Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/COI edit allegations

Users: TimLambert & John Quiggin

Users Lambert and Quiggin are two editors that work closely together off-Wikipedia as political activists seeking to shape environmental policy. Quiggin and Lambert have been identified and criticized as "web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics on any who question" them.[1] This observation is from a fellow Australian, the Publisher and Chief Editor[2] of an exceptionally reputable[3] top 25 Australian news outlet. Numerous criticisms[4][5][6] of the pair can be found, but the tragedy is that Lambert & Quiggin attack[7][8] and fight[9] but then exceed all bounds by editing derogatory information into their opponents BLP Wikipedia articles - here we see a concerted effort to record as fact, that the BLP subject was involved in a conspiracy with the shadowy international tobacco industry to fight malaria in order to divert the World Health Organization from reducing smoking.[10] [11][12][13] The Bate campaign is ongoing and lasts years.[14][15][16]. Much of the Bates Attack Page is blogs derived from the "research" conducted by Lambert and Quiggin regurgitated by other blogs - and sourced in the BLP to non-notable blogs.

Other special targets for attack include, but are not limited to peer-reviewed[17] [18] and published scientist[19] Theodor Landscheidt who has his BLP edited as [20] and then a hatchet job[21][22] At other times the public feuds[23][24] are fought on the BLP's Wikipedia article by Lambert.[25][26][27][28] including using his personal attack blog as his entered supporting reference in his BLP attack.[29][30]. The number of articles is unknown in total but may number a dozen or more, but the pattern is the same, and equally egregious. On the blogs themselves, Wikipedia edits are often discussed in detail by Lambert, Quiggin and blog readers/contributors off-wiki.

There also exists a high correlation between the editor who introduced a number of these Lambert[31] refs and the public attacks Lambert apparently engaged in with another blogger named Watts. 212 mentions of Watts on his blog[32] with many occurring around June and July of 2009 - as were these edits here[33] for which the Ed. was twice warned on his talk page[34]. Note also this pointed peacocking within his first month here.[35] Many, if not most, of the IP edits to these articles geo-locate to the same area in Australia.

Lambert's blog is the notable focus of an academic paper written by the Chairmen of the Undergraduate Computer Science Department at the University of Maryland who uses the blog as an example of poor scholarship at Wikipedia.[36]. The paper is referenced here[37] and is cited by at least one Advanced Placement AP teacher[38] who links to the paper by stating, "One of the (many) reasons why I do not accept Wikipedia as a reference in any circumstance, and why you should not trust it for anything more than the most casual, entertainment-level browsing:" (note:The blogs previous name cited in the paper[39] is timlambert.org, which is still an active redirect to the same sections at "scienceblog".)

It can't be in the community's best interests to facilitate attack bloggers activism through biased editing at Wikipedia, whether it be BLP or regular articles. As a side note, and purely for transparency and without casting this light on them, other editors highly involved in these articles include YilloSlime, Plumbago and will c connolley among others. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: This IP began editing Wikipedia 8 days ago, and appears to be static. The editor started editing with a full understanding of Wikipedia's ins and outs, leading to the possibility that this is a registered user who is editing while logged out. Given that severity of the charges levelled here, it seems wrong for them to come from an anonymous IP, especially one with such a suspicious provenance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It also contains numerous inadvertent errors, including reference to the "academic paper" that is simply a web essay. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I referred to it as an academic paper as it was signed as a department chair, it was referenced and it was cited by others. I did not refer to it as it was not, it was not peer reviewed, it was not published, etc... It is quite easily an academic paper. And yes, I have been here for eons - and I fully expect a major shoot-the-messenger push. But my concerns are well referenced and clear and I will not clutter the debate with massive tangents not germane to the behavior documented above in which two Wiki editors engage in extended off-wiki wars and then edit their opponents BLP's here. Crystal Clear, the behavior is either acceptable - or it's not. I can't make the decision for the community, only you can. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• This parses for me as "some people with opinions I don't like are editing Wikipedia. Some people whose opinions I do like have said how terrible that is. Ban them now!" Also John Quiggin appears to be a legitimate and respected academic. Something tells me that this is a better characterisation of this particular issue... Guy (Help!) 22:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

  I knew some of those people before they had beards. And blogs! --TS 03:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think we're being trolled... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's an unusual response to a civil and concise discussion supported by nearly 40 references.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I think the complaint has a shred of validity (or that the original posting was "civil and concise"), but "trolling" is not an accurate description. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(out)Since you admit you've "been here for eons", I suggest you log in and use your account to make this complaint, and I urge that it not be acted on in any way until that happens. As a logged-in user, you have standing to make a complaint, and a honest-to-goodness IP without an account, you'd have standing, but as a user with an account who's admittedly editing as an IP, presumably to deliberately obscure his or her Wiki-identity, you have no standing, and your complaint should be totally ignored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

