User talk:BillFairclough
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Yevgeny Ivanov (spy). Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Reply[edit]
Thank you for your message on my talk page (although please do login before making edits and please sign your messages). I reverted your edits to the page for two reasons. First, wikipedia has a clear conflict of interest guideline which means promoting or adding a link to your own work/website is not accepted. As the above note said, you may instead suggest the change on the article's talk page and then if an editor without a conflict agrees that it is a useful link, they can add it. Secondly, your edit added external links to the article which are not appropriate. Finally, even if these issues were resolved, it is not clear that the content you added would be appropriate without a reliable, independent source as it included an allegation of murder based on a fictional novel 'based on facts', so this would need to be explained and discussed in order to gain consensus that it was appropriate. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BillFairclough. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC) |
BillFairclough (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please see reasons explained below AlanPemberton 05:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The technical and behavioral evidence indicate that the accounts are operated by the same person. —DoRD (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2018 (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.
Joanna Lockwood forwarded me (namely Bill Fairclough) all the emails you have sent her once she first independently posted the draft article about me on Wikipedia. [Anyone can contact by email through my websites.] As I have used the links in those emails etc and then enjoined in the "talks" about this article (for reasons already volunteered openly and transparently at the outset of my contact) it comes as no surprise that IP addresses used appeared to be linked because they were and so Wikipedia reached the wrong conclusions about alleged abuse of IP addresses. There has been no attempt to obfuscate matters by Joanna Lockwood or I through the use of either different or similar IP addresses or anything else for that matter.
Joanna Lockwood and I are still shocked by your decisions to block me and my related IP addresses and refuse to publish the article because any basic simple analysis of the timeline of what contact there was with Wikipedia will show that there was no attempt to mislead Wikipedia. Indeed, Wikipedia has reached the wrong conclusions and as a result published misleading and arguably defamatory information relating thereto which of course will be and has been read by many others including those whom have been asked to comment on whether blocking me and/or deleting the article is fair and just. It is in fact unfair and unjust but trying to show that to Wikipedia's admin team involved in this case has failed because, inter alia, it appears Wikipedia had already reached a decision and as previously recorded in all the talks about these issues:
1. It has been now been pointed out more than twice that Wikipedia deleted (about a dozen) external references in the original article submitted by Joanna Lockwood while simultaneously flagging the draft article as being bereft of external references. 2. Wikipedia twice failed to respond properly to any of my four reasonable requests for comments once I enjoined in the "talks". In addition, it seems (unless you can prove otherwise) that Wikipedia admin representatives had deleted external references without bothering to read them. Wikipedia is not the only website with timed visitor data. 3. Wikipedia has ignored my reasonable and justifiable points made in my comments on Heliotom's comments this morning that: (a) Wikipedia admin representatives had misinterpreted the article as being about me as a non notable author when in fact it was about me as a notable businessman and intelligence agent. (b) All of Heliotom's other comments were biased and judgemental and would mislead anyone who read them just as the wrongful statements made about abuse through clusters of IP addresses are equally misleading and inaccurate.
