User talk:DeFacto/Archive 2012-2014
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
C3 Picasso
Thanks for noticing and correcting my mistake, show a little caution though as i'm still editing the page. Thanks for taking an interest in the article though, it definitely needs more contributors! Jenova20 11:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Have you read the template documentation at Template:Infobox automobile - it describes what to do for some of the cases. And,... don't forget to reference each value you add so that readers can verify them for themselves too. -- de Facto (talk). 15:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome! 
-- de Facto (talk). 20:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Previous names field
I really think the stanard constructor name needs to be used in this field if we're going to have it at all. Take Mercedes GP. According to that infobox, the current full team name is Mercedes AMG Petronas Formula One Team. Therefore the team's most recent previous name is surely Mercedes GP Petronas Formula One Team, as per the first line of the article? But doing that would defy the logic of having it in the infobox - I'm guessing the point is to offer a link to the team's previous article. Therefore Mercedes should link to Brawn, Marussia should link to Virgin, Caterham to Lotus and Lotus to Renault. As with everything, I'm sure you'll find a way to disagree with me. - mspete93 21:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I added that field to the template to allow navigation between chains of articles which were, essentially, documenting the life of the same physical team through various ownership changes, yes. If the team name changes during the life of the article, then the "Long_name" field should be used with a "<br>" to hold the various names - as in the Renault F1 article. That can be done in the Mercedes article too. If you are saying though that the articles should be framed as 'constructor' rather than 'team' articles, then I would agree with what you are saying. I'd expect the names to be something like: "Renault (F1 constructor)", "Lotus (F1 constructor)", "Caterham (F1 constructor)", etc. if that were the case though, to emphasise that meaning, and for the evolution of team names and ownership details per 'constructor' name to be documented properly (not just the latest one dominating and displacing previous ones as at present) within the article, and for the articles to be free of other clutter related to just one of the owners during that era (c.f. the current clutter in the Renault F1 article unrelated to the period when, although the constructor name was "Renault", Renault cars were uninvolved and the team's majority owner was Genii supported by Lotus). -- de Facto (talk). 22:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think we might be on to a winner with this one.
It could solve many of the current naming problems and confusion, and set a consistent methodology that all could understand. The articles would be 'constructor' name-centric (named something like I allude to above) and each starting something like: "Renault was a Formula One constructor name used by... [team names and dates]...". The infobox would need to be redesigned slightly. Perhaps we should discuss it at the project talk page. I've got to be elsewhere right now, so can't start that until later, but feel free to do so yourself if you can see any merit in it. -- de Facto (talk). 22:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, that wasn't entirely what I was aiming at! Our articles are about the constructors, and it is what I call the basic constructor name that is used where-ever it is possible (e.g. McLaren, Sauber, Force India). However, with most F1 teams being named after their parent company there is a need for disambiguation. This is why things like 'F1' or 'Racing' are used. I think I may have suggested Renault (F1 constructor) as an option when the car company left, because the article covers the F1 team known as Renault regardless of whether Renault cars were involved or not. But it was agreed that brackets should be avoided where possible and 'F1' works just fine. As a side note, Renault in Formula One wouldn't necessarily have to refer to the car company, in the same way that a Lotus in Formula One article would presumably include 2011's Team Lotus.
- The teams are almost always referred to elsewhere simply by their constructor names (e.g. as in Template:Formula One constructors). Whether it's on Formula1.com, Autosport.com or on the TV graphics, they always simply refer to them as 'Lotus' or 'Renault' or 'Ferrari'. Because it is clear that F1 is being talked about, there is no need to say 'Lotus F1', 'Renault F1' or 'Scuderia Ferrari'. Most reliable sources called 'Lotus Renault GP' just 'Renault' in 2011. And that's what I was aiming for in my original suggestion - there's no need to use the full team name in that infobox. The predecessor to 'Marussia' was 'Virgin'. The predecessor to 'Caterham' was 'Lotus'. The predecessor to 'Lotus' was 'Renault'. The predecessor to 'Mercedes' was 'Brawn'. The predecessor to 'Red Bull' was 'Jaguar'. I appreciate with the Lotus teams there might be an issue here - but if you insist we can use disambiguators simply where it is necessary to distinguish between two or more different F1 teams with the same constructor name. - mspete93 23:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm even more confused now.