IPs have no standing? I've never heard that before. Can you please cite a policy or guideline to support this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Read again, please. IPs have standing: registered users who log out to mask their identity don't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Socks are not allowed to post on admin noticeboards. The IP should leave a comment under their real account, and it will be listened to. (An IP whose owner was here on Wikipedia for the first time would not be a sock, but they would be most unlikely to find their way to an admin noticeboard). EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. But is there a policy or guideline that says registered users who log out don't have standing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Sock puppetry: "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not be used to edit in project space ("Wikipedia:" pages) or project talk space, including in any vote or dispute resolution...". Admin noticeboards are in project space. EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a registered user.99.142.1.101 (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• 99.142.1.101's claims are without merit. To pick just one example, he/she argues that I am using a sock puppet because another editor made edits to the Anthony Watts page and there are 212 references to "Watts" on my blog. But he/she's counting the phrase "Watts per square meter" as a reference to Anthony Watts, and I [pointed this out to him/her]. 99.142.1.101 is knowingly making false statements. The rest of 99.142.1.101's charges are not any better. --TimLambert (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Simply an attempt at misdirection and deflection of the specific and supported references found above. Of the 225 Watts mentions, only eleven[40] are as you state. And although you frequently refer to Anthony Watts by his last name only, we are still left with 97[41] of the 225[42] references undeniably to "Anthony Watts". That's about 10 mentions to 1 without sifting out the additional last name only attacks.99.142.1.101 (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just because someone blogs about someone doesn't mean that they're editing the Wikipedia entries under a different name. Keep in mind that we tend not to take off-wiki activities all that seriously (for better or worse), and that a lot of the controversy in the "academic paper" by the Computer Science Professor is focused on some disputes over the tone at John Lott, who is known for his conclusion that more guns equal less crime based on remarkably flawed econometrics (see Goertzel's analysis). Sure, you can point out mistakes that these guys have been made, and they might have done some name-calling and false accusations, but that's par for the course in these parts. II | (t - c) 03:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Lott is an excellent example. Lambert has engaged in a running battle with Lott on his blog[43] and elsewhere [44][45] [46] - including direct interaction with Lott outside of Wikipedia .. and here he writes his BLP? Roughly 10% of all Lott's BLP edits are from Lambert. This is something Wikipedia reportably finds unacceptable - spending your time focused on destroying someone, and then in your hobby hours write their biography? _99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think there's a sockpuppet case to be made, gather the diffs and open a case at WP:SPI. If you think some egregiously BLP violating edits are being made, you can list them. Otherwise, I think you should agree to drop this. It's about content and tone in certain articles, and there are no evident policy violations. Quiggin and Lambert's editing look fine. II | (t - c) 04:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of 'content and tone'. It's a question about the acceptability of engaging in years long campaigns to disparage individuals and their character on ones own blog and multiple third party sites ... and then writing the BLP biography's of the subjects one is engaged in a protracted war with. This is behavior which has been widely condemned by numerous reputable and neutral people on three continents - and which specifically names Lambert & Quiggin, and which not incidentally has been harshly critical of Wikipedia by name in association with Lambert & Quiggin. It's not acceptable editing. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the discussion, and have a few thngs to say, but don't intend to respond until talk comes out from under the sock. If that doesn't happen, I guess we'll have to go to WP:SPI. In the meantime, I'd urge others not to feed the puppet. JQ (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not a registered user. My criticism of your and your partner's editing is supported by nearly 50 diff's. Your accusation is a baseless attack. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, given your obvious knowledge of Wikipedia, you could list some of the other IPs under which you have edited. Meanwhile, I'll observe that your "neutral and reputable" sources appear to include: John Lott's current employer; Graham Young, an activist in the main conservative party here in Queensland (just to confuse matters, it's called the Liberal Party); and a high school teacher whose main interest is as a fan of Confederate history [47]. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but none of these are likely to be neutral sources.JQ (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your argument, that all your enemies are horrible scummy people, is of course the point. You, and your partner Tim Lambert have engaged in a nearly decade long battle[48]now with some of your chosen targets in a venomous assault commented on by multiple uninvolved, and yes reputable[49] sources on three continents.

It is unacceptable to write the BLP's of your enemies, and worse yet - it's not just one edit but most often near complete control through dozens of edits and reversions over the course of years in articles. And the introduced bias and derogatory opinion is staggering as in this textbook example that states that the BLP subject was involved in a conspiracy with the shadowy international tobacco industry to fight malaria in order to divert the World Health Organization from reducing smoking.[50] That's a delusional conspiracy theory which never should have entered a BLP at the hands of an attack blogger using Wikipedia to further his vendetta..99.142.1.101 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, this generic climate change griefing is going nowhere. Time to close, I think. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

These BLP's look like they revolve around tobacco, climate change is not involved here, nor is tobacco for that matter. This has to do with Lambert's & Quiggin's edits in pursuit of an agenda, specifically in regards to BLP's. Here[51] you'll find Quiggin extolling on the virtues of explicitly using Wikipedia to write the BLP's of enemies. Quiggin states, "Winning the debate will require scientists to learn new and unfamiliar ways of communicating" "Now, anyone who performs a basic check can discover, with little effort, the full history of his efforts as tobacco lobbyist and hired gun for polluting industries" "where scientists have mounted a concerted response to their intellectual enemies", he goes on to state, 'they have won'. ... _99.142.1.101 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You are bringing external battles to Wikipedia. I see nothing actionable in the contributions of the two editors about whom you are complaining, and this is the wrong venue anyway. You've been told the right venue. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that directed at Lambert & Quiggin for bringing their external battles here, and encouraging others to do so - or at me for coming to AN/I and pointing out the Lambert & Quiggin abuse of Wikipedia? _99.142.1.101 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Without endoring the claims of Mr. 99.142.1.101 in complete detail, I think it worth noting that he has raised what is clearly a real issue - it only takes a very brief look at the diffs he has posted to see that Quiggin absolutely should be banned from editing the biography of Roger Bate, at a minimum, and probably topic-banned from anything having to do with tobacco. I am disturbed to see the resistance here to what is clearly a valid complaint (although it may very well be, in some details, something that we find to be mistaken in at least some particulars). JzG, I know you care deeply about BLP issues, so I encourage you to take a second look at some of these diffs. People who are willing to cite blog posts in ad hominem attacks really need to be shown the door. I have only looked at the edits by Quiggen to Bate's biography, but I have seen enough there alone to suggest that those who care about BLP warriors engaging in hatchet job attacks should take a much closer look at these concerns.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo, I thought I was the only one. Endorse topic ban of Quiggin. I'm disappointed in the response this user received from others. Auntie E. (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I started out looking at Lambert, got sucked into surfing around the external activism he's involved in (some articles were interesting to me) and did not spend time on Quiggin. Lambert's edits seemed OK to me. I don't mind looking at Quiggin's. The explanation for Aunt E is simple: anons coming into long-standing disputed areas with complaints about one side or other replete with diffs and appeals to policy always have a certain smell of stale hosiery to them. There's not much we can do about that other than keep encouraging people to register accounts, which makes it vastly easier to interact with them and understand where they are coming from. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This all looks positive now. My main concern is that there is always a very human temptation to carelessly "consider the source" and this can be problematic when the source has a valid point. John Quiggin, below, makes it very clear that he was indeed a POV pushing editor working to include negative information in the form of deliberate ad hominem argumentation. (I.E. an attack on the person's funding rather than an assessment of the validity of the science... a common technique in politicized scientific debate) He has, thankfully, decided to voluntarily stop doing this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems a bit overbroad. An assessment of the "validity of the science" cannot be totally independent of an assessment of funding conflicts of interest. That's why major scientific and medical journal demands that authors disclose such relationships in addition to submitting their work to scientific review. For anyone interested in the subject, this article from JAMA is a useful starting point. I am absolutely against using a biographical article to make a political or ideological point. I'm comfortable that my editing and administrative record speaks to the fact that I take WP:BLP very seriously. Blogs don't belong in BLPs. However: if I had an independent, reliable, BLP-appropriate source commenting on a researcher's funding, I wouldn't feel any compunction about using it. Does that make me a "POV pushing editor" committed to "deliberate ad hominem argumentation" and "politicized debate"? MastCell ^Talk 05:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A bit harsh, Jimmy. Quiggin is an academic doing what any reputable academic would do if he read a paper which failed to disclose a conflict of interest. That's not how Wikipedia works, of course, but nobody seems to have taken the time to explain this to him and once I explained it he didn't seem to find it hard to accept. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors and contended articles

