SighSci

Welcome!

Hello, SighSci, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Cassava Sciences, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Best practices for editors with close associations
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a conflict of interest?

Hi SighSci. Since you've been editing here, you've been focused exclusively on Cassava Sciences and related articles. While doing so, you've added more than one Cassava Sciences press release as a source in the articles. This pattern is commonly seen in editors who have a conflict of interest. Do you have any such conflict when it comes to Cassava Sciences? If you're unsure, you might get some clarity from reading WP:COI, which also details important steps you must take (including declaration) if you do have such a conflict. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

SighSci seems to have obliquely acknowledged a COI here, but does not yet seem to be fully taking on board Wikipedia policies and guidelines. To my frustration. Post follows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

SighSci, you've been editing Cassava Sciences since I asked the above question. I would appreciate a response. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I have a COI, which is why I have spelled things out on the Talk page instead of editing, once informed. However, please show me where in the Reuters article it says the DOJ investigation started AFTER the FDA petition was denied. It does not say, because it is not true. It simply says "is investigating," never when it started. Stated this way, the reader believes that the DOJ picked up where the FDA left off because FDA can't stop trials (untrue). FDA can't be asked to do an investigation, but they stop trials all the time. Remember this DOJ investigation was leaked at the moment the negative camp needed it and they wanted it to read as if things have finally gotten so bad the DOJ is "now investigating" (and how did they know about it in the first place? I'll let you guess.) I appreciate your efforts here, truly, but I'm just trying to point out some inaccuracies. Remember this page and the related ones were started by people who also have a COI but in trying to take down the company, stop the trials of a promising AD drug candidate by spreading FUD and make money shorting the stock in the process -- my original intent was to correct for accuracy. I did not start this page to promote the company and would rather not be here at all. In fact, some of original posters appeared to be paid foreign bashers as evidenced by "Atlanta, Canada" on a related page. There are more COIs than financial with the main petitioner, which I will not outline. I understand you are trying to adhere to rules, which I can barely absorb -- true, wiki is not my thing. Why can't you cite the Compliance Week article? Reporting on compliance (i.e. government regulations including market manipulation) is what they do, yet you discredit it -- why? Both sides of the story are important here, and currently it highlights the negative side (Please read the Cassava 8-K filed with the SEC in response to the NYT article for some perspective). The news loves bad news, so the clearance by JPAD was not picked up and JPAD did not see the need for an editorial note (but relayed that they have been bombarded with calls and emails asking "When are you going to retract this article?") To leave out this clearance is to show an imbalanced picture. Promising recent clinical data was also not picked up, but you can bet that if it had been bad, AF would have been all over it and exaggerating, just like his claim (it is a claim only) that "enrollment has slowed." (How would he know from a single data point?) Or, per the title, "Troubles mount for Cassava...." Look up his July 29, 2021 hit piece on Cassava. This guy also ranked the Cassava CEO in his top 10 worst because he CLAIMED he was promoting the company on Reddit. This CEO has never had a social media account of any sort ever, but I guess it's true, because AF said it. Enough of a rant. Thank you for your time. I guess this will just sit until better news comes out. I am done, really. SighSci (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

On the DOJ investigation: you're right, and I self-reverted. Thanks for the COI declaration. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Firefangledfeathers. I'd like to point out that Retraction Watch does not likely meet your standards of Reliable Sources, particularly as they misrepresented 3 of the 5 PLOS retractions as Cassava-related (just like Piller's deeply flawed Science article, which also erroneously called a JCI paper Cassava-related, while falsely discrediting it at the same time). Compliance Week is a much more reputable publication, which I urge you again to consider citing. Thanks again for your time here. SighSci (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Here you go: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Retraction Watch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

For stuff like this, I highly recommend posting at the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

SighSci, I'm going to be direct: if you don't self-revert this edit, I'm going to seek some admin response to your COI editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edits on Cassava Sciences-related articles and my time

Hi, SighSci; I am pleased to see that both Alexbrn and Firefangledfeathers have pitched in here with more information, along with the help at Talk:Cassava Sciences from ZICgene. I sense from your last posts at the talk page that you are frustrated by the pace. I submit that the lack of recent progress at that article is partly due to your participation, where you aren't taking on board Wikipedia policies and guidelines and continue to fill the page with opinion, press releases and churnalism sources without supplying secondary sources for the changes you wish to see. Complicating this is the need to sort out which primary source is which; work is in progress at Talk:Cassava Sciences/Primary sources, but we still need to relate secondary sources to each primary source. It's not clear to me which primary sources are being referenced in the secondary sources we have.