Should the articles be constructor-centric or team-centric? For the straightforward cases (e.g. McLaren and Ferarri) it probably doesn't make any difference; but for cases such as Marussia and Caterham it does, and for the really complex ones like Renault the distinction is essential. An article on the 'constructor' "Renault" could document and explain the different teams involved, and the name and ownership changes to the Enstone team without any question about changing the article name or the leading sentence content ("Renault was an F1 constructor..." will still hold true regardless of team ownership or team name). However, an article about the "Renault F1" team is frought with problems (as we've seen). The team name has changed several times, but the article name has not. The team has changed ownership, but the article cannot adequately reflect this. We need the distinction between team and constructor to be very clear, and I now think that constructor-centric articles are the answer. "Renault in F1" type articles could supplement these, referring to the constructor articles for the nitty-gritty details. The "Renault in F1" article could describe Renault's ownership of the Enstone team and the fact that its constructor name remained as 'Renault' long after Renault withdrew from the team. The "Lotus in F1" article could mention the Lotus use of the 'Renault' constructor name and of the later renaming of that to 'Lotus'. The 'Lotus' constructor article could continue where the 'Renault' constructor article leaves off with the Enstone team's history. We could even imagine a "The Enstone F1 team" type of article, charting the team's evolution and ownership and constructor name changes, referring to the appropriate constructor articles where appropriate. Win-win? -- de Facto (talk). 12:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion has gone away from the infoboxes and onto a more general problem that people are trying to address at the WikiProject, regarding whether we have one article for both Renault/Mercedes/Honda teams or seperate ones. There's no point just us two discussing what we want. I don't really have a particular preference that I'm going to heavily defend. I just want a consistent solution rather than the undiscussed mish-mash that has emerged recently. Oh, and I am genuinely sorry for wrongly pointing you out before. - mspete93 23:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm even more confused now.
Hindhead Tunnel
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Hindhead Tunnel". Thank you. --Mixsynth (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
On team article names
Just a heads up, I finally got around to replying on the discussion. Sorry for the delay, but I've been rather busy in recent days and didn't notice your reply! Anyway I do have a few questions on your proposal, as I am confused on some of the points. Thanks :) QueenCake (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
January 2012
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
How many more times are you going to split my comments, even when I 'explicitly state that they are not to be split? Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. Placing a comment between two separate, signed, contributions isn't "editing" (or "deleting") a comment. The normal way talk pages work is to add comments after sig lines, as I did. If you want your comments to stay together, then include them all above the same sig line. I hadn't even seen your second edit when I replied to your first (note my "(ec)" remark) - you hadn't added it when I started my response. Please stick to the issues being discussed rather than looking for reasons to criticise my behaviour. -- de Facto (talk). 20:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you had an edit conflict, why didn't you look to see why? And once having read my comment that I didn't want my comment split, why did you leave it split? I've had my say over there, if you want to turn the whole thing into a joke, be my guest. If the others want to let you, that's their look-out. But I would urge you, don't go half-hearted at it - go ahead and merge articles, don't hold back. Really go for it, why not? It's your encyclopedia after all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- The edit that I was replying to hadn't changed, something had been added after it, which I didn't read as it wasn't relevent in the context, so I went ahead. I didn't read your new comment until after you'd unreasonably complained about my addition. Let's stick to the issues, eh? -- de Facto (talk). 20:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Lotus
Look, I'm going to be absolutely - and maybe a little brutally - honest with you here. I think that you might want to back down on editing some of the articles related to Lotus F1 and the team based at Enstone. Now, I want you to understand that I'm not accusing you of anything here, but I do have to agree with some of the other editors who have noticed something of a POV push on a lot of the articles about the Lotus teams. To cite a particular example, your recent restoration of your edits to the Lotus E20 page. On the talk page, you directed editors to a discussion at WP:F1. Having read through that discussion, I've noticed a lot of comments that agree that a full account of the naming of the chassis is not necessary, and yet you still restored those edits. I don't think you have any stake in Enstone, or anything like that. I don't think you're even doing this consciously, if you're doing anything at all. But I do think you are a little close to this, and given that it is such a complex issue among the editors, I think what we really need is to leave the pages as they are for now and just take a bit of a break from it, refresh ourselves, and come back to it later. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- So you are not accusing me of anything, but have "noticed something of a POV push". Who then are you accusing of pushing the POV? And what do you mmean by the phrase: "But I do think you are a little close to this,"? -- de Facto (talk). 08:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
- There is no one person that I can single out as being responsible. It's groupthink. Because of the complexity of the issue involved, and out collective desire to cover the differences between the teams as clearly and as accurately as we can, we have all gradually pushed a POV across.
