Health and Social Care Information Centre

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Health and Social Care Information Centre. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article NHS Trust Development Authority, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to NHS Trust Development Authority, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because the chosen username is a clear violation of our username policy – it is obviously profane; threatens, attacks or impersonates another person; or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to the encyclopedia (see our blocking and username policies for more information).

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia, but users are not allowed to edit with inappropriate usernames and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you think there are good reasons why these don't describe your account, or why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. Oz\^InterAct 12:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Health and Social Care Information Centre (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

Health and Social Care Information Centre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Please do not assume incorrect intentions as this is offensive. There are 15 national health and social care bodies of the Department of Health and we are trying to make all the articles consistent and uniform. Some of these bodies state 'of the United Kingdom' and some do not. It is not necessary for it to state this information in the first line as this becomes obvious in other sections of the article. Also, these bodies are bodies for England and not the United Kingdom therefore provides false information which is against the use of Wikipedia. Inconsistency is false and incorrect. Either all 15 bodies should contain 'of the United Kingdom' or they should not. It's contradictory that some do and some do not. It is better and more accurate that for consistency and uniformity that they do not include 'of the United Kingdom' as they are bodies for England and provides incorrect information as the reader will assume that these bodies operate for the whole of the United Kingdom. The four countries of the United Kingdom have separate health and social care systems. They do not have a unified system! Before making assumptions, please do some research! Thank you.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you

1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Health and Social Care Information Centre (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

health&socialcare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

You were duly mistaken. This is a genuine account for genuine Wikipedia activity for genuine reasons. We hope this clarifies your confusion.

Decline reason:

I for one have no confusion, and think that YOU should do some research, starting with WP:USERNAME. Please also be aware that accounts on Wikipedia are for individuals, and the use of 'we' by you implies very clearly that this is a group account. Whatever your purposes, you will not be unblocked until we (speaking collectively for the body of administrators of Wikipedia) are certain that you understand our rules and are prepared as an individual not an organised body to follow them. You will get nowhere by referring in your requests to other matters such as inaccuracy of content. That has absolutely no relevance to your blocking. Peridon (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Your chosen username remains wholly inappropriate. We do not permit accounts whose names imply shared use or ownership by an organization for promotional/shared use. See our username policy, and then choose a different username. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Health and Social Care Information Centre (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

NICENDPB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Wikipedia rules understood.

Decline reason:

You most definitely have not shown that you understand any of Wikipedia's rules. However, this request is deprecated by the new one below the panda ₯’ 10:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Note for reviewing admin: strongly suspect this username refers to NICENDPB - and is therefore, again, unsuitable. See also recent contributions from IP 85.118.31.68 and User:DHNHSALB. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Health and Social Care Information Centre (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

Nicholas.Leeds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Actually, you suspected wrong! It was actially a coincidence. NIC was for Nicholas! As I have previously said, Wikipedia rules are understood. You are just making it difficult for customer's to use Wikipedia which is very unprofessional. It is like you actually want a user to provide a Christian names! I didn't want to provide Christian names but here they are. The names are changed to Christian names and Wikipedia rules are understood. Thank you

Decline reason:

The Guide to Appealing Blocks says 2 things are required for an unblock: first you must SHOW (not just say) an understanding of the reasons you were blocked (in this case, improper username, using multiple accounts, conflict of interest editing; and second you must lay how how you will not cause these same issues in the future. For example, even if you change usernames, you should not be editing ANY articles about topics you're affiliated with. You agreed to a set of rules when you arrived - and we're VERY happy to have all editors follow those rules - we're quite professional that way. What would be unprofessional would be if we blocked 99% of people with improper names and COI, but left a handful to continue to edit. Thus, the sole purpose of this block is to protect the project from COI and guide you so that you may edit Wikipedia properly and ethically in the future. And, as noted, no ... you do not need to use your WP:REALNAME the panda ₯’ 10:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to use your own forename or surname in any obvious or hidden form. A lot of us have our names in concealed form, a lot use totally unconnected names, and some use their own names. You could call yourself 'Herbert the Aardvark' or 'Twizzling shortbread' and no-one would worry. (We did have an admin called 'Boing! said Zebedee'.) Is that difficult? What you must not do is appear to do is represent an organisation. As simple as that. Accounts are for individuals only, so one called 'BillandJane' would not be allowed. We don't have any customers. (No apostrophe, please.) We have readers and users (sometimes called editors). We are also not paid, except for a handful of editors who are employed by the WikiMedia Foundation. When editing as volunteers (which they do), they use ordinary user names. When speaking officially, they have another name with (WMF) in it. Peridon (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Content removal

You have made multiple edits with different accounts, removing content without explanation in the edit summary. The agencies and organisations are "located in the UK", the edits are about location and not who is being served by them, this is an international encyclopaedia. Please also note that Wikipedia accounts are strictly for individuals.Theroadislong (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the format of the two requests above, to reflect the fact that they have as yet not been reviewed by an admin, although admins have commented elsewhere on the page. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)