User talk:Dasket
|
Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]
Hi, Dasket. I replied here to your suggestion that you'd like to re-write a large part of the extremely contentious Supervised injection site article, saying I have some concerns about your offer. You're under no obligation to do so, but since your activity so far is pretty unusual, I wonder whether you'd mind answering a few well-intended questions?
Specifically, we do have a policy that prohibits the use of multiple accounts, and another that prohibits the creation of a new account to avoid scrutiny of previous activity on Wikipedia. Since it seems to me that some of your actions are pretty atypical for a person who's new to the project, can you tell me, please, whether you've ever edited here previously? And if you have, what account or accounts you used to do so?
And perhaps you wouldn't mind letting us know, as well, what brought you to this particular article, and whether you are in any way affiliated with Drug Free Australia or similar organisations? I ask these questions not to impede your participation here in any way, but only because we've had tremendous problems, for several years, with a particular user who disappeared a while ago after he was questioned about a possible conflict of interest due to an affiliation with that organisation, or related ones. To be perfectly frank, we've all been wondering when he'd show up again, and it wouldn't surprise any of us, I believe, if he were to create a new account to do so, in contravention of several of our policies.
Again, you're not required to answer these questions, and I'd advise you not to disclose any personally-identifying information, in any case, although that's your choice, of course. But given that the circumstances around the article you've said you want to rewrite have been so very contentious, and given that your behaviour is very unusual for a genuinely new user, it would be easier for your fellow editors here to have confidence in your good will if you wouldn't mind answering them candidly.
I'd like to stress that the very last thing I want to do is discourage any genuinely new user; please don't take these questions as off-putting or in any way personally. I'm sure you can understand that my interest in asking you to address them is only that I want to ensure that the policies designed to protect the neutrality and integrity of the encyclopaedia are upheld. I hope you'll also understand that if you are, in fact, a genuinely new user whose interest is to help improve the encyclopaedia rather than to push any particular pro or anti-drug propaganda, we'll all be delighted to have you here. Many thanks, --OhioStandard (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect Ohio, I don't share your concerns that this Dasket is a sock for you-know-who. Perhaps that the post on the talkpage was both coherent and concise? :p And for Dasket: Welcome to Wikipedia!. Steinberger (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, Dasket! Steinberger and I have been exchanging e-mails about your account, and it occurs to both of us that these questions might be better addressed in private. We're both aware, for example, that there can be wholly legitimate reasons for creating a new account. If that is, in fact, what you've done, neither of us would wish to interfere with that, against policy. We notice your e-mail isn't activated, or we would have contacted you that way, by now. If you don't want to activate it, perhaps you'd like to send me a candid note directly? You could address such a note to my user name, as all one word, with no caps, at gmail.com. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow, I knew it was a hot topic but I didn't expect the spanish inquisition :) Have I been that unusual? I'd like to avoid real world contact or ad hominem attacks so I'd prefer not saying exactly who I am. I am interested in this article because I work with issues of addiction, in Sydney Australia. I'll happily confirm that I have no affiliation with Drug Free Australia. I'll register my email if that improves my credibility. --Dasket (talk) 09:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, as I'm sure you know, nooooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! :-) Thanks for activating your e-mail, but I think it's best if I defer to Steinberger on this. I've always found him to be a sound, trustworthy chap, a person whose judgement in sensitive matters I can trust implicitly. If you haven't already done, would you please initiate an e-mail discussion with him about some of these matters? Besides any questions he may have, he can help you determine whether the nature of your work might introduce any conflict of interest issues at all, and provide good counsel, based on our policies about that, to prevent that from becoming any sort of problem for you or for the project if, in fact, the discussion between the two of you does indicate such concerns may be relevant.
- We love experts in any given field, for the tremendous value they can bring to subjects with which they're much more familiar than lay persons, but it takes a pretty extraordinary degree of attention to the relevant policies for an expert to avoid improper conflict-of-interest editing, too. Real vigilence is called for about that, so please don't skip lightly over this topic in the discussion I hope you'll undertake with Steinberger. If he doesn't have enough information ready to hand to furnish to you on the subject, please let me know, and I'll point you to the several policy pages and essays that apply, as well. Please talk over with Steinberger the question I raised about possible previous accounts, as well. Having edited previously under another account is not necessarily a deal-breaker, by any means, and neither Steinberger or myself comes to this with a "lynch mob" mentality. We just want to protect the integrity of the editorial/collaborative process, a sine qua non for work together effectively, as is a minimum level of trust among all the editors working in a topic area, even where POVs may disagree.
- I almost always counsel new editors to avoid disclosing any identification online that's even potentially personally identifying, in any way. You're free to do as you like, of course, but I think you'll be happier in the long run if you refrain from doing so, or even being any more specific about the nature of your work, provided you don't work in a public-relations or stealth-social-media-shill sort of role for the organisation that you work for, and provided you're editing here as a private person, rather than as any sort of official or quasi-offical spokesman role.
- Again, please do undertake a comprehensive discussion of these matters with Steinberger. If he's satisfied with the outcome of that discussion, I may be able to help solidify your status as a good-standing member of the community, in that I'd be willing to act as a go between with a particularly relevant admin, all strictly guided by applicable policies, of course, but that could have the effect of dealing with these questions definitively, albeit privately ( assuming what I assume is your creation of a new account ), in such a way that this would be a one-time query, possibly or probably without any need to run a sock puppet investigation now or at any time in the future, if this is properly dealt with now, from the outset. That is, I'm on excellent terms with the admin I'm thinking of, and I believe that with his approval, assuming he's be agreeable to the proposal for the good of the project, as I'm inclined to assume, based on the very limited information I been apprised of so far, it's my guess that he might be willing to do one of those rare "e-mail me privately about this user if questions about previous accounts comes up."
- How much better that would be than always having to worry about having previous accounts "catch up" to your new, clean-start or "clean starish-like" new account, given that, if you're the former editor I'm inclinded to believe you are, you didn't "leave under a cloud, or perhaps just under one or two very high cirrus clouds decorating an otherwise deep azure summer sky. Based on the very limited information you've publically provided so far - a practice I comment - my initial impression is that you were a valuable, scholarly addition to the topic area, and it's my hope that we can welcome you with open arms, according to the policies that apply, here and in the other harm redction articles within the very speific constraints of our conflict-of-interest and relatied policies.Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
..
- Well, I wanted to be helpful, but in retrospect I see I did write a novel, or at least a short story. But I've customised my Wikipedia user interface so extensively that I no longer remember where the "e-mail this user" feature is located in the standard/default user interface; mine is in a tab at the top of my screen. But I think you'll find it in the "toolbox" section of the vertical panel or bar that sits at the left side of Steinberger's user page or talk page. But you can also just click here to use Wikipedia's e-mail interface to contact our estimable Swedish friend, Steinberger.
- I do want to reiterate that none of this is required. You can go right ahead and edit articles without doing any of these things, of course. I recommend them, though, because what "sticks" in any given article depends on consensus among editors, and that's very difficult to sustain when concerns about a new user of the kind I've alluded to above remain outstanding.
- By the way, if you look at your "contributions" history, you'll see that the edit summary for your edit of 13:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC) has been redacted. I made the request that brought that about; please don't do anything similar again. I'd appreciate it, though, if you'd explain to Steinberger how you came to provide that particular edit summary, since it touches on the questions I've raised above. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)