User talk:Tocris

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).

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

Request reason:

Tocris (i.e. me, Emma, the page creator and editor) has been blocked because the account seems promotional. I understand this concern completely, as I went through the guidelines and tutorials (especially WP:SOAP) thoroughly before starting work on the page, but please may I just explain that the page is not finished? I had begun working on it some time ago at the request of a colleague, who believes we could have a presence on Wikipedia (some companies very like us have pages, and we thought it would be reasonable to put ourselves alongside them. Sigma-Aldrich, for example). However, I have not been able to work on the page for a while because of my own work being busier than expected. I apologise that this has made it seem like the page was inactive or complete. I'm an utter newbie to Wikipedia and am sorry that I've still caused a problem despite trying to adhere to the rules. I've got lots more work to do on the page before it resembles the finished product, which will contain information about our history and place in the life-science research world. I've tried to keep the language I've used on the page factual, and certainly don't intend to promote the company - just to include it alongside other life-science research companies. I have struggled to find citation-sources because I'm seeking help from colleagues who have worked here for longer than me, but I do intend to fully back-up everything I state. Also, our company is now part of a bigger, international company, and we have an active presence in research via lots of institutions. Is it at all possible to discuss the unblocking of this page? I'm more than happy to be given advice from those more experienced than me, and would really appreciate your help and advice. Again, I'm sorry that I've done anything wrong, and would be grateful to learn how to create this page correctly. Many thanks, Tocris (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm probably about 95% convinced that you're not even going to dream of recreating this article, and I'm truly sorry that it took a block to get us to this point. There has been some great discussion, and I wish that many of our blocked-for-SPAM editors would be as responsive and "learning" as you have been. You have two options: 1) you simply create a new, personal account, or 2) you use the {{unblock-spamun|chosen new name}} template to ask for an unblock for the purposes of changing your username. Either way, I'm pretty sure you now know not to re-create or edit an article related to your place of business, and also that others from your company also cannot do so. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:34, 16 February 2013 (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.

Here are a few key questions:

Do you understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a business directory?
Do you understand conflict of interest?
Do you understand that to be considered for an encyclopedia article, the subject must be notable?

You are currently blocked because your username appears directly related to a company, group or product that you have been promoting, contrary to the username policy. Changing the username will not allow you to violate the 3 important principles above. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to read my request and respond! I'm really grateful, and will read all you have suggested thoroughly on Monday morning... I'll respond properly then. Tocris (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, the presence or absence of an article in a similar topic area to yours does not justify the presence of your article. All articles must comply with WP:Notability on their own merits. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say you will get back on this when you have read the relevant pages, but it may help for me to make a few comments about the situation. I have no doubt that you have come to Wikipedia in good faith, and, like almost all of us when we start editing here, were sincerely unaware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. However, several aspects of what you have written here indicate that you have misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia. For example, you wrote "... we could have a presence on Wikipedia (some companies very like us have pages, and we thought it would be reasonable to put ourselves alongside them)". Wikipedia does not exist for businesses or other organisations to create a "presence" for themselves, or to publicise their work or services. In fact, we are strongly discouraged from writing about companies or other organisations that we are personally associated with by Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. A Wikipedia article should be written from a neutral, third party, perspective, not from an insider's point of view.
On a completely different matter, the draft article you wrote has been deleted, as it consisted entirely or almost entirely of content which was copied from other sources, in violation of copyright. It may seem that you have the right to reuse content the copyright of which is owned by your company. However, the moment you post anything to any page on Wikipedia, you are licensing it to be reused by anyone in the world, in its original form or modified, for commercial or non-commercial purposes, under very broad licensing conditions. It is very unlikely that such open licensing is sanctioned by a company which, on its web site, has the notice "© Copyright 2013 Tocris Bioscience. All Rights Reserved." Also, in the unlikely event that the company is willing to open up its content to such open licensing terms, we need clear evidence that it has done so. The fact that someone who tells us that they work for the company has posted the content to Wikipedia is not proof that that person has the authority to license the material for free re-use. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh - firstly, 'thank you' for again taking the time to give me such comprehensive advice! As I said before, I'm really grateful, as it has helped to fully understand why my username was blocked and the working page deleted.

Problem 1: the fact that the username I created was called 'Tocris'. I see now why this triggered the block, and feel quite embarrassed by my naivety. I will confess to not having seen the WP:IU section before even getting started... so that was dumb.
Problem 2: that the username was the same, therefore, as the page itself. Now that I understand the username policy, I see that this must also have looked incredibly stupid to experienced editors. Apologies for that too.
Problem 3: that the page is a promotion of a company. I'm genuinely being honest when I say that I did read the WP:SOAP guidelines before beginning... but seem to have failed in my efforts to make the page non-promotional and purely factual. As I mentioned in my first appeal, it would've been great to include information about the life-science research part of our work, but I can see that - even then - the mere presence of our page goes against the rule that Wikipedia isn't a company directory.
Problem 4: conflict of interest. Yep, I had exactly the same reservation when I was asked to create the page, as I read this section of the guidelines and understood it fully. I was hoping that the mere fact that - because I'm in the customer service part of the company and not the marketing side - I could approach this in an ever-so-slightly more objective manner, I might be able to do a good job... sadly, that clearly hasn't come across on the page itself! :(
Problem 5: copyright infringement. I can only apologise for my own naivety, again. I didn't realise that it would not be sufficient to just have permission from 'the powers that be' in our company to use our website content... you can see now that I meant it by being an 'absolute newbie'! Downright ignorant could probably sum it up a lot better.

So, despite my best intention of trying to understand the rules and appear savvy, I've failed rather splendidly. I've got to confess that I'm saddened by that: it would've been great to have done a good job, and I was quite enjoying the new experience of learning to use Wikipedia on this level. However, I totally understand that the subject matter is the biggest stumbling-block. I will take that message back to our Marketing Manager and let her down gently :)

One last question, though: even if I did create a personal account, do you think any page about Tocris would still be deleted, purely based on the content [promotion] and history [conflict of interest]? Just had to ask, to be absolutely sure :) Huge thanks to all again! Emma (aka Tocris (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

A page that complies with policy wouldn't be deleted, but the most likely way for that to happen is if someone with no ties to the company writes it. As you learned the hard way, editors with a conflict of interest can't really see their own biases. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]