User talk:Bnguyen1114

Welcome!

Hello, Bnguyen1114, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

Thanks for your efforts to improve the endorsements page, and my apologies if my initial message was a little harsh. I've been going around to all of the endorsements lists to implement the result of that RfC, which is pretty time-consuming clean-up, and was struck by the FEC filings. Not a big deal, though. I do hope you'll continue to edit the page. Basically, the rule of thumb would be: does the person or organization have a Wikipedia article? Is the endorsement covered in good sources independent of the subject (in newspapers, magazines, high-quality websites, etc. that have no connection to the endorser or endorsee)? Is it unambiguously an endorsement? If yes to all 3, then it should definitely be included. There's one exception: if it's an endorsement by an organization, that organization still needs to be notable, but a tweet or other primary source is sufficient to back it up. Sort of complicated why that exception was created, but there it is. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Like I said in the thread, I will go forward with these exact criteria in mind. With respect to the organizations, I note that I previously included three Native American tribes, all of which fit the criteria for notability, but poorly sourced (that dumb aggregate website again). So if I found a quality citation for each of those tribes' endorsements, that would be acceptable, right? Bnguyen1114 (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thanks! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comments

A couple quick tips for talk pages on Wikipedia:

When you respond to someone, best practice is to indent. That means just beginning each line break with a colon (one more colon than the person before you).

So this:

Hi.
:Hi back.
::How are you?
:::Fine thanks.

turns into this:

Hi.

Hi back.

How are you?

Fine thanks.

Also, at the end of a response, you can "sign" your message by adding four tildes (~~~~). That will leave a link to your userpage and a timestamp. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but since you added several Tweet endorsements to List of Kamala Harris 2020 presidential campaign endorsements I wanted to let you know that the following criteria are in effect for endorsements on this and similar lists.

There is consensus among participating editors that endorsements from an individual must meet all three of the following criteria for inclusion on a list of endorsements:

The endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one
This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources
Coverage of the endorsement needs to use the word endorse, or other closely related synonym.

See WP:ENDORSERFC for details. - Mr X 🖋 18:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think the Proops one was an oversight. Bnguyen1114 is aware of this (see above), and has been usefully adding back material with some secondary sources (Proops being the exception). There's an open question of whether it makes sense to cite the tweet in addition to the secondary source. I don't have a strong opinion about that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit that I was referring to. Not only does the tweet not meet the criteria, but it actually violates policy (WP:BLPSELFPUB) by using a self-published source to make claims about 11 other people. - Mr X 🖋 21:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

→→Well, those legislators each had articles. The endorsement was covered by the Ramirez reporter who is a credible reporter. Coverage of the endorsement was pretty clear and ambiguous. All three criteria have been satisfied. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 05:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some confusion here. The second criteria is: "This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources". Someone posting a picture of list on Twitter is not a reliable source. Self published sources cannot make claims about third parties. If Ramirez is a reporter who has reported this list at a reputable news organization, you should cite the news organization. Please don't use Twitter as a source for endorsements. - Mr X 🖋 12:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello, I'm Frood. I noticed that in this edit to Bernie Bro, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Frood (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carl Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Bullock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Kamala Harris 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Coleman and Christy Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tom Miller, Jeffrey Sanchez and Brian Feldman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Hubbard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Barbara Cooper, Jeffrey Sanchez and Mike Woodard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Price and Doug Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Michael Bloomberg 2020 presidential campaign. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Hancock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deborah Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Michael Coleman, Tony Hall and Ralph Becker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barbara O'Brien (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kamala Harris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katie Hill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Harris

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Kamala Harris. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required.

