Talk:Sabrina Peña Young

This person is not notable

This article reads like a press release — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.128.131 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) The composer in question has won international awards, has a career of two decades, and has written hundreds of works.(Personal attack removed) 74.77.74.125 (talk) 04:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

This article was written by users who are political consultants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HamidrezaMX (talk • contribs) 18:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) This individual (Personal attack removed) this page, engaged in (Personal attack removed) on multiple occasions online and is part of a (Personal attack removed). This composer has 20 years of musical experience, was a music professor, has won international awards, had a TED talk, and is not by any means a political consultant. This individual HamidrezaMX is an alias used by (Personal attack removed) on multiple sites. 74.77.74.125 (talk) 04:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Reminder to the IP user: focus on content, not on contributors. Be very cautious about speculating on connections between a Wikipedia user and off-Wiki activities. (To be clear: if HamidrezaMX's on-wiki behaviour were inappropriate or of the type you alleged, they would be blocked for that conduct, but we will not conduct a fishing expedition to link a user to an off-Wiki account.) —C.Fred (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no speculation on this particular user. Not posting the specific information on this user on this site, of course, so not to violate privacy and respect Wiki rules. But no, this is not a good faith editor. Nor have they done anything else except vandalize this page by deleting many references, then trying to get it hastily deleted (that can be seen). Additionally, their claim is false, as this composer has been in classical music for two decades with notable awards, performances, an NPR interview, a TED Talk, work with Emmy-winning directors, etc. But since this post continues to stand, then it needs clarification that it was clearly not done in good faith. 24.103.221.250 (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

So "vandalize" is not a phrase allowed to be used by female editors on Wikipedia? Just clarifying. Made sure there was no way to identify the user to respect Wiki rules. 24.103.221.250 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The Vandalism referred to fits Wikipedia's definition: Any change or edit that manipulates content in a way that deliberately compromises Wikipedia's integrity is considered vandalism. The most common and obvious types of vandalism include additions of obscenities and crude humor; it can also include advertising and other types of spam. Sometimes editors commit vandalism by removing content or entirely blanking a given page. Less common types of vandalism, such as the deliberate addition of plausible but false information, can be more difficult to detect. Vandals can introduce irrelevant formatting, modify page semantics such as the page's title or categorization, manipulate the article's underlying code, or use images disruptively. 24.103.221.250 (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

That is why that word was used. Even though it was taken out above. 24.103.221.250 (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

So unnamed "hate group" is not a phrase allowed on Wikipedia by female editors? Just clarifying. 24.103.221.250 (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a bad idea for any editor, regardless of gender, to accuse another editor of being part of a hate group. I have no way to know the gender of an anonymous editor, nor do I make assumptions. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What is the word that Wikipedia approves for editors who are part of groups that encourage and engage in sexual violence against women, racism, and transphobia? Would like to know the proper term for such a group. And yes, the identity of this editor is known, as is their group. However, will not engage in any outing of this individual per Wiki rules. Plus that's just bad basic netiquette. Thats not why we worked on these music projects on Wikipedia. Honestly don't even want to work on the rest of my composer list since this has been so drawn out. Would like to just move on, TBH since our group isn't allowed to rectify the issue. 24.103.221.250 (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem is, your group (who are all from the same geographic area) has done little, if anything, about the text of the article. Instead, you've been focused on other contributors. Frankly, it's turned into a time sink to police your talk page vandalism and personal attacks—time that could have been better used on the content of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

We tried. We are not allowed to fix the page. Nor is anyone else in New York. Not sure how we can help you with this. Sorry it's a time sink. Definitely is a time sink for us too since we are forbidden to fix the issues. 74.77.74.125 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont mind discontinuing this convo, to be frank, that wasn't started by us by the way but by [remove personal attack] editor. I dont' want to waste your time, seems you do a lot of good work on the site. So please have an "independent" editor fix the page, or at least take down the bad faith comments that were done because of [personal attack removed]. 74.77.74.125 (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Paid editing

