User talk:Jfderry

Hello, Jfderry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! . dave souza, talk 11:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dave souza, thank you for your welcome. I'm actually a veteran on Wiki, but have not needed to be so active before as now (details). My hand is forced, and it is over a case in which you have featured (example 1; example 2; example 3; example 4), unwillingly no doubt, except you guys seem to take the abuse and don't break stride. Kudos for dealing with Sutton previously. He got away with more than he should have over the American Services review of Patrick Matthew's On Naval Timber. It did review the book at length, and over two editions of their paper, but it mentions his natural law material only to reject it. This is how desperate Sutton is to try prove Matthew's ideas spread far and wide, making it more likely for Darwin and Wallace to have encountered them, or be magically influenced by them in some undefinable way. Hopefully we'll be shot of his fatuity before long. Be assured, the intention is not to use Wikipedia as a battle ground, I only want to moderate his self-promotion, and maintain a record of where the challenges to his claims can be found. The refutation is hosted elsewhere, and when totally in place, the Matthew page will be tidied and streamlined. I hope that proposal is okay with you. If he were a millionth of the academic he thinks he is, then his work would be in the valid literature and a rebuttal could be published therein. Salutations. Jfderry (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please review out policy on Posting personal information. It's unacceptable to try to sleuth out the identities of other editors, or to post people's real names without their permission. For that reason, I feel obliged to delete your additions to Talk:Patrick Matthew. It would also be helpful to review the guidelines for talk pages. Guettarda (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With respect :Guettarda, you have done a great disservice to several people's attempts to stop revisionist highjacking of various Wiki pages. I was acting having already negotiated with dave souza and MapRoom, and I feel that perhaps you ought to have investigated the background prior to having undone and apparently locked the Talk:Patrick Matthew: Revision history. I now urge you in the strongest terms possible to reinstate what was there. It is vital that the fraudsters are shown to be what they are. It was already in discussion what their IPs were. In fact, the entire method of rooting out sock puppets and multiple account holders, is to identify that they are one and the same. Please do not give these people an undue advantage.

The worst aspect of your actions is that you have left in that previous discussion of IPs, and the only editor being discussed by name is ME, JF Derry.

Now, please read the background (above and on MapRoom's Talk page) and return the page to how it was forthwith. Thank you. Jfderry (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda is completely right to point out Policy on posting personal information, continue and you'll be blocked so unable to continue. For the article talk page, focus on article improvements and not on other editors. You can make your case there without allegations about others. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations about how to request investigation of possible sockpuppetry, noting you'll still be required to avoid outing personal information about others. . dave souza, talk 12:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the clarification @Dave souza:, and i really do respect the rules herein, although I can't say I agree, given the prior discussion about Sutton's IP on the Talk page in question. I was simply expanding on that. But, in a single uninformed swipe, that action has released liability for a serial offender, and a public abuser. Deletion is never the answer because it removes culpability. That edit has removed half a dozen fairly obvious instances of sock puppetry by the same person, or someone acting on their behalf, what's the difference? Is it acceptable to reinstate the material without the IP numbers please? perhaps just the domain spec, ie is it accptable to have IPs of the form 192.168.X.X, where Xs are left blank? This alerts for the region, but not the personal location.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfderry (talk • contribs) 16:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jfderry, to the extent that the discussion is about sockpuppetry, any points or evidence for that belongs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, not the article talk page. The comment raised by 152.71.156.113 on 16 June has been discussed there, and 152.71.156.113 also asked at the Help Desk. The issue of the address being Nottingham Uni's was raised by User:Krelnik, who linked to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bustermythmonger/Archive. All rather tedious, and I'm rather rusty about the procedures, but it's precedent for another sock investigation or for blocking suspected socks of User:Bustermythmonger. Rinse and repeat. Recommendation: continue with improving the article, which should have only a brief note of what third parties have said about Sutton's claims, and report any future suspected sockpuppets to get them blocked. . . dave souza, talk 17:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bustermythmonger/Archive as blatant violations of our policies regarding living persons. You cannot continue to use Wikipedia to make allegations against individuals and to continue real world disagreements and disputes. If you post such information anywhere on Wikipedia again you will be blocked from editing.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really rather confused now @Ponyo:. I trust that you will not bar me for asking for clarification. Just up there, in the previous section @Dave souza: told me to go to that page for sock puppets of Bustermythmonger. There was doubt about some of the IP's, but I've cross-checked them against two independent sources. As I said, I've been monitoring activities for 16 months. I trod very carefully, explaining how this sock puppetry fitted into a broader context, and how it was another element of Academic Misconduct. These are not allegations because there is no lack of evidence. 700 pages / 300,000 words of observation, not conjecture, and I have no intention of interacting with them, here, there or anywhere. But, severely reprimanded, scolded and unexplainably contrite, I've been quite deterred from offering to help any further, although, I'm none the wiser "for my sins", yet now feel threatened, for trying to be of assistance. There are plenty of main wiki pages reporting misconduct proceedings, so happy to hear / read some explanation. Cheers Jfderry (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are making real world allegations against living persons. This is very different from sockpuppet investigations which include evidence of abuse of multiple accounts on Wikipedia without inferring real world identities and paragraphs asserting "academic misconduct" based on your personal research on the subject. Your edits have been so egregiously contrary to Wikipedia's policies regarding outing and living persons that they had to be removed from the history of the various pages you have edited. It is of the upmost importance that you do not continue to post such information on Wikipedia.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}, I have learned something new at every turn. On this occasion, i genuinely thought I was adding to a collecting of IP's, because those that I listed, along with other alias accounts are all his. I can see how you might think the other aspects of the investigation extraneous to what was being discussed therein, but i added it as context, and warning, of the sort of person you're dealing with. Anyway, do I add the alias accounts and/or IP's, or do I don't? Jfderry (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have private information regarding abuse of multiple accounts on Wikipedia then you can send the information to the Functionaries list at functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did this Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} @Ponyo: but received no acknowledgement of receipt and see no more movement on this. Is there a procedure this now follows, or is the case in stasis? Thanks. Jfderry (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When did you send the email?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it was on 30th June at 07:00 GMT+1. thanks. Jfderry (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at User talk:DGG. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.   DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

