User talk:DeFacto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Pursuant to the community discussion here you are banned from editing by the Wikipedia community. Logged at the Wikipedia:List of banned users page here, effective immediately. This can be appealed to the community or to Arbcom after a reasonable interval, usually a minimum of six months. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Block removal request

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

DeFacto (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

To remove an indefinite block that was very clearly imposed in error and without reasonable justification, albeit in good faith.

I have made the mistake of assuming that those with the powers to block, and to unblock, would be obliged to read all the evidence, and if they do not, would admit it and give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, rather than to the accusers. I did not believe that this miscarriage of Wiki justice would go uncorrected for this long. However, rather than being resolved, the problem has got worse and more entrenched. Now it is time to correct those mistakes. Perhaps I should have been more resolute, and less willing to accept any of the responsibility for the unseemly sequence of events that occurred as a result of a couple of misrepresentations and false accusations about my motives and my edits, but here we are; somewhere that we should not be.

What led to this situation was that I got in the way of the actions of one (possibly two) bad-faith, campaigning editors; editors who, in at least one case, are demonstrably and without doubt (evidence is available in various external forums), pursuing the agenda of an external, single-issue national pressure group which they are (or until very recently were) an active campaigning member of (more about that later). I was attempting to keep the article neutral by preserving the notable, due-weight, verifiable content, but, combined with the good-faith (but ill-considered) support given by two or three other respected editors who had followed the campaigner to the Metrication in the United Kingdom article from another dispute in which I, and then they, were involved at the Hindhead Tunnel article, but were obviously unaware of the relationship with the external pressure-group, and the naive unquestioning, but good faith, actions of one or two administrators (they took various complaints about my behaviour at face value), led to a sequence of administrator mistakes, which snowballed out of control, and which have now resulted in me receiving this indefinite block.

I am now appealing for these wrongs to be corrected, and for my block to be lifted and for my record to be cleared.

It all started when I received a 31-hour block, handed-out by User:Toddst1 at 2012-03-11T21:53:01, for alleged "Edit warring" over the Metrication in the United Kingdom article. There was no justification offered and no clarification or explanation of the rationale for that or why I was singled-out for such action. Every change I made to the article, one which I have been involved with for several months, thing was reasoned, reliably supported and fully commented and could not be characterised as warring. In this recent case it was the simple restoration of the long-standing content, which had been included following a lengthy dispute mediation exercise late last year, and which had recently been removed by an apparent sock-puppet account (User:Jillipede) created specifically to do that job. But the newly found allies of the campaigner obviously convinced the administrator otherwise. Evidence of wrongdoing should surely be incontrovertible before such a block is enacted. I did however manage to get that block lifted by "undertaking not to continue edit warring!

But then came the even more incredible indefinite block by User:HJ Mitchell at 2012-03-13T17:49:17 for "tendentious editing surrounding Metrication in the United Kingdom including edit-warring, refusal to accept consensus, and wild accusations" - a result of wild accusations taken at face value and acted upon without due attention to their accuracy, in my opinion. With no evidence cited and with no possibility available to ask for an explanation or to seek clarification. This was after the newly-formed coalition of editors, most of whom had never contributed to the Metrication in the UK article before, had conspired with the campaigner to have my actions discredited, and had made misleading and tendentious accusations around my motives. The administrator was obviously, unfortunately, swayed by the weight of numbers rather than by the quality of the argument.

Then came the most bizarre and unfounded accusations of all - that of sock-puppeteering! I use a large (possibly one of the largest) public 3G network providers and get allocated a dynamic IP address from one of their many ranges of IP addresses each time I connect. This IP address is random, and from a large available range, and of the times I've checked them, they have invariably been used previously as anon IP addresses to edit Wiki by a variety of different users, so I guess the chances are that they are used by other registered users too (it'd be remarkable if they weren't). An IP addresses that I was allocated on one occasion had even been used (as an anon IP) by someone else to edit the talk page of the article in question here and during the period in question. I'm guessing that someone (an administrator in my opinion), in an attempt to "help" me, has created one, or more of, these "sock" accounts using the same 3G provider that I use (coincidentally as, presumably, they couldn't possibly have known which ISP I actually use) and subsequently someone investigating a sock accusation has assumed that because the user names chosen are anagrams of my user name and because they were operated from IP addresses in the range that I get allocated (from one of the biggest 3G suppliers around) that they must have been created by me! One of the user names that has been cited as one of my socks is User:FatCoed, which hasn't even been used to make any contributions - see contributions here - so how can that be said to be my "sock puppet"?

Please let's now bring this unbelievable nightmare to an end - you could hardly dream-up a more unjust scenario - and allow me to get back to editing Wikipedia as usual.
Oh, and about the campaigner I mentioned earlier... He will obviously know who he is, but without revealing his real-world identity here, I am unable to produce the evidence that supports my accusation, so I will keep that under my hat for now, and wait to see how things turn out, before deciding where to take that next. -- de Facto (talk). 08:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Individual administrators are extremely unlikely to unilaterally remove a community-endorsed block, especially considering your attempts to hide the evidence which resulted in your talk page access being revoked. As a result, consider yourself de-facto sitebanned. If you ever want to be unblocked, you will need community consensus or to appeal to BASC. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Note to reviewing admins

HJMitchell asked for and received a review of this block on ANI on 13 March 2012. Toddst1 (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

... and there was subsequently an unblock appeal via UTRS on 27 March. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note concerning email

Emailing me isn't going to help. After the checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets and resulting community discussion here, I doubt any admin will unblock you. Of course, if one does, you would not be de-facto banned. As I mentioned, really the only way out of the block is an appeal on AN (submitted in the same manner as your first request), a direct appeal to BASC, or, technically, User:Jimbo Wales. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


Please stop emailing me. If you persist, you will lose the ability to send email to editors through Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done [1] Toddst1 (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fastest production cars

Category:Fastest production cars, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Vossanova o< 18:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification of an action implicating you

Hello DeFacto,

I thought it only fair to let you know that an action has been started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto which is basically claiming, even asserting, that four other accounts (User:Curatrice, User:MeasureIT, User:Eff Won and User:Lucy-marie) are currently being used by you.

If anyone else is watching this and can advise how best to defend ourselves against this action, then please respond, either here or on our respective talkpages (User talk:Curatrice, User talk:MeasureIT, User talk:Eff Won and User talk:Lucy-marie). Thank you.

Ciao, Curatrice (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to keep you up to date. There is guidance here: "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims" to help with a defence against the claim, if you are planning to do that. MeasureIT (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)