User talk:Wikiprediger

Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Wikiprediger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

• Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
• Check out some of these pages:
  • Contributing to Wikipedia
  • Introduction to Wikipedia
  • How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
  • The five pillars of Wikipedia | Cheatsheet of WikiCode

• If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this welcome message! Wikiprediger (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Why can't I edit some particular pages?

Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.

Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?

Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.

How do I create an article?

See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.

How do I create citations?

1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:

==References==
{{Reflist}}

What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?

A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

Edit warring at several articles about Freemasonry

Please stop. When another editor reverts an edit you make, go to the article’s talk page and DISCUSS the matter. Edit warring (repeatedly returning the article to your preferred version) can eventually get you blocked (or even outright banned) from editing Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I will discuss it first next time. Wikiprediger (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Hello, I'm SarekOfVulcan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Freemasonry that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Claiming that an editor is working at the behest of other "masters" is not generally considered a good idea. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I only answered the humor shown to me with humor. I think there is no need to remove it. But if you need to, i can post similar ironic things like that anytime elsewhere in the internet. It's in the wayback machine, too - and i have a screenshot. Maybe i present it then somewhere so that people can discuss and judge it themselves.Is it really that big problem to you? I can't understand. Wikiprediger (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wikiprediger! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Recreating content that was removed by a user (even if slightly different) is considered a partial revert, putting you over WP:3RR. I would strongly suggest you self revert.. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages - yes, and why haven't you done that first? i asked you multiple times to describe your problems detailed - instead of just deleting everything you do not like. I had rewritten this content especially to fit in the article one day before - and you just deleted it without any discussion before? Wikiprediger (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Open Parliamentary License

Per https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/, this is not considered a free license for our purposes. (See also Template:Non-free Parliamentary copyright.) Actually, I'm not sure now. Reading more closely, it may be suitable. I'll do some more research. That said, though....

In addition, copying even free content in the manner that you did at Operation Countryman is frowned on. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism for guidelines on how to use other people's content properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Further research turns up Commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Parliamentary_copyright. Seems ok. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll write a better short summary soon, my english isn't very good. Wikiprediger (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I think you're including way too much of that speech, and doing it in an inappropriate manner, so I've started a discussion at WP:ANI#Repeated coatracking with close paraphrasing. -SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you exclude too much of that speach. you were contra-productive multiple times - then just improving the article with this new informations. i think these are very important informations. maybe you are biased and you have no neutral pov. Wikiprediger (talk) 19:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 02:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As a result of this discussion, you are indefinitely blocked from editing. Should you wish to pursue an unblock, it will need to be a convincing case made to the community to show why the disruption will not recur. Star Mississippi 02:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

My early edits on some articles were discussed a lot. I was not familiar with some details of wikipedia's rules and had no idea that I was dealing with articles with such controversial topics. So I couldn't understand why so many reversions were carried out without prior discussion. I voluntarily refrained from making any further changes on many articles where i wanted to add a more neutral view, and explained that I would write my own neutral and critical article on the subject of freemasonry. My last and only edit since a week was on the article Operation Countryman because I had a complete new source. As always it was reversed without any discussion. But it was a completely new source i found, and it refers to a source that is already written about in the article, the speech Dale Campbell-Savours made in parliament:

Dale Campbell-Savours said that "over 250 police officers were forced to resign and many faced criminal charges after investigations revealed that police membership of particular Masonic lodges formed the nucleus of a criminal conspiracy."

In this speech (see source) he also refers to the book published by Metropolitan Police and New Scotland Yard, written by Sir Kenneth Newman. In this book it is mentioned why there are such problems with freemasons in the police. I think that is an important information related to this article. My first edit on this article was to add more details about the speech of Dale Campbell-Savours, of which the source was already long time linked. I just read the complete source and found that remarkable. It was reversed by claiming that this speech had nothing to do with the case, while at the same time leaving the source linked in the article and the sentence above referring to it. For me there was the question does the source have any relevance, yes or no? I understood that a speech in parliament alone is not enough as a source, as it often only reflects a personal opinion (it was told me this way). So I looked for the book that part of the speech refers to and added it. I don't see anything objectionable in that. We could have discussed that, or why this source is even in the text if it supposedly has nothing to do with the case. That is a clear contradiction - and should be clarified if necessary before someone is completely excluded.

