User talk:Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA
You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose.
If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice.
You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you would prefer to change your username, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock-un|new username|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. Alexf(talk) 12:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
We understand your point and what you are referring to. We would propose to change the description and outline the names of our editors to give full insights of the responsibilities. We would align the text to the profile of Boehringer Ingelheim that is tsill actvie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BIGlobalComms Is that approach fine by you?
Decline reason:
Thank you for pointing us at an account violating our policies, it's now blocked too. To answer your question, no - per our policy, every editor is supposed to have an individual account. Also, mind our terms of use which requires every account to disclose its financial interest in editing. Max Semenik (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2015 (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.
Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Accept reason:
Your attention needed at WP:CHU
Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks a lot. I responded. - Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA
Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The username is changed. Please unlock the account and I will change the profile description as well.
Accept reason:
Looks like it's sorted - see below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. This account appears to be unblocked - can you please try again and tell us the message you get if you still can't edit? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC) Hi. I do receveive the following information: Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA
- Hmm, that's strange, because your block log shows you as being unblocked on Nov 23. I'll ping @PhilKnight: who did the unblock to see if he can help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA
- Looking closer I see that message was on your user page - but it doesn't actually prevent anything and can be removed, and I have just done so. Have you actually tried clicking the "Edit" tab on an article page? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again, I will change the description before taking any further action. Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA
- As far as I can tell, you're not currently blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Formatting refs
Please see WP:MEDHOW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Review articles
Also per WP:MEDRS we tend to just use review articles. We do not use primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Stefan Oschmann
If you are going to add information to articles such as Stefan Oschmann, where you have an obvious conflict of interest, you must add references. See WP:BLP, etc. Could you please add citations ASAP. Edwardx (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes you are right, thank you for the hint. We have looked at the guidelines regarding to references again and will add asap the additional citations. Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA
I have now added all the citations that have been missing. I'm still waiting for the source from the colleague for the following sentences:
"He joined Merck as a member of the executive board in 2011, and was responsible for the healthcare business sector until the end of 2014.[citation needed] He drove the transformation of biopharma business by optimizing its cost structures and improving the efficiency of its research & development model, which included a clear portfolio prioritization.[citation needed]"
I hope otherwise now everything is fine. Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA
Warning
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising.
You have again added unsourced promotional, corporate-PR-speak content to WP: "He drove the transformation of Biopharma business by optimizing its cost structures and improving the efficiency of its research & development model, which included a clear portfolio prioritization. Furthermore, he played an instrumental role in the Group-wide transformation and growth program “Fit for 2018”, in this dif.
The WP:PAID policy is clear that you should not directly edit articles where you are paid to edit, and content like that is the reason why. You have harmed Wikipedia.
If you directly edit WP where you have a COI again for anything other than simple, uncontroversial updating of facts supported by reliable sources (things like number of employees, location of sites, and the like), I will seek to have you indefinitely blocked for abusing your editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- I apologize for the hasty procedure. In the future, we will request all changes via the Discussion page and add external sources from the outset, as well as check the text on promotional speech. The part you mentioned here we will now also let go. Otherwise, I hope all the changes are so far in order. On our side this article would be finalized. Excuse me again for the procedure and thank you for your feedback!Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA
I want to make the following changes. "Oschmann is the president of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) since 14.06.2017. [1]
References
--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA (talk • contribs) 12:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please make suggestions at the relevant article Talk page. thx Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- about this. Per my note above, had you proceeded, I would have taken you to ANI to seek an indefinite block. Some of the changes you are seeking are just PR and have nothing to do with encyclopedic content. I am doing everything I can to give you fair warning that we really mean it when we say that paid editors are strongly discouraged from directly editing paid content. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback! I apologize for the PR content and completely agree with your comments on the Merck Group discussion page. Thank you for implementing the changes. Rather than editing the page itself I will stick to making suggestions or requests on the discussion page to prevent misconduct. Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA 10:00, 11 July 2017 (CET)
November 2017
Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am writing in response to the indefinite block of my Username Florian Schaub. I apologise if I have infringed on Wikipedia policies which was not my intention. I want to reassure the community that my goal is not promotional in any way, rather, it is to offer assistance to the Wikipedia community in their aim of providing current and up-to-date information on their pages. With this in mind, I would be grateful for your feedback on a number of issues that have been raised to ensure, in future, I interact with Wikipedia in an acceptable way:
- Username – as you can appreciate, roles change within an organisation and individuals leave. Would it be possible to make it clear in the notes when an alternative person is writing as a representative of the account holder? If not, and to resolve the issue with my account, would you be happy if one or several additional accounts are set up for members of the Merck team who might be involved in suggesting revisions to the content on Wikipedia pages. I would also like to bring to your attention that there is an ongoing discussion on the local German Wikipedia pages in which members on this site also seem unclear as to the best approach for Company usernames to be set up and regulated. I would appreciate your guidance on the best approach on how to proceed here.