Joanna Lockwood and I remain astonished that Wikipedia can publicly wrongfully accuse me (and Joanna Lockwood) of having committed illegitimate acts. At least an apology for that is requested and we hope that once Wikipedia has looked into these matters thoroughly and properly that it will reverse its decisions relating to bans and the proposed deletion of the article which surely must be capable of being rewritten where required even if shorter to conform to Wikipedia's "standards" if a little help were to be offered. Joanna Lockwood, like many aspiring Wikipedia writers, thought she was being helpful and would be helped, not treated in such a degrading manner as she has been. 31.48.184.177 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC) AlanPemberton 05:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillFairclough (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Unblock Request - 2 January 2002[edit]
BillFairclough (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am hereby requesting that I be unblocked from Wikipedia. I understand why I was blocked in March 2018 and have had over three years to reflect on what happened and it won’t happen again. In particular, I understand the points made by Wikipedia about: (1) how it defines notability; (2) not using self-published sources; (3) not including promotional material; (4) avoiding conflicts of interest; (5) not writing about serious BLP (biography of living person) issues; and (6) adhering at all times to any relevant Wikipedia rules and guidance when editing. I now wish to resume posting and editing articles on Wikipedia and will abide by Wikipedia’ guidance and rules when so doing. The topics that fall within my areas of expertise are mainly to do with espionage, subversion, infiltration, intelligence, counter-intelligence and related subjects. En passant, I would like to explain that there was no intention to mislead Wikipedia in the run up to my (and Joanna Lockwood) being blocked in March 2018. Nevertheless, I can understand how Wikipedia came to the conclusion that sockpuppetry was suspected and may have occurred. Joanna Lockwood was my PA for over a decade while I ran Faire Sans Dire Limited (FSDL). FSDL a niche global intelligence agency administered via an English company (No. 06552657) which was dissolved on 27 July 2021. Being involved in “intelligence matters”, we naturally took great care to safeguard those who worked for FSDL. Obviously, being Chairman of FSDL and Joanna’s employer, I had influence over what she wrote on Wikipedia which, needless to say, was spotted by your experienced staff. Nevertheless, I just wanted it known that she was a real person and not some sort of bot. She no longer works for FSDL and does not wish to edit Wikipedia articles any more. Bill Fairclough 2 January 2022 I am unsure where to publish this request even after having read the guidance several times. AlanPemberton 20:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Thanks GeneralNotability and Bbb23. It's worth giving unblock appeals a fair go but I have to agree that the claims being made here are not wholly accurate. It's evident there was an intention to mislead. It's very likely that this account and "Joanna Lockwood" are the same person rather than meatpuppets. The "I can't remember my edits or if I dictated them to someone else" is nonsense. And the "operating in high risk areas" excuse is at best irrelevant. Blocks are indeed preventative rather than punishment, but the material here suggests prevention is still necessary to avoid further disruptive editing. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2022 (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.
AlanPemberton 20:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, this is the correct place to publish this appeal. Request is on hold while I consult the blocking administrator. On the positive side the disruptive editing from this account was some years ago, and the article that sparked it is long since deleted. However I doubt the claim there was no attempt to mislead: for example this edit by "Joanna Lockwood" very clearly reads as if they don't know you or this company. Alas that doesn't square with them being your employee, unless there was indeed an intention to mislead at that time. Any comments on this would be welcome while a other admin responses are sought. --
MY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 3 JANUARY 2022 - FROM BILL FAIRCLOUGH
It seems that what I added above in good faith (beginning with "En passant") in order to be both open, honest and remorseful has backfired and been misinterpreted. As indicated above, FSDL operated in high risk areas and as Chairman/Owner my prime consideration in everything we got involved with was the safety and security of my employees etc. Hence the primary purpose of distancing Joanna from the company and me was to safeguard her from being identified. I might add that when "in the field" we used to go to much greater lengths to preserve the anonymity of our staff. In hindsight it does not surprise me that you suspected there was an attempt to mislead, and I admit there was such but not completely in the way you perceived; in addition, please see my comments on the comment below.
