User talk:Nina Teicholz

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Nina Teicholz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Username and COI issues[edit]

Hi Nina Teicholz. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with regular editing. Your edits to date are pretty much all about the person Nina Teicholz and one of your edit notes reference "my book".

With respect to the WP:USERNAME policy, specifically WP:IMPERSONATE, would you please review that section and take one of the actions advised there? If you don't we may need to soft-block this account until the issue can be resolved. Thanks.

If you do happen to be the real world Nina Teicholz, I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below. This is a separate but possibly related issue to the one above.

Hello, Nina Teicholz. 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, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you.

Comments and requests[edit]

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. As mentioned above, you are editing here under the name of a real world person, and once we resolve the IMPERSONATE issues, that will be somewhat resolved, but we would still need you to explicitly declare your relationship with Nina Teicholz, if there is one. Would you please disclose any such relationship?

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) 23:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the person Nina Teicholz in the real world. I didn't realize that it was against wikipedia policy to correct information about myself and my work. I was just trying to make sure that my work was not misrepresented. I will, in the future, be sure to use the "talk" page instead. I can't remember what I contributed to the page on me, but I think it was a minor contribution. Let me know! Best, Nina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthinnutrition (talk • contribs) 00:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First follow up question to you. Editing under multiple accounts is a violation of policy - you can only use one account, except in special circumstances that we don't have to get into here. The community indefinitely blocks editors who use multiple accounts on purpose, as this is a way of gaming the system that is harmful. Since you are new here I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't understand how bad of a thing this is to do.

You can fix this by:

a) identifying all the accounts you have created

b) picking one account to use, going forward

c) allowing me to put the appropriate tags on the other accounts, and this one, so that everything is clear.

Would you please speak to each of those? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1m8e21qvbm Hello, I am trying to figure out the indentation formation, but I'm not sure this is the right way to do this. I am working on a shared computer. I am only working on Nina Teicholz. I was not logged in earlier properly. I only have this account. I do not have any other account, and I am not familiar with that other account. My only intention was to correct information about my book and the way that information about me was portrayed. Nina Teicholz (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you write here is not credible. I am going to get this looked into. you will likely be indefinitely blocked. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not credible? Please explain. If this is a system governed by logic than an explanation should be provided.

Wow, this is an authoritarian universe, Wikipedia. I have been a monthly contributor to Wikipedia for years, but now I will stop by contributions. Unilateral actions. No explanations. Now my wikipedia page is under review because I removed a sentence fragment? This is not transparent nor fair, and there is no due process here. I have lost my faith in this organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina Teicholz (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Truthinnutrition account has only written things here that have promoted ~~you~~Nina Teicholz , ~~your~~her book, and ~~your~~her theories, and has also attacked ~~your~~her enemies. That is all it has done and that is all that this account has done as well. It is obviously you or someone working directly with or for you. I gave you a very wide open door to come clean. You chose to play games. So be it. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (redact be more careful about RW Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Please tell me why the page on me now has been flagged as being a promotional? how is this not punitive action? The only thing I did on that page was extremely minor and now the entire thing is under review? The Truth in Nutrition account was not one I reviewed or oversaw. Is there any due process here? That account, from what I can tell, cited many many experts, far beyond me and my book. You have made a rash judgement. I am truly appalled by the way this is run here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina Teicholz (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see Jytdog is editing his comments. Why? Is it possible he has taken drastic action too hastily? What a crazy world is Wikipedia where a single editor in consultation with no one and in under 15 minutes can pass unilateral judgement on an issue and person? Is this normal procedure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.37.241 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edited my comments to be more careful not to assume that any of these accounts are the RW person. I am not sure they are but i fell into the dialogue in which one of the accounts said I am the person Nina Teicholz in the real world. Should not have followed. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(fixed indenting Jytdog (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

