User talk:Angelarking

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mdangel, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock: I'm trying to remove false information

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).

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

Request reason:

There is false and slanderous information in the biography of Marc D. Angel. Both the subject of the article and I have tried to edit the piece to be accurate (on 7/22), but the false article has been restated, and I have been blocked. Please remove this page, or allow the subject of the article to correct the falsehoods.

Decline reason:

I don't see where you pointed out what information, specifically, was false. What I can see is that the content you added was blatantly promotional ("one of the foremost spokesmen in America on behalf of Sephardic tradition, history, and culture"? "an intellectually vibrant, compassionate and inclusive Orthodox Judaism"? Independent sources needed. Correcting errors is one thing, but using the opportunity to write a hagiography is quite another. Huon (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As a long-time editor in good standing and with no conflict of interest in this matter, I can say that this user's deletions were largely appropriate. The material deleted was sourced to opinion pieces, which is generally considered inappropriate for BLPs. This user's editing privileges should be restored, although they should be informed about our policies and guidelines with regards to editing when you have a conflict of interest. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I'm inclined to extend this user some more rope in recognition of the fact that NatGertler reviewed their edits and found them to be largely constructive, in addition to the fact that they're a newbie. I will monitor them and reblock if necessary. Okay with you? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Have you looked at the edits made by Angelarking and by their predecessor, Mdangel (talk · contribs · count) (the apparent subject of the article), or are you relying on what Nat has said? Also, have you looked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mdangel filed by CambridgeBayWeather and my findings/notes? If you have and you still believe the editor should be unblocked, I will defer to the opinions of CBW and Huon. Thanks for checking with me, and if the user is unblocked, I appreciate your commitment to monitor their edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be wary to unblock unless Angelarking acknowledges the relevance of WP:COI and WP:PROMO, shows that they understand why their edits were inappropriate and indicates how they'd proceed going forward if they want to add content (hint: {{request edit}}). They're not blocked for removing dubiously-sourced content but for what else they did in the same go. Huon (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with the claim that "They're not blocked for removing dubiously-sourced content but for what else they did in the same go." That may be the reason you didn't unblock them. It wasn't reason they were blocked in the first place. Bbb23 just explained it as "NOTHERE", and that was in the wake of Cambridge complaining about the deletion of "sourced" content on the BLP noticeboard, which I suspect is what drew Bbb23's attention in the first place. Cambridge's reversion of the other accounts changes don't claim about promo, they complain about sourcing. (It's hard to see how "WP:NOTHERE" applies; narrow focus? They were on their first day of editing, I bet most of us only focus on one article on the first day. That also locks out any concerns about "long-term behavior", the "brownie points" is based on not caring if the edits remain in place which is clearly not the case, "Treating editing as a battleground" seems more to describe the other side here, the only gaming claim is "socking", which was found wanting even though Bbb continued to repeat the claim. No interest in working collaboratively? They reached out to a noticeboard for help. And so forth.) Do we normally block people for including one sentence of promo in their editing rather than advising them against promotion? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned about them being unblocked if Nat Gertler is willing to work with them. I do have a question for Angelarking. Do you have any association with Marc D. Angel? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am willing to work with them. (Will also note: if any of my edits come off a little funky in formatting, stray characters, or whatever else - I'm dealing with both an injured hand and a buggy editor at this point.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (Don't worry - this is in your defense, not an attack on you.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc D. Angel

I appreciate your looking into this issue, and I apologize for my lack of experience with the format of this site. Most of the citations in the original article were scathing opinion pieces, which were not accurate. The current content is MORE accurate, but the one error that is still there is the identification of the subject under the photo as "Open Orthodox," since that is not a religious movement that the subject follows or espouses. Simply "Orthodox" would be correct.

Additionally, the use of the term "Open Orthodox" in the following paragraph should be changed to just"Orthodox," based on information on the websites of the organizations in question (which should be used as citations): jewishideas.org internationalrabbinicfellowship.org

In 2007, he established the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, an Open Orthodox organization.[citation needed] He directs the Institute, and edits its journal, Conversations, which appears three times per year. In 2007, he and Rabbi Avi Weiss co-founded the International Rabbinic Fellowship, an association of Open Orthodox rabbis.[2]

I am going to hold off on responding to any edit requests for a short while, because at this point you are still officially "blocked" and I think are supposed to be using your access to your own talk page only to contest said block. However, it looks like that block may be over soon (still going through some procedural stuff while the administrator who would like to remove the block awaits an okay from the administrator who made the block.) Once that clears, the best place to put editing suggestions will be on the page Talk:Marc D. Angel, which is a page set aside for discussing editing of that article. (It looks like you may have a close association with the subject of the article, which would mean you'd have a conflict of interest and should not edit the article directly.) Also, when you make a comment here or there, end your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~); that will add a signature to your comment, so that people reading it know who said it and when. (And don't worry, Wikipedia is not always this much of a storm; you just had bad luck with your first ventures in.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]