User John Quiggin

• John Quiggin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last 500 mainspace contributions takes us back to July 2009, so nothing before that will be actionable I think.

• Richard Lindzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edits by Quiggin to this article seem OK to me at first glance. A cite to a blog is used to support a quote of Lindzen's views, and Lindzen wrote the blog post. I'm not seeing anything actionable here.
• Roger Bate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - two edits by Quiggin in last 500 mainspace edits, [52] and [53] - WP:COI perhaps but all he did was restore the name of a co-author when someone removed it, which might be considered fixing uncontroversial errors of fact. The edits about which the IP is complaining include this: [54]. That is certainly a bad edit on two levels, it cites a blog and it is an edit to an article on someone with whom (we are told) the editor is in external conflict.

• This is a complete set of Quiggin's edits to Roger Bate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]
• Quiggin and Bate are both economists. Quiggin is professionally qualified to comment on the work of Bate and might be expected to do so in the course of his professional life. Academics are not, as we know, always quick to grasp the different mores that exust at Wikipedia.
• That Bate has accepted money from the tobacco and drugs industries is not, I think, seriously disputed. It is verifiably the case that bate has been criticised for his work over generic drugs, rightly or wrongly. He's also linked with Richard Tren ([69]), they work together as activists for DDT use. In other words he's a controversial figure whose biography needs watching.
• The origin of this particular dispute is probably revealed in this spirited defence by Quiggin of Rachel Carson, accused by the DDT advocates of "costing millions of lives", in a tone eerily reminiscent of the language used by Matthias Rath to describe the Treatment Action Campaign.

• There is only one comment, as far as I can tell, in the history of user talk:John Quiggin and its archives, that mentions Roger Bate, it's from November 2007 and is still on the current version.

Summary in respect of John Quiggin

1. User:John Quiggin is John Quiggin, an Australian economist and professor at the University of Queensland.
2. John Quiggin's external activism may give rise to a conflict of interest in respect of some subjects. No attempt appears to have been made to alert him to this.
3. John Quiggin's edits include linking questionable sources, e.g. [70]. The blogger is Eli Rabett (probably user:Eli Rabett on Wikipedia), a pseudonym stated to be used by another professor. This is not a slam-dunk "no blogs" but is still an inappropriate source for the information.
4. This [71] in June last year adds critical material again sourced from blogs though the overall tone of the edit seems balanced, giving both sides of the story.
5. The issue is complicated by the real-world collaboration between Quiggin and Lambert. My recommendation would be that Quiggin should be reminded of WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:COI and cautioned not to cite his own work or that of those with whom he is personally connected or to directly edit the articles of those with whom he or his collaborators have disputes, but instead to propose such edits on the relevant Talk page.

User TimLambert

• TimLambert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fewer than 500 mianspace edits.

• Richard Lindzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - no edits to the article
• Roger Bate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - no edits to the article
• John Lott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (latecomer to the party)

Summary in respect of TimLambert

99.142.1.101

99.142.1.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Combative from first arrival, clearly not a new user (note consistent use of edit summaries on early edits). In order to be taken more seriously this user should register an account, or reveal the account or previous IPs under which they have edited, because the behaviour pattern is indicative of activism and that's likely to result in admins giving lower weight to complaints.

• [72], [73], [74] and [75] appear to be the catalysts for these reports. Given the very limited prior history of the IP this strongly suggests an external agenda against Tim Lambert specifically. The edit removes Lambert's name because he's an "unreliable source" ignoring the fact that Lambert is cited as co-author. The edit, reverted and repeated three times, is tendentious.

