Talk:Kilcoy, Queensland

Anglican church in Kilcoy - subject of many problematic contributions over the years - be alert!

Today, I see there are new edits critising the Anglican Church in Kilcoy. There is a long history of similar problematic single edits and groups of edits from a number of IP accounts and a named account all in relation to the Anglican church in Kilcoy, criticising it in much the same way. The problems from a Wikipedia policy perspective are numerous: misleading edit summaries, adding uncited content or citing personal websites, or adding insufficient citations to undertake verification, or providing citations that fail verification, probable WP:BLP violations (people mentioned by name or being easy to identify from their description in a small town), removing cited content, or the citation for cited content, or replaced cited content with other content (not supported by the existing citation), and sometimes bracketing these problematic edits with other unrelated but harmless edits to disguise the real edit sometimes done by another account, etc e.g.

• July 2018 [1]
• July 2018 [2]
• August 2018 [3]
• August 2018 [4]
• August 2018 [5] by now-blocked sockpuppet User:Ulrich von Metz
• August 2018 [6] by Ulrich von Metz
• August 2018 [7] by Ulrich von Metz
• February 2020 [8]
• October 2021 [9]
• December 2021 [10]
• December 2023 [11]
• February 2024 [12]
• February 2024 [13]

I and other users have deleted these edits over several years, yet they keep turning up again. It is well beyond Assume Good Faith. I note an account that was also active around some of these edits but doing harmless edits was User:Archangelbris which has subsequently been declared the sockpuppet master of Ulrich von Metz.

In the same timeframes of July-August 2018, the article Anglican Diocese of Brisbane received similar treatment, same techniques, same themes, and the same two named users (now known to be socks) were active at that time in addition to a number of IP users, and even includes criticism of the Kilcoy church, just to help connect the two attacks e.g. [14] and there may be other instances of similar attacks in other articles that I have not encountered. There have been more recent attacks of a similar nature on thae diocese article.

Obviously everybody is entitled to their opinions on Anglican beliefs/practices (not being Anglican, I don't really care), but it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia in this way. It violates our major policies involving No original research, Use reliable sources, Neutral point of view, biographies of living people, as well as our processes. Please be alert to further instances of this kind of activity. Thanks Kerry (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)