Hello, Sir Barkselot! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

The talk page on Deepak Chopra is not the place to discuss theories/accusations/problems with other editors. Article Talk Pages are for discussions on how to improve the article itself, matters concerning individual editors belong on their respective Talk Pages. I would be happy to discuss your issues, but please remove your post from the article Talk Page and renew the discussion either here or on my own Talk Page. The Cap'n (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that new editor Sir Barksalot isn't intimidated by this, I want to reassure that the above comment is purely the Cap's opinion on our talk page guidelines. In a case such as this, where the Cap is apparently employed by an organisation set up by the subject of the article, specifically in order to influence that article here on wikipedia, (this can all be found on the talk page archive) it is a legitimate talk page subject. Be careful though. WP:OUTING an editor is considered a heinous offence here, so you must be careful what you say, even if the information is freely available, bringing it into wikispace is fraught with pitfalls. You must be very circumspect. -Roxy the dog™ woof 13:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

I was trying to be civil and informative in my requests, and apologize if I came across as intimidating in my initial post. I am less inclined to be friendly as Sir Barkselot continues to cast WP:ASPERSIONS against me on the article Talk Page, but am willing to overlook that as the actions of someone new to WP. I must point out his apparent familiarity with the page, the topic and WP in general seems to put that in question.

To repost the last statement from the article Talk Page:

Bringing this Huffington Post article to the attention of the Chopra talk page is good because the article solicits editing with an off-Wiki call to take action and likely explains current edit warring actions on the Chopra page.

The formula is simple and we see a lot of it now days in the wider social arena. A primary actor with an agenda sets up and/or encourages a crusading organization. The organization - in this case a purported online reference library disseminates inflammatory rhetoric about great wrongs and evil acts being done, then lone wolf individuals take up the cause and act out in order to right the great wrongs. (usually there is a spiritual or religious imperative involved) The Primary is then able to maintain deniability and avoid direct responsibility for the actions of the lone wolf individuals.

As far as asking you, The Cap'n for clarification of your involvement with the soliciting article I probably would not have done so if you had not previously on this talk page stated your non involvement as a promoter of Deepak Chopra while asserting that you are simply a "manager of an online reference library". So I asked you if you would be willing to clarify your statement - which you had already made here- in relation to the soliciting that was in the HuffPost article which seems to have originated from a Chopra supported online reference library. Sir Barkselot (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I boiled down the general points I see in your posts and have the following responses:

• ISHAR only purports to be a library, but is actually designed to be a PR machine for Deepak Chopra. This is more than a little frustrating on several levels. First, everyone at ISHARonline.org has put in a tremendous amount of work building one of the world’s largest open-access reference libraries about Integrative Health & Culture. We’ve put together 56,000 sources, dozens of full texts, spoken at international conferences, affiliated with major universities, and otherwise spent 99% of our time & energy on those matters. Second, as far as social media, ISHAR has put out a few dozen Tweets (most having nothing to do with Deepak Chopra), a handful of Facebook posts (most having nothing to do with Deepak Chopra), 0 Deepak Chopra article edits by an ISHAR contributor and two blogs by an ISHAR contributor that discuss Deepak Chopra. If this is a massive conspiracy to promote Deepak Chopra’s PR, you’d think we might do some promoting or PR.
• The Huffpo article is soliciting off-wiki to right great wrongs in an unethical and deceptive manner. As I’ve said before, I’m not here to attest to off-wiki blogs, but I can unofficially and personally point out flaws in this reasoning. I’ve read the blog in question and it never presents a positive spin or a POV it wants pushed, it only highlights biased and/or unethical content in the current article and explains how they violate WP policy. Given the dozens of times I’ve seen editors on the Chopra page explain their dedicated condemnation of the man as a moral mission to save the world from what they consider dangerous ideas, I’d say the blog was a ‘commentary’’ on an existing WP:RGW & WP:POV problem, not the cause of it.
• You need to clarify exactly who you are and what your activities off-wiki are. With respect, no I do not. For future reference (as Roxy points out), pushing for the release of personal information is considered poor form at the least. I voluntarily provided my professional connections to a non-profit that has received funding from the Chopra Foundation and announced I would refrain from editing the Chopra article out of respect for potential CoI. This was done out of good faith, but asking for details on my off-wiki life is not appropriate or on the table.

I hope these answers were helpful, and if you are indeed new to WP I highly recommend you peruse the policy links I included. As I said before, I’m happy to talk about personal issues off of the article page, so please let me know if you have further questions or concerns. The Cap'n (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat these points:

"ISHAR only purports to be a library, but is actually designed to be a PR machine for Deepak Chopra."

OK I know what ISHAR is.

What is the root issue here is I noticed that on the Chopra talk page you said:

"my position does not entail promoting Deepak Chopra, but managing an online reference library"

You manage an online reference library and do not promote Deepak Chopra. Do you swear this is true? You said it so it should be true. Right?