As you rightly say what transpired was over three years ago, the disruption is in the past and the article that offended Wikipedia has been deleted. I would have thought given the length of time involved that all that was enough "punishment". In addition, I have admitted in good faith that I did not abide by your rules albeit we may not see eye to eye on the precise nature of those breaches. Furthermore, my situation has changed completely, and I am now retired having closed down not only FSDL as aforesaid but also The Burlington Files Limited (Company No. 08005044) on 27 July 2021. I have read Wikipedia's rules and guidance and done my best to adhere to them in this submission. In undertaking that reading I did note that Wikipedia' policy is that blocks are not intended as punishment. AlanPemberton 09:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BillFairclough&action=edit§ion=3
Euryalus (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
MY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 3 JANUARY 2022 - FROM BILL FAIRCLOUGH
I have already openly and honestly and in good faith admitted and explained that there were two people involved in these submissions, so I don't understand why you feel the need to say you don't believe me given Wikipedia's rules relating to statements made in good faith. I have already said that as Joanna's boss I influenced what she wrote and submitted. My definition of "influenced what she wrote and submitted" obviously includes some editing and/or rewriting of what she wrote. I cannot recall exactly what I edited or rewrote but if it had been as I usually did it would have most likely resulted in some substantial changes dictated (on a dictation machine) or written by me in my appropriate style after seeking advice from others. Hence, in my view, my having admitted ab initio in this unblock request that I influenced her submission really makes it somewhat academic as to whether or not there were one or more accounts and one or more persons involved in preparing and submitting what she wrote. If this sort of influencing falls within Wikipedia's definitions of meat and/or sock puppetry with which I am unfamiliar then I admit to breaching your meat and/or sock puppetry rules too and apologise for having done so. AlanPemberton 09:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BillFairclough&action=edit§ion=3
- Euryalus, from a technical perspective, I do not see evidence of ongoing block evasion. Released to your discretion, though I'm not confident that BillFairclough is here for the right reasons. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
BillFairclough (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
MY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 6 JANUARY 2022 - FROM BILL FAIRCLOUGH
I respectfully request that Euryalus, GeneralNotability and Bbbb23 reconsider their conclusions in the light of the additional comments and observations in this submission bearing in mind:
1. Not one of Wikipedia’s admins recently involved in this case has adhered to Wikipedia’s policies and the principles of natural justice in reaching their conclusions. 2. The accusations made against me include pejorative and defamatory allegations made in public based on subjective opinions and impressions as opposed to hard facts. 3. I was not aware that my unblock request would be transformed into something akin to an appeal hearing in which my accusers were to act as judge and jury. 4. Extending my being blocked for an indeterminate period after being blocked for over three years seems a wholly disproportionate punishment given what actually transpired. 5. Taking into account my health/age, a continuing block for an indeterminate period may result in Wikipedia never affording me the opportunity to demonstrate my good faith.
If after reconsidering my case Wikipedia upholds its original decision to continue to block me then it seems to me that there is something very wrong with Wikipedia’s quasi-judicial policies and procedures. To put it plainly, I have been the subject of a gross miscarriage of justice as exemplified in this submission and it is reasonably safe to assume others have suffered similarly cruel treatment.
The fact that the practical application of Wikipedia’s quasi-judicial policies and procedures is flawed is to the detriment of both Wikipedia and the wider community which its founders set it up to serve. Subject to what happens next, if anything, I will decide at my discretion in my own time whether to raise my concerns with members of Wikipedia’s senior management and the Wikimedia Foundation known to FaireSansDire. In addition, if appropriate I may seek the views of Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee.
As I pointed out in 2018, these unnecessary and time consuming processes could have been avoided if Wikipedia’s admins had acted in good faith ab initio and simply helped me as a newcomer to refine the articles they considered breached Wikipedia’s policies. Instead, some of those admins have acted in bad faith contrary to Wikipedia’s policies and publicly accused me of lying and committing illegitimate acts when they had no evidence to support such scurrilous charges. They even based some of their accusations on their biased opinions of my motives and intentions.
Having been a law abiding citizen who for decades has supported law enforcement officers in many parts of the free world, sometimes at great personal risk, I am appalled by these unwarranted public insults made maliciously by persons who pretend that they are acting in the best interests of a global organization such as Wikipedia. It should be noted that there is more at stake here than my ability to contribute to Wikipedia. I expect an open apology from those Wikipedia admins who have impugned my integrity and reputation by making defamatory and disparaging statements about me in public.