Also, in the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, DiannnaaBnguyen1114 (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Your addition to Kamala Harris has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to which passages so I can rewrite them? Thanks. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, I'll go through everything I wrote to revise. Thanks for the warning. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bnguyen, I came this close to hitting rollback on the Kamala Harris article, where you made dozens and dozens of edits in a row without bothering to explain what you were doing. PLEASE combine edits, esp. if they are minor and to the same section, and provide edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry boss. Usually when I move around sentences and do minor rewordings, I forget to click "minor edit" or dispense with the edit summaries. I will be more cognizant of that going forward. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not your boss, but I do have an opinion, and I just reverted a TON of edits of yours. Secondary sourcing is necessary not just for reasons of accuracy, but also to prove something is worth noting. You seem to have gone through a database of press releases from Harris's office, cataloging every single one and adding it to the article. That is not how we write encyclopedic articles. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why that isn't allowed? It's a primary source taken directly from a government agency that sets forth the terms of legal disputes. I'll be happy to find secondary sources to back up all the press releases. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my secondarily sourced work on Harris' attacks on Hallinan? I spent hours combing through the SF Chronicle archives for those sources. Why did you revert it back to the cherry-picked innuendo instead of what happened during the runoff election? Do I need to write an entire thing about the Fajitagate incident for it to be included? Bnguyen1114 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no reason for you to take out what I wrote about the Orange County DA, Kern County police, and other topics where I had secondary sources. But if you insist, I will go through every single press release and find a corroborating story. Also, I find it ridiculous that you would even strike stuff that I wrote LEGAL ANALYSIS for to provide context for reported claims. That kind of context is absolutely necessary. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have made so many edits, hundreds, that it is impossible to go through every edit. The article was at 200k when you started; before I reverted you it was almost at 300k. That is, at the least, overdoing it. You've been here for a half a year now, and you should know that we roll by way of secondary sourcing, not just to verify accuracy but also to establish whether something is worth noting or not. Politicians do lots of things, and not everything is of encyclopedic value (and, to pick one random example, that Gavin Newsom agrees with something she said or did isn't that relevant either); secondary sourcing helps establish that, but that also requires a bit more than the local newspaper, which is likely to report almost everything she does.
In your over 2000 edits I see only 4 edits on an article talk page, and no engagement in any other project pages, so I'm not surprised you haven't acquired experience with things that matter on this collaborative project, including generally accepted conventions and guidelines. These things matter too. I cannot escape the conclusion, based on your edits, that you're merely ferrying content from one medium (and frequently those are primary mediums) into Wikipedia articles. As a result, the Harris article just read like an enormous list where one can't see the forest for the trees. Improving on "cherry-picked innuendo" (I don't know what you are pointing at, but it sounds like a matter for judicious editing and talk page consensus) is not done by bloating the article with every single available fact. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admitting you've rolled back my work without vetting what you've gone through is not inspiring for quality control. But like I said, if you insist that I find a secondary source for everything, I will be more than happy to comb through whatever archives are necessary to get it. I have access to any newspaper database: you'll get your sources. Next time, before you roll things back wholesale, give me a heads up so I can do it myself. I'm an honest broker under quarantine, I have the time and the inclination to do quality control. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? You can get as petty as you like with "you'll get your sources" but it does not reflect well on you: they are not my sources--they should have been your sources to begin with. But that is only part of the problem: the real problem is that you are bloating the article with NO regard for readability, quality, or editorial judgment. I wish you had a real inclination for quality control, not just for sticking in any factoid you can find. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest only occurs when an editor is paid by a campaign, which does not appear to be the case. Having a point of view about candidates, even fanatical devotion, is not a barrier to editing. If it were, many of the editors of the article would be banned. All that is required is that editors observe content and behavior policies and guidelines. I would point out to Bnguyen1114 that Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be quite confusing and it's easy to run afoul of them. TFD (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider stepping aside for a bit

May I please suggest that you step aside from Kamala Harris for a bit? You've done a lot of good there, but you've been absolutely dominating the article in such a way that other editors can barely get a word in edgewise; it's very difficult to examine the quality of your contributions when you are making so many of them. That's why they're starting to get reverted en masse. Work on something else for a while, please. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I will step aside for now to let you all talk among yourselves. I only intend to work on her three pages, but as a show of good faith I will refrain from doing so for a bit. Thank you. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. Any update on how the editors are thinking? Is there a page I can join to participate? Thank youBnguyen1114 (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Kamala Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Ingleside and Hunters Point

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Kamala Harris 2020 presidential campaign (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Frank Scott

List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Steve Bullock

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Kamala Harris 2020 presidential campaign (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Medicare and AP