No, the name was removed because the linked article byline and sidebar explicitly do not name him as an author. The "unreliable source" was a wiki editor claiming that the RS website was wrong and testifying that Lambert was the co-author. The suggestion was that the ref should be corrected at the source and not by WP:OR from wiki editors.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's stated by Quiggin to be a co-author. You know better? Incidentally, I found one of your previous IPs, you could save me some time and effort by linking the others and / or any accounts you've used. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Quiggins has no standing to make that claim here, editors do not correct verifiable references because "they know better". If Quiggins feels that the verifiable reference from the reliable source is in error - then correcting the source is the correct action, we do not WP:OR. There are no provisions to allow for such a thing at Wikipedia. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. You clearly have some external agenda against Lambert and should butt out. Now. Guy (Help!) 13:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not in the reference, it's not Verifiable. Editors do not correct the written record. If he feels an error has been made and the website should have credited him - contact the website. We do not re-write history at Wikipedia. Your kill-the-messenger relentless and unsupported bad faith assaults on me for referring to - and supporting - the Pillars and Principles of Wikipedia are tendentious.99.142.1.101 (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• See also [76], 99.144.192.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), same ISP as 99.142.1.101.
• The article Africa Fighting Malaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has seen tendentious editing and sockpuppetry, e.g. Greenerapples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tracking back, 99.141.252.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the same individual.

First, I am not, nor have I ever heard of, Greenapples. Second, what exactly is it that you use to unequivocally state that I am this editor?99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• 99.151.169.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.144.192.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Summary in respect of 99.142.1.101

99.142.1.101 is advised to create an account to ease continuity of interaction. 99.142.1.101 is also advised that posting to admin noticeboards and user talk:Jimbo Wales should be seen as an escalation path and not as the first stage in dispute resolution.

The user should also be topic-banned due to serial disruption and block evasion.

User:Serenity

• Serenity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Lott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:DUCK applies. WP:SPA with no edits other than to flatter John Lott. Checkuser, anyone?

Discussion

Quick research suggests the following are relevant:

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#Join or be banned?
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Block evasion by long-term disruptive IP editor

There is a long history of disruption and blocks. This is not his/her first appeal to Jimbo, either. Prolog (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I raised that last AN/I report ([77]). The IP editor was on a three-month block that expired in late February 2010, when he resumed editing from other IPs. I am not at all impressed to see that he has jumped straight back into the same pattern of behaviour that got him blocked before, within little more than a few days of the block expiring. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Response from JQ

The Roger Bate issue raises some general problems regarding BLP on which I'd be happy to take guidance. I don't have any personal knowledge of or enmity for Bate, or any conflict with him that isn't evident from my edits to Wikipedia. My dispute with Bate is entirely summed up by the information I added to his bio and published elsewhere; namely, that he has published misinformation on a variety of topics, while taking unacknowledged funding from the tobacco industry and others. The same is true for lots of published information on any issue even tangentially related to tobacco, though it's probably worst for Passive_smoking#Controversy_over_harm. The passive smoking article has been subject to repeated attempts to insert talking points, from seemingly independent and authoritative sources, which invariable turn out to have been generated by the tobacco industry. One response is to include relevant information in articles on these sources, such as those on Bate and Gio Batta Gori (I created this article as a result of edits of Passive smoking citing Gori's work, but haven't edited it for several years, and it doesn't seem that subsequent editors have found my contributions problematic).

The general problem I see is that, if pointing out someone's status as a lobbyist or consultant is seen as evidence that you are an enemy and therefore disqualified from editing a BLP, then it seems that such information is automatically excluded from Wikipedia.

I think it's important that Wikipedia should include such information where it's verifiable. I have taken the view in the past that it's OK both to publish this information in appropriate outlets and to cite it in Wikipedia. However, I can see that this may be problematic and would be happy, in future, to point to my external work on talk pages, and invite other editors to include it if they see fit.

A final observation: A lot of this discussion is only possible because Tim Lambert and I edit Wikipedia, blog and publish under our own names. There is a difficulty with rules about external conflicts that can't, in practice, be applied except to the minority of editors who do this.JQ (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Reality check: Quiggin's never cited himself on WP, at least far as I can tell. With regard to the article by Quiggin and Lambert being used as a source in Roger Bate: I was the one who first added it.[78] I don't see why the fact that John Quiggin has written about Roger Bate in real life should preclude him from working on the article about him. As some who's worked a lot on the Bate article, I can tell that there's not a ton written about the guy. You can find plenty of stuff by him, and plenty of passing mentions of him in newspaper articles, etc, not a whole lot of direct, detailed, biographical coverage of the man. Quiggin is one of a handful of people who's bothered to research the man and publish that research--we should be welcoming his expertise. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That there is "not a ton written about him" and that "Quiggin is one of a handful of people who's bothered to research the man and publish that research" raises the question of why Quiggin is researching a man in order to create a record with which to create a BLP, one of exceptional negativity with blogs as supporting ref's.99.142.1.101 (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that real-life interaction should not preclude Wikipedia editing. I have a blog, I sometimes write about issues that I edit about, and if there's a problem with that, it is news to me. II | (t - c) 04:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Quiggin has just (15 March) been condemned in the Melbourne Herald Sun by national columnist Andrew Bolt. The criticism is exceedingly harsh, "Ethically unconstrained, Professor John Quggin smears a sceptic"[79] Note that although the BLP is not on the list presented earlier of known targets, both Quiggin & Lambert have edited the BLP of the individual the columnist mentions is the target.[80][81] Wikipedia is not the place to engage in multiple long term campaigns of character attrition. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The diffs you cite are from 2006--3+ years before Climategate and the blog posts criticized by Bolt. What this proves is absolutely nothing. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've cited a reputable, notable and neutral national commentator condemning Quiggin as an "ethically unconstrained" individual who "smears". That the BLP of the subject he smeared was edited before he published the particular smear singled out by the national columnist is not germane to a discussion about the lack of neutrality by Quiggin and any proscription regarding his activity here. Your point is a question regarding which came first the chicken, or the egg. In point of fact, Quiggin criticized [82][83] the BLP subject in 2004 and in 2006 and characterized the paper he co-authored as, "The result: McKitrick’s work is even shoddier than Lott’s." Lambert also targets[84] the BLP subject. That's six years of interaction and animosity culminating in a personal rebuke[[85]] by a neutral main stream media columnist just two days ago. That's a problem. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your descriptions of Andrew Bolt are arguable. It seems to me that Bolt is generally viewed as a partisan essayist, and I question whether citing his blog adds anything of value to this discussion. Media Watch: Bolt's "stock in trade is anger, furious anger... Bolt is not a man to let the truth stand in the way of an insult." ([86]). Bolt was rather famously accused of defamation; a judgment in that case found that "...by distorting the facts, Mr Bolt has conveyed to the reader a false impression... Mr Bolt's conduct in the circumstances was at worst dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless. It reflects upon him as a journalist." ([87])

