User talk:The Lonely Lamb

I am the Lonely Lamb. This page has been unfairly targeted by people who feel they have assumptions to cause a block not facts! So they have sent me to the slaughterhouse and will eat me for tea.

Welcome!

Hello, The Lonely Lamb!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, AntiDionysius (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: St John the Baptist Church, Corby has been accepted

St John the Baptist Church, Corby, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, i aim to try and help expand more. The Lonely Lamb (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Good luck, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 10:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Congratulations and thank you for creating Bishton, Staffordshire, it has passed New page review and I'm awarding you for your good work despite being a new comer. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, appreciate it @Uncle Bash007 :) The Lonely Lamb (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hello, I'm Danners430. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, West Coast Main Line, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 01:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi The Lonely Lamb. Thank you for your work on Shenstone Woodend. Another editor, Uncle Bash007, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Congrats and thanks for creating this page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Uncle Bash007}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Uncle Bash007 (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks so much :) The Lonely Lamb (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi The Lonely Lamb. Thank you for your work on Castletown, Staffordshire. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this page for an occupied place. There's an argumennt for combining this with Doxey to make 'Doxey and Castletown' (the ward), but it seems harmless as it is.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A table of my references and sources for my articles:

I am listing below a few sources I use for the articles I have been making and how they keep inline with Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

I use sites such as: https://abcounties.com/ - This is a site that covers many parts of the UK such as: Settlements (including types, coordinates, OS Grid reference and counties), Civil parishes, Woodlands and landmarks. I also use GENUKI and Vision of Britain because these also offer more about the settlements if applicable such as townships, manors, settlement data, etc. I also use Francis Frith who has an extensive collection of maps and pictures for primary sourcing. I try to look for news articles, local council proposals or plans and also Historic England for any listed buildings, neighbourhood plans, local or national news etc.

I am willing to submit more often to the Wikipedia article submission group for further analysis. I just want to clarify I do look for notable sites and research before creating a page. If it is not notable, I will not look to create an article if it lacks any notability or mentions. The Lonely Lamb (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Elford Heath has been accepted

Elford Heath, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Wikishovel (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:DragonofBatley per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DragonofBatley. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Lonely Lamb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello — I am writing to appeal the recent block on my account, User:The Lonely Lamb.

Why I believe the block was incorrect

I understand why admins must act when WP:Sockpuppetry is suspected. However, the evidence used to link me to the blocked account is circumstantial and based on behavioural comparisons rather than technical proof. In practice my editing focus and conduct are markedly different:

Topic focus: My contributions are overwhelmingly about civil parishes, villages/hamlets and churches. The other account’s edits concentrate on a different set of place-types and clusters (unitary areas, different localities and topics).

Interaction style: I have repeatedly engaged openly on talk pages, accepted corrections, and offered to work with other editors. My interactions show a willingness to collaborate, not to conceal an identity.

WP:Sourcing and WP:Notability: Where I create or expand pages I use standard local-history and parish sources and I accept tagging or deletion where notability or sourcing is insufficient. The other account’s creations include a number of pages later judged poorly sourced or non-notable — a pattern that differs from my approach. I also use sources that are normally accepted by Wikipedia, which is something the blocked user (DoB) did not.

About the community comparisons

The editors had raised valid flags about stylistic similarities (formatting, phrasing, etc.). Those observations were useful for flagging a pattern, but they are circumstantial in nature. They do not, by themselves, demonstrate a technical link between two accounts. If the admin team needs a technical check, I welcome it — but I do not think the block should remain based solely on comparative observations.

Practical notes on overlap

I visited the other user’s talk page only a few times and only to discuss categories and a couple of structural issues. Any overlap in articles was accidental and driven by my narrow focus on civil parishes and churches — not by coordinated activity. My edits have not been about railways, unitary councils, or many of the topic areas attributed to the other account. I would also note their interests focused more on Lincolnshire, West Yorkshire and Unitary Authorities.

