User talk:Aphis Marta

July 2018

Hello, Sarah at PMI. 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. 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, thank you for your quick welcome! As I mentioned elsewhere, I intend only to provide suggestions here and there on any PMI-related pages, and possibly improve my editing skills on a small number of unrelated articles I'm interested in. Cheers Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

You copied content from my draft without my permission and you are making requests using content from my draft without my permission. That is a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Please stop. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your copyright violation. Please do not copy content from my draft and make proposals on the talk page using content from my draft. Also do not make proposals on the talk page based on my draft. You are not me. QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, my apologies. I didn't realize that I would be unable to use the specific content that we were working on together if it was hosted on your draft page. I have also responded to the discussion on the Heat-not-burn Tobacco Products talk page. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 09:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I said above "Also do not make proposals on the talk page based on my draft."[1] You copied the citations from my draft and you made proposals based on my draft that is very similar to my draft.[2]

You claimed "He also told me that he was not willing to make the changes we had just discussed to the Heat-not-burn tobacco product page, but I could try to have someone else make the changes."[3]

I never told you can copy content from my draft and I never told you could try to have someone else to make the changes from the content in my draft. There was also pieces of the draft you copied that I worked on before you edited Wikipedia.

^ Chambers, Sam (26 January 2018). "Big Tobacco spending billions to develop products that could move industry beyond cigarettes — but regulators are skeptical". Chicago Tribune. This citation has been a deadlink for well over two weeks. How did you make a proposal on the talk page[4] using a dead link? QuackGuru (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at my latest request on the Heat-not-burn tobacco product page ("Specific Changes Requested"), every change I've requested there is similar in scope but now easier to implement compared to the requests I made in my original ("A few minor changes"). The language is now different from your draft with the possible exception of where it matches the current article's language. Several of the references are ones I added after we discussed your draft. Please identify where you feel my current request infringes on your draft and how you propose the request be changed. I am open to possibly making changes.

For the reference you mention (Chambers, Sam) - that reference is what is currently in the article. My proposed revision actually removes the dead linked reference. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "My proposed revision actually removes the dead linked reference."[5] Your proposal uses the deadlink to Sam Chambers. I think it was a deadlink before you edited Wikipedia yet you made a proposal on the talk page using the deadlink. See "On the question of whether Philip Morris International demonstrated that the product reduces the risks of diseases associated with tobacco use, the panel voted 8 against and one abstention.^[1]"[6]

References

^ Chambers, Sam (26 January 2018). "Big Tobacco spending billions to develop products that could move industry beyond cigarettes — but regulators are skeptical". Chicago Tribune.

You copied the citation (Chambers, Sam) from my draft. I formatted the citation in my draft well before you started editing Wikipedia. The citation in the article is different than in the draft. You also copied other citations from my draft I added to my draft before we ever had any conversation. QuackGuru (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's copyright FUD. Everyone can use and modify Wikipedia text to his heart's content, especially within Wikipedia itself, provided he attributes it correctly (WP:COPYWITHIN). Copying bare references (cherry picking) does not even require attribution. That is only consistent for a project that builds on unrestricted content. --212.186.133.83 (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit in response to your request

You wrote "Hi HLHJ, thank you for making some edits in response to my request, and I can understand that you prefer not to include text I've drafted."[7] You also wrote "The existing content about this debate could be moved to the lede or to the etymology section, but the rest of the article should use a neutral term rather than smoke."[8] This edit appears to contain content that violated policy. I explained it on the talk page the policy violations. According to your comment on the talk page you supported the edit. I do not support the policy violations. The debate about PMI and the researchers should not be moved to an etymology section. It is not about etymology. It is a disagreement about smoke versus aerosol. I am concerned about your recent comments on the talk page. You stated "I do agree that there is no consensus in the media on whether IQOS produces smoke or not. However, smoke is the contested term, not aerosol."[9] Smoke is the contested term by PMI. This debate started with PMI contacting the researchers. QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QuackGuru, your comment appears to be about a discussion on the talk page for Heat-not-burn tobacco products. I would be happy to respond to comments about that article/talk page on the appropriate talk page. If you would like to get my attention for comments you post there, please ping me in your post on that page. Thanks! Sarah at PMI (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IQOS section is a bit long. If you have any suggestions what can be cut please leave a note on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, QuackGuru, I totally agree that the IQOS section is too long compared to the other ones. I'll create a sandbox page for the IQOS section, and then point to that sandbox page to make my recommendations. It won't be a new draft like you just implemented, just a convenient place to host the suggested text changes. Working on it now, and I hope to get my recommendations on the talk page by the end of the week. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed the section. Pleas redo your proposal based on the 4 paragraphs such as organizing the content. Your proposal is cutting way too much content. QuackGuru (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is just a proposal, it doesn't have to be implemented as written. I assumed that more content would be kept than what I was proposing, and that my proposal was a starting point for discussion. Happy to continue to discuss my proposal on the talk page. Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without deleting any of the current content do you have any suggestions for organizing the content or making minor changes to the wording for improved reading. QuackGuru (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could take a look at it, but if you don't mind I would prefer to post my suggestions on the talk page there, not here on my talk page. Sarah at PMI (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started a draft of the current IQOS section. You can copy the draft and my comment to the talk page or you can edit it in my sandbox. QuackGuru (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is an unsuitable location for this discussion, as it is not visible to other editors working on the article. HLHJ (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful

Hi Sarah at PMI. Thanks for disclosing that you work for Philip Morris, and for following the COI guideline and PAID policy.

Please be aware that working within the conflict management process is a baseline for being a member of the editing community in good standing.

You are also obligated to follow community policies and guidelines for content first; ahead of your obligations to your employer. You should not advocate for changes that violate our content policies; please be very cautious about asking, and especially about repeatedly asking, for removal of negative information that is well sourced. This is not appropriate. (see also WP:PAYTALK.

Understanding the mission of WP, and the policies and guidelines through which the editing community realize the mission, is very important. There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

Good luck and thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment Jytdog. Could you please give me some context for why you've posted this comment? I appreciate both the positive feedback and the constructive feedback, and I'd like to better understand where you're coming from on your statements above. Thanks, Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My note above is a general note. Company reps sometimes are under the mistaken notion that disclosing and not editing directly are all they need to do, but even within that framework, WP:PRONO and WP:NPOV still must be followed. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that context, then, I fully agree with your statements about how an editor should behave when they have a COI. My first time editing Wikipedia may be as a paid editor, but my experience so far has also shown me that I enjoy contributing beyond my COI articles. For example, I've enjoyed contributing to articles on Project Cleanup as I learn my way around things here. Not only is it in my PAID interest to remain in good standing with the community, but it's in my personal interest to do so as well. I continue to welcome your feedback on how I'm doing in that regard. Cheers, Sarah at PMI (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah at PMI, I'm am worried about the amount of discretionary judgment required of a COI editor choosing what material to cut from a section about a product her employer sells, even if she does it on request. I don't think it was appropriate for a more established editor to make the request, but I would also ask you, and your fellow employees, to decline such requests in future, as I think that such work is very likely to damage the neutrality of the encyclopedia and the trust that can be placed in it. HLHJ (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HLHJ:, thanks for your message. I didn't choose what material to cut from the article, I made a suggestion and clearly stated it as such. It was the more established editor who does not have a COI that chose what material to cut from the article. I posted my suggestions to the HNB talk page because I hoped it would spark discussion, including input from yourself. Unfortunately, some of the changes were implemented before everyone joined the discussion. If I am asked for a suggestion, it seems only fair that I be allowed to give it - as long as others have a chance to give input. I am perfectly happy to ask on the talk page that my suggestions be discussed by the wider group before any changes are made as a result. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were put in a rather unfair position. I'm not sure I'd be willing to say that you are entitled to make any suggestion that you are asked for, though. If you are asked to make suggestions in matters of judgment where you have a strong COI, I think recusing yourself would be best for the quality of the encyclopedia. HLHJ (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider "entitled" to be the wrong word for what I am trying to express. I fully agree with you that the amount of control I should have over this article is minimal, considering my COI. I can see now why the length and level of detail of my recommendation would be considered as too much involvement, considering even the person who asked for my input felt I had recommended to cut too much. I am still trying to find the balance of providing specific recommendations that don't take a lot of time for editors to implement while not providing overwhelming information, as the other Sarah (below) kindly put it. In the future, whether my input is requested or not, I'll work to be more considerate about how (and if) I give my input. Best, Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HLHJ, you had trouble acknowledging the content failed verification. See Talk:Electric_smoking_system/Archive_4#Pipe. HLHJ, you added an image of a pizza that was unrelated to the article.[10] There are many more examples.

