User talk:DeFacto

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello DeFacto, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Thanks for your additions on English cars, and technologies. If you have any questions feel free to drop past my Talkpage. --Martyman-(talk) 20:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Subpostmaster

The correct spelling is as above; please undo your recent revert of my move to Alan Bates (subpostmaster). Talk:British Post Office scandal#Sub-postmasters [SIC] refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Please take to the article talkpages and we (and others) can discuss it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Again: Talk:British Post Office scandal#Sub-postmasters [SIC] refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Again: please take to the article talkpages and we (and others) can discuss it. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:British Post Office scandal#Sub-postmasters is an article talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

For one article, yes, but not the one you mentioned here. Discuss it at the article in question's talkpage, not here. And at the talkpages of the other articles where appropriate. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

... where you have now written "maybe [discussion] should all be centralised here"! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I've moved my contribution to there now, and put a note on each of the other pages which had a similar discussion. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics - gender and sexuality, biographies of living and recently deceased people

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Stonewalling, IDHT

Your behavior at Murder of Brianna Ghey and its talk page are falling below that which is expected when editing in a CTOP. Frequent WP:1AM situations are popping up, and you continue to revert to your preferred versions when consensus has generally been against your positions. Please stop that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm not sure that I "continue to revert to your preferred versions when consensus has generally been against your positions", I can't think how think that. But I do feel that the article is being 'managed' by a relatively small number of editors who perhaps assume that that every one else knows as much about the event as they do, and that it cannot be improved. Whenever I question content I get up to a handful of regulars all agreeing with each other that my criticism is invalid. Perhaps you could have a look at the questions I have on the talkpage about the dueness of the sub-sections named after the perpetrators, and the amount context-free (leaving it's relevance unknown) detail given about them; and the other one about the verifiabilty/attribution/OR of what is in the article about the TSN statement about the media "publicly disrespecting" Ghey, and help me understand what's going wrong there. I don't feel good being so persistent on the talkpage, but I feel that it is I who is being stonewalled, and that some of the issues cannot be swept under the carpet. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

We have a word we use for a group of editors all agreeing with each other. WP:CONSENSUS. If you believe there are issues with OR or DUE bring it to a content noticeboard. If you believe that a wider consensus will differ materially from the consensus on the talk page then open an RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks, for your wisdom. I was thinking more along the lines of WP:STEWARDSHIP, perhaps, but I suppose being knocked-back so many times without a convincing rationale could have left me a little paranoid. And if you don't mind me asking, did you pick up on this from monitoring the article/its talkpage, or has another editor complained about me somewhere? I just wondered.-- DeFacto (talk). 17:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, did you form that opinion of my behaviour from monitoring the article and its talkpage yourself, or has another editor complained about me somewhere? Your answer is important to me. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been monitoring the article for about a year now, and have been watching the discussions play out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks. I made my first edit to the article on 3 Feb '24, and have made less than 50 edits to it in total. And as far as I can see, I've only reverted a handful of times, and only two of those were in relation to the same point. So I don't think "and you continue to revert to your preferred versions when consensus has generally been against your positions" was a fair characterisation there. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

In the past ten days you've made 46 edits to the article and 57 edits to the talk page. That includes edits like reverting, reverting, and tagging content which ended with a consensus on the talk page within a day. There's also this revert followed by a revert of a second editor who restored the material you reverted. Here you make a series of bold edits, which were reverted, which you then restored, although you also invoked BRD in a later edit despite not following it here. These content issues have been going against your preferred version, but you continue to revert to your preferred version. That you've only been active at the article for a week and a half isn't a defense, it just makes the issues more obvious. That's why I stopped by to ask you to stop. I figured a word now would save a sanction later. So, again, please stop this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks then for you good faith action in intervening to save me from myself. Given your further comments though, I'm considering giving up my good faith attempts to improve the compliance of articles on recent or controversial news and which can attract less experienced editors working from the less mainstream sources.

With there being so many different interpretations of the policies and guidelines, even for the definition of the fundamentals such as consensus, reverting, BRD, and the use of tagging, and combined with the unpredictability of how other editors and especially administrators will react to any given situation, the incentive to try to make a modest and lasting difference is dwindling. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Super Bowl-style attention

Howdy. Have any ideas as to how to get 'more' editors to show up at the RFC I've opened at WP:YEARS? We don't want to implement its decision (after it's closed), only to have editors showing up complaining about such changes being implemented. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay, I've no idea really. How about mentioning it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That would help. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of language codes in CS1/2 templates

Hey.

I saw that you've just removed some |language=en parameters from a bunch of {{cite web}} and similar templates. As the template documentation notes, the parameter is not redundant when the cited source language is English. By preserving the language code, it makes it easier for editors on non-English wikis to translate our articles, as they are able to directly copy across our citations where they will then be properly marked as non-native language sources for that wiki. It also provides language metadata for academics who consume our citations in the COinS format.

