User talk:HighKing

You are welcome to leave messages here. If you place a message here, then I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, please ping me by using something like {{u|HighKing}} so I'll be notified and will reply on your Talk page.

• Great cheatsheet by User:Mortee

Repeated disruptive reversions on Thiru Vikram and Buffalo Automation

In the past week there has been a recurring pattern of disruption across both Thiru Vikram and Buffalo Automation.

On Thiru Vikram

27–30 August 2025: Large-scale removals of cited content, often described in edit summaries as “PR regurgitation,” “not a CV,” or “unnecessary references.” Several properly cited references were deleted outright (27 August 13:44, 14:21, 14:23).

29 August 2025: Substantive improvements were made by other editors (adding sources, fixing citations, consolidating redundant references, removing overlinking).

30 August 2025: These improvements were reverted wholesale (12:29, 12:47), deleting cited content with a misleading edit summary instructing others to “step back” from editing.

On Buffalo Automation

24–25 August 2025: New account Technobuf filed PROD nominations and removed sourced content; PROD was contested and AfD was closed as speedy keep. Further deletion attempts should not proceed via PROD.

27 August 2025: Multiple tags were added simultaneously (15:41), without specific concerns tied to individual content. Edit summaries also dismissed sources as “low quality” without discussion.

29 August 2025: Sources for founder identity and technology claims (e.g., lidar use) were restored and improved, but were previously removed without policy-based justification.

Concerns

WP:OWN – Neither article is “owned.” Wholesale reverts of good-faith, sourced edits are disruptive.

WP:ONUS / WP:BURDEN – These policies do not justify reverting to earlier versions that remove cited content. The burden is on those seeking to delete material to demonstrate unreliability.

WP:AGF / WP:CIVIL – Repeated implications that other editors are “paid” without evidence are inappropriate. If there are genuine concerns, the appropriate venue is WP:COIN.

WP:CONSENSUS – Reverts and re-tagging prevent constructive discussion and consensus-building.

Editing pattern Your editing history shows a recurring emphasis on tagging or deleting smaller/startup company articles, while rarely improving larger/established company pages. When combined with the activity of SPAs such as Technobuf, this creates the appearance of coordinated or conflicted editing. I am not making a definitive claim, but this pattern could reasonably raise scrutiny under WP:COI, WP:PAID, or WP:SPI.

Next steps Please use the talk pages to raise specific, source-based concerns, and avoid wholesale reverts or unsupported tagging. If disruptive reversions or baseless paid-editing allegations continue, the matter may need to be escalated to relevant noticeboards or page protection. — Vyasa ChiranjiviVyasa 13:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

• Response You seem surprised that I arrived to edit articles which you appear to treat as your own. Just FYI, as you've noticed, I tend to gnome at AfD, especially corporate/organisation articles. I saw Buffalo Automation had been nominated for deletion - it appeared on an AfD list I monitor - but because it was WP:CITEKILL I did not get a chance to check every reference before commenting at AfD. By the time I'd completed checking the references, I was of the opinion that the topic would fail GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, but the AfD was closed due to a disruptive editor with a hidden agenda. I commented at the closing admin's Talk page that I felt that both articles needed editing and that you had told some white lies when making your complaint. Star Mississippi explained that the speedy close was not an evaluation of the quality of the article and gave a green light if the article needed to be back at AfD. I was loathe to do it straight away because it would likely be seen as rewarding the disruptive editor. So I went about culling the trivial and unnecessary junk from the article, and I started with Thiru Vikram.

Thiru Vikram

• I made multiple smallish edits, explaining the reason for each edit. You blanket-reverted all of my edits in one swoop, as well as the edits made by Edwardx, with no attempt to discuss and claiming you were simply reverting to a previous "stable" version. This is disingenuous and untrue.
• You describe subsequent edits (by you, and only you) as "Substantive improvements were made by other editors (adding sources, fixing citations, consolidating redundant references, removing overlinking)". There are no substantive improvements - another misleading comment. Your edits partially reinstate the edits by Edwardx (with you taking credit) and then add to the CITEKILL with yet-more-unnecessary-citations without adding any new content that required a citation..