What I ask

Please lift the block on my account, or at minimum replace it with a short, narrowly-targeted restriction while a technical check (CheckUser) is completed. I welcome a CheckUser if the community thinks it necessary.

If specific pages I created are of concern for notability or sourcing, please identify them or tag them so I can improve sourcing, accept prod/AfD, or assist with cleanup. I will cooperate fully.

If desired, I will accept temporary editing conditions (for example: no new article creation until a review is completed) to demonstrate good faith.

Thank you for considering this appeal. I want to contribute constructively and transparently; if I have unintentionally followed problematic patterns I will correct course. I only ask to be treated as an individual editor and given the opportunity to address any issues directly.

User:The Lonely Lamb

Key points

My edits focus on civil parishes, villages/hamlets and churches; the other account focuses on a different set of place-types and topics.

The comparisons made by other users are mainly stylistic/behavioural and circumstantial, not technical proof.

I visited the other user’s talk page only a few times for category/structural discussions; overlaps were accidental.

I welcome a CheckUser if admins want a technical confirmation, and I will cooperate with tagging/PRoD/AfD or mentoring.

Suggested “going forward” plan (offer to admins)

I will not create any new articles without agreeing to any stipulations such as Article Wizard or a mentorship check.

I will respond to and accept tagging (PRoD/AfD) on any of my creations that other editors flag.

I will accept mentoring or review by a more experienced editor for my next set of edits.

I welcome a technical check if the admin team deems it necessary. The Lonely Lamb (talk) 11:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that sockpuppetry must be based on technical evidence...that is incorrect. Often behavior and circumstances are all we have. CheckUsers do not use their tools on request(see WP:CHECKME). You seem to concede that you have stylistic similarities with the other account involved. I don't think this is a coincidence, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

The Lonely Lamb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello — thank you for your quick reply and for explaining your position. I accept that behavioural evidence can be a legitimate starting point for investigation. I also acknowledge there are some superficial stylistic overlaps and I do not deny that. However, I respectfully disagree that those similarities are sufficient to conclude I am the same person as the other account. The evidence that distinguishes my account from that user is concrete and straightforward: my edits are narrowly focused on civil parishes, villages/hamlets and churches; I use different source types and I have demonstrated a collaborative talkpage history. I have also visited the other user’s talk page only a couple of times and only to discuss categories — those visits were limited and not coordinated. If you remain unconvinced, I will accept reasonable interim restrictions (for example: no new article creation) while a more formal technical check is considered. I also welcome a CheckUser if the community deems it necessary — I will cooperate fully with any legitimate process. Declining the appeal without addressing the clear differences leaves me no constructive path forward. I’m trying to resolve this transparently and to cooperate with any reviewer who will look at the full picture. Please let me know what specific, additional evidence would satisfy you so I can provide it. :Right (part): It’s true that Wikipedia sometimes acts on behavioural evidence. Patterns of coordinated editing, matching unusual phrasing, or repeated similar mistakes can be strong indicators and are routinely used to justify action or further investigation. :Wrong (part): That does not mean behaviour alone is always sufficient to permanently block without opportunity for appeal or without checking obvious exculpatory differences. Best practice is to distinguish suspicion (which justifies further checks) from proof (which should be established before long-term sanctions). In short, behaviour can initiate an investigation, but a fair process requires administrators to consider all relevant evidence — including clear differences in topic focus, sourcing, and talk page conduct. :Mostly correct: CheckUsers are not a “private detective on demand,” and the CheckUser tool is sensitive; it is not used casually. It is typically used after a community discussion, sufficient cause, or an administrative request that explains why a CU check is necessary. You cannot force a CheckUser to act just by demanding one; the community/admins decide whether to request it. :Important nuance: That said, if you can show that the existing evidence is circumstantial and list clear, testable differences, you strengthen the case that a CheckUser is appropriate. So the fact the tool isn’t used on a whim doesn’t mean a CheckUser is impossible — it just means you need to persuade admins the behavioural evidence is insufficient and a technical check is warranted. I therefore see no just cause for my block beyond a assumptions and non-reliable sources. There is no clear distinction between me and that user. If one would look at my replies on the sockpuppet investigation. I provided plenty of differences from that user. This seems to be a case of this editor did one thing similar so it has to be someone else. Then it could be a coincidence and is not them in fact. Sources are different and interests. This is case of trying to get blood out of a stone. I will continue to appeal this as I am not the user in question you suspect me to be. The Lonely Lamb (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your Confirmed sockpuppetry after this block put to rest any possibility you were acting in good faith. Unblock request declined, obviously. Yamla (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It seems to me that everything that this user is saying here is the same as what they said at the SPI, and just saying it over and over again isn't going to make it any truer. As explained at the SPI, a checkuser relative to Dragon of Batley cannot be done. I hope that admins will not be hoodwinked by the appeal here, and will remove talk page access if it keeps up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello — I’ll be blunt, Tryptofish (talk · contribs) and I will tag @KJP1: and @Rupples:.