Kamala Harris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to AP

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Kamala Harris 2020 presidential campaign (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Medicare and AP

List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Joe Courtney

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Julián Castro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Kamala Harris

Are you affiliated with the Kamala Harris campaign in any way? If this is false please disregard this message but if it is true please refrain from editing the Kamala Harris wikipedia page due to a conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GLIZZY GLADIATOR (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not affiliated with the Harris campaign, but I do volunteer and attend Democratic events. I've met Josh Harder, Jill Biden, Julian Castro, and Kamala Harris. I am a California Democrat. I am not employed by the Harris campaign. Feel free to ask me anything you like. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the Intercept article, it appears someone is trying to connect you with a real-life identity. If you enable email through wikipedia, I'll email you a link to the doxxing tweet. Schazjmd (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not doxxing to report facts. 2601:3C3:580:4D0:2995:F5E7:5D51:6174 (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the personal information being circulated about someone are in fact their details, it's still doxing if they haven't publicly identified themselves on Wikipedia. If you have genuine concerns about how another editor is behaving on Wikipedia, you need not resort to trying to publicly out them. PrimaPrime (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know (and don't want to know) whether the claim is accurate, I just wanted to make Bnguyen1114 aware of the attempt and only offered to share the link via email. Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. But I think I've managed to get a lid on the doxx. Thanks though. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: Please help me understand. Per WP:DOX, Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. (Emphasis in original.) You refer above (22:18, 2 July 2020) to a "doxxing tweet." Please, in this instance, how does off-wiki social media content implicate Wikipedia policy? I realize Twitter has its own policy about doxxing. Perhaps that is what you meant—making this editor aware of a tweet that may have violated Twitter rules so he could report it there (or have someone else do so if Twitter has already suspended his own account). If you can clarify this, I'd appreciate it. NedFausa (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NedFausa, doxxing is a thing outside of Wikipedia as well. I saw on twitter that someone was attempting to connect this editor with a real-life identity. I thought he would want to know about it, but it would violate Wikipedia policy for me to post a link to that attempt here so I offered to email it to him. Schazjmd (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instructive advice here: The best thing to do with harassment found on external websites is to ignore it. These kinds of behaviour are aimed at gathering attention, and when controversy, edit warring and interpersonal conflict erupts on Wikipedia as a result, the harassers often feel triumphant and motivated to continue. This can be understandably difficult if they try to troll people on the site with it. NedFausa (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Hi Bnguyen1114! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So for rewording stuff, like fixing an awkward sentence, it should not be minor? Thanks. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits are minor things that would not be challenged: typos etc. Your edit history has a lot of hundred or two hundred byte "minor edits". Also please use edit summaries. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks for pointing it out. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The is actually no good reason to even mark edits as minor, especially if there could be any doubt. -- Valjean (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly note

hi there. A couple things. Today I asked the oversight team to get rid of some of the items on this page where other editors tried to personally identify you, and they "suppressed" those items. Any time that happens you can just use the submit box at WP:OVERSIGHT to get rid of things like that. It is a violation of the harassment policy for people to post things here that "out" your real identity, unless you have already posted them. The other thing is that any time an editor starts attracting notices from WP administrators on their talk page, it's a safe bet that it's time to ease off a bit and take it easy on anything controversial. Just my two cents.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tips, appreciate it. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's good advice. Getting noticed in the press, especially things like this, should make one pause to consider. Your editing at the Kamala Harris article can seriously damage her because of the Streisand effect. Anything that happens at Wikipedia gets scrutinized. Although our check users aren't supposed to use their powers for political purposes, there are extremely biased political operatives who have gotten checker user rights, so personally identifying information can get leaked with no evidence it came from Wikipedia. Just be very careful and don't do anything remotely controversial that any other editor might object to. -- Valjean (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect, I've done nothing controversial but add factual, well-sourced information to her page as a quarantine project. The information that the article claims I "scrubbed" was done because other editors asked for the size of the article to be reduced. I obliged their request to trim it down. I've been honest and forthcoming about who I am (a California Democrat who has worked in a volunteer capacity for many candidates) and what my intentions are. And for my trouble, I've been doxxed for following the rules and doing the work properly. The agenda of a partisan news outlet is none of my concern, and I did not ask to be targeted. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bnguyen1114 and Girard-Perregaux1971: Just to be clear, as I understand it, you were doxxed off-wiki (specifically on Twitter and entirely by deduction from your revealing WP user name, which you have since changed) and not by a fellow Wikipedian. Correct? NedFausa (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's also my understanding, Ned, yes. I was under the mistaken impression my common last name would be difficult to trace. Now I know better. Girard-Perregaux1971 (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hello. After renaming your account to "Girard-Perregaux1971", I was informed that "Girard-Perregaux" is the name of a swiss company. Since usernames should be individual and not belonging to a company, organisation or groups, I reverted myself. So, please choose another name and request again. Regards, Érico (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Bnguyen1114 and Kamala Harris. Thank you. Pudeo (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Learning the difference between promotional and encyclopedic language