Page updated in 2022 by unpaid volunteer for the #Wikigap project. The #Wikigap project is meant to balance out the gross gender bias at Wikipedia. This was done by an unpaid volunteer, as part of a related project on women composers by the International Alliance by Women in Music as well as a similar biography project on composer stubs. Unpaid volunteers in those projects worked on various women in music. Unfortunately in 2022, the composer became the target of an anti-Semetic political group that has continuously vandalized the composer on several platforms, Wikipedia included. At least two editors are involved in the continued vandalism. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:e43f:2212:2152:1149:a050:5f3f (talk)

Hi. I don't know about the WikiGap side of things, but I presume that is a reference to User:Bibliophile4ever, who I have no reason at all to believe was paid. However, the tag was placed because of the edits made by User:Buzzers1, who was a undisclosed paid editor. In this case they were hired through Upwork: the job read, in part, "Should be a quick job for an experienced editor. The original entry is for 'Sabrina Pena Young' on Wikipedia (composer/writer). You won't need to delete any current content. Just add a couple of short paragraphs to the current Wikipedia article." The job was placed from Buffalo, US, on July 7 2021, and marked as successfully completed later that month. I looked at removing the paid content, but unfortunately it is now a core part of the existing article, so a simple removal would leave large and unwieldly holes in the middle. Instead, I think the only option is to carefully go through the article to see if any significant bias was added by the paid editor. - Bilby (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. The page was vandalized substantially by user HamidrezaMX who had a Twitter account created by an anti-Semitic political party targeting the composer on multiple websites. The content added by the paid person should be reviewed, whoever they were. I don't know. However, the current edits coincided with additional sabotage this month on other platforms. I apologize if this was what was going on. As further context, many of the women in this particular project of adding women composers have had considerable opposition by male editors for years. Just last week the group was dealing with a project on Graphic Music Notation and bias there. I dont know enough about editing how to fix the problem with this page. What's the best way to fix this? I apologize for assuming. I didnt know this was a maintenance tag. I thought it was the same group targeting the composer page again. They have multiple fake accounts on several platforms (outside Wikipedia). If you can let me know how to do it, can see if a more experienced editor can fix the problems? PS I tried to contact you, but didnt realize this was the page for it. The HamidrezaMX fake account is the one listing this person as "not notable" and not sure who keeps adding that note back in, but HamidrezaMX is a bad actor and part of the violent group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:E43F:2212:E199:2D0E:6FA3:1507 (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Be careful with calling edits vandalism. I do not think that Hamidreza's on-Wikipedia actions indicate that they're editing in bad faith. That said, it was curious that they showed up, tagged the page for deletion, and vanished. As noted, the real problems are with the edits by Buzzers1, and those require a substantial going-over of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

User Hamidreza's is a fake account and vandalized via other social media with racial slurs and anti-Semitism. This is a bad faith actor with racist motivations and part of a hate group. In this specific case, this is a bad faith actor. The Wikigap project is meant to counteract gross gender bias at Wikipedia. This composer has also been part of other biography Wikipedia projects because of their musical contributions over the last two decades. I personally was confused about the tag and thought it was related to Hamidreza and thought all the volunteer work would be affected. If it's a maintenance issue unrelated to the fake account or the wikigap project, I apologize. Please Realize that some of these projects on Wikipedia aren't done by seasoned editors at all but by unpaid volunteers trying to expand the breadth of knowledge on Wikipedia and also learning the ropes as we go along. Thank you for explaining. We are all learning here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:e43f:2212:2152:1149:a050:5f3f (talk) 02:33, 30 Apr 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "fake account". It is a slippery slope to connect Wikipedia users with off-Wikipedia activities (see WP:OUTING), and I don't see anything overt in their on-Wikipedia conduct. I am familiar with the Wikigap project and other efforts to make sure underrepresented groups are covered on Wikipedia. I do find it curious that no registered users with long-term affiliation to the project have gotten involved in this article; the edits have been from unregistered users all located in a specific geographic location.

The paid editing tag, as noted above, relates to a user for whom there is evidence that they were solicited to write the article. Wikipedia policies are very unfavourable toward volunteer editors with conflicts of interest editing articles when they are related to the subject. Policies are stricter about paid editing and are just about zero-tolerance toward paid editing without disclosing that the editor is being paid (and by whom).

