User talk:ArielARM

August 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand your concern that I have been editing pages in an attempt to self-promote or refspam, but I would like to assure admins that my edits have been done in good faith in order to expand the information cited in articles that lack significant development with niche research that directly applies to these small, undeveloped pages. Wikipedia's guidelines state that "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." I would like to argue that my edits have in fact been done in good faith and in order to help build the encyclopedia. On the ergative case page, for example, I added a link to the Bumthang page, because it does use the ergative case, as well as a citation for research into both the ergative case and the Bumthang language in order to expand this article's accuracy and thoroughness (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ergative_case&type=revision&diff=974701059&oldid=974607570). I understand how it would seem suspicious that I have added multiple citations from the same author, but this is because the pages that I have been editing relate directly to their fields of research. I am not one of the authors or one of their associates and stand to gain nothing from citing their work. The articles I have referenced are not fringe theories, but are intended instead to expand the information regarding current research into linguistics (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kusunda_language&type=revision&diff=974701053&oldid=974608901 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Austronesian_languages&type=revision&diff=974701070&oldid=974606008). I believe that my contributions fit within Wikipedia's guidelines for productive editing, in that "the contributions are verifiable, do not give undue weight, and where appropriate, comply with WP:FRINGE." I am happy to discuss my reasons for the edits I have made and the ways in which I can be a better contributor to the encyclopedia, as my intention is only to expand the knowledge Wikipedia offers regarding linguistics and endangered languages, the latter being a generally underdeveloped part of Wikipedia. Thank you. ArielARM (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)ArielARM[reply]

Decline reason:

No response -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:49, 7 October 2020 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) As a linguist, I cannot see any common denominator of your edits except for the author of the publications cited in these edits, which cover a wide range of quite unrelated topics. If you focus on a specific field of research, it might happen that you only cite a single author who is the major or even only authority in that topic (e.g. if you had chosen to add information about the Tukang Besi language, this very author would quite naturally fill up the bibliography). But this is obviously not the case here. It looks as if you have grabbed a handful of citations by a single author, and subsequently placed them in articles where you considered they might fit. IMHO, this is a very odd way to expand encyclopedic content, and naturally raises questions. –Austronesier (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesier, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUanfala&type=revision&diff=974749034&oldid=974720842, which contains an open admission of COI refspamming by this group of users. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Yes, I have seen that too, including the similar line of explaining their motivations. I have sent you an email with my thought about it. –Austronesier (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Austronesier Okay, thank you very much for the clarification. I am very new to the world of editing and Wikipedia in general and although my motives and editing were out of good faith and a desire to expand pages, I totally understand that I went about it in the wrong way. user:Uanfala 's comment on the aforementioned thread was also very helpful in explaining the correct way to go about making edits and I understand now that it is necessary not to start with a source and seek articles that could benefit from adding it, but instead start from the articles that could use expanding and then seek relevant sources. I apologize for my ignorance of the correct procedure; please understand that it was not done out of malice or a harmful intent but rather a sincere, albeit misguided, desire to expand information. Guy, I am an (unpaid) intern and have no conflict of interest. Regardless, I 100% understand that my editing process was misguided and incorrect, as well as the correct way to go about editing. Please consider acknowledging my unblock request. ArielARM (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)ArielARM[reply]

My comments were meant as a clarification for the reviewing admins. It's perfectly ok to start with a source and add valuable information from it in articles, if that information is objectively needed and missing. But you have started with a handful of sources that are totally unrelated to each other content-wise (apart from being about linguistics); the only common denominator here is the author. And you have not explained yet the rationale for chosing sources by that criterion. –Austronesier (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Okay, regardless, it helped me understand where I went wrong. Honestly, I wasn't doing exhaustive enough research past the author I found, thinking it was okay to start with one and go on from there from author to author. I was doing author-based editing, which I see was totally the wrong thing to do. I am an amateur in both linguistics and Wikipedia editing and understand that I was not being thorough enough in my additions / research. I don't really know what else to tell you besides that I was misguided in my editing technique but now understand why and how to be a better contributor. I wasn't doing it for personal interest or out of malice. I'm just really new to this and hope you can understand and forgive my ignorance. ArielARM (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)ArielARM[reply]

Your position as an unpaid intern for this (these?) linguistics professor(s) still comprises a conflict of interest as it is a working relationship with them. I would be willing to consider unblocking you on the condition that you properly comply with WP:COI and also promise to avoid citing Anderson, Donohue, or any other colleagues in this linguistics group. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]