User talk:London Hall

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Pahlevun (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Serious disruptive editing. This includes: As this is a clear pattern of misrepresenting sources or using bad sources to advance an agenda, including in relation to negative material on living people, I've set the block duration as indefinite.. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding material to the Trita Parsi article claiming that a court finding against the National Iranian American Council was actually about him
 * Starting the the Islamic Republic of Iran lobby in the United States ‎article with substantial amounts of sensitive material which was not supported by the sources given - for instance, that the Brookings Institution is funded by the Iranian Government and the Ploughshares Foundation has lobbied on behalf of the Iranian Government
 * Adding material to the National Iranian American Council article referenced to obviously totally unreliable sources


 * You are not "regurgitating from reliable sources". You have been adding material which is clearly not supported by the sources you give. For instance, the three reliable sources concerning the Brookings Institution (all the same AP article - note that Breitbart is obviously not a reliable source, yet was being used multiple times across these articles) say that Brookings received funding from Ploughshares to "advance its [Ploughshares'] non-proliferation agenda", yet the article stated that Brookings "has received funds from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and National Iranian American Council to publish works for the Islamic Republic of Iran and against certain political opposition groups", which is an extraordinary claim clearly not supported by the source. I'd note that Ploughshares is a long-standing and reputable anti-nuclear weapons organisation, and the Brookings Institution is well regarded. The entire article was built around claims such as this which weren't supported by the source or where the source was obviously unreliable, and similar problems turned up when I spot checked the other articles. As this appears to be motivated by an agenda and was carrying across into BLP issues, I decided to impose an indefinite duration block. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources that disagree with you on that the Brookings Institution is that "well regarded":  ; and as mentioned, Ploughshares Fund finances the organization considered to be lobbying for Iran in the US:  If you disagreed with sources/statements within the article, there should have been a conversation about this, perhaps also allowing others cast their thoughts. As I noted above, the Iran Lobby in the US is not a hoax or an "agenda", and I've provided enough reliable references to back this up:       ; and I've also provided enough references to back up what I included in the Parsi/NIAC articles (which I've outlined in my unblock request above).London Hall (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say Nick-D London Hall  to right here. The edits are sourced and this is dispute only over the quality of sources.There is no BLP violation per se.As London Hall has not been warned even once please unblock for now.2402:3A80:44F:185D:1918:1E3C:80B0:89FD (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So, what brings you here mobile IP that's never edited anywhere else? SQL Query me!  16:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * SQL .I was actually just going to edit the  Islamic Republic of Iran lobby in the United States when it was wrongly deleted as a hoax .Hence came into this issue. Iranian lobby in USA is true and can be sourced.I have edited here for over 4 years as an IP which is dynamic have made over 600 constructive edits here. I humbly request you to unblock London Hall.This is not a block much less a indef when the dispute is only about  sources a content dispute.42.111.128.249 (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * 42.111.128.249, thank you for defending me here, but because your account involves an IP with no editing history, others may think we're related. It may be best to just let an admin look at the case objectively. London Hall (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would add for the IPs benefit that warnings are not required if the issue is serious, which BLP issues often are. 331dot (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Requesting to be allowed to at least write in the Admin noticeobard
I am being blocked, and it's coming across as unjust. I would like to be granted the rights to defend myself in the administrators noticeboard. Please allow me that much, so I can at least get the perspective of others there. London Hall (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * At least one other admin will review your unblock request. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to unblock you in such a way that you are able to post to the administrator's noticeboard only. If you wish your appeal copied to the noticeboard, you may ask for this to be done in your unblock request, although no administrator is under any obligation to do so. Unblock requests such as the one above are flagged to all administrators, so your statement will be seen by the admin corps regardless of whether it is posted to AN or not. Yunshui 雲 水 09:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)