I think there is a strong case to be made for HLHJ being excluded from directly editing this topic area. The lengthy history of failed verification content edits advocating an idealised form of anti-tobacco is at odds with common practice, places HLHJ firmly on the wrong side of WP:V. HLHJ, for the next time, I suggest you propose all changes on talk first, with existing text, suggested replacement, reasons for the change, and sources. I suggest you do this one small change at a time. If you do not, then I think you could find that arbitration enforcement sanctions will be requested, and could likely exclude you from the topic area altogether. Consider this a free drink at the Last Chance Saloon; the next one will not be free. QuackGuru (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping,QuackGuru. Let's continue discussion of my editing at my talk page, where I have replied. HLHJ (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have refused to acknowledge there is any problems with the examples presented above. You are wasting my time. I am busy gathering diffs in my e-mail folder just in case. WHO does not call them cigarettes. This is more evidence. Good luck. QuackGuru (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COI guideline

Hi Sarah, thank you for acknowledging that you're a paid editor for Philip Morris International. Given the contentious nature of articles about that company and its products, it's important to stick to the spirit and letter of the guideline. In particular, see WP:PAYTALK (bold added):

Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted.

It's also important not to take up a lot of volunteer time. The best position for you is to restrict yourself to requesting the correction of factual errors, but otherwise to leave matters of judgement to the volunteer editors. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to what part of COI paid editors must restrict themselves to requesting the correction of factual errors?

See under WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. "If you propose changes to an affected article, you can use the {{request edit}} template. Post it on the talk page and make your suggestion underneath it." COI editors are allowed to make edit requests. QuackGuru (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SarahSV, thank you for your advice, and QuackGuru, thank you for your support. I acknowledge that I am still learning that the changes I don't expect to be controversial can become controversial by virtue of my COI and the industry I work in. It has never been my intention to overwhelm nor to impose judgement on the articles, and I will continue working to improve my relationships with my fellow editors. Thank you again Sarah at PMI (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, thank you. In particular, you should avoid suggesting that we add the views of Philip Morris International's CEO, or writing drafts in sandboxes for other editors to add to the article. There is a summary at Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia of cases in which journalists noticed that companies had tried to influence Wikipedia content in their own interests, including by writing sandbox drafts. These situations made the companies and Wikipedia look bad. The more contentious the issue, the worse it looks.

Therefore, if you feel you ought to have a presence here, it is in your and Wikipedia's interests that you restrict yourself to requesting factual corrections. Examples of factual corrections would be noticing that the name of the CEO had been misspelled, or that the location of the head office was wrong. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 00:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another type of factual error is updating old content and new developments. Do you agree, SarahSV? QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's tricky, because the company will only highlight developments that are in the company's interests. This whole issue is so contentious that the adoption of a conservative interpretation of "factual correction" is highly recommended. People who want the latest news from Philip Morris International can visit the company's website. When they visit Wikipedia, they expect to find articles written independently. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People who want the latest concise information on PMI's IQOS product can visit Wikipedia and also get an article written independently.

The heat-not-burn tobacco product was largely written by me. I had to start a RfC because an editor was against me removing failed verification content and other problematic content. That's grounds for a topic ban if true.

This topic is not contentious and no evidence has been presented it is a contentious article. Check the archives of the heat-not-burn tobacco product article and you will find an editor waiting my time and others for months. There is an editor who appears to be unhappy and adds mass failed verification content to multiple articles. Check other nicotine articles they have edited. The problems continue with a certain editor. I don't think that editor should be allowed to continue to cause problems on multiple articles, especially when they are unhappy. They are also wasting a lot of my time explaining to them the content they want included fails verification. If it weren't for me the heat-not-burn tobacco product article would still be a train wreck. QuackGuru (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm that editor. Let's continue discussion of my editing at my talk page, where I have replied. HLHJ (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

Hi Sarah, the arbitration committee allows administrators to impose discretionary sanctions in relation to some of Wikipedia's most contentious topics. One of those topic areas is electronic cigarettes. I'm therefore posting an alert below to make sure you know about this. The alert does not imply any wrongdoing on your part. You'll find some links below that explain the system.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Electronic cigarette topic area. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 SarahSV ^(talk) 20:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What e-cig article they showed interest? The IQOS is not an e-cig. QuackGuru (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I know you have a COI as a paid editor, however if you don't mind is it okay if you can reflect your thoughts on this RfC right here? I'd just like to see your view/opinions, Thanks. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk)

[Chambers2018-1] Chambers, Sam (26 January 2018). "Big Tobacco spending billions to develop products that could move industry beyond cigarettes — but regulators are skeptical". Chicago Tribune.

[1]