User:Mutt Lunker/sandbox/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
WP:NOTFORUM: rv. multi-article POV-PUSH IP-sock WP:NOTFORUM: rv. multi-article WP:COATRACK IP-sock
POV-PUSH WP:NOTFORUM sock rtns to IP-hopping after brief existence as User:Cassandrathesceptic
WP:NOTFORUM: rv. multi-article WP:COATRACK IP/User:Cassandrathesceptic-sock
rv shameless WP:COATRACKing by multi-article POV-pusher, existing largely as IP-sock
{{Sock puppet|92.5.15.139}} {{Sock puppet|Cassandrathesceptic}}
multi-IP sock
"Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by" "Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by"
Hi...I contacted you several times over the last couple of years regarding an IP-hopping sock who styles themself as "Cassandra" and forum posts about their personal views. You range blocked them a few times, the first being after this ANI discussion. Their main POV is maybe best summed up by theirs statement that "the 'scots language' is in essence a modern Scots nationalist creation myth", but they have several other themes. After all this time hey signed up with a user name, User:Cassandrathesceptic, in October but continued with IP edits, then edited under their user name a handful
|sock1=92.5.15.139 |sock2= |sock3= |ip1= |ip2= |ip3= |evidence= There has been a sustained pattern of edits related to the Scots language and Scottish history since at least April 2012, from a large number of IPs that latterly have largely been informally signed as "Cassandra". The issue was discussed at ANI in November 2012. These IP range blocks have been imposed in the past, though activity recommenced after the blocks were lifted:
| Some IP blocks from 2012 |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
IPs of the suspected sock are in this category, this edit being the earliest that I am aware of.
Most edits are forum edits to talk pages, advancing unsourced WP:OR or synthesising or outrightly misrepresenting sources, such as: this, this discussion, this and recently this and this.
Of note in the aforementioned ANI discussion is the observation here by User:Blackmane in regard to a third opinion request lodged by Cassandra, complaining about removal of forum-type posts (not sustained): "Of concern is Cassandra's statement...where Mutt's rebuttal of her proposal is answered by, what is effectively an affirmation that she is deliberately misrepresenting the source in order to force the reader to read the source to determine the actuality of the statement.”
There is also a smaller number of related edits to article pages, such as this which claims that a RS contradicts the text of the article when in fact it supports it and some posting on my talk page, (e.g. this very long forum post, described as a “paper”).
There have been some edits of plainer vandalism by IPs which identify in other edits as Cassandra: 1 2 and 3, or have made edits characteristic of Cassandra: 4 or are simply in the same range: 5
In regards to action, acknowledgment here that "Cassandra"'s behaviour is consistently pernicious would make me feel more comfortable about simply removing their posts on sight from now on. Additionally, semiprotection of the most frequented talk pages would be helpful, as could IP range blocks if practicable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive940#Tendentious_editing_and_WP%3ANOTHERE_behavior_by_User%3ACassandrathesceptic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#Revisited%3A_Tendentious_editing_and_WP%3ANOTHERE_behavior_by_User%3ACassandrathesceptic
--
- In addition to the above, I have been reluctant to address the issue very much because it may seem insulting but after around two years of your persistence, despite copious advice on the matter, if you genuinely do not understand why what you are doing violates policy, the conclusion that issues of WP:COMPETENCE play a significant role becomes more likely. Your grand tour of disparate talk pages to push your views about tangentially (at best) related matters is dealt with at WP:COATRACK (confirmation bias, I ask you!).
