User talk:Koncorde/Archives/2024/April

April 2024
Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia without their explicit permission, as you did at Talk:Liverpool City Region. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about another user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors will result in being blocked from editing. ''I have redacted a portion of a thread to which you contributed. While you were not the editor who added the links, your edit that speculated on the real life identity of an editor frightened that editor. Please do not re-add this content.'' Katietalk 00:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record in case this rears its head in the future: editor edited under their own name previously, they "retired" their account after causing a massive stink, immediately reappeared under a new account and started pushing POV articles that specifically referenced their own user generated content or articles that used their own name in conjunction with the subject matter that then linked back to their username on other websites (raising questions of if not COI, then likely NPOV), when their edits were called into question they first failed AGF, raised an ANI over another user, then engaged in a twitter argument with same user, then disputed an AFD twice (both times ignoring basic decorum), then disputed the content of the AFD, THEN decided they wanted to be particularly anonymous AFTER they chose to stop editing (again) only for an IP to suspiciously appear requesting their content to be reintroduced. I don't dispute the "warning", but I do think there's a wealth of context that says when someone flouts anonymity and someone draws the line on the dots they shouldn't get to run behind the skirts of Admins to try and get action taken against users they have a grudge with. Koncorde (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How low can you possibly sink. My friend has already been in correspondence with the arbitration committee regarding any alleged conflict of interest. It has never been proven whether there was ever any in the first place - it was simply branded about by one editor and has stuck like mud - with you now encouraging it. He left the site in case that there was as well as feeling utterly harrassed. All completely innocent stuff in the first place. A proposed demonym for the city region which people would be free to adopt or not - simple. It's not the end of the world! How low can you possibly be to bring up old accounts that you have no knowledge or experience of that were closed reluctantly and that he did not return to. Again - you are still speculating as to his real life identity. Against his consent. He has not named his previous account, or hinted to its username - you have given this information here without his consent. Can you please refrain from doing this 94.14.184.212 (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC).
 * You probably need to stop carrying water for your "friend" then because it just emphasises the obvious meatpuppet nature of your existence. At no point have I linked to, said, or otherwise uttered the name of the other person or his prior account - and that is despite his behaviour at all times has been aggressive, abusive, threatening and antagonistic. A pattern of behaviour you have picked up on straight away and continued with rather than dealing with the issues raised (here you are harassing me). Regardless of the WP:DUCK status or not, there are serious issues of WP:COMPETENCE on display given the gross amounts of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that repeatedly has been demonstrated Liverpolitan et al simply do not understand.
 * Regarding COI, this would typically be where someone is associated with an organisation or otherwise that pays for or promotes a particular outcome on wikipedia. I don't believe Liverpolitan1980 meets that threshold, and I specifically corrected the record when there was speculation about the association with Liverpolitan magazine. However, as Liverpolitan has been used so very little in the last century, and particularly on the internet, means that there are disproportionately large number of hits on the internet that all tie back to him, and a significant quantity of the sources Liverpolitan1980 tried to use specifically involved himself and he chose not to declare this causing another user to understandably speculate as to the nature of the editing behaviour. Koncorde (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, well that does need to be cleared up. Because if there is no COI, then editors should not be making those claims. There is a possibility that this has been handled completely unfairly and has been detrimental to sommeone's enjoyment of the site. Regarding outing his identity, you have linked both of his accounts in your comment above here -
 * 
 * Your quote: "For the record in case this rears its head in the future: editor edited under their own name previously, they "retired" their account."
 * Unfortunately this is explicitly drawing attention to the contributor's real life name and connection between his accounts. Something he did not do voluntarily. This is outing someone. I would sincerely ask that you remove this comment from public view. Regarding harrassment - no I am merely pointing this out and if this issue needs to be resolved he is willing to chat to the arbitration committee along with all the adverse claims being made against him. 94.14.184.212 (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * At no point have I said what the prior account name is. Pointing out that they edited under their own name is a basic observation, because they did - and rather than having the account salted or requesting a name change, they abandoned it in order to give the impression the new account was unrelated to the historic toxic behaviour.
 * I have no interest in discussing the matter with a random anonymous person claiming to be their friend. Koncorde (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)