I am sometimes iPad editing from an iPhone hotspot, and able to make a long (talk only) post like this one. I am not able to make more complex edits involving citation templates until I am home at a desk on a real computer. It is most frustrating to see my "real" computer time misspent when I come to the talk page to find more long posts from you based on press releases and churnalism, but without helping sort primary/secondary. We are all volunteers here; if you could stay on topic, and use the talk page more judiciously, then when we do sit down to make real edits, they will be more productive. The time when I could focus intensely was somewhat misspent; I am now quite busy for the next three days but will do as much as I can as soon as I'm able. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Just seeing this -- thank you. I did just now add the Remoxy publications since that seemed innocuous/easy. I couldn't tell whether you were busy or just sticking to the negative side of the story because that is what the secondary sources like and have published. Please know that Biogen's page, for example, is FULL of press release citations. I see it as a difficult balance between leaving out important information (like the JPAD clearance) and wanting to stick only to secondary sources. Thanks again. SighSci (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying primary sources can never be used, but they shouldn't be used to contradict higher quality secondary sources, or for self-promotion. For now, I'm more concerned with sorting out what's what. I can't always tell which primary source (of the many) is the one being discussed in a given secondary source, which is why I started the sub-page. You can add comments at the bottom of that page, if you're able to provide any clue there; I left a column that I need to fill in. And we need to sort which primary sources relate to Cassava, which to Simufilam, and which to Burns. Once I know what's what, I'll be more confident to build and repair content. Re Biogen, I don't care (I believe I've explained this before on talk). WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS all over Wikipedia, and Biogen is assessed as C-class, meaning low quality (I work mostly on featured articles-- feel free to have a look at dementia with Lewy bodies as a example, so you won't be expecting me to edit like the OtherCrapThatExistsonWikipedia). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Simufilam. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Hello SighSci. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:SighSci. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=SighSci|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. SmartSE (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

SighSci, you've already failed once to heed SmartSE's "do not edit further until you answer this message". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

OK wow. No, I am not being paid to edit, but I do suspect that the original pages were created by someone or people paid to bash the company, the drug and Burns. It was pure slander. This is why I have tried to mitigate damage on these pages. This company has been under attack for a year by someone with a long list of conflicts beyond being a short seller of the company stock. It is a coordinated group who Tweet defamatory things constantly and particularly when they naked short the stock to drive down the price. These massive short selling attacks are also highly coordinated with the hit pieces in the media (every time), aimed at discouraging people from enrolling in the trials and damaging the reputations of Cassava, Burns and Wang. In the end, it is the Alzheimer's community who will suffer. Some press releases are used, yet the JPAD clearance cannot be. I don't understand how this decision is made. And sorry for not making my suggestions "more readable." I am trying. SighSci (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Where is your evidence that the "company has been under attack for a year by someone with a long list of conflicts beyond being a short seller of the company stock"? I'm seeing mostly content biased in favor of the company; that is, not driven by short selling. Also the question to be answered about paid editing is broader than "I am not being paid to edit", which could be read as a weasled response to your relationship to Cassava and any compensation you might get from them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's be very clear about this - if you are an employee of Cassava then your edits here constitute paid edits, even if you are not directly being paid to make them. Just to remind you, we know an IP address registered to Cassava began editing in May, then when this was called out on Twitter, another IP address was used - Special:Contributions/2600:1700:bb80:88a0::/64. Your edits are very similar to the edits from these IP addresses and it is therefore reasonable to assume that you are the same person as was editing from these IP addresses. Further, as pointed out by Sandy, you are sufficiently knowledgable about the personal life of Lindsay Burns to know that she continues to be a rower. While you have provided a link to a site displaying rowing results, this hardly helps your case, as even with my fairly advanced google-fu (e.g. "Lindsay Burns" site:regattacentral.com, "Burns, L." site:regattacentral.com), I wasn't able to find that information myself, so it's difficult to see how came across it without having a close connection to Burns. Your cries of whataboutism are irrelevant to your conduct here. I will give you one more opportunity to disclose your relationship. SmartSE (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes an employee, whose employer pays them to be silent, not to edit. But while I am here, please remove the personal identifying information for the Lindsay Burns page. Birthday should not be posted online. This was requested to be removed ages ago and now it is back up. SighSci (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The Lindsay Burns birthdate is cited information that is already public information because of her rowing career. But while I am here, is Texas a community property state? One of the sources says that Barbier stands to make up to $100 million if certain short-term stock price benchmarks are met. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Should I provide you with her SSN too? The rowing community is not trying to attack her. Please remove it from this page -- it is personal identifying information. Even the patients in the clinical trials cannot provide the company with birthdate. I do not know whether TX is community property state, but you should know that bonuses are accrued but not paid out until the drug is approved or perhaps partnered, and I would also check your source about the $100 million amount -- where does that come from exactly? People say anything. Until voted by shareholders, the company could no longer issue options to new employees (the limited number had already been handed out over the 24 years of the company) so it instituted a different compensation plan. Does it make sense that the company's balance sheet would be drained while expensive clinical trials are ongoing? No. SighSci (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I repeat: the birthdate is already publicly available published information. Introducing SSN is a strawman. (Are you insinuating that Wikipedia is "trying to attack her" by including her publicly known birthdate?)

