User talk:144.171.220.147

Welcome!

Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ––FormalDude^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 18:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

National Academy of Engineering

Why are you mass adding these into the lead sections of so many articles? I'm tempted to delete them all it looks like a WP:COI. -- GreenC 21:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Use the awards and honors section, not the lead section. Also, without a source, these can be and might be removed at any time. You should not be adding awards and honors lacking citations. -- GreenC 21:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@GreenC: I'm reverting in the articles on my watchlist; so far the ones I've checked do not take their info from the already-cited source, and add no source of their own. TJRC (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is a COI, directly quoting the award citation without marking it as a quote and properly citing it is a copyvio. And in many cases they are misplaced, giving emphasis to one award by placing it into the lead when others are more significant. (NAE election is significant, of course, but it is not always the most significant or even lead-worthy.) User:GreenC, thanks for setting up the bot to handle these — there are far too many to do manually and the IP keeps changing addresses making blocking of unclear value. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, thank you for your support on this. Many of them are removed, from the lead section, that were added by the IP, but there are probably more. The user has the appearance of overtly emphasizing the organization, while covertly hiding tracks. I am auto monitoring them, IP hopping can not hide from this tool, if they continue will let you know. -- GreenC 15:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@GreenC: time to set your bot on User:144.171.221.133. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Got it. They can hop to any IP, or any user account, or change the wording. There is no hiding. -- GreenC 17:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: They are User:KennyaWitwicky. Will bot the user contribs. They were active as of today. -- GreenC 02:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP locates to https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/144.171.220.147 .. undisclosed paid/promotional editing (WP:UPE) made from a specific computer located within the NAE with timestamps. I guess if this continues we can contact the NAE about continuous violations of Wikipedia trust and policy. -- GreenC 03:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking this down. I'll block and revert if I see this again. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein:, User:KennyaWitwicky does not appear to be getting the message. After a few days pause for the weekend, they are back, adding it to 10 articles. -- GreenC 14:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

All we can do is block and WP:DENY unless you think there's some way to contact the NAE. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we block Kennya? They were warned and have not responded and continue with the same activity. I continue to monitor (not saying how here), and if they start using new accounts we can determine next steps such as contacting NAE. (fwiw I read that name as "can you trick wikipedia" as in 'witty' or tricky) -- GreenC 17:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Done. Also the new IPs that I've seen. I wonder if a rangeblock would get their attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

NAE is now on notice via email. If there is no reply I'll make a broader list of recipients (they helpfully provide direct emails to dozens of staff). If still nothing we can determine. -- GreenC 18:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

They seem to have also tried this at the Italian Wikipedia. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, looks like they shifted to a broadband Verizon IP nearby in the DC burbs: [1] My understanding with FIOS they get a new IP by rebooting the router, but the range is limited by geography, so it would be possible to range block. No word back from the NAE email, but clearly they got the message and responded with an increased level of block evasion. -- GreenC 14:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, looks like they started an appeals process and it closed last Tuesday (see talk page User:KennyaWitwicky). I don't understand the result, maybe you have access. They continued editing from the Verizon IP on Wednesday after the appeal closed. I received an email communication August 4 Wednesday, it went to spam folder so didn't see it until today. Said they were appealing and confirmed their goal of adding NAE data to member pages. -- GreenC 14:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to UTRS. Unfortunately, the appeal statement visible on talk there says nothing about (1) responding to talk, (2) providing sources for all additions to BLPs, (3) properly marking quotes as quotes, and (4) not being overly promotional in the placement of the information. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm a little puzzled here. Being a member or foreign associate of the NAE is the highest US honor in the field of engineering. . It is an appropriate addition to the bio of every member, and we should have bios of all of them. If the NAE is adding this, they should of course be above-board about it, bu it is not promotionalism or advertising or spam, but a desirable and important contribution to the encyclopedia . If they are not, or if it is for some reason thought inappropriate that they do it themselves, I shall add them as I have the time to do so. DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @DGG: if you go through the many edits of this contributor or contributors you will find that there are multiple significant problems with them: (1) They quote extensively from the NAE election citation, without marking that material as a quote. In short, they plagiarize. (2) They do not add any reference for the claims they are adding, in most cases violating WP:BLP. (3) They add this material in a very promotional way, pushing it forward to the lead of the article in what is for many of the affected articles a much more prominent position than greater honors (yes, there are greater honors; for instance, the Turing Award). (4) They do not respond to talk page comments pointing out these problems. (5) They appear to be paid by the NAE to do this promotional work but do not declare their paid edits as paid edits. I agree with you that non-promotional edits making sure that all articles on NAE members appropriately mention that honor, or even creating appropriately-sourced articles for the NAE members for whom we do not already have articles, could be a positive contribution. But that's not what we had here, and the only way to stop the problems was to block the edits entirely. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying that blocking them was an error. That they refuse to recognize the importance of adding a source and quotation marks after being told is enough reason for NOTHERE . I don't regard coi if declared as necessarily preventing the addition of what is essentially a plain fact, done properly-- but the NAE should have gotten someone more knowledgable in WP to do it. (I do have an issue here and elsewhere in quoting from an award citation. This is an occasion for rhetorical excess, not objectivity.) As for placement ,I did say highest national honor. For almost all people in the category it will be their highest such honour (There's also the National Medal of Science) I don't know if we have a standard, but I normally consider it advisable to mention the highest recognizable honor in the lede, along with the field , the specialty, and the present or highest position. (this is to discourage people from not recognizing there's notability ) DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC).

July 2021

Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Thomas P. Stafford, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Also in Kathryn D. Sullivan. TJRC (talk)

---