Because of this i saw no problem in adding a few lines, taken from that book - please read it yourself:

In the book The Principles of Policing and Guidance for Professional Behaviour, which was also published as a guide for police officers by the Metropolitan Police in 1985 and which Dale Campbell-Savours referred to in his speech, it is emphasized that passages of the content should not be understood as a fundamental criticism of Freemasonry. Nevertheless, the conflict is described that a police officer who is also a freemason must abide by the oath to preserve masonic secrets, including those how he reveals himself to other freemasons secretly without outsiders being able to recognize it. The text suggests that the loyalty of a masonic policeman may be to other freemasons first. The book therefore recommends that freemasons who are also policemen should reflect from time to time on whether they really want to remain freemasons

I don't think I can be blamed for adding a reputable source that complements an already existing source. In my opinion, what is happening here is a bit too much punishment and persecution - because I always explain my changes in detail, add sources, take part in discussions, etc. You can't expect me to know everything perfectly and always see things the same way as others do. But to prohibit me from making proper changes that can easily be reversed and to give me a complete ban, in my opinion, going way too far. Thank you.

References

Wikiprediger (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This isn't even worth bringing to the community for discussion. You don't seem to think that you did anything wrong at all, so there are no grounds for the community to even consider removing the block. 331dot (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you for your response. I have already learned a lot, otherwise I would have made further edits or reverts all week long. But I didn't. So now I know that if someone reverts something with a reason, I first have to start a discussion on the article discussion page and consider other opinions. As a result, I had accepted that my requests for changes in the articles could not be taken into account because of wikipedia rules. However, this time I had a completely new source - and for me it meant that I could at least add it. After the revert, I would have asked on the discussion page why - but not reverted back (i wouldn't have startet an edit-war). But what is expected of me now is something superhuman, namely that I have to be sure before making a change whether my edit is 100% safe - otherwise I will be punished. If someone could do that, there would be no discussion pages on Wikipedia at all. I explained the reasons for my only edit since over a week. There is a significant contradiction in the article Operation Countryman. The source from which I was forbidden to add further details, but was already recited and available in the article, because it is just a speech and maybe a personal opinion. I have accepted this contradiction, too. Because of that i searched for a better source, a book published by authorities which was mentioned in that speech. But i could not foresee, that that wouldn't be good either. I could have asked in a discussion about this contradiction and why this isn't an important information from a reliable source - but i got blocked before i could do that. So how am I supposed to learn why someone is allowed to refer to a source and that it belongs to the article, but not if I do that - because it is only a speech and therefore a personal opinion. If I then back up these personal statements with a book from public authorities that is mentioned, then that is not right either. I think that needs clarification, not a ban. Anyone who is relatively new in seemingly very controversial topics would be overwhelmed by such a contradiction. You can't expect to understand it immediately - but i would like to understand and ask this question on the discussions page. I think there would be no reason for an indefinite ban anymore, as I no longer plan to add anything to a controversial topic without asking first. I have also shown that I can stay away from it for a long time and only wanted to add something once with a special new reason - and didn't just carry on as before. I didn't revertet anything, didn't started an edit-war, or something like that. I just added a one reliable source. I would appreciate it if the ban was limited to 2 weeks or 1 month so that I then can continue working on my own articles. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Declined as per WP:SNOWBALL. Yamla (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello. I respectfully request reconsideration of my indefinite block. I now understand clearly what I did wrong: I was not familiar with the policies on edit warring (WP:3RR) and civility (WP:CIV). I also realize that some of my wording may have sounded impolite in English, even though this was not my intention. English is not my native language, and I sometimes misunderstood others or was misunderstood myself. Since my block in 2024, I have reflected and learned. I will strictly avoid editing controversial topics in a way that leads to disputes and will first use talk pages to discuss any disagreement before making edits. I will not revert or restart past disputes. Instead, I want to focus on constructive contributions, for example by writing new articles or making smaller improvements where they are useful. I have been an active contributor on the German Wikipedia since January 2014 (see: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Wikiprediger) with over 11 years of constructive editing. This shows that I can collaborate productively when I understand the rules. I kindly ask if my block could be lifted, or at least changed to a time-limited block, so that I can continue contributing constructively on en-wiki. Thank you. Wikiprediger (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Consensus at AN is not to lift the block. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Your writing style seems very different from your past unblock requests and comments at ANI. Did you use an LLM to generate this request? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. The text was not from a machine. I speak German, not English. I asked someone with better English skills and Wikipedia knowledge to translate my words. I was afraid of being misunderstood. If you want, I can also write a short version in my own simple English. Wikiprediger (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. We need to know that you can communicate appropriately in Emglish on your own. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:28, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, since you were banned by the community, you'll need to have this appeal posted at WP:AN. Please clearly address the reason for your ban and how you will avoid similar conduct in the future. You should consider Blueboar's point as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Because I am banned, i cannot start a topic on WP:AN myself. If possible, could someone please copy my message and paste it there? Thank you. Wikiprediger (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