- Making changes directly on the pages – I would like to seek guidance from the community on what steps I can take if nobody responds to my posts on the talk pages after 2 weeks? My proposed changes were not for promotional purposes; instead, I just wanted to correct misleading/incorrect statements, and crucially, to provide current information on these products. If you prefer, instead of making the changes myself, is there someone I can reach out to directly within the community, if nobody responds to my posts on the talk pages?
- Company press releases – I just wanted to bring to your attention that no company press releases but only 3rd party references will be used to support information in the future
- Proposing major/minor changes – I would like to clarify if there are different and separate guidelines for proposing major and minor changes. I understand that proposed major changes will need to undergo greater scrutiny from the community, but the latter tend to be ignored, even if they are no less important in correcting misleading information.
- Best practice – would there be any possibility to directly contact Doc James as an opportunity to seek his guidance and insight for best practices on how companies interact with Wikipedia?
Many thanks, Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have received the feedback below. What you haven't done is address your inappropriate edits that you previously had promised to not make. Thus I don't think that unblocking you would improve the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2017 (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.
- I am not an admin and cannot unblock you but I will respond to some things:
- User accounts cannot be shared in English Wikipedia. Only one person should have the password and only one person should use the account. I was wondering if the edits leading to the block were made by some person other than the one who had promised to not do that. Please be aware that each language Wikipedia has its own editing community, and each editing community has evolved somewhat different policies and guidelines. What German Wikipedia decides about "corporate accounts" has no bearing on what English Wikipedia decides; we do understand that the view of de-WP is different from ours. Generally, if several members of a PR department have en-WP accounts, they should each disclose very clearly on their Userpage and at any articles where they work. In my view it would be useful if, on the userpage for each member of the team, that person says that he or she is a member of a PR team and provides links to the userpages of other members of the team. Members of the team should be careful to avoid WP:GANG behavior.
- Please do not expect the WP editing community to act like a service providing company. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort and we do not have paid staff servicing company's PR departments. If a request lingers without being addressed, you can add a 2nd template or ping independent editors who have worked on the page before. You will find that if you propose high quality, truly NPOV, very well sourced content, that is also well-formatted with complete citations, you will get better results. Please be aware that if you establish a reputation for proposing low quality, promotional, badly-sourced, badly formatted content, it is unlikely that any one will want to use their volunteer time to help you. Generally, we very much appreciate you honoring the COI guideline. Also in general, please be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or blog, and it is rare that anything will be "urgent".
- This account has promised that before. This statement is not meaningful to me, at least. But it would be good if you actually did this.
- In general, the community is fine with paid editors and people with a COI directly editing articles in order to do very non-controversial, simple things, like update an address if an office moves or reverting very clear vandalism. When I say "very non-controversial things" I mean very noncontroversial things. In general representatives of Merck KGaA have a history of being way too aggressive in directly editing articles, and given that history (and the fact that a representative's account has been indefinitely blocked for abusing his editing privileges), there will be almost no tolerance for pushing the limits of "noncontroversial."
- I talk to people from companies and freelance paid editors fairly often, to provide guidance about how WP works, the range of views on paid editors and PR people in WP, and guidance about how to be a member of the community as a PR person. I would be happy to speak with you, if you like.
-- Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you @Jytdog: and @Huon:. I would like to address the inappropriate behaviour that has led to my account being blocked, and again appeal to have it re-activated. As such, I have outlined below, first, the mistakes that I have made, followed by the measures I will take in the future to avoid committing these mistakes again as well as to ensure that I am abiding with all of Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies.