Hi, it looks like you've been mentioned in the news. My condolences. I've come here after skimming the Intercept article, the Kamela Harris talk page, and the COI noticeboard discussion, and looking at a single edit of yours to the article, so I probably don't have a full picture of what's going on. But I will continue based on what I have seen.

I guess the question I have for you is: can you see the problems with your edits that have so many people up in arms? Can you tell the difference between dispassionate encyclopedic stating of facts and promotional writing? Let me take a few examples from the one diff I linked above.

As a prosecutor, Harris improved the city's felony conviction rate by 26% over her predecessor.
"Improved"? What does that even mean? Does that mean she put 26% more monsters behind bars, or does it mean she made 26% fewer human sacrifices to the prison industrial complex? Or did her general aura magically convince people to stop committing felonies? I guess it doesn't matter because whatever she did was an improvement, right?
Harris also pioneered a deferred prosecution program for reducing recidivism rates among low-level drug offenders, lowered the citywide truancy rate among elementary school children by 23%, and successfully lobbied for statewide limitations on the so-called "gay panic" defense.
"Pioneered" feels too promotional, like something you'd find on her campaign website.

Single handedly reducing the truancy rate of school children by 23% seems like a fantastic achievement for a prosecutor. How did she manage doing that on her own? Big claims need big evidence. It's better to just say what she actually did rather than giving her credit for something that may have just happened on her watch. Using that tactic I could write, "President Trump broke the record for the longest economic expansion in U.S. history." (I assume you would have some objections to that statement...)

What's the difference between "lobbied" and "successfully lobbied"? (The first is more encyclopedic, the second is more what you'd see on a resume'.)
Harris successfully leveraged California's economic might in pursuing more favorable terms for residents
There's another unnecessary use of the word "successfully". You can just say "Harris leveraged".
She earned widespread acclaim for her viral prosecutorial questioning of Trump administration officials
When you take away the overly glowing "widespread acclaim" stuff, this seems like WP:UNDUE weight for the Lead. What you're basically saying is that as a senator Harris sat on committees that questioned various Trump appointees, and she got some extra attention for the prosecutorial way she asked her questions.

Anyway I think you would benefit from a renewed study of some of our policies. You're probably already aware of WP:NPOV but you should read it again top to bottom. I also highly recommend WP:WORDS and WP:Writing for the enemy (a short essay with good advice). Read WP:WORDS at least twice.

