User talk:JBW

Legacypac... again

JBW, I don't know what to do about this but I figured I would at least post it here so I can find it later. ARE related to firearms. LP chimes in [[1]]. I replied to LP's accusations. The reply was a posting on my talk page accusing me of lying. LP has yet to back the accusation. Anyway, my concern is this is yet another example of LP throwing out accusations of bad faith and claims of COI without any substance. [[2]] When is enough enough? Thanks. Springee (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Suspicious editing on Generation related articles

Hello, I noticed that you blocked IPs: [3] [4] [5] [6] per “Block evasion by a long-blocked editor.” There’s a recent edit here [7] made by an IP which geo-locates to the same location as the blocked IPs and appears to be from the user [8]. The same interest in the Generation-related articles, same editing patterns, same spelling and grammar, and same type of agenda editing made me suspicious that these are all made by the same user User:Aboutbo2000. The contributions from the editor and the IPs show that the editor is not here to collaborate with other users and improve the articles, but to push their POV against reliable source by trimming down or removing reliable sources, misrepresenting what the sources state, adding unreliable sources that match their POV, and reverting changes that they disagree with. Could you look into this please? Thanks for your time, Someone963852 (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Someone963852: Thank you for that. You have provided the essential ink which definitely confirms what I strongly suspected. I shall block the IP address and the account that you mentioned. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I highly appreciate it and the quick response time. Someone963852 (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Email

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DynaGirl (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:DynaGirl on generation-related articles

Since you are a third-party, uninvolved administrator, could I request your thoughts on an issue that has been going on for a long time now regarding a certain editor? There is currently a discussion going on at the Millennials talk page Talk:Millennials#Date_Range_Sources regarding the reliability and accuracy of the sources in the ‘Date and age range definitions’ section. The current article states that the “United States Census Bureau defines the millennial generation as those born from 1982–2000,” but as stated by the topic starter, this is inaccurate and untrue. The editor provided two sources, including one from the official 2017 US Census Bureau [9], which states differently and proposes that the current source used in the article be updated.

But as expected, User:DynaGirl who thinks they own the generation-related articles and has misrepresented and misled sources in the past to push their non-neutral POV replied by ignoring the discussion topic at hand and misrepresents the RfC conclusion [10] (the RfC was about changing the lead of the Millennials article and nothing about the reliability of sources or the current discussion at hand) in an attempt to stifle the discussion because updating the sources wouldn't match their non-neutral POV.

I learned from this comment [11] that the User:DynaGirl’s long-term, problematic and disruptive behavior of editing fits exactly into what is called Civil POV Pushing.

Locality - They often edit primarily or entirely on one topic or theme. The user mainly edits the generation-related articles, such as Xennials, Millennials, Generation Z, Generation X, Baby Boomers, the Generations sidebar, etc and stated that they have a specific interest in the generation-related articles [12]. They've formed their own opinions and conclusions on what the generation-related articles should be, so they try to push their POV onto the articles regardless of collaboration or what reliable sources have to say.

Neutrality - They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV The user trimmed down the Pew source [13] and added a "disclaimer" at the end of it despite objections on the talk page because they personally disagreed with the Pew's date ranges. The user tried to disclaim the main Pew source on a different article [14] by misrepresenting a different source [15]. The user added “An earlier 2014 publication from Pew Research described the cohort as born after the year 2000” after the main Pew source using [16] as a reference. But the reference used is not the views of Pew nor is it a report by Pew (which the changes inaccurately implies and misleads the reader to thinking it is); it’s a book interview with Paul Taylor, the author of the book, and the author's views on the date ranges. The user is misrepresenting sources under the guise of "tweaking" to mislead readers and push their POV. give undue weight to fringe theories – pseudoscience, crankery, conspiracy theories, marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints, and the like. The user stated in a discussion that the outdated Neil and Howe Strauss source “stands the test of time” and gives undue weight to it just because the source matches their POV and uses it to disregard the other more reliable, relevant and up-to-date sources which disagree with the date ranges. They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in." The user tried to add [17] sources that closely match and support their POV, even though those sources are not defining or researching the Millennial date ranges in any way but uses them for categorical purposes. Even the Chamber of Commerce source that the user added [18] states that "Sources, though, are inconsistent, with as many as 21 different birth spans referenced." When they are unable to refute discussion on the talk page against their point of view, they will say the discussion is original research. The user is accusing [19] another editor of original research because they personally disagree with it.

Editing They revert war over such edits. The user has edit warred on generation-related articles [20][21] and was giving a warning that they will be blocked by an administrator [22]. They may use sockpuppets, or recruit meat puppets. [23] Interaction with the blocked IP who shares the same POV as the user.