Your assertions don't stand up to cursory investigation, which is becoming a bit of a leitmotif. You would probably be more successful on the merits of your argument if you were more honest and scrupulous in presenting it. Furthermore, considering that you are ostensibly complaining against the use of blog posts on Wikipedia to "smear" high-profile living "enemies", your own posts about John Quiggin and Tim Lambert are ironic and deeply hypocritical. In this same thread, you compared Quiggin and Lambert to the Nazis, again citing what you called "neutral, reputable sources". Based on your actions, I don't see any credible interest in WP:BLP or the project's goals, except insofar as they can be used as weapons against a particular antagonist. MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Issue: Editing the BLP's of Enemies

The questions are clear and simple. Is there a limit? Is this a violation? Is there a solution? I've split the areas up for clarity. 99.142.1.101 (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Should editors of attack blogs be allowed to use Wikipedia to write the BLP's of their enemies?

1. Definitely not. Politics has its place, but that place is not here, nobody in their right mind wants an encyclopedia written by activists. Rush Limbaugh shouldn't write Rahm Emanuel's BLP nor should it be the other way around. Neutral editors write articles - not committed activists with political goals.99.142.1.101 (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Do the editors TimLambert & John Quiggin maintain blogs which engage either in whole or in part in ad hominen attacks on their enemies?

1. Quiggin and Lambert have been identified and criticized as "web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics on any who question them."[88] This observation is from a fellow Australian, the Publisher and Chief Editor[89] of an exceptionally reputable[90] top 25 Australian news outlet. Numerous criticisms [[91]][92][93][94][[95]][[96]] of the pair can be found.99.142.1.101 (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm...an opinion piece by a Liberal party ("Liberal" is Australian for "Paleolithic redneck") activist is not a reliable or even remotely useful source. See WP:REDFLAG. And while you sprinkle pointless web links through your text, few if any of them seem to be reliable sources or support your hyperbole. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The source is reputable[[97]] and meets all tests as a WP:RS, that they are in your words "Paleolithic redneck's" and are Lambert & Quiggins political enemy's is the point. Neutral BLP's are not written by ones most committed political enemy's.99.142.1.101 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You decry ad hominem attacks and in the same post refer to other editors as "brownshirts". You're waving the bloody shirt of WP:BLP while simultaneously citing a bunch of blogs that vilify another living, high-profile individual. Those kinds of things generally make it harder to take your complaints seriously. For me, anyway. What is this about, and why are we still having this conversation? What problems remain to be addressed? Do you feel like maybe setting an example of the kind of respect for BLP that you'd like to see from others? MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate characterization. I quoted a reputable source [[98]] criticizing Lambert & Quiggin's activism as using "brown shirt tactics" as a supporting reference for my contention that the bloggers engage in political wars for which they are notable for personality based conflict. This is germane to the issue of whether or not the activity here in which the pair edit BLP's of their enemy's should be proscribed. No doubt their cause is just, and their detractors "Paleolithic redneck's" - but this is not relevant, that they are central party's involved in specific personality based politics is the issue. The quote, from a reputable source, is simply entered as a supporting reference. _99.142.1.101 (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. So your response is that you're not actually breaking Godwin's Law - you're just "entering as a supporting reference" an opinion piece characterizing other editors as Nazis. Forget my other questions; I think I've heard enough. MastCell ^Talk 21:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Which BLP subjects that have been edited by Lambert & Quiggin can be identified as "targets" of attack?

1. These are subjects that have been targets of attack by Lambert & Quiggin and have often been subjected to years long ad hominem character assassination outside of Wikipedia. Michael Fumento, Anthony Watts (blogger), Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Theodor Landscheidt, Fred Singer, Roger Bate, and John Lott as a start. These are some of the Wikipedia BLP's which have been identified as attack victims either by the subject themselves or third parties outside Wikipedia.99.142.1.101 (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, those are articles on climate sceptics which are as subject to critical edits as are the articles on mainstream climate scientists and topics. It's a polarised political debate that is being fought out on Wikipedia and of which we are well aware. We're also well aware that the the world of science is vastly less equivocal about it than the world of politics - a lot of people seem to reject climate change on the basis that they don't like what it implies, and therefore they feel compelled to reduce the cognitive dissonance induced by the mainstream scientific consensus on the subject - but that's an aside. By continuing to pretend that only one part of the problem exists, and continuing to deny your own problematic edits, you actively impede the chances of your being taken seriously. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What, if anything, should be done here?

1. Editors should not write BLP's for subjects in which they are at war. Quiggin & Lambert should be prohibited from writing the BLP's of their enemies.99.142.1.101 (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• If editors have self identified and have a citable dispute with living people it would be better imo if they volunteered not to edit the articles of those living people here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. As you guys are edit warring over collapsed/uncollapsed please be certain to include or remove the section headers vs ; boldings - if the section headers are in the collapse, it messes up page navigation. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Should single-purpose IP sockpuppets be permitted to disparage identifiable living individuals on Wikipedia?