You still need to make one statement for the community to review incorporating everything you've been asked to address. Once you do that, I will copy it over. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I was blocked because I did not understand the rules about "edit wars". That means i was not familiar with starting a discussion an a talk page before editing or reverting the same paragraphs again. If i would have startet a discussion about my change requests and would have waited for other opinions, there would not have been a conflict.

1. For my future edits I will follow these rules.
2. Also, I will not edit articles where there have already been conflicts.
3. I will focus on writing my own articles.

Thank you for giving me a chance. Wikiprediger (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• While my German is admittedly weak, a look at your edit history at de.WP has me concerned that you would continue to have a battleground mentality if you returned to editing here at en.WP. Would you accept a topic block on editing articles relating to Freemasonry (broadly construed) as a condition of unblocking? Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  I can fully accept not editing any existing articles about Freemasonry. This is no problem for me. I understand now that this only created conflicts.

  But I would like to be allowed to finish my own draft article instead.

  I already started it before my ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiprediger/Freemasonry_criticism.

  My idea was to translate it step by step and create a fact-based article.

  On the German Wikipedia, I renamed it to "Contradictions of Freemasonry".

  That means I would not edit the existing Freemasonry articles again, but I would like to continue my own draft. Wikiprediger (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  You should take the time to craft an appeal for the community addressing everything. Once that's done, I can post it over to AN. I think it would be wise to give up on your draft as well. The community is unlikely to look well upon you returning to the area of editing that caused you issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  == Appeal of community ban for User:Wikiprediger ==

  Hello. I respectfully ask the community to reconsider my ban.

  I understand now why I was banned: I created edit wars because I did not follow the rules to start discussions on the talk pages and wait for other opinions. Some of my words also sounded uncivil in English. I am sorry for this, and I have learned from it. I will not repeat that behavior.

  For the future, I will not edit existing articles about Freemasonry anymore. I know that this was the wrong way and it only created conflicts.

  But I would like to be allowed to finish my own article draft about the contradictions of Freemasonry (I will rename it to that – because I also renamed it in my German article). This was the reason why I came to en-WP in the first place. I started that draft already before my ban (see: User:Wikiprediger/Freemasonry criticism). It is based on facts and reliable sources, and I want to translate it step by step.

  See also the actual German version of this article: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Wikiprediger/Widerspr%C3%BCche_in_der_Freimaurerei.

  This is the Google-Translator Version (english): https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Benutzer:Wikiprediger/Widerspr%C3%BCche_in_der_Freimaurerei?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

  I want to remark that I am on de-WP since January 2014 and had never any conflicts until my edits on Freemasonry in 2024.

  I understand that topics like Freemasonry are sensitive, and that is why I started a separate draft long ago – after I recognized the intensity of the conflicts – but the idea unfortunately came too late. My aim is not to attack, but to write a fact-based article that highlights contradictions and critical perspectives, supported by reliable sources.

  I promise to be very patient: first completing the German version, then waiting for review and discussion there. Only after that I will create an English version. I will follow all rules, respond to discussions, and start a review before publishing. My only goal is to contribute to Wikipedia and i think such an article is missing here.

  Please unblock me with the condition that I stay away from existing Freemasonry articles, but that I may continue to work on my own draft. I believe this would be a fair compromise. If I make mistakes, they can always be corrected or discussed.

  Thank you very much. Wikiprediger (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Posted here. If you'd like to respond to any questions/concerns raised by other editors, myself or another editor will copy over whatever you'd like. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:14, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you very much! I really appreciate that.

  I will follow the discussion calmly, and maybe I sometimes post a comment here. Wikiprediger (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:AN - Reply:

  @Blueboar: I understand the concern, but in Wikipedia we should not be judged by personal opinion, only by how we use good sources.