- As for my other statement, you are clearly entrenched in the Lotus issue. And that's okay, because we need people who understand the issue to be able to make sense of it. But I think you're in a little too deep. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Lotus E20". Thank you. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Marussia and Virgin
I have reverted your edits to the 2012 Formula One season page, where you stated the following:
- Marussia had a controlling stake - that became the official team name - read the article. Virgin was by then only the "constructor" name
You are correct in saying this. However, the section you are editing specifically refers to changes in constructor names. Regardless of Marussia's actual stake in the team, the team itself was formally recognised as "Virgin" by the FIA. Marussia were little more than sponsors in 2011 (despite their investment), and so listing the team as "Marussia Virgin Racing" would be in appropriate for the section, simply because the team was never known by the constructor name "Marussia Virgin".
Likewise Lotus and Renault. The team was recognised by the FIA as Renault, not Lotus Renault GP. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- That the section I edited "specifically refers to changes in constructor names" is not at all clear in the article, but I'll discuss it at the article's talkpage, not here. -- de Facto (talk). 07:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm beginning to think that you don't actually understand the changes that you make. We are talking about changes to the constructor names, not to the team names. Any change to the team name is inconsequential. Your changes imply that team and constructor names are the same thing when they are not. If you don't know what you are talking about, don't make edits to that section of the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean it is not verifaiable? If is a document taken from the FIA website, just as your press release was. If you cannot understand the wording of the document, how are you in any position to judge whether or not it is acceptable? This reference is used on other pages, where it is considered an acceptable reference. But please, allow me to explain it to you. I take it that this is the section you are having trouble with:
- Article 6.3: The constructor of an engine or chassis is the person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) which owns the intellectual rights to such engine or chassis. The make of an engine or chassis is the name attributed to it by its constructor. If the make of the chassis is not the same as that of the engine, the title will be awarded to the former which shall always precede the latter in the name of the car.
- Which can be re-written as this:
- The constructor of an engine or of a chassis is the person who owns that engine or chassis. The make is the name given to it (engine or chassis) by the constructor. If the chassis and the engine do not have the same name (for example, the Red Bull RB8 uses Renault engines), then the title (and therefore, all results achieved) will be awarded to the constructor of the chassis. The name of the chassis will always be listed before the name of the engine it uses.
- Does this clear things up? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean it is not verifaiable? If is a document taken from the FIA website, just as your press release was. If you cannot understand the wording of the document, how are you in any position to judge whether or not it is acceptable? This reference is used on other pages, where it is considered an acceptable reference. But please, allow me to explain it to you. I take it that this is the section you are having trouble with:
3RR
I'm well aware of the three-revert rule, thank you. But if it does attract the attention of "someone less tolerant than you", all I have to do is explain that the reversions were in good faith because they were restoring the original content to the article - and they were restoring the original content to the article because the content I removed was unclear, confusing and was being made by someone who did not fully understand the subject, and so was in no position to make the changes in the first place. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- 3RR is absolute - those excuses wouldn't wash. You'd probably risk a disruption action in addition to the customary 3rr block! -- de Facto (talk). 06:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, you would be in violation of 3RR first. Your first edit today changed content that you had previously changed. Although you never specifically used the "undo" function to make these changes, you clearly edited the article to reflect a previous change. Therefore, you reverted it. So I can't violate 3RR without you violating it first. In fact, you already have - you made three edits to the page in the past twenty-four hours (at 07:14, 22:42 and 22:56), all of which restored content that had been edited out. But I'm not going to report you - I just want you to be aware that you're in violation. I'd recommend waiting for consensus on the talk page before you make any more changes to the page. Like I said, you've confused the issue by introducing the term "chassis name" when it had not previously been used in the article. Also, you have made it plain that you do not understand the wording of the sporting regulations in an official FIA document. This, to me, indicates that you are in no position to pass judgement on the subject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- As I said, 3rr is absolute. No-one is immune. I'm sure your goal is the the same as mine, to improve the content of the articles, although it's hard somtimes to realsie that we are (presumably) on the same side on this. I've opened a terminology discussion at WP:F1, to hopefully help clarify how we use all the various terms - please participate. -- de Facto (talk). 08:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You are treating edits in your favour as some kind of victory. This is an entirely inappropriate way to go about editing Wikipedia. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean "edits in your favour"? Please explain. -- de Facto (talk). 20:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I mean seeing edits made to the page that are in line with what you think is best for the article, rather than what someone else believes is best. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Brawn
This:
Brawn GP Formula One Team, the trading name of Brawn GP Limited, was a Formula One motor racing team and constructor, created by a management buyout of Honda Racing F1 Team.