1. No. This one should be stopped post-haste. Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
2. Agreed, although this should not be restricted to IP sockpuppets. As always, we should not penalize expert editors who are open enough to edit under their real identities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

   Lambert teaches computer science, Quiggin teaches economics. The subjects related to the BLP's; tobacco, DDT, and environmental policy, are not within their claimed professional expertise.99.142.1.101 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

   "The aim of Professor Quiggin’s research program is to analyse options for adaptation to climate change in Australia and, in particular, the role and management of uncertainty." Which suggests that environmental policy is within John Quiggin's recognized field of expertise. Do you do any due diligence before making assertions? When I bother to double-check your assertions, they are frequently incorrect, which makes me less interested in hearing more assertions from you. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

   Quiggin researched, under that short-term fellowship, property rights and emmisions trading. Widening the umbrella we could also just call him a scientist and place everything equally indiscriminately under his expert purview. Again, the issue is Biography's of Living People in which a person engaged in personalized debate and political animosity writes the BLP's of their opponents and not the Red Herring's.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

   I was curious how you'd respond when confronted with an incorrect assertion. Some people admit their error and correct it, revising their assumptions as appropriate. Others try to parse their way out of the corner (for example, by asserting that "emissions trading" is somehow separate from environmental policy). People in the latter group often get frustrated that they're not taken more seriously on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 23:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

3. Thanks for summing up just what I was thinking. I know nothing about this except what I have learned in the last minute by skimming the above, and the take-home message is that some named editors have been excessive but have now very properly expressed themselves here, while an extremely experienced IP is busy agitating for a particular POV. If someone can fix the bullet asterisk I've used to a hash that continues as "3.", I would like to see how it's done. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
4. Ooooh, tricky. Oh, wait, no, actually it's blindingly obvious. See below. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Response from TimLambert

I have never cited myself on Wikipedia. Nor have I written any BLPs of my "enemies". 99.142.1.101 knows this because he/she must have gone through all my edits looking for examples and the closest he/she could get was an edit I made in 2005 (yes, 2005) to the Fumento page where I reverted an edit that Fumento had made using a sock puppet. 99.142.1.101's claims are without merit and he/she seems to just be using them as an excuse to make personal attacks on me. 99.142.1.101's purpose here seems to be to create conflict and start fights. --TimLambert (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is not a very helpful response, Tim. You have edited the entry on John Lott, and there is no question that a reasonable third party would conclude that you consider him an "enemy". (I don't like that word, but the point is, you clearly have a conflict of interest and have therefore edited inappropriately. For those needing evidence: "John Lott's Unethical Conduct" - a blog post by Tim Lambert and a removal of academic citations to Lott's research on clearly spurious grounds. (And lest anyone wonder: I agree that Lott's conduct has been very questionable - my point here is about the inappropriateness of Lambert's editing.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, I'm not sure that I agree with the principle that editing the BLPs of one's "enemies" is always inappropriate. (As it says somewhere around here: all editors have biases; we can't expect otherwise. But we can expect that their edits be neutral.) But regardless of the merits of the concept, it's clearly unenforceable. The only reason we know Tim Lambert edited the biography of one of his "enemies" is because unlike the vast majority of users here, he's editing under his own name. I don't see why he should be held to a higher standard than other users simply because he's being honest about who he is. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is one thing for Rush Limbaugh to edit Rahm Emanual's BLP as an IP, another as an anonymous wiki member and still another in the persona of Rush himself. I can assure you that although "Anyone can edit Wikipedia", not all are considered[99] equally. Wikipedia is, as another editor pointed out, quite exposed and ripe for embarrassment should it not clean up its own house - again note that one can write a great article about Rush writing Rahm's BLP, now try it with "dazzledog" (I hope my example isn't really a login here).

Further, and as importantly, we have a citable and pronounced years long war of character attrition outside of Wikipedia involving the targeting of the BLP subjects. Inside the wiki some of the targeted BLP subjects have had their entire BLP's tweaked to lay negative through years of edits. Just like rules against littering the desert we have rules regarding neutrality, which we strive to enforce for the greater good. There is ample evidence of abuse and pronounced citable animosity to topic ban just on conduct shown.99.142.1.101 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's plain old-fashioned hypocrisy. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's unfair, Jimbo. I've tried to avoid editing John Lott except for reverting the many edits made by Lott using sockpuppets and making uncontroversial changes. I did not cull the list of external links on Lott's page on "spurious grounds". WP:EL is quite clear -- such links should be kept to a minimum and copying a list of links from Lott's site (which is one of the external links already) is pointless. If links were to be included on the page they should be their as references to support some statement about Lott's research. Furthermore, the list was put there in that form by one of Lott's many sockpuppets and is heavily biased towards the papers the papers that Lott feels confirm his work. --TimLambert (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think Lott has been editing his own article against policy (which is not at all implausible) then you should report it to the relevant noticeboard, please, rather than doing anything yourself. It's never going to look good, is it, even if it's completely unambiguous? And some of your edits are not unambiguous. So don't do it, please, leave it to others. You can suggest sourced changes on the talk page but I think it would be fair to suggest that if you don't voluntarily undertake not to edit articles on subjects where you have off-wiki disputes then you may well be forcibly prevented from doing so. Yes? Guy (Help!) 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I went through the last 250 edits to John Lott and these are SPAs who have edited and made changes favourable to Lott: Template:Iplinks:137.123.162.254 Template:Iplinks:74.98.35.14 Template:Userlinks:Cbaus Template:Userlinks:RichardAlexandria Template:Userlinks:Richard1976 Template:Iplinks:166.195.19.145 Template:Iplinks:98.66.226.24 Template:Userlinks:Purtilo Template:Iplinks:32.167.12.144 Template:Userlinks:LuckyBowler Template:Userlinks:Researcher33 Template:Userlinks:TomSH81 Template:Userlinks:BobH63 Template:Userlinks:Youngturk2 Template:Iplinks:166.196.41.78 Template:Iplinks:32.166.98.133 Template:Iplinks:32.167.200.103 Template:Iplinks:32.164.112.122 Template:Iplinks:32.164.109.166 Template:Iplinks:166.199.15.44 Template:Iplinks:166.198.83.112 Template:Userlinks:Rancher32 Template:Userlinks:Halfkept2. Not all of these are actually Lott -- some are just strong Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department even though Lott is an economist.)

