WP again. Perhaps that was the objective of the SPI. She has been treated very poorly and that is inexcusable. She is at least owed an apology. If her accuser won't do that, perhaps the admins who were involved will.--TraceyR (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a question for Jackie JP: Are you still requesting to be unblocked? If you were unblocked, what kind of Wikipedia edits would you want to make? Let me clarify that nobody with a conflict of interest in promoting Juice Plus would be allowed to edit anything surrounding Juice Plus in this environment, so you would be welcome to edit, but only on unrelated topics. rspεεr (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As I stated when I first posted on the Juice Plus+ Discussion page, I was there as a resource. As I understand it, Wikipedia allows those with COI to edit on the Discussion page. So my intention was to notify editors when there were changes/updates to the product line, the bottles, or anything else that would have been relevant to the article. Not to make edits to the article myself. I know that editing the article is a COI and only added the image when it was requested. I had no intention of ever editing any copy inside the article. I apologize for adding the image myself, I was confused on how everything worked and didn't realize I could upload the image and allow someone else to add it in. As to whether or not I would have made a positive impact on the article, that cannot be determined, I was only there for a month. However, I don’t see how providing factual updates about the product would be a negative impact. It is up to the other editors on the page to make the decision on what to do with that information. You'll notice I didn't get involved in the discussion on whether or not to add the updated image only answered questions when I was able to. Also, I noticed this morning that there is now discussion on Dr. Rosenfeld's relationship with Juice Plus+. I would be able to provide facts about that relationship. Of course, what is done with those facts is completely up to the other editors.

I will honestly tell you that my only purpose here on Wikipedia (at this time at least) would be as a source for the editors of the Juice Plus+ page. However, since my IP address is registered to NSA, please know that you have also blocked several people who edit unrelated topics in Wikipedia on their personal time. Needless to say they weren't pleased with me when I got blocked. :) Whatever the Wikipedia admin decides about my block, I'm happy to oblige and follow all rules. If I am unblocked and there was something I did wrong before, please let me know so that I do not do it again. And, if I am unblocked, if I make a mistake in the future please let me know so that I can correct it and learn from it. Wikipedia is a very confusing world and I did my best before to abide by the rules. All I can do now is give you my word that I will continue to do so.Jackie JP (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered response. There may be a time in the future when you would be able to make factual updates about Juice Plus. It's just that now is not that time. As you may have noticed, we have Julia Havey showing up with several sock puppet accounts, and making legal threats toward Wikipedia regarding the Juice Plus article and its surrounding issues. This makes it a terrible time to get involved with that article while having a COI, even if you follow the guidelines to the letter. People would suspect ulterior motives just like they did when you first edited.

If you get unblocked and the Julia Havey situation goes away, then it would be appropriate for you to make factual edits to the article or discuss on its talk page. I'm trying to start that process by asking for you to be unblocked. I've asked User:MuZemike (who blocked you because he thought you were a sockpuppet of Julia Havey) to re-examine the situation. rspεεr (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And MuZemike happened to be online! He agreed, so I'm unblocking you. Please stay away from editing Juice Plus for a bit, even if that means you don't edit; there's still an investigation going on about Julia Havey's newest round of sockpuppets. rspεεr (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Respeer, thank you very much for the unblock and I completely understand the situation. I try to check the Juice Plus+ discussion page once or twice a week so I have kept up with what is happening with the editors. I'm happy to refrain from making any edits to the discussion page until things have settled down. I have no doubt you have a lot on your plate but if you are able to notify me as to when joining the discussion page is appropriate, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks again.Jackie JP (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

