Reverend Stuart Campbell

Welcome!

Hello, Reverend Stuart Campbell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Stuart Campbell (blogger), which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Best practices for editors with close associations
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Nobody (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Your recent edits to User talk:AntiDionysius could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. GSK (talk • edits) 01:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I made no such threats. I said I would take what actions were available to me, meaning within Wiki procedures. But I can already see where this is going. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Chiming in to say that the attribution of Linehan's quotes to you was an honest mistake on my part, for which I apologise.

Per Wikipedia's COI policy, you are entitled to edit a page about you to remove objectively untrue material, which those mistakenly attributed quotes obviously constitute. You are asked to refrain, however, from making other edits, such as removal of the (sourced) claims about your views on trans rights or rephrasing of other portions of the page. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I see you're determined to continue with the falsehood that those comments regard "trans rights". Please provide a valid source for my alleged "opposition to trans rights". I am on record many many times saying I believe trans people should have equal rights, and if you think I've ever said otherwise, and if you think those views are newsworthy, the onus is on you to provide evidence specifying which rights I oppose, not just cite a tirade of someone else's general antipathy towards me.

It is manifestly plain that you have an agenda here. Your "honest mistake" was a pretty spectacular one - the article quoted was clearly bylined to Graham Linehan and my name appears absolutely nowhere in it, so why on Earth would you ever have attributed it to me? This is further demonstrated by your removal of the proper and sourced account of the court case, which creates a deliberately misleading impression that the court upheld Dugdale's claim of homophobia.

My edit retains the fact of the verdict while providing proper sourced context about my "Views on LGBTQ+ issues", to which the judges' findings and comments are obviously significantly pertinent, and is therefore correcting an inaccuracy. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Stuart Campbell (blogger), you may be blocked from editing. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I am restoring the entry's neutrality, not removing it. I am also following proper procedure by attempting to resolve the matter on the Talk page, while the malicious editors refuse to engage on the relevant points. Same old Wikipedia, I see. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, nobody is forcing you to edit Wikipedia. I highly suggest you chill out. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing the malicious editors to do so either. I fail to see the relevance of your point. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

You have to start assuming good faith. You can't just go complaining "everyone here is trying to defame me!" at a volunteer passing by. Nobody would do that in real life, so why bother doing it here? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 07:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I only have to assume good faith if the reverse is not obviously true. The world is in fact full of people happy to devote their time to maliciously defaming anyone notable enough to have a Wiki entry in the first place. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Kindly discuss your desired edits on the Talk page like you're supposed to, rather than just ignoring any pertinent points and maliciously reverting misleading edits. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are unwilling or unable to state your case for your inaccurate and misleading edits, why don't YOU engage the dispute resolution process, rather than ignoring all attempts at reason? Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Wings Over Scotland, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I explained it perfectly adequately: the comments in question were NOT published on Wings Over Scotland - I wrote them, and am well aware of where they were and were not published - and as such they have no place being discussed in the Wings Over Scotland entry. Try paying attention. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

COI etc.

Reverend Stuart Campbell, I can understand someone being upset of article content, and apparently indeed a mistake was made, which I understand has now been rectified, and the responsible editor apologized for it (twice, I think). That's fine, and other editors also went in and tweaked the article in a way that apparently better reflects the sources, a way that I suppose you agree with. I saw Zzuuzz also criticize something that was in the article and didn't properly reflect what the sources say. To me, that means that the process is working. (The BBC, for instance, is a reliable source--if other sources say differently, we can discuss, but smearing the BBC is not a fruitful way forward.) However, I want to point out a few things. First of all, in cases of COI the subject/conflicted editor is encouraged to work by way of the talk page, which you have done, but you've also edited the article directly. That's understandable, perhaps, but if such editing becomes disruptive then blocking the editor's ability to edit the article directly is an option.

Secondly, though, I am concerned with the tone and the content of some of the comments you have made, many of which suggest that one or more editors are of bad faith who are purposely trying to defame you. A few of those comments are listed below, in no particular order:

• I came here to correct a deliberate attempt to mislead and smear. -- an assumption of bad faith.
• Thanks, but I know fine how Wikipedia works, and why it's generally futile once some activist group gets you in its sights. Gangs of friendless losers living in their mothers' basements have nothing better to do all day than become experts in its arcane and labyrinthine processes, then back each other up and block any opposition in the service of their chosen agendas, taking advantage of the rest of the world's disinterest/lack of spare time. -- another such assumption, with an insult that is highly blockable.
• I will take whatever actions are available to me. -- a borderline legal threat, according to one administrator, and certainly not a collegial thing to say.
• Nobody is forcing the malicious editors to do so either. -- another assumption of bad faith.
• Try paying attention. -- a rude and condescending remark.
• Your goal is smearing, not accuracy. -- more bad faith ascribed to an editor.
  I do not believe anyone is out to get you. I am urging you to act as if you do not do so either--WP:AGF is a rather essential guideline here. I also urge you to not insult other editors, and while you may have been unhappy with some edits, and one or two may have been wrong, I have seen nothing from other editors that was incivil or libelous. Our goal is to write neutral articles that properly reflect the available sourcing. Please treat other editors with respect. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

If the goal is to write neutral articles, can you explain the repeated removal of properly-sourced links from reliable sources which present a more accurate and balanced account of the Dugdale case, without removing the existing links? Can you explain the determination of editors to have the entry misleadingly direct readers to a false conclusion which they KNOW to be false?

Can you explain why I should treat as good faith an editor choosing to interpret the words "the tweet did not express homophobic views" as meaning "the tweet was homophobic"? That is both uncivil and literally libellous. There is a manifest determination to include only sources attacking me, even when those sources are not reputable, while excluding reputable ones which present supportive facts.

Can you explain how anyone could in good faith attribute comments clearly made by Graham Linehan, in an article in which I am not named or referenced in any way, to me?

Can you explain why my simple correction of a false claim about comments not made on Wings Over Scotland (which has now been accepted as valid and reinstated by another editor) was met not with thanks but with threats about banning and blocking?

I made no legal threat against anyone, and any such interpretation was incorrect. Had I intended to threaten legal action I would have done so unambiguously.

Bad faith is bad faith. I will not pretend otherwise, and if you insist that I must do so in the face of all possible evidence to the contrary then I can only regard you as also guilty of the same. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

And now I am expected to regard as good faith these editors reaching a "consensus" that the most neutral and fair approach is to edit the entry to say "Wings over Scotland contains a significant amount of transphobic content and conspiracy theories", on the basis of a single website opinion column groundlessly saying so.

Frankly, my comment about "how Wikipedia works" has been borne out word for word, as I knew it would. I made the effort as a matter of principle, but intend to waste no more time on it. Smear away as much as you like. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Reverend_Stuart_Campbell reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Stuart Campbell (blogger)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 01:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Imagine my surprise. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Knock off the personal attacks or you'll be blocked more broadly. Star Mississippi 02:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi, Isn't this the last straw? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, TPA probably needs to be revoked because I can already see where this will go... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, that escalated quickly. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It went exactly how I said it would go. It's how Wikipedia is and why it's so widely mocked. Reverend Stuart Campbell (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The following block is not in response to your latest comment, which is a fine-to-have opinion, but about those you've made directly before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)