1. User account: I apologize for having alternative persons suggest revisions to content on the following Wikipedia pages using my account:
Management of multiple sclerosis
Multiple sclerosis drug pipeline
I did not intend to err from Wikipedia guidelines, but was instead a result of confusion about the differences in guidelines in different language Wikipedia communities. The clarification of these differences in guidelines provided by Jytdog is very helpful. Following your clear guidance on English Wikipedia policies in relation to user accounts (i.e. no sharing of user accounts), my team is working internally to make sure we proceed accordingly in the future. I will ensure that all members of the team who will be making any suggested changes to Wikipedia pages in the future set up an independent account that only they monitor, clearly identifying who they are and their link to me and to Merck KGaA.
2. Citing company press releases: I would like to reiterate my apologies about suggesting two company press releases as references in the proposed changes to the Cladribine page and promise to ensure that this will not happen again in the future. I will be working with my team internally to make sure that each member is aware of this and other Wikipedia guidelines. I will ensure my colleagues are better trained prior to working on the project.
3. In addition, I would also like to apologize again for directly making edits to the following Wikipedia pages:
Multiple sclerosis drug pipeline
If you would re-activate my account, I will re-review the recent requests I have made on the Wikipedia pages to identify only those major changes that I feel are necessary from an educational point of view and that I hope will be accepted by the Wikipedia community. I will ensure that these proposed changes are high quality, non-promotional, well-formatted, and well-sourced with complete citations then post these proposed edits on talk pages. Furthermore, in the future, I will refrain from making the edits to the pages myself, and will instead communicate with editors, such as Jytdog and Doc James and other editors accordingly. I would like to reiterate that my purpose in proposing edits on Wikipedia pages is to provide current and up-to-date information, and not to post promotional content.
4. Lastly, I very much appreciate Jytdog’s offer to speak further and provide guidance; I would find this very helpful. We are new to working in this way and want to progress in accordance with advice from yourselves. Jytdog, what would be the best way to set up call with you to discuss this?
I hope that the administrators would consider my re-appeal to have my account unblocked.
Many thanks, Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have sent to an email via the WP system to whatever email is associated with this account, to set up a time to talk. In the meantime, it would be useful if you read User:Jytdog/How which I wrote to provide an as-brief-as-possible overview to how Wikipedia works, and what we do here, with an emphasis on our mission. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am deeply skeptical here. "Furthermore, in the future, I will refrain from making the edits to the pages myself, and will instead communicate with editors, such as Jytdog and Doc James and other editors accordingly." Sounds nice. We have heard it before: "In the future, we will request all changes via the Discussion page" and, a month later, "Rather than editing the page itself I will stick to making suggestions or requests on the discussion page to prevent misconduct." Why should we believe this time around the assurance will be adhered to any better than the assurances on the same issue that we were given in the past? Huon (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Unblock request 2018 March
Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear all,
I can understand that @Huon: and more authors are still skeptical, I already promised to follow the Wikipedia guidelines and I was not able to prevent misconduct. But please let me outline what changed since my account was blocked due to repeated policy violations:
- Together with some colleagues, @JYTdog: and I spent some time to outline in detail misunderstandings on my end and how to behave in the future:
- I will definitely not update Wikipedia articles directly anymore and will add comments or change requests to the talk page only. Me and each person in my team now understand that each Wikipedia editor (including Merck editors), must aim for Wikipedia's mission, and must follow the policies and guidelines. Internal timelines raised pressure on my end, so I edited articles directly in the past, that was a mistake. I do understand that Wikipedia is a volunteer project that exists for the public good. If my account gets unblocked, I will ensure that that each person at Merck who will enter Wikipedia understands as well.
- Furthermore, as I have already acknowledged, I made the mistake of sharing the account with several other people at Merck. My intention was to have a shared account ensuring different authors stick to Wikipedia’s and the company’s policies at the same time. We realized that the result was not satisfying. I changed the password already, the account is not shared and I will be the only one using it in the future.
- I will set up an internal training that outlines why and how changes should be requested to the talk page.
- If unblocked, I will take care that all my content proposals are high quality, well sourced, aimed at Wikipedia's mission.
- I would like to emphasize again that me and my colleagues realized with JYTdog’s help what we did wrong. This won’t happen again, I am very sorry for the problems I caused and for the time the volunteer community has spent on this.
If you believe that I finally learned how to follow the communities’ policies and why it is important to not infringe Wikipedia’s mission, I would be really thankful if you could unblock my account again.