This says that this team was a F1 team that happened to be created by a management buyout of Honda.
This:
Brawn GP Formula One Team, the trading name of Brawn GP Limited, was the Formula One motor racing team and constructor, created by a management buyout of Honda Racing F1 Team.
This says that Brawn was the only F1 team in existence, which happened to be created by a management buyout of Honda. Where grammar is correct, do not change it to something that means something entirely different, for no obvious reason at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Bretonbanquet, sorry - I agree with you after reading it properly. The point I was clumsily attempting to clarify is that a new team hasn't been created, an existing team has been renamed. -- de Facto (talk). 21:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- No problem - we got there in the end. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
E20 RRH
I have re-written the Lotus E20 page. I have found a reference that confirms Lotus developed the RRH for use in 2012, and it directly quotes Eric Boullier saying he is disappointed by the ban that was introduced once they intended to use it. This is now completely verifiable. I would advise that you do not remove this from the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hindhead Tunnel RfC outcome
I hear that you think those who oppose your interpretation of WP:UNITS do not understand it but remember that the MOS is a guideline based on editorial practice and consensus, not a rulebook. I appreciate that you have taken a strong position and presented it well but your views have not gained support. I respect your desire for clarity and correctness and hope those sensibilities enable you to see the "correctness" of the consensus result as a product of our community process. Jojalozzo 16:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that some gave too much weight to what they believed was the "official" unit in the contexts and not enough attention to establishing what was the "common-use" unit in the contexts. The wording of a particular relevent portion of WP:UNITS doesn't help, as many seem to have misinterpretted "including" to mean "exclusively". See my other comments at Talk:Hindhead Tunnel too. -- de Facto (talk). 07:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Introduction to the metric system & 3RR
Please undo your last change. Louis XVI signed the order in 1791, so your change is not only incorrect, but it transgresses the 3RR. Martinvl (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- We can discuss the dates on the article's talkpage. -- de Facto (talk). 15:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Martinvl, I just spotted your 3RR comment above, I missed it yesterday. Please explain your totting-up process to arrive at that conclusion - I can't see it myself. However, the article seems to have reached a stable condition just now, there have been no changes to it in more than 24 hours, and there are no further comments on its talkpage, so I don't see any reason to make any further changes for the time being. -- de Facto (talk). 15:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Metrication in the United Kingdom: Banners added in bad faith
Remove the banners that you put into this article. I believe that they were placed there in bad faith. If this is not done soon, I will report you to the ANI and given your recent bahaviour you will almost certainly get you a ban. Martinvl (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have responded to this unfounded intimidatory ultimatum and threat on the poster's talkpage. -- de Facto (talk). 11:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
March 2012
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Metrication in the United Kingdom. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Charles (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I declined the g10
I see that you and Martinvl aren't getting along. I haven't studied the issue closely enough to determine whether one or both are at fault, but I reviewed User:Martinvl/MitUK and disagreed that it should be deleted as a g10. I urge you to consider Wikiquette assistance to address the general issues, and wp:MFD if you would like to prose that the page be deleted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello DeFacto, I have left a comment on [Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom]] in an attempt to keep this dispute from escalating further. Hopefully, it will assist in resolving this issue. I have also hatted the thread between you and HiLo48, as it doesn't have anything to do with the article in question. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
DeFacto (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There are two sides to the dispute in question, no consensus had been achieved yet the other side removed the paragraph in question - all I did was restore it pending a consensus being achieved. I was actively attempting to reach a negotiated consensus on the talk page - check the history. An administrator was helping and had put a message on WP:ANI to seek further advice - but, after 27+ hours, none had arrived. The the other side in the dispute out numbered me by 5:1, so were able to use brute force tactics. Any war has two sides, why has one side been blocked and the other left free? Why is restoring content which was removed without consensus more serious than removing content despite it being the subject of an ongoing dispute? Please reconsider this block in light of the evidence on the article's talk page, I think an editor passionate to create a neutral article, such as I, striving to achieve a negotiated consensus for how to deal with a controversial and obviously divisive issue, should be rewarded, not punished. Check my record: DeFacto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thank you.
Decline reason:
That doesn't matter. You were engaged in an edit war, and you were not correcting vandalism, but rather a content dispute. The purpose of 3RR is to stop these edit wars from happening. All you need to do to get unblocked is agree to stop the reverting and gain consensus for your position on the talk page -- which is what you should have done the first, or at least the second, time you were reverted. I said that to you last time you were blocked for edit warring three and a half years ago... --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:53, 11 March 2012 (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.
