GustavoReinoso7777
Welcome!
editHello, GustavoReinoso7777, 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:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Sro23 (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm just going to ask. Have you assigned your students to edit the Occupational therapy article? And do you have some connection with the American Occupational Therapy Foundation, because that appears to be the case. Sro23 (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sro23:
I don't have any problems discussing this with you. Some of my doctoral students collaborated on a project to update the page providing literature reviews, examples, pictures through Wikimedia commons, etc. Two independent professors checked the content for accuracy and copyright information to ensure no content was being provided without proper credit. As they were new to Wikipedia and based on me being blocked by you I can only assume that something did not go right in this process. I can only give you my word that any difficulties caused by editing the occupational therapy page was unintentional and probably the result of inexperience. I am not a member of the American Occupational Therapy Foundation (AOTF) although I am not sure why this would be a problem, they are a 501(c)(3) charitable, scientific and educational organization founded in 1965 and provide great support to the public and individuals with disabilities. The sole purpose of updating the Occupational Therapy Page for us was to provided updated information as mental health services, a specialty within occupational therapy, is in great need as I am sure you are aware with the significant difficulties we have with this population. I was very careful when reviewing the manuscript to provide updated references avoiding any and all conflicts of interest. Again, I can only apologize and expect you to understand my position on this issue. I have also written to other two users explaining the situation in hope that you guys understand where I was coming from. As I mentioned before, I am new at this and so were the others and our only motivation was to help out. If by doing so we did something wrong, I can only apologize and request honest feedback. Looking forward to your response. Sincerely, Dr. Gustavo Reinoso, PhD, OTR/L.
- You're a bit confused, perhaps because both Sro23's and my username have 23 at the end. I blocked you, not Sro23. I received your e-mail. I will not be responding to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2016 . (UTC)
GustavoReinoso7777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Some of my doctoral students collaborated on a project to update a page providing literature reviews, examples, pictures, etc. I believe multiple attempts at editing content created a problem. I have edited and/or created pages before without an incident. I attempted to explain the situation and therefore I am requested to be unblockGustavoReinoso7777 (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have no doubt that you have acted entirely in good faith, believing that Wikipedia was a suitable medium for what you were doing, and that what you were doing was a good thing. However, it is clear that your purpose has been to use Wikipedia to publicise information about your organisation, the work it does, and the message it wishes to publicise, and very simply such publicising or promoting of an organisation and its message is unacceptable under Wikipedia policy. Your students have posted large quantities of such promotional prose as "AOTA’s mission focuses on advancing the 'quality, education, and research' of occupational therapy while their vision is to ensure that occupational therapy is the 'preeminent profession in promoting the health, productivity, and quality of life of individuals and society'” and so on. However, what is more important is that what you have written on this page in connection with your unblock request makes it clear that you have still not understood the point, so that you are likely to continue to make the same mistake if you are unblocked. For example, you tell us that your purpose is "to highlight to the public information about some of the services we provide"; Wikipedia does not serve as a medium for businesses, charities, or any other kind of organisations to "highlight to the public" information about the services they provide i.e. to advertise or promote those activities. You say "in no way did we try to promote the activities of any organization", but you also make statements such as that the organisation "provide[s] great support to the public and individuals with disabilities"; saying that they "provide great support" is not a neutral statement, and although expressing an opinion such as that in a talk page discussion is not at all the same thing as posting promotional content to an article, it is an indication of the whole approach you have taken. You say "I am sure you can understand that when something is written, it is hard to anticipate the angle of interpretation of every reader." Yes, indeed, I do understand that, but I cannot imagine any independent, third party reader seeing much of what was written as anything other than an attempt to give us the impression that the AOTA does good work and that the view it promotes is a good one. If you really found it "hard to anticipate" that it would be read that way, then it seems to me that your close involvement in the subject must make it impossible for you to stand back and see how things will look from the neutral perspective of an outsider; such difficulty in seeing objectively things in which you have a close involvement is,in fact, one of the main reasons why Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest discourage anyone from editing in an area in which they have such a close involvement. The essential point of this rather long comment is that it seems clear to me that your intention is to edit Wikipedia in ways which are contrary to our policies on promotional editing and our guidelines on conflict of interest, and moreover that you have failed to understand why that is so, so that you would be unlikely to avoid making the same sort of mistakes again. I would, however, see no problem with unblocking you if you were to undertake to keep away from the particular topic area where this problem has arisen, since, as you rightly say, you have previously edited on other topics without, as far as I can see, any problems. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2016 (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.
- It seems your students turned more than a third of the article on occupational therapy into coverage of one particular organization's stance on that topic. That seems a rather extreme case of undue weight. Surely you don't think the AOTF's stance is that important for a reader's understanding of occupational therapy, and surely a group of PhD students could improve the article in more significant ways if only it wanted to. I'm sure you can understand we're somewhat concerned if a group of new editors hits an article and turns it into what amounts to a tool of promotion (and whether they're charitable or not is irrelevant to whether or not they're promoted). What I'm particularly concerned by is the assertion that two independent professors checked the content "to ensure no content was being provided without proper credit". Take for example these edits. Did really two professors check them and neither bothered to tell your student that something like "Cara, 2013a" is not a sufficient reference if it's not accompanied by an explanation of what that paper actually is? Is that the standard of credit that your university teaches is proper? Whatever the amount of oversight for your students, it clearly was not sufficient.
- I would be willing to consider an unblock here, but I would first like you to address the issue of (undue) weight being given certain aspects of the topic, and to agree to conduct any further class projects of this kind via the Wikipedia:Education program in collaboration with experienced editors. Huon (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- I can appreciate your point of view and I am thankful for your suggestions. The edits did not intend to promote the stance of the AOTF, which is a foundation; I believe you are referring to the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA), our national organization. The stance we took on mental health issues is shared by all occupational therapy organizations in the US, which is the same as the one expressed by any mental health organization in our country. That is that we have a significant increase in the population who require mental health services and there are real difficulties accessing any therapeutic services, not just occupational therapy services. Part of the lack of access is the difficulty in navigating our complex health care system and obtaining information. In no way did we try to promote the activities of any organization, but I do understand your concern if you think the edits read that way. I am sure you can understand that when something is written, it is hard to anticipate the angle of interpretation of every reader. Thus, we should have been more careful about this. I can assure you the issue of undue credit does not apply here. For example, the use of Cara, 2013a was chosen because the text is a classic reference and an edited book of almost 1000 pages and more than 30 authors who conduct federally funded research on different aspects of occupational therapy services for individuals with mental health issues. Our idea was to highlight to the public information about some of the services we provide in hospitals, inpatient and outpatient clinics, community based rehab strategies, research facilities, etc. Furthermore, we proceeded thinking that the edits were going to provide a nice addition to what we thought was a very short description of the range and scope of practice of current occupational therapy services in the country provided by Wikipedia. Again, we did not intend to cause any harm or disruption to the services you guys provide. I did not even know of the existence of Wikipedia: Education program, which should also highlight the fact that any difficulties I created were caused by lack of knowledge and experience rather than willful wrongdoing. Thus, you have my word (which is the only thing I can give you at this point) that I will carefully examine future issues of undue weight and will conduct any class projects through Wikipedia: Education program once I become familiar with it; should you agree to remove my block. Thank you for your time and consideration. g GustavoReinoso7777 (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)