Enough is enough: proposal to ban 99.142.1.101

99.142.1.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Following the review that has been carried out by Guy (see #99.142.1.101 above), it is clear that the person editing from 99.142.1.101 and various other IP addresses is a serial disruptive editor and block evader. He is presently attempting to harass two prominent public commentators who contribute to Wikipedia under their own names, treating Wikipedia as a battlefield to fight off-wiki quarrels. This individual has used literally dozens of IPs, has accumulated countless warnings, and been blocked many times for a cumulative period of over three months within the past nine months or so. He has repeatedly evaded previous blocks and has edit-warred and disrupted articles in a variety of topic areas.

Previous socks/incidents:

• 99.151.169.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.144.192.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry/Archive 7#Dealing with a disruptive user on changing IPs
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive574#Join or be banned?
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Block evasion by long-term disruptive IP editor

I raised the last AN/I report on this individual. Despite all the warnings and blocks, he has continued to behave disruptively and abusively. He clearly has no intention of being a constructive editor.

I therefore propose that this individual be site-banned for a year, and indefinitely banned from interacting with User:John Quiggin, User:TimLambert, their respective article pages and any matters concerning them. If there are technical means available to block his IPs without too much collateral damage, they should be used; otherwise, under the banning policy, any edits from this individual should be removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very much worth noting that he's claiming that the two prominent public commentators have engaged in inappropriate editing. In one of the cases he's absolutely right. In the other case, I'm interested to see diffs. That's a valuable service in and of itself, whatever else he may have done wrong. [Update: I've checked some diff's. Mr 199 is absolutely right about both of these two prominent public editors - they have both edited very inappropriately. I don't think we should be in the business of blocking people for pointing out highly inappropriate political behavior. I strongly encourage Mr. 199 to log in and stick to a single identity.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Range-block will probably be out of the question (Chicago area). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspected that might be the case, unfortunately. In that case the best option is an editorially-enforced ban (i.e. removing anything he posts) combined with short-duration blocks of the IP addresses. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a siteban is appropriate. This could make it simpler to remove his posts as needed. Rangeblocks would cause too much collateral. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• SupportVerbal chat 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It's simply unacceptable if editors are harassed because they edit in the open. And while its deeply ironic if that is done by editors hiding behind an anonymous 32 bit number, I'm still not amused. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that ChrisO, an editor that I'm engaged in a content dispute with has canvassed a number of people from Wikipedia in order to explicitly remove my every edit from Wikipedia. And his stated basis is the AN/I discussion I started above regarding Lambert & Quiggin - a discussion which has been both participated in by, and specifically supported as a legitimate discussion by, the Chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have notified JzG, who investigated your complaint and proposed that you be banned; Elonka, who blocked you for three months, which you evaded; and EdJohnston, who did a check of your IPs in the investigation recorded in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive. Since these three admins have dealt with you currently and previously, they are well placed to advise on what is to be done with you now. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

For those who care, read the links. You'll find in the "SP" investigation that I not only claimed all the IP's[100] but also noted and claimed on the article's talk page in an edit that pre-dated any SP action or questions[101] my IP's. No attempt at anything even approaching SP was introduced, not one diff. The "finding"? "Since the IP sees no problem with his actions, and it's unlikely that he would ever agree to edit from a single account, I propose that an admin go ahead and enact these rangeblocks". I was blocked for using an IP account. Period. Not one SP diff was ever produced. And here I'm being pilloried for civil discussion of policy in an ongoing AN/I thread. Quite a through-the-looking-glass moment.99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support I have now read more, and wish to point out to 99.142.1.101 that the normal rules of a courtroom do not apply here: we can exercise common sense to see that you have an agenda, and while the details may be unknown, the outcome of your continued participation would not be helpful to the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support banning this hypocritical timewaster who shows every sign of being an enemy of Tim Lambert and is abusing our processes in furtherance of that. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin) - I'm amazed that the IP hasn't been blocked already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Only here to fight the battle, not to actually contribute to an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Objection-IP has brought up a fair point, some editors have commented that this type of conflicted editing is an issue, it wouldn't look good in the press would it? As I said above, it would be better imo for the credence of the wikipedia if editors with a strong declared and citable opposition to the notable aspects of certain biographies of living people did not edit their articles, a voluntary commitment to this would be imo beneficial to the neutral POV reputation of the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Nope - Valid concern raised. Arkon (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not simply about the current case but about a long-term pattern of disruption going back at least to last August. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then this isn't the place (or time) for this request. It is confusing the initial post, which was valid, with perhaps some unsavory actions by the originator. I would recommend a seperate (not part of this topic) section for this request. Arkon (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think we're engaging in a very blatant case of shoot ban the messenger, and that seems to have a lot to do with the fact that we don't like the message. jæs (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Query - Has any legitimate reason been advanced for the editor's choice to not register, or is it simply fear of the unknown? User:LeadSongDog come howl 21:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