With the exception of WMF accounts that operate in limited areas and possibly some accounts in education projects, all projects on Wikipedia are the efforts of unpaid volunteers. I understand the learning curve—I've seen plenty of green editors mature into valuable contributors over the years—but unfortunately, I've also seen editors try to run roughshod over policy and guidelines in the name of "we didn't know" or "but underrepresentation!"

One final note: if there are multiple editors participating in the project, it may be beneficial to them to register accounts. This will facilitate communication with them. This will also make it easier to determine who we are interacting with. Given the current overlap in behaviour, my current assumption as an administrator is that all of the IP edits are coming from the same user. —C.Fred (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Cleaned up neutral tone for paid editor Buzzers 1 and volunteer Bibliophiule4Life (and a few other editors. Should be more neutral, less wordy. Wasn't sure if the quotes (like the one about a voicemail) should be taken out or not, got any suggestions would appreciate). Cleaned up the language. Wiki automatically erased paid template on the updates when I saved. Hope that helps w this mess. There's a massive concentration of classical musicians in the Northeast, for those that don't know. Nerdy musicologists, academics, performers, concentrated in a handful of big cities. Academics get super wordy. LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.221.250 (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The wording changes were trivial and do not satisfy the need for an independent review, especially when the IP making the review suffers the same geography-related conflicts of interest as the others. —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)\\

Undid the edit because didn't want to lose all the work done already. What changes need to be done to your personal satisfaction? The original text from a long, long time ago has been reworked a ton of times. There wasnt a way to fix it without redoing all the work done by countless others since. So just did a first pass from top to bottom. Let's work together. Someone before mentioned not assuming the worst of editors. So please don't assume the worst here. Lets fix it together. We aren't paid. I am not sure why there is a conflict with our edits? So the unpaid #Wikigap volunteers cannot edit text from over a year ago? Just trying to understand why this group has anything to do with something from a long time ago? 74.77.74.125 (talk) 04:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What needs to be done, IMO, is for independent editors to go over the article. Not that #Wikigap editors aren't neutral, but the neutrality of any editor from greater Buffalo can be challenged, especially in light of the solicited edits. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

NY is the mecca for classical musicians in the USA and even the world. SMH Note: the anonymous [will remove the personal attack here for you] editor who vandalized has more credence? 24.103.221.250 (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Will you please make an effort to fix the issue then since we have been forbidden to because bias? Im tired of this popping up. 24.103.221.250 (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This person is not associated with a cleaning company

This article on a professional Latina composer has nothing to do with a cleaning company. Removed link. Unfortunately not sure if the addition of a cleaning company was a mistake or gross xenophobia and typical vandalism from Wikipedia editors. As a note, just because this composer is Latina does not mean that the composer has anything to do with maid services or cleaning companies. This composer has won international awards, works done Art Basil, NPR Morning Edition, New York International Indpenedent Film Festival, Opera America in NYC, and countless performances on six continents. This composer has nothing to do with cleaning services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:e43f:2212:f0e7:8934:e9d9:5e1a (talk) 22:03, 12 Jun 2022 (UTC)

I think it's just honest confusion about whose foundation it is (not that I added the link). I did a little digging and corrected the link; it now points to Oscar B. Cintas#CINTAS Foundation, the foundation that supports artists of Cuban descent. I've also added a hatnote to Cintas, which should hopefully avoid similar confusion in the future. I did not know about Ambassador Cintas or details about the foundation before today. It's quite a prestigious award for Ms. Peña Young to have won. —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I might have messed up up the link...:/ Still truing to figure out what to do and the university is closing so had to run out. 24.103.221.250 (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Rules for images?

Can just add images from composer website or needs to be Wikimedia? 2603:7080:E43F:2212:B0A0:D763:48C2:B4F2 (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Images cannot be linked from outside of Wikimedia. Since this is a biography of a living person, they should be free images at Wikimedia Commons. —C.Fred (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)