"Violations of the biographies of living persons policy after previous warnings" - I have no idea what I am supposed to have done to be blocked from editing, User:DGG. I haven't edited anything in a several weeks. Those previous warnings involved adding to the sockpuppet page when i didn't realise it was taboo, to identify IPs. With respect, I'm feeling you're getting the wrong end of the stick here, when all I have tried to do throughout is bring to editors' attention the rule-breaking of another. It's not important whether I can edit or not as I have stayed within the rules since realising that early mistake. What is vital is to stop feeding the ego of a proven abuser of research and academics, and public trust. Please would you review my previous post to your Talk page - thanks Jfderry (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Wuff! I read the content you added at DGG's talk page. In the future, it would be best to not add defamatory content to a user's talk page, or anywhere else. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Addendum You seem to have a problem with making these sorts of edits. Not sure where we go from here. You might want to mend your ways before editing further. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to explain my block reason further, since you seem not to understand. On my talk page you added content defamatory to a third person, one whom you have made negative comments about elsewhere in WP. They wee furthermore unsourced, so they would have been violations of COI snywhere in Wikipedia. Even had you sourced them to the sources you have used for similar negative comments elsewhere, the sources are not reliable enough for the purpose, and the comments would have been inappropriate anywhere on WP. Even had they been sourced to the most reliable sources for the subject, my talk page would not have been a proper place to put them.