The case here feels rushed and relies far more on repetition, tone-guessing and insinuation than on hard, verifiable evidence. Repeating the same claim louder doesn’t make it truer; it simply makes the same weak case louder.

To be explicit, this passage deserves scrutiny:

“It seems to me that everything that this user is saying here is the same as what they said at the SPI, and just saying it over and over again isn't going to make it any truer. As explained at the SPI, a checkuser relative to Dragon of Batley cannot be done. I hope that admins will not be hoodwinked by the appeal here, and will remove talk page access if it keeps up.”

Problems with that line of argument

Treating repetition as proof: Noting that the same words appear in multiple places is an observation, not proof of a technical link. Patterns are reasons to investigate; they are not, by themselves, dispositive evidence.

Unexplained “impossibility” of CheckUser: If CheckUser cannot be performed, state the precise technical or policy reason. Vague assertions of impossibility are not a substitute for documentation. If a limitation exists, put it on the record.

Inflammatory language: Words like “hoodwinked” introduce emotion and prejudice the discussion. Decisions need to be justified on evidence and procedure, not rhetorical flourish.

On political content and relevance

Bringing political posts or stated political opinions into an SPI without clear linkage to editing behaviour damages credibility. If someone’s public political views are being used to imply motive, explain how that motive connects to verifiable editing evidence. Otherwise it looks like ad hominem argumentation, which is not relevant to a technical determination of account linkage.

Arguing “this person is anti-X therefore guilty” is not acceptable. Political speech is allowed on user pages; it is not, by itself, evidence of sockpuppetry.

What proper evidence would include:

Concrete, verifiable overlaps in editing behaviour that go beyond stylistic similarity — e.g., timestamped patterns, distinctive and repeated content edits, or other markers that are unlikely to be coincidental.

A documented CheckUser or a clear technical explanation why CheckUser is not available here. If admins rely on the absence of a CheckUser, explain why and what alternative technical checks were performed.

Admin logs or contemporaneous notes that explicitly list the items relied on and why those items justify the action under WP:Sockpuppetry.

Requested procedural steps

If admins intend to maintain or impose restrictions, please list the specific evidence being relied upon and explain why it satisfies the threshold for action.

If CheckUser truly cannot be performed, state the reason on record so the community and the affected editor can see why decisions are being made without it.

Avoid rhetoric that impugns motives or suggests the community is being “hoodwinked.” Keep the record factual and procedural.

Final note

This will have more legitimacy if it proceeds calmly and shows its work. Accusations founded on assertion, repetition and inflammatory phrasing polarise discussion and make it harder to reach a fair outcome. If there is solid, technical evidence, present it plainly. If there isn’t, the block/penalty should be re-examined. The Lonely Lamb (talk) 00:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted your formatting to avoid creating seperate threads for every section of your post.

Most of these questions have already been answered; I'm sorry you don't find that satisfactory, but we do not bury things in process and procedure here. We've already stated that checkusers do not act on the request of the user; this is largely because the absence of evidence is not evidence there is no sockpuppetry. This isn't a debating society or a trial. You may appeal to WP:ARBCOM if you find this process unsatisfactory. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]