Talk:Highland Clearances/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Return under another name

I'm not fully across the copious dialogue above involving User:WyndingHeadland so am not here to address the specifics of the debate but thought it worthwhile to note that their style of expression, apparent disregard for reliable sourcing and uncooperative manner of engagement would indicate the return to this article under another guise of User:Baglessingazump. The archives contain details. Similar traits are being exhibited at a newly created and somewhat problematic article, Scots Gaels. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems the user is happy with being disruptive on one page at a time. WyndingHeadland (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

User:WyndingHeadland can you confirm whether you are the same user as User:Baglessingazump? At the very least it would mean that we don't have to go over the same issues again. Camerojo (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a sockpuppetry accusation. If so, and you have sufficient evidence, why not make a checkuser report? Catrìona (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It isn't a sockpuppet account. It's as simple as that. WyndingHeadland (talk) 22:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

My eye: WP:QUACK. A cursory look at the highly distinctive, idiosyncratic and often barely comprehensible modes of expression and engagement and the matching interests and POVs stretch the notion of the two identities being distinct well past credibility. As an example of highly unlikely coincidence, User:Baglessingazump's early edits at this article promoted OR notions about the Clearances being the "forced displacement of Scottish Gaels", discussed in the archives here; that a new account, User:WyndingHeadland, is campaigning at length at this article and has also created an OR essay article, Scots Gaels, is telling to say the least. What's more, when I first made mention that the user identities were clearly linked, WH made no remark let alone refutation in intervening posts. Not until I spelled out the seriousness of the matter with a sock tag on their user page did they react, and by demanding proof rather than denying the matter. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I've only just clocked this recent belter above. We're being asked to believe that this is from a different author from that of the tour de force post here beginning "That would be ideal"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Again: it isn't a sockpuppet account. It is as simple as that. WyndingHeadland (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's not play with words: are you responsible for both accounts, yes or no? Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the account that my responsibility is for.WyndingHeadland (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This certainly seems like the same user. Thanks for the suggestion Catrìona. Here are some guidelines Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Mutt Lunker probably is in the best position to take this further. Camerojo (talk) 10:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:QUACK it's absolutely plain as day. As User:WyndingHeadland's latest answer is as transparently evasive as ever, I'll give them another chance to give a straight answer and come clean. Obviously the person editing as User:WyndingHeadland is responsible for the edits made under that account (this is neither news to us WH, nor the question being posed, as you well know); WH, are you also responsible for the edits made by User:Baglessingazump, yes or no? Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not replying yes or no to your questions. What is the overlap between the accounts? WyndingHeadland (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

You, evidently. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Bring it to an administrator if there has been an offence. WyndingHeadland (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

As requested. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

What is the offence?WyndingHeadland (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia policy: "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry (or simply socking). Improper purposes include attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, to make the form of my question better, because the definition of sockpuppetry isn't what my question was looking for, what is the specific offence? WyndingHeadland (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Your question, for once, was perfectly clear; as was the answer. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What is improper? WyndingHeadland (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

What is improper is anything not described here: Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. So it wasn't improper. WyndingHeadland (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Really? In which case you'd better stipulate what on the list of legitmate uses does apply to you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It's obvious. WyndingHeadland (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, obvious that you can't. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Witch is it? WyndingHeadland (talk) 11:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Religion

I have reinstated the paragraph on religious discrimination to the one previously agreed on the talk page. This might be a point to consider if there is adequate coverage (without the section being over-long and so altering the balance of the article).

Also I am concerned about the possible need to cover discrimination against non-juring Episcopalians - and now cannot track down the reference that I had on this. Of course, this could be classed as prejudice against Jacobite supporters.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)