From the previous discussions and the editor's past conduct, it would appear that he is not registering in order to make him harder to block. He has hopped around between multiple IPs and evaded various previous blocks, including a three-month block placed in November 2009. User:Excirial has commented on this: "Every IP you used is owned by AT&T, and even in the same netblock. Dynamic IP's are most likely to be refreshed after the end of a session or after a given amount of time. You had 99.151.166.95 for 3 days, but after it was banned you suddenly moved to 99.151.166.95. After that one was banned as well, you appeared as 99.144.192.74. Seeing these are all in the same netblock, and seeing the IP changes right after a block this reeks of intentional block evasion / sockpuppetry." -- ChrisO (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic IP's change because they are -> Dynamic. Also note that although you accuse me of having a new IP after 3 days, which is by the way how it works (they change for all sorts of reasons, including a reboot) you actually show me not changing here. 99.151.166.95 ... suddenly moved to 99.151.166.95 ...99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't really care if the anon has been disruptive (assuming he has) if he is essentially correct in his claim. No matter how popular it may be these days, shooting the messenger because you don't like what he says is still wrong. —DoRD (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• But he's not - his comments about one of the editors are completely without foundation and his diffs about the other are stale, plus he had made precisely zero attempt to bring the policy issues to the notice of either editor, instead going straight to escalations, and it turns out he has a long history f precisely the same kind of activism against one of the editors about whom he complained, but he failed to disclose this material fact. So he can... take it back off-wiki where it began. We don't need that kind of "help", in my world it's called hypocritical shit-stirring and is as welcome as a fart in a space suit. Chuck in a dose of block and ban evasion and he's not welcome here either, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I did bring issues to the notice of the editor, here you see me respond on his talk page after he threatened to topic ban me[102] for having the temerity to correct a reference sourced to the Bate article to conform to WP:Verify and WP:RS. The editor insisted the referenced source was wrong. This is also where I first came across his activism. His response, and earlier threat to topic ban me for my single edit correcting a cite, was final.[103] Here's what remains of the section[104], notice that everyone admits and knows the ref in Wikipedia does NOT conform to the supporting document. Base principles here, not grey areas.99.142.1.101 (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jebus. You still can't admit you were wrong about the authorship of the Prospect article? That doesn't bode well. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Umm, Yilloslime - you agreed, "The current byline is simply incorrect."[105] and then asked for someone to check the print version as you seemed to think it would be correct. To which Quiggin clearly states, "it appeared online only unfortunately"[106]. Verifiability, not truth. If it's wrong why hasn't anyone corrected the source yet? Electrons are cheap to rearrange. 99.142.1.101 (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, no I've always maintained that the article is by Quiggin & Lambert. Please refrain from quoting me out of context--it makes us both look bad. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yilloslime, you even offered a $20 bet that the print version would be different and credit Lambert[[107]]. Quote, "Anyone have access to a print version? I've got $20 that say's it's credited to Quiggin and Lambert..." _99.142.1.101 (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The full exchange is here: User_talk:John_Quiggin#WP:OR, if anyone is interested. @ 99.142.1.101: You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole if you still insisting that we ignore common sense and cite the article to Quiggin rather than to Quiggin and Lambert. This is the last I have to say about this.Yilloslime ^T_C 23:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no grey area. We cite to a verifiable source, WP:Verify It's wiki 101. If he didn't fill in the form correctly I have no doubt the webmaster will happily correct it for him. We do not do WP:OR, but that's possibly a wiki 200 level course.99.142.1.101 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that Quiggin is indisputably one of the authors of the paper, your repeated insistence that Lambert is not credited in the face of repeated statements from Quiggin that Lambert is a co-author is WP:POINT, especially when taken in context with the rest of your edit history. You are very clearly here to promote an agenda part of which involves doing down Tim Lambert. Get yourself a blog, Wikipedia is not the place for your vendetta. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• And if you look at his edits, his contributions to mainspace are minimal. He spends almost all of his time arguing on talk pages and importing off-wiki disputes, as in this instance. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Saying something is so doesn't make it true. Here is the article at the center of the "controversy" you referenced above, I took it from here [108] as a stub without references. This was my work:[109]. More recently I took PIIGS from an inaccurate slapdash[110] that had the term coined in 2008 to a tight informative, and useful article.[111] I did leave the "corrective policies" section alone, but my instinct was to remove it. I also created and wrote this article[112]. As an ip. :) 99.142.1.101 (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• JgZ, are you saying that the two editors in question have not edited improperly at all? And ChrisO, I don't like Wiki-disruption, either, but those points are irrelevant and do nothing to alter his claim. —DoRD (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

@ IP: You're determinedly ignoring the point that the first mention you made of the supposed COI was apparently on Jimbo's talk page, you also fail to say why you have spent months edit-warring and block-evading in order to remove one name from Wikipedia. @DoRD: the accusation by the IP against TimLambert is baseless, as per analysis above. The accusation that Quiggin is serving an external agenda is arguably ture, we all are, including and especially the IP, but there is nothing actionable in the diffs cited. I have already cautioned Quiggin and explained the problem, he shows above that he understands this and is willing to engage in dialogue. We are left with a block-evading IP whose sole input to Wikipedia appears to be a vendetta against one or a few users. That's a behaviour issue we can do without and is independent of the merits of his case, which in this case turn out to be questionable. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This IP's exposure of the COI editing by protagonists in public controversies has been a great service to wikipedia. Give the IP a barnstar, and save the bans for the people who have been misusing Wikipedia in furtherance of their careers ... or prepare for the "Wikipedia gags whistleblower" headlines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please read JzG's findings above; he has actually taken the trouble to look into the matter in detail. As Guy has said, "his comments about one of the editors are completely without foundation and his diffs about the other are stale". We are dealing here with false and unactionable allegations. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• The stale argument is bogus IMO, and I believe in yours as well, considering the latest example you posted regarding this anon in your request is from ~3 months ago. Arkon (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support enough time has been wasted here. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Give him some grace if he registers an account and sticks to it. The use of multiple IPs may not have been intentionally done to deceive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Creates massive drama but cannot show any serious policy violations, attacking people for editing under their own names (i.e. for being transparent), uses IPs to evade blocks. Xanthoxyl ^< 13:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Battleground mentality, edit warring, and block evasion--just what we want from an editor! Oh, wait, no, we don't. Charges against John Quiggin and Tim Lambert are baseless (and incidentally show why no academic should bother to edit this site under their real name). --Akhilleus (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Akhilleus. If we can't defend people using their real names against baseless accusations, we should just change WP:U to ban real names. Caveat: I would reduce the length of the siteban on condition that the IP gets an account and sticks with it. Rd232 ^talk 20:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed closure

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#BLP, SPAs, a proposal. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)