5:1 sounds like a rather strong consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
DeFacto (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Fair enough. I agree to stop the reverting.
Accept reason:
I am prepared to unblock on the basis that you have undertaken not to continue the edit warring that led to the block. However, you may be blocked again without further warning if you resume any sort of disruptive editing in connection with this case. Amongst other things, you need to realise two points: (1) "Consensus" does not mean "consensus which you consider reasonable", and you must accept consensus even if you think it is unreasonable. (2) The fact that discussion is still proceeding does not mean that in the meanwhile you can impose your version until you think the discussion is over. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Rejection of consensus
Your insistence that you and only you are correct with respect to discussions related to Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom has already gotten you blocked once, and is about > < this close to getting you blocked for disruptive editing, specifically persisting in your rejection of community consensus.
I've closed the discussion on the article's talk page as well as Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. The discussion is over. Please allow the drama to be over too. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- You misrepresent my position. I was questioning whether a consensus (in WP:Consensus terms) had been achieved. I believed that it had not, as the full process available had not been completed. That is all. The hatch battening reaction triggered has left me perplexed. It seems that some are afraid of what could be unleashed! I will continue to ponder. -- de Facto (talk). 08:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- As you know, I accepted your unblock request. However, I did so with some misgivings. You had undertaken to stop the edit warring which was the immediate cause of the block, but the edit warring was not the whole problem, and so I took the trouble to explain to you that other disruptive editing in this case would be unacceptable too. Unfortunately, you have not taken that message on board. You have persisted with your endless insisting that you are right, and attempting to push your own view through in the face of clear consensus against you. No matter who tries to explain things to you, whether in the article talk page, in user talk pages, or wherever, you persist with a I didn't hear that approach. Even so, it must by now be abundantly clear to you that there is a strong consensus that what you are doing is unhelpful. I strongly suggest that you leave the article that you have been battling over, and find other work to do. There are over three million articles on English Wikipedia, and instead of spending your time in flogging a dead horse over an article where you are clearly not going to get your way, you could use the same amount of time making uncontroversial improvements to dozens of other articles. There is no "witch hunt" or conspiracy, and nobody is "afraid of what could be unleashed". There are simply several editors who are tired of wasting their time over an issue which is settled except for one user who stubbornly insist that he alone is right. As you know, there is a discussion as to whether you should be banned from this topic. However, whatever may be the outcome of that discussion you will be blocked again, quite likely for a longer period, if you continue to edit in the same disruptive way that you have been doing. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Fish
Jenova20 has given you a goldfish! Goldfish promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day much better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a goldfish, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Give someone a goldfish by adding {{subst:Goldfish}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed.
Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended
I have blocked you for tendentious editing at and surrounding the article Metrication in the United Kingdom. This has included edit-warring and using that article as a battleground, accusing another editor of canvassing (while dismissing his attempts at neutrality as notifying "token editors"), and repeated refusal to listen to anybody who disagrees with you. the block is indefinite, and may be lifted by any administrator without further reference to me if you can satisfy them that you are ready to participate in this project in a manner which benefits the encyclopaedia—that includes accepting consensus, accepting that others can disagree with you legitimately, and accepting that your interpretation of policy is not the interpretation of policy. It is is not my intention for this block to be permanent, merely long enough to prevent you from continuing the disruption of that article and ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've just noticed that you also accuse me of making "wild accusations", about what you don't make clear. Now that I'm blocked, are other editors allowed free-rein to make false and outrageos accusations and allegations about me? -- de Facto (talk). 21:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
And there you have it
- Wikipedia editor: 27 November 2005 - 13 March 2012
- Articles created: 138
- Total edits: 11,165
- A passionate eliminator of:
- original research
- pushed POV
- bias in articles
- Yet another victim of what I believe was unaccountable administrator arrogance and shameless abuse of power, and which appears to be endemic
-- de Facto (talk). 18:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that you're a victim of arrogance, all right, but not that of administrators. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is exactly what you were doing on the F1 articles and on the various talk pages. You were bound to be blocked eventually - an absolute certainty. Your persistent and virulent refusal to accept consensus, even where it is blindingly obvious, will always mean you create frustration and ill-will wherever you go. If you are unblocked at some point, you really need to realise when you have lost an argument and just live with it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I hope you will accept some responsibility here, perhaps after a getting away for a bit. Unless you can find some merit in this outcome, this will likely be a long block. Jojalozzo 19:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, I accept none. The block was, I believe, the result of my daring to report another administrator who I believed was taking advantage of his position, and by abusing the WP:ANI process was likely to pervert the course of Wiki justice. I was given no opportunity at all to respond to the block action. The process is unbelievably kangaroo court-like. -- de Facto (talk). 22:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- For as long as you refuse to accept any responsibility and accuse a number of admins of bias and corruption (here, I believe lies the answer to your question about "wild accusations"), you have not a scrap of a chance of being unblocked. My advice is to be a bit more humble, accept your shortcomings, and work towards an unblock. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Bretonbanquet, thanks for your concern, but I'm saying it as I see it. The system is inadequate and fosters, rather than discourages abuse amongst the administrators. I've seen them at work like that elsewhere in the project. If I remain blocked, that will, I believe, show the admin system for what it is. It has all the finesse and checks and balances of a fascist leader who can throw a political dissident into jail indefinitely - with no accountability and no comeback. They can stifle dissent (as they did in my case) and they can watch the backs of each other. -- de Facto (talk). 22:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you aren't going to use this talkpage to request an unblock, I will remove your access to it. I'd also suggest you get a sense of perspective and drop the "FASCISTS!!" attitude; read the article on the Karen National Union and read about some actual repression (I'm not trying to patronize you, I do this a lot myself when I get frustrated; I find it very helpful). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Blade, I didn't know I could use this talk page to request an unblock; how do I do that then, there were no details in the block message? Is there a time limit?