The 108 million is cited in the article to a high-quality reliable source; if you want to be taken seriously here, I suggest you start reading those and start responding using reliable sources rather than filling talk pages with your opinions. You requested (repeatedly) on article talk that the 100 million that could be reaped by short sellers belonged in the article, and you provided the Bloomberg source for that on talk. [1] For balance, the equal 108 million that could be reaped by Barbier from the compensation plan had to go in as well. Where do you have a reliable source that bonuses are not paid until the drug is approved? (The source in the article states that bonuses are not tied to approval. BTW, the lawsuit about the compensation plan ... described by a reliable source as "unusual" ... is not mentioned in the article until/unless secondary sources give it significant coverage.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

PS, per WP:NOTNEWS, I'd be amenable to removing both the 100 and the 108 million from the article, but that would require a consensus discussion among other editors at article talk-- not a user talk page discussion. What we can't do is leave the impression that one group stands to benefit, while leaving out that others do as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the $100 million was already reaped and recorded, versus "stands to reap" is a bit different, but I do not object to either -- if in a reliable source. I am not insinuating that wiki is attacking anyone, but there are people attacking Cassava and especially the reputations of both Burns and Wang, so best to keep this information out of the public eye. The birthdate was in an ancient rowing page back when birthdate was not widely considered sensitive. Today, identity theft is rampant. It would be better if it could disappear from both sites. SighSci (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand and sympathsize, but nothing just disappears from the internet. It's public info now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers directed you to the discussion at the COI noticeboard today at 04:06. Smartse posted to you here at 16:23. And yet, at 19:54 you disregarded SmartSE's instruction: {{... do not edit further until you answer this message}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Cassava Sciences, Simufilam and Lindsay Burns for persistent disruption due to a conflict of interest. The talk pages of the articles and the various noticeboard discussion are still available for discussion, but you can no longer edit the articles directly.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Note this is a checkuser block due to private evidence regarding the use of this account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. I voluntarily stopped editing any of these pages some time ago. SighSci (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I was just coming here to add this (now moot). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

PLEASE

SighSci, I have tried repeatedly to get you to understand how to format a request on talk, and it is quite frustrating that I have made no progress. I have a back injury; you can read about it at the top of my talk page if you're so inclined, but the easiest way for me to avoid sitting long stretches at a computer is to edit from an iPad. the effect of a post like this is that I am forced to a "real computer" so I can begin to sort out what you're asking. First, you don't say, on the talk page, which specific current text you want changed. Second, you don't explicitly state what you want it changed to. Third, you don't supply the source on the talk page that backs the change. All this combined means I can't sort what you're asking for without a) figuring out what text you're talking about, b) figuring out change you're suggesting, and c) then figuring out what, if any, source supports the requested change. I'm doing my best to honor your requests as quickly as I can, as few others are following, but the way you pose your requests does not make it easy. Please understand that, while you may "live and breathe" the Cassava/Simufilam articles, other editors are involved in editing dozens to hundreds of Wikipedia articles at a time, so the more concrete and complete your requests, the more likely it will be resolved quickly. For example:

Current text: The brown fox jumped over the dog.

Proposed text: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

Source: Mandavilli2022 or Michaels or Keefe2022 or a link, or something that doesn't force me and every other talk page reader to go find a source and figure out if the proposed wording complies.

Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Block modified due to ongoing disruption

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued disruption due to an insurmountable conflict of interest.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have stated my COI and am not requesting permission to edit, but I would like to request access to the TALK pages for each. I have not been disruptive. All three pages are very one-sided and the situation has evolved and continutes to evolve, yet this is not reflected in the current pages. "Cassava denies wrongdoing" should be followed up with "and has filed a defamation lawsuit in federal court against perpetrators of a "short and distort" campaign against the company." Additionally, the editor-in-chief of one journal (JCI) wrote an editorial calling out the financial conflicts of the "whistleblowers" who make false accusations of data manipulation so they can profit from the stock price manipulation. She notes similar experiences of 25 other journal editors. This side of the story needs to be cited and told. Thank you.

Decline reason:

You've demonstrated you are not capable of editing in that subject area appropriately. Yamla (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2022 (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.