  There should not be a problem with my perspective on Freemasonry, as long as I use reliable sources and remain neutral.

  There will not be an Edit-War again. We can discuss it on the talk page and ask for third opinions or reviews.

  This should be about content, not about forbidding a topic. That feels like censorship.

  @Liz: Thank you for your comment. I can accept working in my sandbox if that is the best way.

  It will take some time anyway. First the German article surely will be discussed and maybe improved, then I can translate it step by step in the sandbox.

  It would be best to do this in en:WP, so I can ask for review here. Also we can use the talk-page for discussions. I am used to finish articles as draft. When we have reached a consensus, the draft can then be moved into the article namespace. Wikiprediger (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

   Done voorts (talk/contributions) 01:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you very much! I'm very glad you give me this possibility. Wikiprediger (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  WP:AN – Reply

  @Girth_Summit, @Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång, @Sandstein - and reply @all (to all comments so far):

  It has been a long time since the problems that led to my block. At that time I did not know how to act correctly. I was in a state of emotional distress and overwhelmed, as I didn't know how to help myself. The draft I started back then is still only a draft, not a finished article, and not in mainspace. The point of a draft is to find consensus first, before anything moves further.

  I understand the concerns raised here, but I cannot accept being told I am not allowed to work on this subject. This is the reason I came to en:WP, and I want to continue to translate this article into other language versions (French, Italian,...). If it is blocked here, I will always note on my user pages that the ban in en:WP feels like censorship. I will also try to find other solutions to be allowed to speak. Of course, I will respect any restriction here, but it is also possible that other interested Wikipedians may decide on their own to bring this topic into en:WP. A ban on me may not prevent the subject from appearing sooner or later — it can only prevent that I take part in the discussion.

  We should be honest that Freemasonry is a powerful international organization, and critical perspectives have rarely been addressed in the way I am trying to do. I leave the decision to the community, but also the responsibility for it. The subject may grow in importance in other languages and countries. In the end, readers will decide how they see it.

  If en:WP is not prepared to allow critical discussion of certain topics, it may have a clear effect on how the project is perceived from outside. In the end, it may be the en:WP community that is questioned for this decision.

  I can live without editing here - I have not done so for a year. I haven't edited on this topic even in the de:WP for nearly a year. That is proof that I am not acting in a rush or impulsively, nor do I have an obsession with this topic. But I feel obligated to pursue the truth and seek clarification – and I will never stop doing so. Wikiprediger (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Update: I have now published the German article (after further revisions).

  See: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widerspr%C3%BCche_der_Freimaurerei

  Google-Translator version (english): https://de-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Widerspr%C3%BCche_der_Freimaurerei?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp

  Please note: I have categorized it under "History of Freemasonry" – not "Freemasonry"!

  I understand and respect that the main category is not intended for controversy or criticism, and I would not use it here or in any other Wikipedia.

  So far, there is no conflict, and it appears to comply with Wikipedia rules.

  Anyone is welcome to observe how the discussion develops there, and how I would handle any problems.

  I would like you to wait a few weeks, so everyone can see a live example of my behavior instead of speculating.

  It has been more than a year since the old conflict; back then I simply did not know the rules well enough.

  I had no prior conflicts, and I did not know how to deal with noticeboards or procedures — especially in a foreign language.

  I think it would be unfair to be permanently judged for mistakes made during a brief period.

  I will also publish the article in other languages step by step, so that all major Wikipedias will eventually cover this topic.

  If readers are then told that such an article cannot exist on the English Wikipedia because of a ban related to conflicts about Freemasonry more than a year ago, it will naturally raise questions and may reflect poorly on Wikipedia.

  Of course, I will accept the community’s decision, but I ask you to consider the long-term implications.

  Attempts to suppress critical examination of Freemasonry will likely be interpreted as censorship by many readers, which could ultimately damage trust in Wikipedia rather than protect it.

  The decisions made here today could be referenced in public discussions tomorrow.

  Public discussions are driven by perception and emotions — not by who decides what is right or wrong.

  They may not align with your viewpoints, as has happened with many other controversial topics before.

  Please remember that you are representing not only yourselves, but also the English Wikipedia here.