- As for the 'fascism' thing, I was comparing the absolutist, authoritarian and despot-like powers that the administrators here seem to enjoy and wield with those that fascist leaders have. Admins can close ANIs which might put them in a bad light, they get to select their own 'jury' if they raise an ANI against you and they want to ensure a conviction, they get their co-admins to defend them if an ANI is raised against them, and then can block you if you complain about it! -- de Facto (talk). 07:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you try to edit another page, you should see MediaWiki:Blockedtext, which links to the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. MBisanz talk 07:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, I don't see that, what I see is:
- You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
- No, I don't see that, what I see is:
- Your username or IP address has been blocked.
- The block was made by HJ Mitchell. The reason given is tendentious editing surrounding Metrication in the United Kingdom including edit-warring, refusal to accept consensus, and wild accusations.
- Start of block: 2012-03-13T17:49:16
- Expiry of block: infinite
- Intended blockee: DeFacto
- You can contact HJ Mitchell or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the 'e-mail this user' feature unless a valid e-mail address is specified in your account preferences and you have not been blocked from using it.
- But, of course, I can't contact any of those because of the block. Thanks though for the "Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks" link. It looks as if, following the unsupported irrational whim of an administrator, one who didn't know anything about my history or the history of the recent disputes, or of the disgraceful actions of another involved administrator (who I think was busy hiding and even obfuscating the evidence earlier on), that I'm now assumed guilty as alleged, cannot reply to the misrepresentations and even lies that have been added to the WP:AN/Is and am expected to accept all of that without question and then try to grovel my way out of it. Shocking really! -- de Facto (talk). 19:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Was this just a coincidence Toddst1, at 19:45, 14 March 2012: another twist of the knife? And why did you change the title of the WP:AN/I that I raised against your canvassing activities (diff)? -- de Facto (talk). 22:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Belated advice on how to appeal your block
You can appeal your block by using {{unlock|why you should be unblocked}} (copy the text from read mode, not the code from edit mode). Another administrator will then review your request. However, I feel compelled to point out that I am completely accountable—to the community and to the Arbitration Committee if abuse my administrator privileges, and I deliberately left the ANI thread open (re-opened it, in fact) in case anybody wanted to tell me that I had erred in blocking you. So far, nobody has felt the need. As for your "fascist" comments, if I were acting in an "absolutist, authoritarian and despot-like" manner, there would be a queue of people screaming blue murder at ANI. So far there are none. Administrators merely enforce policy and enact consensus. To that end, the moment you can convince an administrator that you are willing to abide by policy, or a consensus emerges that this block was improper or is no longer necessary, you will be unblocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- HJ, thanks for the info about how to appeal. I'll plough through it all and see if there's an avenue that will accommodate this type of case.
- Your action was unilateral and on a whim. You gave me no opportunity to question your decision - it was a fait accompli. My general comments about the way some admins seem to operate wasn't directed specifically at you, but based on the limited experience I have had of admin behaviour, and particularly of one that heavily influenced the series of events that lead to your apparent knee-jerk reaction.
- It's a weird type of justice where one is tried, convicted and sentenced before the evidence has been looked at, and where a confession of guilt (and thus an implied assumption that the accusation isn't a complete disingenuous fabrication) is, apparently, a pre-requisite for even having one's case reviewed, and the onus is on the victim of perverted justice to prove innocence rather than on the accusers to support their accusation with, even some kind of rationale, let alone actually to prove guilt.