Where I come from and that is just about all over, we don't respect devious behavior. If this is devious behavior it would make Deepak Chopra look bad. And it would not reflect well on your online reference library either. That seems logical.

"The Huffpo article is soliciting off-wiki to right great wrongs in an unethical and deceptive manner."

I don't think the Huffington Post article is soliciting people to come to Wikipedia in a "deceptive" manner. The article is totally up front about telling people reading at the Huffpost that great wrongs are being done to Deepak Chopra at Wikipedia and people should come to Wikipedia to "fix it".

Finally, the third point, you, The Cap'n don't seem to be being truthful when you imply that I said:

"You need to clarify exactly who you are and what your activities off-wiki are."

I absolutely never said this. It looks like you are the one who is making WP:ASPERSIONS.

I said:

"Perhaps" you "would like to inform us about" your "relationship to this article and it's recruitment strategy?"

I politely asked you if you would like to inform about it.

It is clear that you do not wish to do that in any clear and open manner. So what's the big drama deal? You don't want to clarify about it. Just say so. I did not ask you to dodge all over the place. it was a simple request.

I asked you because your statement on the Chopra talk page- "my position does not entail promoting Deepak Chopra, but managing an online reference library"- seemed to be such a glaring contradiction that it puts an embarrassingly bad light on Deepak Chopra. And I don't think that serves him well.

I sincerely hope you understand that. Sir Barkselot (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention to misquote you; I directly stated I was paraphrasing what I interpreted from your post. I did my best to openly respond to your several posts with explanations for my positions and links to relevant WP policies, and do not understand the hostility that seems to be coming through in your posts, especially since we have never interacted before this. As an aside, please note that WP is not a court of law, and including technical qualifiers like "if" and "perhaps" in front of implications that I am devious, deceptive, unethical, dodgy, embarrassing, etc, does not make these WP:CIVIL comments.

The main point that you have issue with (I feel comfortable at least paraphrasing this) seems to be my statement "my position does not entail promoting Deepak Chopra, but managing an online reference library". Can you point out exactly what I've posted or edited that makes you feel this is a false statement? (see WP:DIFF for how best to do this) I've contested the WP:BLP applicability of sources, discussed NPOV issues, provided refs, etc, but to my knowledge I have not put out any promotional material or other publicity-style content. The fact that I do not share the negative perception of Chopra that is common on the page does not mean I am "promoting" him, and I've contributed to multiple pages relating to my library work. They just don't tend to be controversial or drag on.

Finally, I'm not sure why you're describing this as a "big drama deal." You asked for information and I tried to provide it in a direct manner. If you'd rather not continue this conversation, we're on your Talk Page and I will of course respect that. I'm trying to be responsive, not belligerent. The Cap'n (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC

Your responses have been a "big drama" insofar as you could have directly and succinctly answered if you want to clarify your statement that "your position does not promote Deepak Chopra" and done so in a sentence or two. Talking around an issue is not generally considered being direct. You claim that you have "tried" to answer directly- by definition-

"Extending or moving from one place to another by the shortest way"

I don't think you have succeeded.

Instead. in responses from you I have gotten lengthy justifications of ISHAR and all it's non-Deepak activities. I have been accused of various violations and been hit with an assertion that I am a hostile editor. I don't see the concrete evidence and I really think an apology is in order.

I feel there may be a lot of psychological projection going on with your style.

Why do I care if people at ISHAR have "put in a tremendous amount of work" if it is "one of the largest O.A. Ref. libraries on "integrative health" with 56,000 sources, some full texts and has had reps speak at conferences, is affiliated with Universities etc. etc.

As you say, this is not a court of law.. ("please note that WP is not a court of law") so why such a lengthy (and accusatory) defense with demands for precise WP:DIFFs and evidences of your promotion of Chopra?

Your court analogy certainly seems like projection to me.

The same with your saying I am casting WP:ASPERSIONS when you untruthfully represented my position as demanding that you "need to clarify exactly who you are and what your activities off-wiki are." as if I were in violation when I never made that demand.

Your aspersions claim also feels like projection.

It all seems like a needless defensive dramatization to me. And the longer you keep going the more it seems so.

Of course I would prefer not to have your continuing last word scroll on my talk page because from a psychological perspective I believe it is basically manipulative and overly defensive. Plus your lack of directness is not pleasurable for me to deal with. It keeps me way too involved in this issue when I don't have the time.

I probably have enough reason to conclude you are promoting Deepak Chopra just from the entry statement above by Roxy the dog™ - "the Cap is apparently employed by an organization set up by the subject of the article, specifically in order to influence that article here on Wikipedia, (this can all be found on the talk page archive)".

Who am I to believe? At least Roxy gave his opinion directly without any ongoing drama, projection, accusations, extensive wordsmithing, or seeming willful misinterpretation. Which made it a lot easier to come to my own conclusions without feeling set upon.

So where does this leave me? Look what we have done to my talk page! And you say you are not sure why I described it as a big drama deal. Well, I suppose I can find humor in that.Sir Barkselot (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]