This page 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.

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You have attempted to cast ad hominem assertions on the basis of editing on the Mark Willacy page. Your approach and fixation on a certain slant to this article suggest you are projecting, that it is you who is showing conduct that could be described as edit-warring. Your own record indicates very few of your edits elsewhere make it through or stay up for very long. You also demonstrate a concerning level of bias in support of prominent anti-vaccine proponents Craig Kelly and Judith Willyman. TruthAndContext ( talk) 09:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@ TruthAndContext, you are making a personal attack and accusation against me which couldn't be further removed from the truth. I am not an antivaxxer, ironically, I actually volunteered for a COVID-19 vaccine trial! And I do not support Craig Kelly nor Judith Willyman, I have made a small number of edits to those articles, the most recent being: [1], and [2]. Neither of which, I believe, is anything other than purely factual reporting, with WP:RS citations. If you believe I have bias towards those articles, then please discuss on those article talkpages. Frankly, I find your accusation, which I consider a blatant and misguided attempt to discredit me, a personal attack. Such Argumentum ad hominem has no place on Wikipedia. I will also be making a note of your comment here, on my talkpage, to the administrator noticeboard. Aeonx ( talk) 09:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I contend that is projection. My aim is to collaborate with other editors on bringing this page to a credible record of the topic. These matters are ongoing, hence it will require ongoing work. TruthAndContext ( talk) 09:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@ TruthAndContext, the relevant article talkpage is the best place to discuss article. There are mechanisms supported by Wikipedia in which to request a third opinion or Request for other editor comments, I more than happily support both such approaches, alternatively you can also seek input from relevant WP:WikiProjects, these are advisable means to seek editorial consensus. Continually editing the page with the same disputed remarks, as you have been, is not. If you would like me to help seek such other editors via these recommended requests I can. Bur please note that WP:CANVASSING for like-minded editors to POV Push is against Wikipedia's behavioural guidelines. Aeonx ( talk) 10:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@aeonx we may end up having to seek a third opinion, as I contend that the re-instatement of disputed remarks is what I have been responding to. I am happy to provide more reasoning for disputes. Precision, accuracy and scrupulous accounting of fact are vital as investigation of war crimes allegations have been highly contentious matters in recent years in countries who supplied coalition forces to Afghanistan. They are matters of grave public interest which are not always served by campaigns, backed by powerful supporters, to discredit and influence the public narrative around the reporting of the likes of Willacy, Masters, McKenzie and their counterparts overseas. TruthAndContext ( talk) 10:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Well done in spotting and reporting the sockpuppets. I suspected this "new" user was a sockpuppet (and a bit more aggressive than the original Tokyo Oz). LibStar ( talk) 23:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@ LibStar, Yes, the timing and their editing was very suspicious. I tried to reserve judgement and incorporate their comments (some of which were valid) until the sock-puppet investigation was done. Even now, I'm not sure they are the same person, obviously the CheckUser and Admin investigation has associated these user accounts to the same IP address, but what I suspect is that all these related sockpuppet accounts are journalists and staff located at an ABC office (probably Brisbane). Looking over the identified sockpuppet account contributions, they all have been editing articles relevant to the ABC, ABC programmes, and ABC journalists. I think it's possible that these are different people, but likely colleagues at the same workplace which share an IP-address, potentially even share Wikipedia accounts; and whom have intentionally ignored (or perhaps even lied about) WP:COI, as we saw Tokyo Oz do. Aeonx ( talk) 00:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)