- And why has nothing been done to stop the bitter and twisted minority, part of the group who were known to be opposed to my attempts to clean-up certain OR and non-neutral POV-laden articles and who were thus called to give evidence against me, from continuing to wreak their bitter revenge (and indulging in a bit of confirmation bias perhaps) by misrepresenting my activities? -- de Facto (talk). 22:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I won't comment on the substance of your argument at 1:20 in the morning, but I will say that you could do with some toning down of the rhetoric. Concise, to-the-point writing will help your case a lot more than making vague comparisons to "justice"; we're not a court of law here. The following reference is fairly obscure, but I promise you'll get it if you listen to the song; Buried Alive is one hell of a track (but then, what Death Angel song isn't?), but the style of writing is far from ideal when you're aiming for an unblock. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Block
De Facto, it would be a great shame to lose you from Wikipedia. I won't go into a long boring speech but do what you think is right and best, that's what's important. Wikipedia needs editors with your knowledge and contribution history. Hope to see you editing again but if not, i have respect for your principals and decision. Jenova20 09:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support Jenova20, it is much appreciated. It's a pity that the canvassing administrator didn't contact you, and all the other dozens of like-mined editors that I have worked fruitfully with over the last six, or more, years, and instead went to the POV-pushers that I have challenged recently, and who he knew would only condemn me. Ho hum. -- de Facto (talk). 19:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Stiff upper lip De Facto, justice always prevails, this isn't China =P
- Jenova20 11:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
A friendly tip
One of my concerns that I have publicly expressed about you and Wikipedia, particularly with the metrication articles, is that you're always here. It meant that no matter how much other editors were forced by other things in their lives to come and go, you didn't. No matter what anybody said, there was always a reply from DeFacto, generally involving a demand that the other editor(s) go off to find more information.
Now that you're blocked, you're still here! Sure, it's only on this page, and the content is hidden, but it's obvious that you're close to becoming obsessed with the place. It must be taking a lot of time and energy to put together that history.
There is another world out there. I seriously suggest that you ignore Wikipedia for a while. Go and do something else. Give your conscious AND subconscious mind something else to work on. For various reasons I've had breaks from Wikipedia in the past, and always come back with a different, and I think healthier, perspective.
In this vein, I also strongly recommend a read of Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism#Wikipedia and not giving a fuck.
Please take this in good faith. It's meant that way. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
TPA
I have removed your "timeline", which appeared to me to be a very partial reading of events with a number of unfounded and unwarranted accusations about administrative abuse, canvassing, and possible socking--in short, soapboxing about the injustice being done to you. For now, given that you're blocked, this talk page should serve only one function: as a venue for you to place an unblock request. If no such request is forthcoming, and if you can't stop complaining about how you were treated, I will revoke your talk page access. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've restored it again because I need to analyse the history to find the events that triggered the various actions that led to the events of the last few days before I was summarily blocked. I'd put it in a sub-page if I could edit one, but I can't. As an injustice certainly was done, and as the way I was treated certainly was unreasonable, I need the space and the time to prepare a case - as a "request" is certainly forthcoming.
- Talking about "a very partial reading of events with a number of unfounded and unwarranted accusations". Are you going to do something about the administrators who dealt out the same, and that led to my blocking? Are you going to do something about the other editors who did that and who continued to do it after my block? -- de Facto (talk). 17:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed it again—completely unacceptable and full of attacks on other editors. If you put anything else like that here, I'll remove your Talk page access. I'll second Drmies' recommendation that you use this page only for innocuous purposes. --Laser brain (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Laser brain:
- How do I complain about your inflammatory threat to deny me the ability to construct and submit my block appeal?
- The evidence for an appeal against such an unjustified and spiteful block could only be nocuous to those who wish to keep this pervertion of justice quiet.
- The WP:AN/I page is "full of attacks on other editors", are you going to also threaten similar action there?
- Who "encouraged" you to attempt to stifle my attempt to trace and comprehend the sequence of events that led to the events of the last few days - one of those implicated?