JackieJP may or not be a sock, but regardless, I don't think that unblocking this user will help to promote quality or long-term stability on Juice Plus. Nonetheless, the comments raised here[16] should be addressed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rhode Island Red, I understand your position and I'm happy to address the concerns raised by Shell on Nov. 18. The first concern was that my account was 6 days old. That is incorrect. My account was started a little over a month before that. I cannot remember the exact date but my first post on the Juice Plus article was on Oct. 13. The second concern was my knowledge of Wikipedia. As I stated above I try to check the Juice Plus article once or twice a week. I have been doing this for a couple months now so I have learned a few things - very few. Please keep mind however that acronyms such as POV and COI are used in many arenas and are not solely Wikipedia terms - which of course I'm sure you know. So I have been aware of a few things for quite some time now. Another concern was that I knew the editing signature of the editor I was accused of being. I am aware of this editing signature because it is clearly displayed on my User Page in the sock puppet box. The last concern was about verifying my identity. I added my e-mail address to verify my identity but it was taken down. If there is another way for me to verify my identity within Wikipedia guidelines, please let me know and I will be happy to do so. Thank you. Jackie JP (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the issues here is whether you have the authority to officially represent NSA here or whether you are an NSA employee acting without the company's knowledge/approval. If you do officially represent the company, then I see you as being in a somewhat awkward position here, watching from the sidelines while apparent Juice Plus distributors chronically violate WP policies (COI, sockpuppetry, biased editing, spamming, disruption, personal attacks, legal threats, gaming the system, etc.). Perhaps your company could issue an official statement to the sales force that they should not engage in such behavior here. Corralling the foot soldiers would go a long way to building a measure of good faith with the WP community. If you have been watching the page for several months then you must be fully aware of the transgressions of which I speak. As an official representative of the company, your name, official title/department, and an NSA contact phone number as well as e-mail address would enable verification. Ordinarily, editors are discouraged from asking other editors to provide personal details, but in the case of someone claiming to be an official company representative, I think it's probably proper procedure. There were also concerns reaised about whether the image you provided had copyright clearance, so you might want to address that issue as well because it looks as though your image was pulled. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, absolutely not - you cannot under any circumstance compel another user to provide personal information. JackieJP has indicated that she works for the company, which is good form even though it is not required. Things need to be left at that unless she chooses to provide any further information, which again, she is absolutely not required to. Shell ^babelfish 19:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, wasn't sure; I stand corrected on that point. Thanks for the clarification Shel. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that we have my identity settled. Thank you to you both. Actually, this is not an awkward position and there's no reason for it to be. I'm here as a resource. I have not and will not take sides on any issue. And please know that we are not simply watching on the sidelines. We have issued statements in the past and our representatives know that engaging in conversation on this article is against our guidelines. To clarify though, just because an editor makes a biased edit that does not necessarily make them a representative for our company. Like you, we cannot know for sure who an editor is. And like any other company, there are those that love us, those that hate us, and a few sprinkled in between. I have no doubt there are several articles in Wikipedia that have to deal with this as well. As to the infamous image :) please let me know what I need to provide to give this image clearance. When filling out the required information I became extremely confused. I work in Marketing, not legal, that stuff was way over my head. As to the resolution of the image. It is actually a very high resolution, very large image. The problem here is that I sized it down too much. If it is requested, I can upload a slightly larger image. I'll just need to know what size it needs to be to fit in the box on the page. I noticed the image is currently taken off the page, too. I didn't say anything because it isn't my place. That decision is up to the other editors. Thank you. Jackie JP (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We may be making some head way. Let’s try to get some additional input on how to format the image and what details are needed for copyright (Shell, any thoughts?).

I am curious as to how you plan to serve as a resource. You are aware that WP relies solely on sources that meet WP:RS so presumably your resources will meet those requirements. As you are also no doubt aware, the article currently has more than 70 references. Are there additional resources you can provide for us? A good example would be the statements you referred to, in which your distributors were cautioned about the company’s guidelines prohibiting conversing here. Can you point us to one of those statements and/or the company’s relevant guidelines? Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of the rules for siting sources - at least the basics. Only time will tell how exactly I will serve as a resource. I will not speculate at this time.

I understand your interest but I don't see how that specific guideline is relevant to the Juice Plus article. Please know that though I am here as a resource, I am not here to share internal documents at random. I do not have the authority to do so. If there is information that is relevant to the article, I will have to get approval before I share it on Wikipedia. I'm sure everyone involved can understand and appreciate that.Jackie JP (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Images and Image copyrights

Images can actually be uploaded at any size and resolution. When the image is put into the page, it can be given parameters to set its size among other options. A complete overview of the syntax is located at Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. The basics look like:

[[Image:JP for Wiki.jpg|200px|Caption goes here.]]

Images and other media are allowed if they are under a free license (such as the above and certain other Creative Commons licenses). You can see the allowable licenses at Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses. Unless the image uploaded is one you took yourself or personally own the copyright to, the copyright holder needs to send a statement verifying permission to permissions-enwikimedia.org. The email template at Wikipedia:CONSENT can be used for this purpose. I believe the last image was deleted because no verification was received; since that image was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, you most likely got a message there notifying you of the impending deletion.

If there's anything else I can help with, please let me know. Shell ^babelfish 18:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Shell. I'll work on getting this together and let everyone know where to find it. I didn't realize I could get a message on Commons, honestly I have no idea how to find that out.Jackie JP (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)