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
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
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
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&section=3

Euryalus (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As said above, this is not a case of meat puppetry, but two accounts operated by the same person. I don't believe the user and am against unblocking for that reason alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 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&section=3
 * , 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)

AlanPemberton 20:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)