Discussions They hang around forever, wearing down more serious editors and become an expert in an odd kind of way on their niche POV. They outlast their competitors because they're more invested in their point of view. Looking through the talk pages and archives of the Millennials [24], Generation Z [25], Xennials [26], and other generation related talk pages, if any discussion crops up that the user disagrees with, they'll be there to push their POV until the conclusion ends in their favor or until the other editors eventually relent and leave. There is absolutely no collaboration taking place. The most recent example here [27] where the user opposed the article move [28] by lying and claiming that "it seems at odds with multiple discussions and concerns raised on the above talk page." But looking through the Talk:The_Greatest_Generation and Talk:G.I._Generation and its archive, the only one discussion about the move was [29] which was started by the same user and which the user moved the page against objections from another editor. Here is an example [30] of an editor pointing out the user’s disruptive behavior on a different article. They often make a series of frivolous and time-wasting requests for comment, mediation or arbitration, again in an attempt to wear down other editors. The most recent one was [31] [32] and I wouldn't be surprised if the user requested an RfC for the current issue or any other new issue that crops up that disagrees with their personal opinions. They will often misrepresent others or other discussions in an attempt to incriminate or belittle others' opinions. An editor pointed out that the user has misrepresented them and an administrator [33].

Sources They argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature. The fact that the user is opposed to the recent discussion [34] on making sure that the sources in the article are accurate and reliable says a lot about the user, their uncollaborative nature, and their attempts to make the article fit their POV. An editor provided sources for their proposed changes [35], but the user accused them of original research or synthesis [36] because they personally disagree with the changes.

These are just some few examples that I can remember off the top of my head. Is there anything that can be done about User:DynaGirl and their long-term pattern of problematic and disruptive behavior in the form of Civil POV Pushing? Could you give me your thoughts please? It seems like any edits or changes to the generation-related articles will have to go through that user's approval first or the changes will be reverted then discussed extensively on the talk page to meet that user's POV before any changes can be made.

Thank you for your time and for reading this, Someone963852 (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

And of course, right when I was about to publish this, the user emails you [37] out of the blue after their POV pushing friend got blocked. Someone963852 (talk) 03:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:JamesBWatson, did you get a chance to read through the above? Or is there a different place that I should be bringing this issue to? Someone963852 (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Someone963852: Yes, I have read it, and also emails relating to this from two editors (including the email that you mentioned above). I have also fairly extensively read editing history relating to the issues. Unfortunately the whole thing is very complicated; as well as the complexities of the actual editing, there have been accusations of sockpuppetry, accusations of a Joe Job with an editor trying to give the impression of sockpuppetry by another editor, and so on, and there has certainly been a sockpuppeteer involved in the past, who may or may not still be using sockpuppets. Because of the complexity of the thing, combined with the fact that when I received the various messages about it I had less time available for Wikipedia than usual, I left it, intending to come back to it when I had more time. I apologise for not telling you I was doing that. There certainly is a problem, and you have pointed out some aspects of the problem, but what, if any, administrative action should be taken is not obvious. I'll try to come back to this as soon as I can, probably tomorrow or the following day, and make a decision about it. Sorry to have to ask you to bear with me for another day or two, but considering that the editor you refer to has been editing generation articles in much the same way for almost three years, perhaps one or two days more is not too much. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Request to unblock

The article in question is The Myth of the Negro Past. There are more than enough reliable sources to warrant its existence (see Google books here and Google scholar here). Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: I'm not sure what you are asking me to do. I deleted an article of that title over 8 years ago because it was totally promotional. That has no bearing whatever on the possibility of creating another, non-promotional, article on the same subject. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I meant to write "Request to undelete". I understand the content was promotional. I was hoping I could salvage something from it. Is it possible to undelete it? Or, retrieve the content so I can see what was written. Mitchumch (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: Personally I don't see anything there that's worth using, and in my opinion you may as well just create a new article from scratch, but to allow you to make your own judgement I have restored the page, and moved it to User:JamesBWatson/The Myth of the Negro Past. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The writing is not encyclopedic, but there is content worth using. My personal preference is to restore the content to retain attribution then edit it to Wikipedia standards. The book is noteworthy as I've shown with the Google books and scholar links above. It's your call. Mitchumch (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mitchumch: OK. I wouldn't have kept any of the existing content, but if you think it's worth doing so then that's up to you. If the page is going to be kept and made back into an article then there is no need for it to be in my user space, so I have moved it to Draft:The Myth of the Negro Past. I also unthinkingly added an AfC draft notice, just out of habit, though an editor of your experience can obviously deal with it yourself, without the AfC process. However, it does no harm. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Mitchumch (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Since you added the AfC, then please be kind enough to review the article. Remember, it's only a stub. Mitchumch (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mohammad Ali Taheri

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mohammad Ali Taheri. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 49.198.21.145 (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)