  Thank you. Wikiprediger (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  Given the concerns raised by the community in your appeal, these two responses are the absolute worst possible things you could have said. It is not censorship for the community to say that you were disruptive and would likely continue to be disruptive if you were allowed to edit about freemasonry here. You do not have an unfettered right to say whatever you want on Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:25, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

  But I do not ask to say what I want. I only ask to bring facts with sources. This is what I always tried.

  The proof is the German article, and that should be enough.

  Why does no one care about that, but only speculate about my behaviour?

  Please just wait some weeks – and everyone can see.

  On de:WP I already show constructive editing: I respond to feedback, make changes when asked, and there is no conflict.

  If en:WP does not allow this, then it feels like censorship of criticism of Freemasonry.

  Like it felt one year ago.

  But this time I will make the public aware of it.

  I already wrote it on my German user page, and I will do the same in any other wiki where I translate this article:

  de:Benutzer:Wikiprediger

  In the end the public will judge this – and I think many will see it my way. Wikiprediger (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  I can assure you that none of us give a shit about freemasonry or your views on it and neither does the public. What we care about is not having editors use Wikipedia to publish their original research. Until you understand that, you won't be unblocked here. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has a great deal of experience with people thinking their obscure obsessions should be granted a personal podium, in conflict with our policies and guidelines. I have little interest in either spreading or preventing information about freemasonry from being published; I'd have an identical issue with editors spamming obsessive original research about grilled cheese sandwiches, the 1977 Volkswagen Scirocco, or Mahler's 3rd. If the public actually cares about any of this -- which I doubt -- perhaps one of them would be able to write a passable article on the subject that doesn't come across as a manifesto. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Your comparisons have no validity here. We are talking about a worldwide organisation, which must of course be able to withstand criticism. So far, however, such criticism seems not to be desired or allowed on Wikipedia. This raises questions. You also provide no evidence for your statements, only unsound talk and poor comparisons. This all sounds very much like excuses. Please explain to me how criticism of Freemasonry may be presented on Wikipedia in such a way that it is not deleted and that one is not banned? I am very curious about that. Wikiprediger (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  You've had half a dozen editors tell you how to correctly incorproate information on freemasonry on Wikipedia in a neutral manner without conducting original research. You keep saying those editors are wrong; in fact, you are wrong. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  That is unfortunately incorrect. The facts and sources are present in the article. The public will take an interest in the perception that Freemasonry is being shielded from criticism on Wikipedia. This impression is reinforced by similar actions in other language versions. As Freemasonry is an international organization with more than enough points of criticism, removing or suppressing such material will inevitably be interpreted as censorship, just as it was in similar discussions a year ago. Wikiprediger (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Your article on de-wiki is not a neutral presentation of reliable secondary sources. It's a poorly written mishmash of random conspiratorial facts about freemasonry. Articles on en-wiki and de-wiki already contain many of the criticisms of freemasonry that you've cited. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs or expose evil. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  That is not correct, as I already said. Please show evidence for your claim that this is conspiratorial. If you cannot give clear evidence, then please do not make such accusations. Otherwise it may look like an attempt of censorship, as I already suspected.

  It is very noticeable how many accusations are made when criticism of Freemasonry is expressed, but without any actual evidence. The same happens in the German Wikipedia and on Wikidata.org ?!? For me this looks more like a standard strategy than a neutral perspective.

  I am documenting these events on my German Wikipedia user page:

  de:Benutzer:Wikiprediger Wikiprediger (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  The article ties together many disparate events about various freemasons through history, along with various dictionary definitions and primary sources, in an attempt to point out "contradictions". That is definitionally conspiratorial (and original research). Your statement that there seems to be a standard strategy to suppress criticism of freemasonry is also conspiratorial. You can say whatever you like about freemasonry off wiki. Wikipedia is not a place to document your synthesis of disparate sources to make original arguments about the scope of freemasonry or its members. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  I am simply comparing the 5 core values ​​of Freemasonry with well-documented facts. I am not linking unrelated events or developing my own theories. If you think I do, please quote the exact sentence. Wikiprediger (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  I am simply comparing the 5 core values ​​of Freemasonry with well-documented facts. That is original research. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:19, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yup… Wikiprediger, the problem is that you are the one linking these 5 values to the various events and facts. That is original research. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  I do not link anythink. I just write about facts. Please explain to me how criticism of Freemasonry may be presented on Wikipedia in such a way that it is not deleted and that one is not banned? I am very curious about that. Wikiprediger (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  A few examples:

  • Ob es heute noch Geheimnisse in der Freimaurerei gibt oder ob alte Methoden aufgegeben bzw. weiterentwickelt wurden, lässt sich aufgrund der Geheimhaltung nicht überprüfen. Fest steht jedoch, dass es solche Geheimnisse historisch gab – etwa in Form von Ritualen, Handgriffen, Passwörtern und dem Freimaurer-Alphabet. Auch das Handbuch der Metropolitan Police von 1985 verweist auf geheime Identifizierungsmöglichkeiten zwischen Mitgliedern. Drawing conclusions from primary sources is original research.
  • Die Freimaurerlogen, auch Bauhütten oder Tempel genannt, erscheinen oftmals luxuriös in ihrer Architektur und Innenausstattung, die z.B. mit Sinnbildern (auch Gemälden), Kunstwerken, Antiquitäten und Verzierungen ausgeschmückt sind. Zudem verfügen einige Logen über moderne Sicherheitssysteme wie Videoüberwachung oder Tastencode-Schlösser. Deshalb erscheinen einige Logen mehr wie repräsentativen Einrichtungen für gehobene Gesellschaftsschichten, denn wie einfache Vereinsräumlichkeiten. Offensichtlich werden auch größere Investitionen in das äußere Erscheinungsbild und die Innenausstattung getätigt. No citation and it appears you're drawing conclusions from the images that follow.
  • The section titled "Ethisches Verständnis bekannter Mitglieder der Freimaurerei" is entirely original research: it contains an introductory paragraph with no citations that draws broad conclusions about the ethics of freemasonry based on the actions of four alleged freemasons.

  voorts (talk/contributions) 17:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  This is an old version, the article was improved multiple times. Also these are very minor issues that can easily be fixed in a short discussion. They are not fundamental problems and have nothing to do with my behavior. In Germany we would say this is like shooting sparrows with cannons – completely disproportionate to the situation.

  We are speaking here about a worldwide organization with lodges and institutions across the globe. Yet fundamental criticism is consistently blocked, again and again, and often with the harshest sanctions. Anyone who engages critically can see this very clearly! Wikiprediger (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Criticism is not the problem. If the criticism has been made elsewhere in reliable sources, it should be included. However, Wikipedia should not be the source of that criticism. Inclusion of such on Wikipedia is fine, as long as what is written here is a summary of – and only of – what the (reliable and preferably secondary) source of our text about it says; if the source doesn't directly make a conclusion, we shouldn't either. That is what no original research means, and it applies equally to every subject on Wikipedia. If someone wants to write about criticism of the subject, that's fine. The order in which to do so? The sources write about it, then Wikipedia summarizes what the sources say. The order of neither the subjects nor the verbs of that sequence should be switched. Perfect4th (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  It's an old version only because you removed the first example after my comment here. Anyways, it seems you're not interested in understanding Wikipedia's policy on original research, which I and others have now linked you to multiple times, so I'll be leaving this conversation. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, I am not presenting my own interpretation, but citing published sources where authors themselves have questioned or contradicted these values in practice. That is not original research, it is summarising what reliable sources already state.

  Please explain to me how criticism of Freemasonry may be presented on Wikipedia in such a way that it is not deleted and that one is not banned? I am very curious about that. Wikiprediger (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  I see that the German version of the article that Wikiprediger posted at de.WP was almost immediately nominated for deletion - for essentially the same reasons we rejected it here (OR, Synth, conspiracy POV, material already covered in other articles, etc). Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  That is not a reason for a complete ban in my opinion, and it is not evidence for the accusations against me. I have asked several times for concrete evidence, but none was given. The deletion discussion in de:WP is still open, and I already made changes there according to suggestions. There is no edit war or misbehaviour. Wikiprediger (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  That is up to the good editors at de.WP… I was just noting that the article there has the same (or at least similar) problems it had here. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Just a quick note (In case you did not see it), your request (at WP:AN) to be unblocked has been denied. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yes i noticed that. Thank you for your information. Wikiprediger (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Follow up: Wikiprediger has also been indef blocked at de.WP, and the German language version of his “Contradictions” article has been deleted. The various user-space drafts of his article (here and at de.WP) remain - although he can not edit them at this time. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)