I don't know what your plans are for the future, but they should include a very significant change in your editing behavior. (This is said with my admin hat on.) You might consider going back and helping crop out some of the factoids and fluff you added to the Harris article. That would both be a good learning experience for you and it would help you regain some of the trust you've lost in the community. Or maybe it's better to step away and edit something you're less invested in for a while. I don't know. It depends on whether you're able to see the problems with your editing. ~Awilley (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bnguyen1114, I'm not an admin, but administrator Awilley's suggestion that you "consider going back and helping crop out some of the factoids and fluff you added to the Harris article" is awful advice. Please never again edit Kamala Harris. Even your slightest contribution would be met with instantaneous reversion. You have made enemies at Wikipedia, and they will be unrelenting in safeguarding that page. NedFausa (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get something straight, Ned. I don't really care that enemies with editors of an online encyclopedia for adding well-sourced, factual content to some politicians' pages as a volunteer. I did it in good faith, corrected instances in which I didn't follow the rules to the letter, and have generally been forthright and cooperative with information requests. But I do not appreciate being hung out to dry like this for doing a job others didn't even care about until it made them look silly. The permanent sanctions have been applied, this is the last time I will darken your notifications. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bnguyen1114, I'm sorry to see that, although I can understand your bitterness. I hope that in the fullness of time you will reconsider and return to edit Wikipedia, under the terms of your restriction and with a firmer grasp of our policies and guidelines. And in any case, I wish you all the best in your off-wiki activities. NedFausa (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hi Bnguyen1114, thank you for your disclosure. It's important that you not edit these articles again, or articles about those people's opponents (for example, this edit was troubling). You can make edit suggestions on talk pages, but you should make your COI clear when you do. One way to do that is to use the {{request edit}} template. I'm imposing this restriction as an arbitration-enforcement action. Many thanks, SarahSV ^(talk) 16:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I've logged this as a restriction against editing anything related to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Claire McCaskill, Josh Harder, and their opponents. I've been asked to emphasize that this is "broadly construed" and covers anything related to their activities. I didn't include the politician to whom you made a donation or the ones with whom you've been photographed, but it would make sense for you to avoid editing about them too to avoid even the appearance of COI. Thanks again. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, you don't have to worry about any of this. I was doxxed, insulted, and now sanctioned for volunteerism. What makes you think I have any inclination to ever contribute to this site again if this is how you treat people? This will be the last time I darken your notifications. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bnguyen1114, you just made another edit related to Joe Biden. Per the restriction placed by SlimVirgin, you are not allowed to edit any pages related to these persons. --Pudeo (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the past seven days, I've been more openly sympathetic to Bnguyen1114 than has any other editor, while at the same time being the most active editor in repairing the damage he did to Kamala Harris. But this latest development is beyond the pale. I urge administrator SarahSV to indefinitely site-block Bnguyen1114 for violating the arbitration-enforcement restrictions that she rightly imposed on him. Enough is enough. NedFausa (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your disingenuous pearl clutching is fooling nobody. Either set clear parameters of the ban or don't. The faux-outrage over encyclopedia articles is tiresome. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend partial blocks as a better enforcing mechanism given the limited number of articles we're talking about here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about a limited number of articles. His arbitration-enforcement restrictions forbid Bnguyen1114 from editing articles having anything to do with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Claire McCaskill, Josh Harder, and their opponents. Wikipedia mentions Joe Biden in 2,620 articles, Kamala Harris in 815, Claire McCaskill in 379, and Josh Harder in 138. And their opponents! Biden's likely opponent in November is mentioned in 18,549 articles. Moreover, it's not the number of articles that matters here. It's Bnguyen1114's newly demonstrated commitment to ongoing disruptive editing. He has shown his contempt for Wikipedia. It's now time for Wikipedia to return the sentiment. NedFausa (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You want to explain what's disruptive about adding a single name to a repository of names, or do you admit your huffing and puffing is fooling nobody? Bnguyen1114 (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi Bnguyen1114, this was an odd edit to make so soon after being topic-banned. I've blocked your account for one week. Note that blocks will be progressively longer, then indefinite. If you would like to continue editing, it's very much in your interests to respect the topic bans. I'm posting the block template below so you can see how to appeal. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of one week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Going to go ahead and register concerns about these sanctions. Having volunteered on a variety of campaigns and being a democrat -- and disclosing those facts after being doxed and harassed -- doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to edit those articles. I find it hard to believe that if the Intercept hadn't written the article that anyone would be calling for sanctions based just on that disclosure and the user's editing history. What evidence is there of intractable POV-pushing/promotionalism regarding Claire McCaskill for example such that a tban is justified? From that disclosure, it doesn't actually sound like Bnguyen1114 is even currently volunteering. If I go volunteer at a phone book for a couple days, or send a few bucks to a campaign, does that disqualify me from editing an article about that person? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, thanks for your comment. Bnguyen1114 isn't topic-banned in relation to the donation he mentioned. He's banned only from writing about the people for whom he said he volunteered. Being part of someone's campaign team, paid or otherwise, does give rise to a COI. The whole area is so divisive that editing with any kind of COI is likely to cause concern, so it's best avoided, for the sake of the editor, the politicians and Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Right, but what is the reason for the tban? Editing with a COI isn't forbidden even in divisive areas (and certainly not a COI like "I did not work for X, they are not directing my edits, but I have volunteered for a campaign in the past" -- that's really thin. It just shows that Bnguyen1114 has politics... like everyone). Having volunteered for a campaign in the past doesn't permanently exclude that person from editing related articles without evidence of a problem (beyond just the [disclosed] COI itself). I also have trouble getting past the point that Bnguyen1114 probably wouldn't be in the position of feeling like he had to out himself if he hadn't been doxed and interrogated on-wiki as a result (yes, part of it was due to edits that came up in the Intercept, but the doxing directly led to several conversations here and even [sigh] a comment from our CEO). Maybe a tban from Kamala Harris is merited based on the edits, but it should be based on the edits. As such, if there's no problematic editing of other topics, there's no justification for a tban. [in case it needs to be said, I have absolutely no connection to any of the candidates -- just call me sensitive to heavy-handed sanctions as a result of doing the right thing by disclosing and on the heels of doxing and harassment] — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, discretionary sanctions apply to those pages, which means admins can impose sanctions to prevent disruption. I decided to impose topic bans because the issue was causing widespread concern, given how divisive American politics has become. The suspicion of COI editing damages the editor, Wikipedia and the politicians.