Now turning to more detailed matters, GeneralNotability commented “I'm not confident that BillFairclough is here for the right reasons”. He gives no supporting argument to that bland derogatory statement having seemingly paid scant attention to my earlier submissions. In those submissions I emphasised that my circumstances had changed considerably and that my businesses had been closed down thereby removing shedloads of reasons to use self-published sources, include promotional material and avoid conflicts of interest. Incidentally, all these are common flaws in published Wikipedia articles which have been approved by admins.
GeneralNotability’s comment (“I'm not confident that BillFairclough is here for the right reasons”) is a blatant breach of Wikipedia’s fundamental principle of assuming good faith (AGF). Unless he is telepathic, how would he know? This is but one example in these quasi-court proceedings of a Wikipedia admin failing to abide by Wikipedia’s AGF principles when acting as Judge/Jury/Prosecutor (JJP). Such acts are to the detriment of Wikipedia’s reputation and integrity.
I am not alone in interpreting JJP Euryalus’ verdict or declination of my unblock request as a shining example of what can be termed Wikipedia’s admin laws in which one is guilty until proven innocent in a quasi-judicial process where dispute resolution procedures are no more than a sham.
JJP Euryalus opens his summing up by politely thanking JJP Bbb23. I am not sure why because JJP Bbb23 seems to have acted as a rubber stamp. Based on JJP Bbb23’s published track-record as a Wikipedia admin there is a 99.5% certainty that he won’t agree to unblock anything let alone to reverse his previous decisions to block users. Maybe JJP Euryalus deserves some credit: asking for JJP Bbb23’s opinion was a sure-fire way of getting a unanimous guilty verdict.
On googling User:Bbb23 one is directed to tens of thousands of links to articles many of which include complaints about his conduct. Indeed, the first and most read post refers specifically to his “vile and malicious behaviour”. What is more, JJP Euryalus has endorsed the publicly “named and shamed” JJP Bbb23’s comment about me (“I don't believe the user”) which per se is yet another brazen breach of Wikipedia’s AGF principles. Metaphorically speaking, Wikipedia would do better to housetrain its rottweilers or at least keep them on the leash.
Whilst reasonable persons might cry in despair at these hypocritical quasi-legal court proceedings and practices, JJP Euryalus goes on to state that unblock appeals should be given “a fair go”.
“It's worth giving unblock appeals a fair go but I have to agree that the claims being made here are not wholly accurate. It's evident there was an intention to mislead.”
I had no idea I was involved in an appeal; all I did was submit an unblock request. I wonder how many other defendants didn’t realise that an unblock request automatically transformed into a final appeal process stage-managed by their accusers. Is that equitable and just? Is it equitable and just that these JJPs should determine an appeal against their earlier decisions? If that is Wikipedia’s idea of justice may god protect us all if others adopt it.
As quoted above, JJP Euryalus then states he agrees with JJP Bbb23 et al. These are both additional brazen breaches of Wikipedia’s AGF principles. Furthermore, JJP Euryalus’ comment “It's evident there was an intention to mislead” is misleading per se, inaccurate and ambiguous. What’s worse, that comment is injudiciously included in his quasi-summing up or judgement. Why is he making such a statement? I have already admitted there was an intention to mislead but not to mislead Wikipedia but rather to protect the anonymity of my PA, Joanna Lockwood.
“It's very likely that this account and "Joanna Lockwood" are the same person rather than meatpuppets.”
This is yet another blatant disregard by a Wikipedia admin of Wikipedia’s AGF principles. I have admitted there were two people involved and that admission is of no advantage in my case. Given my apologies and admissions, as I pointed out in my unblock request, what difference would it make were there one or more persons and/or accounts involved? Who cares what ghoulish gobbledegook or Newspeak such as meatpuppet or sockpuppet is used to describe my actions? Why is JJP Euryalus implying I am lying when he has no evidence to support such an allegation? Wikipedia defines any admin making such allegations as acting in bad faith.
