User talk:Angelarking

Sockpuppet investigation
CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

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:. Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Unblock: I'm trying to remove false information

 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Have you looked at the edits made by Angelarking and by their predecessor, (the apparent subject of the article), or are you relying on what Nat has said? Also, have you looked at Sockpuppet investigations/Mdangel filed by  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 . 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Administrators noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at 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)

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)