- -- de Facto (talk). 19:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Laser brain:
- I'd recommend applying Healey's first law of holes. Toddst1 (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Are you serious, dude? Please take some of the common sense advice you've been given by people who seem to be interested in seeing you return to editing. Nothing you're doing now is helping you—only souring people further. This community has to accept your behavior for you to be allowed to edit. Your block is evidence that it does not. As I said, the only thing that belongs here is a reasoned unblock request that speaks to your own behavior. If you post any other accusations of corruption, injustice, canvassing, etc. or any other invective about other people's behavior, your Talk page access will be revoked. You've wasted enough of the community's time. --Laser brain (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I am deadly serious here. How do I complain about your inflammatory threat to deny me the ability to construct and submit my block appeal please? I do not accept that the block was evidence of anything other than the inadequacy of the Wiki discipline system. It was a gross miscarriage of justice. To allow it to pass into history unchallenged would indeed be a disservice to Wikipedia. -- de Facto (talk). 20:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- You could request that some charitable individual post on your behalf to WP:AN/I and ask for a review of the situation. If the consensus is that I was inflammatory here, I'll gladly apologize and disengage. However, I believe I'm acting in the best interests of the project. As for challenging your block, that's precisely what an unblock request is for. As I said, post a reasoned request that speaks to the reasons you were blocked, and someone will consider it. --Laser brain (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Request how, I can't add topics to any other talk page?
- Post a request on this talk page under a new heading, and ask someone to post it there for you. As to your other point, note that I said earlier "a reasoned unblock request that speaks to your own behavior". If you re-post that table or anything else about other people's behavior, I will remove it and revoke your Talk page access. --Laser brain (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- DeFacto, try WP:NOTTHEM. Toddst1 (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
In desperate need of help please
Due to having been blocked indefinitely, I am unable to complain about the threats by administrator User:Drmies and administrator User:Laser brain to revoke my talk page access if I construct a draft of my unblock appeal here, on my own talk page (see the "discussion" in the TPA topic above).
Is there any sympathetic editor out there, prepared to risk receiving a summary block for dissent themselves (as I did), who is prepared to raise my plight on WP:AN/I for me please?
What about you Toddst1, you seem to know your way around the ANI board? -- de Facto (talk). 21:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- DeFacto, I'd be more than willing to help, but I think you're going about this the wrong way. If you want to use this information, save it offline. Having it here gives the impression of personal attacks. They aren't threatening you, they are warning you.
- That being said, what exactly did you want to bring up at ANI? 174.252.59.29 (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi 174.252.59.29, thanks for your interest. I'd like to see User:Drmies and User:Laser brain reported for abusing their admin powers by threatening to block my access to my own talk page, which I was using for the sole purpose of drafting an unblock appeal. This appeal will necessarily contain details of the past events that I believe played a part in the run-up to the events of the last few days, and it is the inclusion of these events which they seem to object to. -- de Facto (talk). 22:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'll summarize what you said in a subthread at ANI.
- And a friendly bit of advice (please take it for what it's worth), I don't believe that table will help your unblock request. 174.252.59.29 (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was very uncomfortable with putting the table on ANI, so I wikilinked back to here. 174.252.59.29 (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, DeFacto, I'm a mere busybody, certainly not an admin, who has a bad habit of reading ANI and AN for... well for no really good reason, but that's by the by. I'm not siding with anyone here and given my lack of involvement with any of the admins and yourself, I should be considered a thoroughly neutral party. I had a look at what you have been drafting in your talk page below and I can tell you right now that any neutral admin who patrols the unblock page and comes across your (yet to be created) unblock request will quite frankly procedurally decline your unblock request. I've read a lot of unblock requests and invariably all of them which seek to point fingers at others will be declined, this could be called a not them decline. That's not to say the other parties are innocent of said accusations, but an unblock request is, and always will be, considered based on the blockee's reflection of what they did to be blocked. I won't patronise with you what I think you should do to be unblocked and what you've done wrong, this is something that the blockee must realise themselves. However, I must in good faith warn you that extensive use of a talk page, while blocked, for other purposes other than to pursue an unblock review has often resulted in an admin revoking talk page access. Blackmane (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! I'm being a bit of a busybody too DeFacto. I usually participate under a different user name, but would rather keep that one out of this discussion, for very selfish reasons. As a result of reading through some of your talk page last night, and following some of the links, I created this account so that I can contribute to this discussion. You have certainly made some enemies, but also have a long history of positive and valuable contributions. I would like to see you return from the dark side and would encourage you to read and act on the advice in WP:GAB. DaftEco (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Whoever you are, DaftEco... you are indulging in sock puppetry. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I notice too that DeFacto has now also had the ability to edit his own talk page removed, and will be unable to defend himself/herself here any longer. What can he/she do now to have that reversed? DaftEco (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The end
Draft unblock appeal
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
DeFacto (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
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, 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.
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)
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)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC) |
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |