The Little Platoon

The Little Platoon (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

09 October 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Appears to be a relatively organised attempt at sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting on Australian political articles, particularly Talk:Andrew Hastie (politician), by a user who has declared they have a conflict of interest by working for sitting Australian politicians. There are numerous irregular editing and account similarities here, and what appears to be a coordinated effort to fabricate article talk page consensus.

I am willing to elaborate further on those similarities if clerks believe I should do so, I'm just not sure how much I should be describing here. There are very similar editing patterns apparent from the contributions pages of these accounts, and in the talk page comments in the following sections: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Some examples of these edits: 5, 6, 7, and plenty more.

Very unlikely that similarly new and unconnected members would be devoting significant attention to one/few articles in the same ways, on low-attention BLP articles, and make similar edits both in article and talk spaces. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I am happy to defend myself against the accusation made against me, though I am very sad that @Onetwothreeip: has made such an accusation, having already avoided working with me collaboratively on articles we are both interested in. As mentioned, I have been up front and taken myself to the COI and disclosed my connection with a number of subjects. I chose to do that after another editor @Damien Linnane: challenged me (in a nice way). Admins then encouraged me to proceed within the policy bounds. So let me be similarly up front in this matter. Some very heavy cuts were made to the page in question, and, in my view, some valuable content was lost. So I tagged editors who would be interested - everyone I could see who had made and edit recently, and some other editors who I know want to improve wikipedia. As the discussion on the talk page proceeded, I kept pinging the editors who stayed involved. Unsurprisingly, I guess, many of the editors who stayed involved are editors who have helped each other with articles and so on. And yes, some editors above have worked on content on other articles with each other, on each other's talk pages and whatnot. I know that wiki likes work to all exist within the wiki ecosystem so that's what I have tried to do. I welcome the investigation. I am interested in expanding and improving the collection of knowledge on these pages. I want to work productively and collaboratively wherever I can. Admittedly, I am newish at this, and I've learnt a few things along the way, like what represents 3RR and what doesn't, how to do BRD and so on. But I think admins and editors can see that I really do try hard to take criticism constructively, to try to reach consensus and to be respectful wherever I can. And I must say I wonder if that's what's really brought matters to this page. I've tried to bring things to a consensus on a talk page, and one editor is feeling alienated, which is not a nice feeling. If that is something that I have played a part in, I genuinely regret it and would like to find a way to do better.The Little Platoon (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some accounts you notified had already interacted with the article and some had not interacted with the article before they were notified. They all have remarkable similarities, except for myself and Damien Linnane. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • sigh* if you say so. I have already openly admitted that "I tagged editors who would be interested - everyone I could see who had made and edit recently, and some other editors who I know." It's true. I did that. I reached out to other editors I know. I did it openly. And I did it on the talk page. I am open about that. Just as I have been open about my working in the Parliament. But I know it is absolutely okay to collaborate with another editor on a topic you are both interested in.The Little Platoon (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about any conflict of interest or inappropriate canvassing. This is purely about the misuse of multiple accounts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear - I am my own person with my own views and my own opinions on what constitutes good Wikipedia edits as guided by the various policies (which I am still in the process of learning, being new to this and all). Having reviewed the accusation, I can see why Onetwothreeip might think that all of the above users are the same person given that there is some degree of crossover in editing the same articles and a few users have edited each other's drafts (I have done so occasionally after being asked for help and primarily enjoy helping others with grammar fixes and rewording being the linguistics nerd that I am). The Little Platoon did tag a bunch of users to help with the Andrew Hastie article. But is there a rule against asking a bunch of editors who might be interested in editing an article to give their 2 cents? Looking at that article's talk page, everyone seemed to be making independent contributions according to what they thought was best for the article. Maybe it comes across as biased because the people contributing to the conversation were tagged by The Little Platoon? The few users who were commenting on the Political Views section, including me, were able to come to a consensus (which, I will point out, Damien Linnane was a part of and has not been accused of being a sockpuppet). Reading the earlier part of the talk page just before the Request for comment, it looks like things got a bit heated between The Little Platoon and Onetwothreeip which is unfortunate because maybe this wouldn't have devolved into a sockpuppetry investigation if they had communicated more clearly and worked together better. Anyway, maybe the solution would be for Onetwothreeip to tag more editors they think might want to help with the Hastie article if they think The Little Platoon has created a bias in the discussion by tagging editors? More input would be great for the article in question (and any article really). And just to reiterate - I would never agree to add to an article a section being discussed that I deem to be editorialising or written from a biased perspective. My understanding is that Wikipedia encourages editors to expand on articles in helpful ways and I think any contributions that flesh out weak sections of articles in a neutral, no original research, well-referenced etc. way are a positive thing and I have sought to ensure this neutrality in all my edits as much as my ability and experience as a newbie on here allows me to. Rebellious Bird (talk) 11:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find any account similarities between Damien Linnane and the accounts I listed. The