Br, Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
After two weeks, not a single administrator has expressed desire to unblock you. I personally was prepared to decline this request as soon as it was posted, but decided to give you the benefit of doubt and allow some time for other administrators to review. Looks like nobody's buying your promises after you abused our good will and used the second chance we gave you to post promotional materials and otherwise violate our policies. Max Semenik (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2018 (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.
- fwiw I confirm that I had a conference call with Florian and two other members of the team at Merck. In my view they understand what they did wrong and how that happened and are taking measures to prevent it from happening again. Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm particularly concerned about the following parts of the unblock request:
- "I was not able to prevent misconduct" - not able? Please explain how "not able" is more accurate than "not willing".
- "[...] misunderstandings on my end and how to behave in the future" - what exactly did Mr Schaub understand "In the future, we will request all changes via the Discussion page" or "Rather than editing the page itself I will stick to making suggestions or requests on the discussion page to prevent misconduct." to mean?
- "Internal timelines raised pressure on my end, so I edited articles directly in the past" - Why does Merck even have internal timelines regarding edits to Wikipedia? The only reason I can think of is that the edits were part of a broader marketing strategy - ie, they were meant to promote the company and its products.
- "[...] I made the mistake of sharing the account with several other people at Merck" - at the very top of this userpage there's still the original username block, as well as this comment: "I will implement a description that clearly states that this is an individual account." Is Mr Schaub claiming that, after getting blocked for having a username that implied shared use, after having been told explicitly that "per our policy, every editor is supposed to have an individual account", he did not understand that shared use violates our policies?
- "I would like to emphasize again that me and my colleagues realized with JYTdog’s help what we did wrong" - does Mr Schaub mean to imply that they needed JYTdog's help to realize that it was wrong to do what they had previously said they wouldn't do "to prevent misconduct"?
- I don't doubt Mr Schaub and his colleagues understand what they did wrong and how that happened. But do they want to seriously claim they didn't understand that it was wrong while they did it? To me it seems they simply didn't care what Wikipedia's policies and guidelinnes might have to say, or what Mr Schaub himself had said, when there was a conflict between those policies, guidelines and statements on the one hand and Merck's business interests on the other. Consequently, I reiterate my doubts that any statements made by Mr Schaub this time around will hold if Merck's business interests demand otherwise in the future. Huon (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Dubious I believe too much latitude has been already granted. I see no other purpose in the user editing Wikipedia than promotion of his/their business interests. Unblocking seems like a silly idea. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Take steps? Sounds to me like this account is a group project with multiple employees editing and then when caught out trying to cloud matters with plausible deniability. --Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- when we talked i told the folks from Merck that the statement would be micro-analyzed. i wasn't expecting this level, though.
- What happened is not rocket science to understand - they shared the account internally and didn't put controls around its use, and in that context one person broke promises that another made. And I think they didn't understand that the en-WP community is intolerant of direct paid editing. The German WP community appears to be more ... lax about that, and about allowing corporate accounts.
- if you folks know me, you know that i am pretty fierce about people following the paid policy and COI guideline.
- I do think the folks from Merck get it and that "Alles wird in Ordnung sein" if you understand what i mean; it is pretty humiliating for representatives of a company with a $50B market cap to get themselves indeffed. They are going to implement internal training and ensure that nobody edits directly anymore.
- I would be surprised if there are more problems from them. But you all have the bit. Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think we all understand what happened here. Jytdog, given that Mr Schaub explicitly promised in the past, repeatedly, that it wouldn't happen, why do you think this time around Wikipedia's policies and best practices will carry the day if they again come into conflict with Merck's timetables and marketing strategy?
ThirdFourth time's the charm? On an unrelated note, an acocunt to which multiple people had access should be considered compromised, though for Mr Schaub there may be ways to establish that he is indeed the person in control of the account. On yet another unrelated note, it's my understanding that, if Mr Schaub is located in Germany, his behaviour might actually have broken German law which is even more restrictive about disclosing paid edits than Wikipedia policy, but I'm no lawyer. Huon (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think we all understand what happened here. Jytdog, given that Mr Schaub explicitly promised in the past, repeatedly, that it wouldn't happen, why do you think this time around Wikipedia's policies and best practices will carry the day if they again come into conflict with Merck's timetables and marketing strategy?
- I'm particularly concerned about the following parts of the unblock request:
Awful
See Special:Contributions/Merckkm. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)