To the person in question (I'll avoid the controversy of preferring to use one username or another one): If you think you are being singled out here by one editor, then maybe I can be here to explain something -- the usage of multiple accounts by the same RW individual is not allowed on Wikipedia. You have been editing this page with another account, and you have not explained where there is a legitimate purpose as to why you should have this account. Some editors have legitimate alternative accounts, used when travelling or for unsecure Wi-Fi hotspots or something like. You have not explained why you have required to use both this account and the 'Truthinnutrition' account. Thanks, ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First: The TruthInNutrition Account turns out to be my part-time assistant who appears to have been making some edits on the subject of saturated fats and cholesterol on various pages. These have IN PART included references to me, because my work is relevant to this issue, but that is far from the totality of her references and work. Second, she has NEVER made edits to the page on me ("Nina Teicholz"). In fact, we have never edited the same page, as claimed above. The only changes I made to my own page were the addition of one sentence trying to summarize the nature of my work and the deletion of a sentence fragment. Please tell me if the punishment of having my user name and hers both deleted and the page on Nina Teicholz flagged so that editors across Wikipedia have deleted half its content (including many referenced points). There are still warning banners across it. Also, please tell me if one Wikipedia editor has the right to make all these decisions without consulting anyone else and in under 5 minutes, without doing any research. This seems unfair and authoritarian.

The deletions taking place to my page are not justified. User Bri deleted the entire section on the Tim Noakes trial that included refs because she claims that this page "was created by a PR agency." I do not have a PR agency, and there is no evidence that this page was created by such! I have a large, passionate fan base and social media following, and it is entirely possible that this page came from one of them. I would kindly asked all referenced information to be restored. It is not fair to make a presumption of guilt.

Also, I would appreciate guidance as to how I can get the banners across the top of my page removed. My contributions to my own page were 1. trivial and 2. a new user mistake, which are supposed to be treated with "patience and empathy, giving the benefit of the doubt" by the Wikipedia editing community. And there is no evidence that a PR company created this page. The sections that have been deleted are factual information, not terms of promotion or puffery. Nina Teicholz (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nina Teicholz, This has now been looked into, as I noted above. In addition to you, we identified two other people who were each operating multiple accounts. All three people edited content about the author, the book, and the ideas in the book, and one of accounts associated with you added negative content to the article about a person with whom the author has real world disputes. The two others each ~look like~ a person editing Wikipedia for pay, who did not disclose that they were editing for pay, and who edited directly instead of putting edits through peer review (those things are required by our WP:PAID policy). And there is you (who apparently operated two accounts in addition to this one). You say you are the author, and the three accounts you appear to have operated have all edited in a way that reflects unmanaged conflict of interest.

I understand you are upset, and I am sorry about that. I originally came here to talk with you about how we manage conflicts of interest in Wikipedia and then was going to try to help you understand how content and behavior work in Wikipedia more generally, but the problem of editing under multiple accounts is more fundamental, and as we were not able to resolve that, the conversation stopped. Which is too bad. A lot of people don't understand conflict of interest in Wikipedia but once I explain things to them they are happy to honor our policies and guidelines. I have this conversation a lot. Sometimes it goes well, and sometimes it doesn't.

One thing that we do when we identify articles that have been influenced by conflict of interest, is go back over them and clean them up. Unmanaged conflict of interest, including undisclosed paid editing, is a problem that we take pretty seriously as it harms the integrity of Wikipedia. The Nina Teicholz article has been cleaned up some, and more will happen. I haven't looked at the exact edits but I will do.

If you were involved in the hiring of paid editors (the two other people who were found to be operating multiple accounts), it would be helpful to the editing community if you told us about that - how they were found, the name of the company that was hired, etc. It appears that you coordinated directly with at least one of the other people -- you uploaded a picture (this one), and one of the two other people added it to the article. Undisclosed paid editing (if that is what happened) is a problem and the information would be helpful.

That's all i have to say. With respect to things you write here in the future, please do keep in mind that WP:Wikipedia is in the real world (please do read that). Best regards Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, jytgog, understood.. Nothing I can do to reverse these decisions, and I have nothing more to add to my statements. I would just ask that when you review the edits made to my personal page that you restore statements that are referenced. There seems to be an effort to completely take down this page and the legitimate, referenced statements. Nina Teicholz (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a "sock puppet" of TruthinNutrition. That is a separate user. We have never edited any of the same pages. TruthinNutrition is an account by a part-time assistant of mine who has similar interests to me. I registered in my own name to fix mis-information about my work on a Wiki page and then I added a single sentence to my own page. I am a new user and did not know any of the rules of using Wikipedia. When I read about the policies, it says that new users are supposed to be treated with patience and be given the benefit of the doubt. Why is this not happening with me? Please unblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina Teicholz (talk • contribs) 15:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not appear to be entirely truthful; see here. Yamla (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2017 (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: I signed the unsigned post and fixed the formatting of the unblock request, in the same diff as this comment Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further information here.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]