Joining a politician's campaign, even unpaid, means you have entered the structure that person has built around themselves. You're no longer an outsider.

COI isn't necessarily about the editing. It's about the existence of external roles and relationships that appear to undermine an editor's primary role on Wikipedia. Note the guideline: "That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith." SarahSV ^(talk) 04:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

admins can impose sanctions to prevent disruption - I understand. I'm trying to determine which rules were broken that would justify such a sanction, though. "Causing widespread concern" sounds like throwing someone under the bus because of circumstances rather than actually problematic editing.

COI isn't necessarily about the editing - Right. And that's why we don't disallow people from editing with a COI, and why we understand many levels of COI. Sanctions are about the editing, though. I've never seen a sanction just because of the fact of an unpaid COI without the editing being the real problem. We want people to disclose when they have a COI, not send a message that "if you do the right thing and disclose, we'll topic ban you regardless of your edits if someone stirs up a fuss off-wiki". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: It's misleading for you to write, even sarcastically, if you do the right thing and disclose, we'll topic ban you regardless of your edits if someone stirs up a fuss off-wiki. Bnguyen1114 did not disclose his COI in editing Kamala Harris‎ prior to The Intercept′s exposé. It's true that, as you say, he was "interrogated on-wiki." But that came after and only because someone "stirred up a fuss" off-wiki. Let's not cast Bnguyen1114 as the victim of misguided Wikipedians persecuting him on this platform for "doing the right thing," which he did only under off-wiki duress, including being in effect prematurely found guilty on Twitter of COI by Katherine Maher, chief executive officer and executive director of Wikimedia Foundation, which owns and hosts Wikipedia. NedFausa (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not misleading, and I'm not going to dignify this "found guilty" by tweet silliness with a response. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I find it a little ridiculous that I've also been banned from even updating Joe Biden's list of endorsements, which is literally just a repository of names. The notion that I somehow have a conflict of interest from editing a list of names because I phonebanked for someone is beyond heavy handed. My cooperation with the admins has been rewarded with more abusive behavior on their part so they look better to anyone looking in. Bnguyen1114 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the template near the top of this section explaining how to appeal your block? Go for it. NedFausa (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bnguyen: the direction from the admin above was pretty darn clear: Hi again, I've logged this as a restriction against editing anything related to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Claire McCaskill, Josh Harder, and their opponents. You obviously chose to ignore it, which is why you got blocked.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to appeal the restriction itself, you do so at WP:AE, but you can't just ignore it or you get blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Lima Bean Farmer. Thank you. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]