Buffalo Automation

• I tagged the page with the issues as I saw them and intended to address today. The article has too many sections, is promotional and uses corporate-speak promotional tone, is also CITEKILL with 52 references, and arguably fails GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. You reverted the tags and added even more references.

Concerns

• You say "WP:OWN – Neither article is “owned.” Wholesale reverts of good-faith, sourced edits are disruptive." I say, WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR, you placed a personal attack in the edit summary claiming my edits were vandalism and demanded that changes must be approved. You've also since tried to insinuate that I am somehow involved in a network of other editors to delete articles.
• You say "WP:ONUS / WP:BURDEN – These policies do not justify reverting to earlier versions that remove cited content. The burden is on those seeking to delete material to demonstrate unreliability." I say you have that backwards and you are deliberately misrepresenting these policies

• ONUS says "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate." Which is exactly the reason why unverified information should be removed and why we don't include every piece of trivia into the article.

• BURDEN says "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the contribution" - which is exactly the opposite of what has occurred. You're restored unverified information.
• You say "WP:AGF / WP:CIVIL – Repeated implications that other editors are “paid” without evidence are inappropriate. If there are genuine concerns, the appropriate venue is WP:COIN." I've replied below.
• You say "WP:CONSENSUS – Reverts and re-tagging prevent constructive discussion and consensus-building." I say, you should have dealt with each of my edits starting with whichever you found the most problematic, rather than a blanket-reversal of multiple edits and labelling them all as disruptive. That is not how we build consensus.

Editing pattern

• This is interesting. Yes - I tend to gnome at corp/org AfD. Are you seriously suggesting that I work in tandem with sock and meat puppets? Curious how you'd even think that. Now, I initially thought you were Trendsmurf - by that I mean, I knew that the Thiru Vikram article was created by someone who had been paid by Thiru Vikram and I got mixed up and mistakenly thought you had created the article and you were the one who had been paid. That is why I initially had a comment on your Talk page about "Paid Editing" - but here's the thing. I spotted I had mixed both accounts up so I revisited my comment and deleted the "paid" part. But you chose to respond to the "paid" part of the comment, even though I had deleted the reference to paid editing. Curious.

So I've dug a little deeper. After revisiting your early editing I think I understand why someone might make that same mistake - I've posted details at User talk:ChiranjiviVyasa#Explanation for "Paid Editing" mix-up.

I've been around here for nearly 20 years, I have a good grasp of our policies and guidelines and I've a good nose for certain "stuff". When you gnome around corporate/organization AfDs, it comes with the territory. In particular, we often encounter "stealth" editing. It's a giveaway for COI and meat-puppetry. Personally I think you've a connection and I think you've been stealth editing on Thiru Vikram since the very start.

Next steps

• No doubt we'll continue to engage on the Article Talk pages. Unless I see improvements in sourcing and reasons for notability, I will put these articles back to AfD.
• I also think you need to explain your connection with Thiru Vikram based on your early editing and your OWNership of his article. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, I added more references to support notability and also add back the name of the founder who was ousted by Thiru Vikram early in the company's timeline. This is the problem with CITEKILL; people miss stuff that the citation is there to cover, remove it and then cause other editors to remove the text because of lack of citation. Eventually, even the notability starts getting questions after all the citations and text are removed in haste. Vyasa ChiranjiviVyasa 11:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Confirming the discussion that @HighKing references on my Talk. The discussions were closed on conduct, not merit of the subjects.

@ChiranjiviVyasa if you seriously bring @HighKingto COI or SPI boards with this claim the threads will be closed immediately as the disruption they are. You may not agree with all of their edits, but HighKing is an established, independent editor with no sockpuppets nor COI. Please focus on improving the articles with WP:SIRS Star Mississippi 19:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Hoichoi

FYI - I see you were active in the deletion discussion. Current version recreated by SOCK in May. CNMall41 (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)