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 Wikipedia: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:

• 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

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

London Hall (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I made sure that the article/edits I published recently concerning the Iran Government lobby in the US were backed up by reliable sources, often quoting directly from the reference. For instance, taking the points outlined by Nick-D:

• Adding material to the Trita Parsi article claiming that a court finding against the National Iranian American Council was actually about him

This is what I wrote:

"In response, Parsi sued him for defamation. As a result of the lawsuit, many internal documents were released, which Washington Times national security correspondent Eli Lake stated "raise questions about whether the organization is using that influence to lobby for policies favorable to Iran in violation of federal law." The documents included e-mail correspondence between Parsi and Mohammad Javad Zarif, then Iran's ambassador to the United Nations."

This is what the reference says:

" Mr. Parsi then sued him for defamation... Law enforcement experts who reviewed some of the documents, which were made available to The Times by the defendant in the suit, say e-mails between Mr. Parsi and Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations at the time, Javad Zarif... Now a lawsuit has brought to light numerous documents that raise questions about whether the organization is using that influence to lobby for policies favorable to Iran in violation of federal law. If so, a number of prominent Washington figures could come to regret their ties to the group. "

Here are other references that mention Trita Parsi involved in this incident:

• 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.

As I've outlined throughout the article, there are reliable sources that confirm there is an Iran Lobby in the United States: Sources claim the lobby is led by the National Iranian American Council: and that the National Iranian American Council has ties with the Iran Government:

I resumed those sources into the article. Here are references outlining that the Ploughshares fund lobbies on pro-Iran issues: ; and that Ploughshares funds the National Iranian American Council (which sources claim is at the center of lobbying efforts in the US): ; and that the Brookings Institution (among others) received funds for pro-Iran-analysis:

• Adding material to the National Iranian American Council article referenced to obviously totally unreliable sources

Here are the references I used to expand the National Iranian American Council:

Finally, if there was a discussion to be had on weather the sources I provided on these edits were reliable, the appropriate thing to do would have been to notify me or open a discussion. Blocking my account for regurgitating from reliable sources just doesn't make sense. London Hall (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Decline reason:

In reviewing your edits, I must concur with the block. We must take WP:BLP seriously, and in addition you do seem to have some sort of agenda here. For those reasons, and the fact that this request only defends what you did without even suggesting you may have been in error, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 07:58, 14 May 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.

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)

References

References

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

London Hall (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I just need to have someone else look at this. Is it that this topic cannot be included on Wikipedia? Everything I included in the edits I made were backed up by references. If there was a dispute on whether the references were reliable, I should have been notified, not blocked. I never received any type of warning suggesting that what I was doing was wrong in any way. As I've provided in my unblock request (above), there are enough references to support there is an Iran Lobby in the US. I'm requesting to have my appeal copied to the Administrators noticeboard.

Decline reason:

I have looked at this. None of the sources provided in the article or here above support the claim that the Brookings Institution "has received funds from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps". Thus your claim, repeated here, that everything you included in your edits was backed by references is patently false. There's no need to bother the Noticeboard with this case. It's clear-cut. Huon (talk) 23:59, 24 May 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.

• I am not formally reviewing this again- but discussing the existence of an Iran lobby is not the reason you were blocked, but that you are claiming sources state things that they do not, as well as using unreliable sources. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Many of the sources I used were reliable. Concerning my edits to the Trita Parsi article, for example, I regurgitated directly from the reference provided (I noted this above). I request to at least be allowed to comment on the administrators noticeboard so I may present my case there. London Hall (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You added defamatory claims about this person to the article which were clearly not supported by the sources given (for instance, that a court found against him personally when the source - which is at best borderline reliable - states clearly that it found against the organisation he heads). Material you added to the same article falsely stated that a US congressman had been convicted as a result of lobbying to have sanctions on Iran lifted, with the source not supporting this either. Other sources state that he was convicted for other reasons. This formed part of a campaign of similar editing regarding Iranian lobbying in the US. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D, this is what Newsweek and Fox News say:

• "Ohio Rep. Robert Ney personally lobbied the then Secretary of State Colin Powell to relax U.S. sanctions on Iran." Part of Ney's conviction was because Ney arranged a meeting "with FN Aviation to discuss U.S. sanctions against the sale of aviation parts to Iran... The Justice Department said the foreign businessman and his partner sought Ney's help obtaining a travel visa and selling U.S.-made airplanes and parts to a foreign country, and that the businessman's company paid for Ney's trip to London in February 2003."

• About Parsi, according to the Washington Times, it was Parsi who sued the journalist, and Parsi's emails were part of the evidence that proved he had links to the Iran government: "Mr. Parsi then sued him for defamation... Law enforcement experts who reviewed some of the documents, which were made available to The Times by the defendant in the suit, say e-mails between Mr. Parsi and Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations at the time, Javad Zarif...offer evidence that the group has operated as an undeclared lobby and may be guilty of violating tax laws. Parsi is at the heart of the evidence concerning the Iran lobby in the US: "Eli Lake has come up with some very interesting evidence about Parsi's activities in Washington, including an internal memo from the group's policy director, Patrick Disney, in which he states that NIAC is, in fact, functioning as a lobby... Arranging meetings between foreign officials and members of Congress in order to influence legislation -- the point of meeting with members of Congress, of course -- is an essential aspect of lobbying. Parsi is on record as opposing sanctions on Iran, a position the Iranian regime, and its representatives at the U.N., obviously endorse."

To be fair, I should say that I was inspired to write about this by a single article, this one by The Daily Beast: Upon investigating some the article's claims via other references, I saw that most of the statements were covered in other press. I also confirmed that The Daily Beast had a Wikipedia article, so didn't consider the article part of an attack campaign. Regardless, it did cross my mind that someone may object this as source, but I honestly thought that there would be a discussion about this, not a direct block! London Hall (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

References

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)