similarities I found confirmed for me that these accounts are most likely a sockpuppetry attempt, but could potentially be individuals who are connected to each other outside Wikipedia as well, or some combination. The similarities are certainly far more than simply editing the same articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, I’m not a sockpuppet. Sure, I know some Wikipedians outside of Wikipedia who sometimes ask for help to improve their writing. I wasn’t aware that you have to proclaim from the rooftops every single person you know who uses Wikipedia because that sounds like a great way to have my identity revealed. As I’m sure you can understand, I’ve met enough weirdos online that I would very much not like that to happen on this site, thanks. Again, I have never and never will help out someone I know to promote a biased view of a subject. All my edits are made in accordance to what I think is best, as informed by Wikipedia guidelines. Nobody has ever told me what to write. As I have shown time and time again, on talk pages and articles, I have publicly disagreed with some of the users in question when I thought a section was not neutral enough and sought to make it more neutral and have assisted in correcting it to be so and helped improve draft articles to try to expand Wikipedia and make it a more grammar-mistake-free place. It would be a real shame to not be able to continue doing that. If I have done something wrong then, more experienced editors, please tell me and I will endeavour to fix it. I’m still pretty new to all of this and would appreciate some understanding and patience. Rebellious Bird (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rebellious Bird, why do you feel the need to point out that I was never accused of being a sockpuppet? I've been editing Wikipedia for 12 years in countless different topic areas, I'm ranked in the top 1,500 editors by edit count and I edit using my real name. No I'm not trying to brag, my point is why would I throw away a reputation linked to my real identity that I've been building for that long, just to create alternate accounts that didn't initially agree with me over a topic I've never taken an interest in editing before I was asked to join in the conversation? Quite frankly, baseless finger-pointing is making you look more suspicious. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane: Sorry you were dragged into this. I wasn't intending to accuse you of being a sockpuppet (because, as you say, you are clearly a well-established editor) - although now I realise the wording wasn't clear. I was merely pointing out that you were involved in the consensus that was reached. I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia protocol of what is relevant information in these investigations so forgive me if that wasn't something I should have brought up. Anyway, whether or not I look suspicious doesn't take away from the fact that this is my only account on Wikipedia and has always been my only account. I have never edited Wikipedia as any of the accounts listed below or as any another user. Rebellious Bird (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP: Thanks for your attention to this. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying you have confirmed that those accounts are sockpuppets, and you would like further evidence for other accounts? It looks one of the suspected accounts has admitted that they know each other off-wiki. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP: I never considered that The Little Platoon is maintaining sockpuppet accounts, nor do I have strong reason to believe he is now, but I must say there's an uncanny similarity between the four new accounts listed above, and I strongly welcome checking those accounts at the very least. Like Onetwothreeip, I also don't understand what you're saying here. Can you please confirm whether the above accounts are sock-puppets of each-other or not? And if so, what are you going to do about it? Damien Linnane (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am still quite new to being a Wikipedia editor. After being encouraged to engage with this online resource, by some of the accounts listed in the investigation, I was still a bit lost as to how to develop my wiki editing skills. Wikipedia can actually be quite an intimidating beast to handle in your early editing stages. As such I was eager to contribute when @The Little Platoon: tagged me in a talk page so I could experience and participate in a BRD situation, while also refining an article of personal interest. I am not quite sure what evidence I can contribute to this discussion, other then the sentiment that collaboration doesn't necessarily equal collusion. I hope everyone can see that the the edits I made to the pages at hand take on feedback from all parties involved in the talk page discussion. Controllingchaos (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that things have come to this. I suppose you could call us a 'group of editors' in that we sometimes collaborate by asking each other online or offline to contribute independently, though we are fundamentally opposed to any form of collusion, so we have never told anyone what to write. We decided to join Wikipedia around the same time, seeking to contribute to this rich information source by improving existing pages but primarily by creating pages on notable topics/people that didn't yet exist. You can see that we have individually written and published pages on topics ranging from fashion, to linguistics and even religion. We each have different areas of knowledge, come from a large age range, variety of political views and clearly have very distinct writing styles. I want to stress that we have never told each other what to write and that we independently form our varied opinions. Please let me know if as an editor I have done anything wrong. I am increasingly familiarising myself with Wikipedia policy, and I greatly respect the this platform. As someone who deeply values truth, I have only ever sought to positively contribute to this ever-evolving information source. Veronique Cognac (talk) 12:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • GeneralNotability I've been friends with Veronique Cognac, Controllingchaos and Balastiere for years and we recently started working on Wikipedia together and having weekly meetings with each other and other editors to give and receive advice on editing (since we're all at different stages in our understanding of how Wikipedia works). I'm not comfortable sharing any more personal information because it might violate their privacy. Do we have to tell everyone we know each other when editing? Or do we need to say that we know each other on our user pages? I just don't want other editors coming after us because they think we're the same person but I also don't want them piecing together who we are by looking at all the info on our edits/user pages etc. Rebellious Bird (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • GeneralNotability@AmandaNP:, I was hoping to look after everyone's need for anonymity in this process, but as I can see from @Rebellious Bird: that's now under pressure. Yes, all the people do know each other, we organised a wiki meetup. Which, as everyone knows, "Anyone can organize... no one needs permission to have." [1] It's just been people who know each other and who want to write about subjects they are interested in, like Welsh Revival preachers and olfactory language. At times, some of these guys have been in the same space. And frequently, as is encouraged by Wiki, we have have collaborated on each other's articles where we think we can improve the article.[[2]] Now it seems that wiki admin wants to shame some junior editors because they have done that. This actually makes me really upset. The deletionism practiced by one of the editors on this thread, and now the accusations, is exactly why wiki has a problem with attracting and retaining young editors, particularly women, as the published essay on that topic has made painfully clear. I have strongly encouraged these guys to learn how to write articles, to help each other, to be neutral, to find good sources. But wiki editors like to hunt down the new guys who write about topics that the older editors don't like. And it scares young editors away.[3] The Little Platoon (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the questions asked by @AmandaNP:, I would like to clarify that Wikipedia assures me of my anonymity and I have no responsibility to answer them. However out of respect to the resource and the work AmandaNP is doing to protect the truth I will comply: 1. I estimate I have talked with my editing peers, about how to develop my editing skills, approximately 4 or 5 times. I don't believe this is against the Wikipedia rules and as a young editor I appreciated hearing the wisdom of their past Wikipedia experience in boosting my own editing confidence. 2. I would also like to clarify that I reset MY OWN password after attempting to sign on to Wikipedia on a new device. I then made edits the following day from that same new device at the same location. I don't understand how @Rebellious Bird: has got caught up in matters of my account security. Controllingchaos (talk) 07:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP: I’m very confused by your question and what evidence you’re basing it on. How would I reset Controllingchaos’s password? I’ve never tried to login as them and I don’t have access to their e-mail account or any of their passwords, past or present. As per what Controllingchaos said above, I’m guessing what happened is they reset their password while we were in the same location but I still don’t understand why you would think it was me who did that when it wasn’t. Rebellious Bird (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AmandaNP: The week of the 29th, I met with Rebellious Bird with 3 times. If your records are showing 4 times, perhaps that could be due to the time zone difference. To help clear the confusion, we do edit from the same location on several different days, not just a single meetup. As what Rebellious Bird said above, we do have regular collaborative meetings with each other and other editors. Veronique Cognac (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AmandaNP: Sorry, I can't quite remember the exact dates that we met up, however I can confirm I was using my own personal computer for the edits. Balastiere (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment moved to lower case about moreinfo. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Onetwothreeip and Damien Linnane: I am saying that the four accounts are sockpuppets of each other. I don't routinely issue blocks for several reasons, including the seperation of my hats of CheckUser and sysop, but someone else will take care of them. What I'm asking for the more information for is to run checks on BorderTensions, Welsh Hamlet & The Little Platoon. You were right that a sock group does exist with those four, so since you are alleging that the others are socks too, they are unlikely to be part of this group that I very easily discovered in CU. Therefore to run further checks I need evidence, and there were zero diffs in the original investigation to go off of. CheckUser can't just be run because you would like to know, there has to be evidence of a possibility that they are connected. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rebellious Bird, you don't need to reveal your real-life identity, but (in general terms, without privacy-violating detail please) what exactly is your relationship to those other three people? GeneralNotability (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Little Platoon: I am acutely aware of the attempts made through SPI to apply pressure to other editors, though I won't leavy the accusation against anyone here as I don't know the full story. But that does make me careful and it's why you and other users haven't been checked. I am also aware of the driving off of minorities, and I'm in a few groups of minorities myself. I am not here to shame anyone for meeting up. If that's the case in the end, I'll be more than happy to let them be. The problem is the evidence between the four users is more complicated that than that.
@Those confirmed: I am doing more analysis, and will have more questions in a short bit for each person on the list. Because you seem to edit from the same location on several different days, not just a single meetup, that is why the story is in question. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond above and not directly below this, and feel free to ping me.
@Controllingchaos: How many times did you meet with others?
@Balastiere: Which date(s) did you meet with the others and did you use your main computer you use to edit Wikipedia, another computer or someone elses computer?
@Veronique Cognac: Why did you meet someone on 4 days out of a 7 day period in the week of the 29th Sept, and which user did you meet with?
@Rebellious Bird: Why did you reset the password for Controllingchaos if they didn't edit until the next day in the same place you were that night?
-- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reviewed the answers above. While some of the answers are complete non-answers, a few are right and the plausible explanation that this is many meetups over and over is plausible. The reason I said Rebellious Bird reset Controllingchaos' password was because Rebellious Bird edited ~17 minutes after the password reset and was the only one to edit at that time. It also came from a computer with the same configuration on the same IP. I'm still concerned that there is more going on here than is being lead on to given the frequency of meetups, but I can't prove anything and would opt to WP:AGF. I'll still leave this for another admin to close out, but my thoughts are no action should be taken. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

09 October 2020

Suspected sockpuppets

Appears to be a relatively organised attempt at sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting on Australian political articles, particularly Talk:Andrew Hastie (politician), by a user who has declared they have a conflict of interest by working for sitting Australian politicians. There are numerous irregular editing and account similarities here, and what appears to be a coordinated effort to fabricate article talk page consensus.

I am willing to elaborate further on those similarities if clerks believe I should do so, I'm just not sure how much I should be describing here. There are very similar editing patterns apparent from the contributions pages of these accounts, and in the talk page comments in the following sections: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Some examples of these edits: 5, 6, 7, and plenty more.

Very unlikely that similarly new and unconnected members would be devoting significant attention to one/few articles in the same ways, on low-attention BLP articles, and make similar edits both in article and talk spaces. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP: I will have to give this further attention later, but the connections for Welsh Hamlet and BorderTensions are the same as for the previous accounts which are now acknowledged to be linked. The connection with Erasmus Sydney is that they made many similar edits on the same articles and largely stopped around the time this group started. I will still attend to this investigation with further evidence but is there any place to raise concerns about people collaborating off-wiki to act as a group and influence contentious articles, if that is not included as meatpuppeting? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmandaNP: Both the Welsh Hamlet and BorderTensions accounts were made in June 2020. These have not been used as often, but they almost exclusively were used for editing articles related to conservative politicians (especially Andrew Hastie), American-aligned foreign policy think tanks, and some conservative Christian individuals. Erasmus Sydney was used to edit articles between April and June of this year, and much of the content they added to the Andrew Hastie article has been preserved by The Little Platoon, which was also an account created in April 2020 and remains active. These are very clear connections, but I am inclined to view these as sockpuppets due to very similar editing patterns. For example, this talk page section by The Little Platoon: Talk:Michael_Sukkar#Update_and_re-organisation_for_2020, this one by BorderTensions: Talk:1992_United_States_presidential_debates#Improvements_in_2020 and this one by Erasmus Sydney: Talk:Kimberley_Kitching#Expanding_on_this_subject_in_2020. I would also add that while there has been a significant focus on Liberal Party of Australia politicians by these users, including the ones who have already been shown and admitted to being connected, there have also been contributions to Australian Labor Party politicians who have been especially vocal about foreign policy issues related to China and the United States, and that is what the added content is about. This also makes up a significant amount of the contributions to Liberal Party politicians, and are the primary areas of concern for the think tanks that this group of accounts have been editing, namely Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, Henry Jackson Society and Atlantic Council, all of which have been written in promotional and supportive tones. If there are any particular revision differences that would assist you, or if anything requires further explanation, I would be certainly willing to provide. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AmandaNP, just following up on this. Please let me know if there is anything further required. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability and AmandaNP: I'm more than a little bit confused here. One of you is saying that the evidence I have presented is a good start and other is saying that I have not presented evidence. The overlap in editing behaviour is clearly much more than simply an interest in political articles. To be perfectly clear, I am not saying these are necessarily sockpuppet accounts. It is possible that these accounts are controlled by individuals who know each other off-wiki and coordinate edits together. Editing the same articles and article discussions with the same point-of-view and with accounts created at the same time should warrant some investigation.
I'm certainly willing to provide all the necessary evidence but I am unfamiliar with those process as I have never opened an investigation before. The fact that four accounts have now been proven and admitted to be connected (in the now-archived investigation above) and that I have not opened an investigation ever before should indicate that this is entirely in good faith. I certainly don't go looking for sockpuppets and I've never accused anybody of that outside of this investigation.
Could either of you please tell me out of what I have discussed that you would find diffs useful for? Just to be clear, the part of the investigation that has been archived was intended for all of the eight accounts that I found to be linked. There's a lot to go through here and I would like to know what it is that you would like to see. Again, I'm more than willing to provide whatever is needed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also provide more information myself in the next 24-48 hours. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AmandaNP and GeneralNotability: First of all, could one of you describe how there was sufficient evidence to link The Little Platoon to the other three users, but not Welsh Hamlet, BorderTensions and Erasmus Sydney? What I meant to demonstrate with the talk pages I linked was that the sections themselves were incredibly similar, looking at the titles of them. This is a diff for BorderTensions creating the similar talk page section, and despite very few edits overall, they were notified by The Little Platoon who also created this section, to their proposals on Talk:Andrew Hastie (politician). I can't find the diffs for those but if you search for "BorderTensions" you can see clearly they have notified this account, as well as other accounts which they have admitted are connected. I would also recommend looking at that talk page overall.
This is a summary of all the articles that these users have edited, which is remarkable overlap when they have less than a few hundred edits each, except for Erasmus Sydney and The Little Platoon which have about a thousand each. I can demonstrate those edit counts if required as well, and anything else that may be required. This is the interaction summary with just those four. Erasmus Sydney mostly stopped editing when The Little Platoon started editing, as shown here and here respectively. I can elaborate on editing similarities further between these accounts if required. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

@AmandaNP: What further information would be of assistance here? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC) @GeneralNotability and AmandaNP: Can I get an update on where this stands here? It seems as likely that there is a sophisticated organised group of editors working together to inadvertently subvert local talk page consensuses, assuming good faith, or there is sockpuppetry happening here, although there may also be some combination. What further information in editing patterns would be useful here, and what consequences would there be for the meatpuppetry actions as opposed to sockpuppetry? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability and AmandaNP: This does not seem to be a fair process. I would like you to consider that what may be happening here is that a single hostile editor is making very serious accusations that will have the effect of scaring off younger, inexperienced editors. You will notice that the hostile editor has successfully done that! These younger editors are no longer contributing! I would also like you to consider that Wiki encourages people to meet and to help each other improve the writing on various articles. Look through the history of the editors above and you can see that they each have various interests. For some it's a weird play called Foreskin's Lament [4]. For others its Jet ski fishing and the Jahai language. For some people it is about MPs like Andrew Hastie (politician) or Penny Wong. People have followed the topics that interest them and then other editors helped them to get the articles to a good place. I believe that's a good thing and in the spirit of wiki. I sincerely hope that you look at the actual behaviour of editors and what they have written about. I sincerely hope it's considered that wiki is actually for people meeting and helping each other write good articles. I personally believe that's why we are here. I find it painful that what feels like a witch hunt to me is actually stopping people from making good contributions. The Little Platoon (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Meatpuppetry is a very different situation than sock puppetry is. Basically, it has to be proven that they are coming here solely to support another editor and can't show their own level of judgement. (If you wish examples from my recent blocks, Keywan faramarzi and Khasrow1976) That said, I don't need more information on their editing habits, but I need diffs to back up what you are saying, as I noted before. Without those diffs, I can't proceed on running those checks, and without it you're not likely to get a block at all - here or at AN/ANI. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as a statement of fact, I can't process anything without the evidence you will give later. The place to take up any concern that falls out of SPI that does not have a dedicated noticeboard is WP:ANI. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The three talkpage connections that you initially present is a good start. Diffs (revision differences as you refer to them) to back up the rest of the claims instead of having me search for all contributions from all three articles to find what you mean would be the next step. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More