In view of your apparent very strong views about the individual, your opinions on the subject may be correct or not, but I see no point in trying to refute them. In the absence of reliable published evidence, I don't even see how I could fairly discuss them. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I am honestly grateful, and I hope that I can better report the situation without again incurring your wrath (as my previous comment was deleted, this is quite difficult to gauge). Your point regarding reliable published evidence is certainly central to the case. In short, there is no mainstream scientific journal who would be prepared to publish a refutation of the offending material, simply because the latter fails on so many levels, it should never have been published in the first place. The question of whether it has been formally published at all is also central, and I hope that you will read the following, and ask for further information as required. To state my intention up front, I would like that personal page brought into line with Wikipedia rules. For this, I understand that it cannot have been composed by the subject using sock puppet accounts, nor that it can contain any unreliable sources of information. As I am solely stating observations from the official Wikipedia record here, I must assume that I will not be further penalised. I was unaware that anyone was in any doubt as to the sock puppet usage that has been documented on [sock puppetry page]. I am surprised to find this is now archived, which I assume constitutes a closed case. This is the same regret I feel to see the removal of the deletion flag from the personal page, because, from the deletion committee discussion, the use of sock puppets by this person, nor the unreliable sources of information, were not considered during debate. The sequence of events that I understand to contravene Wikipedia rules, are that, the page was [by that person], using their main sock puppet account. Achievements added were all made by the same, or other sock puppet accounts by the same person: in total (n=278), the vast majority of edits (68%) have been made by the same person, either using one of several sock puppet accounts, or anonymously from their place of work (28% of same). Other edits have been contributed by, yourself (DGG 3%), myself (jfderry 4%), a few bots (5%), and 29 other human editors (20%). Here, I will take the liberty of adding a little further detail regarding reliable sources of information: achievements added via the sock puppet accounts include the claim of myth-busting which is only published as blog posts. Achievements added via the sock puppet accounts include the claims made regarding Patrick Matthew, which has not been peer reviewed, only copyedited, and is self-published in its current form. Lastly, both the mythbusting claims and the Patrick Matthew claims have been shown comprehensively wrong, mostly involving mistakes too simple to interest journal editors, therefore the rebuttals are also published via blog posts. Any subsequent coverage of either myth-busting or Patrick Matthew has been in error, and significantly for Wikipedia rules, in tabloid media. Thank you for your patience. I appreciate that the description above may not sway you in your judgement, however I feel it my duty to at least notify you that by escaping deletion, and being tidied to seem sincere, the page continues to publicise false claims and spread misinformation, thereby providing leverage, and aiding its subject to do same. Unrelated, from an impartial stance, I accord with the attitude to [kindness to BLP] subjects, but before you do in this case, know that the feeling is not mutual, and continues in that vein (see Supermythbuster). Jfderry (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have some very strong feelings about a number of things, and a few of them are in my opinion not covered fairly in WP. I deal with this by not editing in those areas, or if I do, making either a small factual correction, or an occasional comment that perhaps there's a problem with NPOV, or at most reopening a discussion once every year or do. I don't try to argue about it, no matter how perverse the article is or how unreasonable and stupid my opponents are. This is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Trying to do that here will lead only to frustration Just as you say, if people want to fight, they can--and do--take it elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to your self-control DGG; I admire your being able to leave things alone after a point. I see from your Talk Page that this has stood you well for a long time, and you have been able to continue your important role, in the face of adversity at times. Keep up the good work. I am not so good at moderating my actions regarding clear contraventions that go beyond opinion. "He that may not be named" has contravened WP rules, academic rules, social media rules, etc., but continues unopposed because he gets challengers removed, he hides behind his university's skirts "academic freedoms", social skirts "freedom of speech", and even his family's skirts (literally, presenting them as a human shield). All this would be fine and ignorable, even his abuse of fellow academics (please do take a look at his comments on my colleague's anaylsis) who have shown him to be in error if what he is doing on the back of it were banal. It is not. It is fraudulent. That is not an opinion. Yet I am unable to persuade many others of the seriousness of these consequences (they are real and impacting the primary literature, the public perception of science, the local history records in Perthshire-Scotland, and various otherwise). There is no opinion there. There are thousands of pages of examples of his mistakes, spread across four websites (mrsuttonntu, historiesofecology, patrickmatthewproject, and wallacefund), but they are admittedly blogs, albeit written by recognised expert scholars within the field (apologies for lack of modesty), so lack credence. The irony here is that we are challenging claims made in journals and books that were not peer-reviewed, but are treated as such, yet we are unable to get our message across, despite decades of expertise between us, evidenced by our many items of peer-reviewed literature. So, we will continue to request that his mistaken claims are removed wherever they appear. As before, this is troublesome because the mistakes are of such a simple kind, that they do not warrant the journal space to express them. Is it therefore possible to please request that at least these references are removed from his WP page? Because, they were irrelevant to the decision not to delete the page, which was taken on the basis of his citations in earlier work in criminology. Ergo, the material about which I am concerned does not relate to any WP:NOTE; also, of significance, these references they are not peer-reviewed, yet used to support the text referring to his claims (references 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31) - that text (sections on Mythbusting and Patrick_Matthew_and_natural_selection) will also need to be excised, as neither has any valid references in support (of note, The Internet Journal of Criminology is edited by himself, and not tenable as an independent source). Lastly, while I'm trying to improve WP, and therefore one of the primary sources of information available to the public, "he that...", etc., continues to deride you, ironically, for previously removing some of the claims that he inserted under a sock puppet account, "On Wikipedia Begging Letters:. In my opinion, following research, the FBI @FBIWFO should investigate Wikipedia for fraud. Their pages are not "independent". Instead, controlled by astroturfing fake grassroots) Unwelcome proven fact deleting agenda editors:". Now, that's an opinion. Best wishes, --Jfderry (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]