“The "I can't remember my edits or if I dictated them to someone else" is nonsense. And the "operating in high risk areas" excuse is at best irrelevant.”
It appears that JJP Euryalus has a superhuman memory and assumes others do too because he is nonsensically implying that in 2022 I should remember details of changes I made to an article I reviewed over three years ago. Bearing in mind I have suffered from two strokes it is hardly surprising that I cannot now recall for certain if I edited it or dictated changes or both which is why I mentioned that in my submission dated 3 January 2022. JJP Euryalus didn’t even consider that my memory might have been impaired by bad health and callously dismisses my truthful statement as “nonsense”. Is that not “vile and malicious behaviour”? In any organisation of good standing, anyone making such an offensive accusation would be made to consider his/her position and resign or at the very least, apologise.
As evidenced by the quotation above, JJP Euryalus has put a statement in inverted commas and attributed it to me in his pseudo summing up. I did not say those words so why falsely purport that I did by putting them “in quotes”? Were he acting as a court official in the real world he would probably have been struck off for that and/or charged with trying to pervert the course of justice.
Next, his comment about “high risk areas” demonstrates that JJP Euryalus is completely out of his depth any which way one cares to measure it. If he can’t understand that organizations such as FaireSansDire need to keep the identities of their staff hidden from public view then he shouldn’t have been allowed to become a Wikipedia admin.
After all, to reach a quasi-verdict in this case one would have thought he would have looked at FaireSansDire’s website to glean an understanding of its modus operandi. Even he and most of his colleagues hide behind pseudonyms yet their jobs are minimal risk when contrasted with the jobs of those working in organizations such as FaireSansDire. Mitigating those risks was crucial to the way FaireSansDire approached posting potentially sensitive articles. It beats me how any intelligent educated arbiter could even contemplate describing such as “at best irrelevant” let alone publicly saying so because it lies at the very heart of this case.
“Blocks are indeed preventative rather than punishment, but the material here suggests prevention is still necessary to avoid further disruptive editing.”
One could debate whether or not blocks are preventative or punishment until koalas and kangaroos become extinct, but it seems that Wikipedia’s admins use them more as punishment than as a preventative measure. There is little incentive to appeal any Wikipedia admin’s judgement bearing in mind only about 1.4% of blocks have ever been unblocked notwithstanding the trivial nature of many of the breaches of Wikipedia’s rules. Put another way, justice so delayed is justice denied. Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JamesR/AdminStats)
Wikipedia may have supposedly established some absolutely “fabulous” principles to guide its admins, staff et al. Miserably these appear to be for show and largely ignored in practice especially when blocking editors and/or deleting their works for spurious reasons. Wikipedia’s admins appear to be motivated more by how high up the league tables of blocking editors or deleting articles they can get than by looking after Wikipedia’s reputation and best interests.
These dispute resolution practices are worse than those of any Kangaroo Court. Maybe it would be better to describe Wikipedia’s dispute resolution processes as being akin to a Koala Court because prima facie they look as pleasant as any cuddly koala bear but are only for show. However, in Wikipedia’s Koala Court the Judge, Jury and Prosecutor are one and the same … just as one would expect in fascist states such as North Korea … or put another way, “a fox should not be on the jury at a goose’s trial”.
It is scary to think that Wikipedia’s JJPs include unprincipled malicious admins who hide behind pseudonyms and disregard Wikipedia’s principles when making unsafe judgements on an unaccountable basis in the name of Wikipedia, thereby wrecking Wikipedia’s reputation and ruining other people’s lives.
Other broader issues concerning possible breaches of Wikipedia’s fundamental principles and its “five pillars” are also of concern to me. Once researched, I may raise these later either during the formal appeal process if appropriate or with the powers that be.
AlanPemberton 20:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Not an unblock request. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 00:00, 7 January 2022 (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.
AlanPemberton 20:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)