Perhaps you should turn his own argument back on him.

Maybe he's a paid heckler, funded by the iCorporation in iCupertino, or the MSCorporation in MSRedmond, to cast fear, uncertainty and doubt about any platform, gadget, or operating system that potentially threatens the monopoly he's working for...

He tried posting a security section on the iPhone page but got shot down there as well for being out-of-date.

As long as his coding ability is at least as inconsistent and syntactically incorrect as his English writing style, we won't have to worry about him authoring any of the potential virus or security hacks on the NIT, in any case.

Meanwhile/Umptious is absolutely the most difficult sort of editor/conversant IMO. He relies heavily on logical fallacies while completely failing to recognize he is doing so-- and simultaneously implying or even overtly claiming that others are doing so.

I'm not saying this to be mean to meanwhile... if he is completely sincere in his efforts, then I suspect he may truly be unaware of his recent disingenuity and that's unfortunate. The reason I am butting in with this is to get people to realize that their expectations of productive dialog with him at this point may be in all probability unreasonable. He either will not or cannot see his fatal errors in logic. Trying to convince him of his being at odds with reason is an exercise in futility at best. He is dug in and determined to defend his position.

Regrettably, pointing his actions out to editors and/or admins may be the only recourse it appears. Regardless, no one should be able to use Wikipedia as a platform for hatemongering, ad hominem attacks, misrepresentation of facts or spread of FUD. Period. That's not what it's for.

EDIT: I realized I was being ironically condescending and removed/changed some verbiage. I apologize to anyone offended, especially meanwhile. I don't really hold any ill will toward the guy, and really wish he'd step back a bit and realize he's going a bit overboard. He certainly seems intelligent and passionate enough... just a bit misguided.

All I can do is keep plugging away. Maybe admins will intervene eventually.

Yes, but reasoned dialog, even if it doesn't actually help, is an important part of the process, and skipping out on it before the requested cavalry arrive makes one look churlish and/or easily discouraged not possessed of infinite patience.

Spectating can be fun, though; watch the incredible resilience of someone who can be *****x-slapped with logic and sense indefinitely, and still...

The bite-covered wiki troll rises from the dead.

I agree Benson, I'm just suggesting that the reasonable effort be made up to a point and then shifted to an alternative when it's patently obvious the instigator has no interest in listening. Of course, I'm guilty of violating my own advice on a regular basis so just ignore me.

Quick Edit: and maybe it's best to take a more objective approach and not even respond to the instigator-- but rather, to his work.

It is only true if the patient is holding his finger on the Red Button or preparing to jump off the roof. The first is unlikely, and the second seems almost desirable in this case, so there is no point in continuing to treat him as a reasonable human being.

As you can see I'm clearly laying out what I am going to do and why in the talk pages. If he can't source his assertions I will continue to remove them. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for un-sourced allegations.

If he follows his usual pattern he will show back up in a week and crap all over the pages again.

Agreed. You're doing well.