An editor has been adding their own interpretation of Scottish census stats or putting a different spin on interpretations given in sources at Roman Catholicism in Scotland. Some of their personal interpretations may have a level of validity (though often they do not) but when neither stated or implied in the sources are OR or SYNTH. They seem to wish to frame the material more in terms of Church of Scotland v Roman Often, rather than outlining material regarding Roman Catholicism, they frame it more ng the material in terms of regarding They frame much of the material rather than in terms of being about the RC church in Scotlandcontrast to Their understanding of the subject also seems somewhat lacking, for instance confusing actual church membership with simply noting religious affiliation on a census form. Their mode of expression is often in need of copyediting or rephrasing. Some other eyes on the article would be appreciated. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I've avoided mentioning this up until now out of politeness but your whole campaign, stretching back months now, has been characterised by patently flawed arguments and an immunity or at least an extreme reluctance to take on board some . There is no sign of you being any more thoughtful about your views and this our whole campaign
Having initially advocated above in the Split section above that "As the original 2004 article was about the Staffordshire Oatcake it is my suggestion that this article remains on the original subject" but then finally relinquishing this position, "In hindsight, I'm going to change my position on this... I accept that the Scottish version may be deemed more famous" and starting a separate Staffs version, User:Jpswade seems to be reasserting their initial aim to make the Staffs oatcake the primary topic of this article. This seems to be in light of the general lack of support for their proposition to change this articles name to Scottish Oatcake. As I'm writing this, the article is
I'm not across what Cassandra's quote from you above concerns so have no opinion on the matter, nor is it likely to actually be pertinent to their experience in regard to their abuse of talk pages rather fancifully described above but I wouldn't want them to pull the wool over your eyes. WP:NOTFORUM is their problem
- Being familiar with IP-hopping "Cassandra"'s habitual WP:FORUM postings on a variety of hobby horses I should probably have nipped these postings in the bud as soon as I clocked them here last month but, late as I am, as C persists in trying to pass off their WP:SYNTH, whatever little isolated bubble they live in regarding usage of the term in question, the Oxford English Dictionary states "Definition of Red Indian in English: NOUN dated or offensive, chiefly British Old-fashioned term for American Indian." So maybe not just bigots but dinosaurs as well. This ludicrous forum campaign has no bearing on the content of this article.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Red-Indian?q=red+indian&searchDictCode=all
- This is well into the realms now of IP-hopping "Cassandra"'s typical WP:NOTFORUM talk page debates, typically divorced from any addressing of improvements to the article. Per the second post in this thread, the controversy over this term (and the plethora of other terms) is amply covered at Native American name controversy, linked here, so nothing to address in this article, it's covered. Whatever WP:OR one may propose from a news column polemic, the Oxford English Dictionary regards the use as "dated or offensive, chiefly British Old-fashioned term for American Indian."
other topic WP:NOTFORUM edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xenophobia&diff=prev&oldid=616803695 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wartime_sexual_violence&diff=606624754&oldid=605613186 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Native_Americans_in_the_United_States&curid=19134206&diff=632681054&oldid=631915750 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boxing&diff=prev&oldid=630770427
q edits [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]
other editors [28]
[29] User_talk:Mutt_Lunker/Archive_13#Culture
For the benefit of anyone who hasn't encountered this user's POV-pushing hobby horses, this is their "Scot-land" race/ethicity variant, that's the key phrase above. As its logic is obscure I may have it wrong but this POV seems to be something along the lines that Scottish identity only pertains to the Scoti and thence to Gaelic-speakers but the later broadening of an identity of the Scots to include the variety of earlier ethnicities/languages spoken should specifically exclude those that were part of Anglic kingdoms or adopted their tongue, at whatever stage in the subsequent millenium and a half of history. I'm not sure if the Britons, Picts, Norse or Flemings don't matter or if they are alright to count as Scots if they adopt Gaelic but magically become Englishmen (or is it "English-men") if they adopt Old English or its descendant tongues (better avoid the S-word or that will set off another Cassandra hobby horse). I'm pretty sure under this scheme you can't be a Scot if you have any Norman heritage (even if your mother is largely of Gaelic heritage and your father partly) but not sure if it actively makes you an "English-man". Was it okay though for Wallace to be fighting for "the lands south of the Firth of Forth" though because of the earlier Brythonic heritage of these lands - his surname makes that alright, no?
Or maybe the supposedly contentious sentence is just as straightforward as it looks and it doesn't have the subtext Cassandra would project.