Could you please stop removing those parameters when they are added to articles? Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, the documentation for, Template:Cite news, for example, documents the 'language=' parameter as The language in which the source is written, if not English; use a two-letter language code or the full language name. Do not use icons or templates. The "if not English" is what I understood to mean only to be used if not English. I've removed them from many articles for many years, on that basis, without problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

That's the wrong part of the template documentation, and seems to be out of sync with the fuller text on the use of the parameter. See the text beginning at The language (or a comma-separated list of the languages) in which the source is written, as either the ISO 639 language code (preferred) or the full language name, which has a much clearer explanation for how the parameter is used, and does not imply that we should not use the parameter for English language sources. The inclusion of |language=en is by long standing consensus to assist in the conversion of enwiki articles to other Wikipedia projects. This is why we got rid of Category:CS1 maint: English language specified about nine years ago, as we wanted to stop people from removing it when it was added. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th, perhaps you should get the template doc updated if you think it's mistaken. In the meantime, I'll hold off from changing any others.

Don't you think the whole cite template thing is a mess anyway, with no two editors using them in the same way, and they add such a lot of clutter to article code? -- DeFacto (talk). 23:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's overly messy. We do have multiple citation styles because the community has not been able to agree on "one citation style to rule them all". In addition to CS1/2, there's also SFN, and [[Help:Shortened_footnotes#Using_[[#CITEREF|]]|Harvard]] styles. Pretty much the only style we've ever successfully deprecated is inline parenthetical referencing.

Sticking within the realm of citation style 1 & 2 the biggest variation I see on its use is parameter order, which as long as you're filling them in correctly doesn't really matter. Most common errors are pretty trivial to fix once you know how to use the template. If we were to get rid of CS1/2, I think we'd see a spike in bare URLs, something that is prone to link rot, and something that the community has a pretty strong consensus against. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's so inefficient and prone to errors. For every article that a source is used in, an editor has to repeat all the cite parameters again. Almost every article you look at has problems somewhere amongst the cites. Imagine if sources were entered once somewhere outside of the articles, and could be used for free any number of times in any article. Articles would be more consistent, the article code would lose all the cite clutter and thus be easier to read and edit, and require less storage space, and deprecated sources could be more readily eliminated. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, FYI I've now started a discussion on the CS1 talk page on clarifying the language used in the template documentation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, let's see how it goes. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. T9537 (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I've declined the AN3 report, and they posted at AN first. It really ought to be at ANI, but three messageboards is too many. Now you're notified. Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like they've all been rejected without a word from me. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Edits at 2024 Scottish government crisis

Hi! My apologies for the edits over at 2024 Scottish government crisis. I did not mean to manually revert your edit – my original edit was an attempt to fix the grammar in the caption of the image of Humza Yousaf at FMQs, but as I was on mobile I accidentally edited the image path by mistake (which was the same as the caption). This resulted in me breaking the image. Once I realised this, I attempted to revert my edit, but Wikipedia told me about conflicting edits, which I assumed was referring to my own edits since then. I then manually self-reverted, but as it turned out the conflicting edit was that you had removed the image in the time between me clicking "edit" and submitting my edit. Of course, my manual edit then completely undid your edit. I did not mean to revert your edit, sorry!

I have no reason to believe it made you angry at all (as you simply corrected my mistake by reverting my edit, for which I am grateful) but as you pointed out in your edit summary I had not been clear in what I had done. I hope that clears things up! AlexGallon (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@AlexGallon, no probs. I assumed it was a good-faith mistake, but thanks for clarifying it. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Making false claims about other editor's behaviour is widely considered uncivil. Please don't do so in edit summaries. My first edit to the article was not a revert. (In addition, removal of material from blocked users is not subject to the 3rr rule.) Cambial — foliar❧ 11:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:EW says To revert is to undo the action of another editor. Your first edit reverted at least content added by 150.143.27.147 (talk · contribs) in this edit]. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I see that was subsequent to vast majority of the sockpuppet's edits. I've restored. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are being so aggressive here. You did a mass removal of content, and I disagreed with that. Your should then have taken it to talk, not dug in and perform 3 further reverts, and then compound it by throwing false allegations on my talkpage about my actions. Calm down please and let's discuss at the article talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed the actions of a sockpuppet. I disagree with your characterisation of that as a "mass removal": it's simply restoring the page before the sockpuppet disruption. When you re-added it, for Wikipedia purposes that is as though you were adding it for the first time, because the earlier edits ought never to have occurred. Following the BLP policy, the burden is on those wanting to add new material - that's what the proposed content is - to establish a consensus for it. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, it may well have been your intention to remove "the actions of a sockpuppet", but, as we saw, you actually removed the contributions of at least one non-sockpuppet. I called it a "mass removal" above because that was what the deletion of 2,399 bytes, which included a recent very valid addition, looked like to me. Let's examine the details:

• On your first revert, your edit summary said just WP:BE; WP:DENY (SPI). Well WP:DENY is all about denying recognition to vandals. So, given that you reverted the end of the lead that another editor had added, and which was not vandalism, and several other well-written and well sourced passages, I chose to revert you. My edit summary, None of this was vandalism and stuff added by other editors was indiscriminately removed, was accurate - there was no vandalism there - despite your edit summary, so I explained my action accurately.
• You, however, rather than assuming good-faith and seeking to understand my concern, ignored that, and reverted for a second time. This time your edit summary was I removed material added by the sockpuppet by going through their edits on the page. The material is not due for the lead. As that was clearly not the case - the stuff you removed from the lead had not been added by sockpuppet and seemed perfectly due - I reverted you for the second time, with the summary - none of that was challenged as inaccurate or inappropriate though, so has assumed edit consensus, please take to talk rather than edit-warring.
• You ignored that too, including the edit-warring remark, and reverted for a third time, with the summary Edits by sockpuppets of blocked trolls do not have assumed edit consensus. Take it to the talk page, starting a new discussion under an appropriate title., clearly not having taken any account of anything I had said in my edit summaries nor indicating which editors you thought the sockpuppets and trolls were. So I tried to correct your erroneous edit again, with the summary - none of it is trolling - you've now reverted 3 times, so please take to talk the content you disagree with.
• Despite the 3rr heads-up, you ignored that, and reverted for a fourth time, with the summary As per WP:BLPRESTORE, please gain consensus on talk.
• Next, you turned on me and added an inflammatory 'warning' on my talkpage here, with the unsubstantiated allegation that I had made "false claims about other editor's behaviour", and that your first revert of an editor's comment "was not a revert" - even though I had shown you how it was.
• At about the same time, following your four reverts and apparent failure to understand what you were doing, I added a 3rr warning to your talkpage with this edit.
• Within a minute, you reverted that without the courtesy of any resonse or reasoning at all.
• You then returned to my talkpage and added an "abusing warning or blocking templates" warning. The irony!
• While you were doing that, I replied to your previous 'warning', explaining, with reference to WP:EW and a diff, why you were mistaken when you claimed your first removal of content from the article was not a revert.
• You then replied, without a hint of remorse, but admitting to having undone that revert, thus conceding that your first edit, the one that you had denied was a revert, was actually a revert.
• At the same time I responded to your second 'warning', questioning your attitude and your behaviour.

I can imagine how you might have carelessly assumed that your first edit was valid when you made it, but to continue edit-warring it back in, despite having your error pointed out to you, seems a little arrogant to me. As we can all now see that you did make a mistake, how about restoring the 3rr warning I left on your talkpage, and giving a brief and contrite response to it. That way we could have a happy ending to this. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Reluctant decision

Given your behaviour and frequent misrepresentations on my talk page, I'm afraid you're no longer welcome there. Discuss any article issues at the relevant talk pages. If you would like the same to apply to me vis-a-vis your talk page, please indicate below; I will return your talk to my watchlist for a couple of days so that I see your response if that is the case. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, per WP:WIAPA, please supply the required "serious evidence" of each and every one those "frequent misrepresentations" that you allege. I hope this isn't just a ploy to avoid the questions I was posing there about your behaviour. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not willing to engage with your habitual style of argument, the walls of text, etc, except where necessary on article talk. Are you happy for me to still post on your talk page (not a privilege I intend to exercise frequently), or not? Cambial — foliar❧ 14:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, how do you suppose we resolve the issue I have with your behaviour then as it currently qualifies as a personal attack? It's not appropriate to discuss it on an article's talkpage. Do you want to provide the missing evidence here, because I'm not afraid of who sees it, and that way, any watchers of your talkpage won't see it?

No, I've no problems with you posting here, so feel free to air your views here, and challenge my behaviour if, and when, you see fit. I will happily engage and attempt to resolve any issues. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't qualify as a personal attack. The diff you put on my talk page refers, quite obviously, to your immediately preceding comment, and my diff explains why your claim - that "there was a consensus amongst the several editors that had worked on it" - is false given that the sock - the only editor who added or restored it to the page - was not a legitimate actor. If you would like to discuss actual personal attacks, we'll need to discuss your explicit, groundless, evidence-free accusations of bad faith at article talk.[1][2] Perhaps another time. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, that does not hold water.

You said (the diff of your post):

... please do not falsely claim that the actions of one blocked sockpuppet represent a consensus...

I had said (the diff of my post:

I think there was a consensus amongst the several editors that had worked on it up that point...

Do you honestly think that the former is a fair representation of the latter?

We can see in the edit history (as described on the article talkpage) that at least four editors had worked on that passage.

I think most reasonable people would see it as part of the set of "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."

As for your counter-claim, let's try and finish this one first eh? But as I said earlier, Feel free to air your views here, and challenge my behaviour if, and when, you see fit. I will happily engage and attempt to resolve any issues. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Arc Vehicle

Hello, DeFacto. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Arc Vehicle".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 03:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Explicit, thanks for the info. I don't remember creating a draft though - is there any way I can see it's history? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

You originally created this page in mainspace in 2019, but it was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arc Vehicle. According to the deletion log, an unidentified contributor emailed Malcolmxl5 to request draftification this past January. It went untouched for six months, so it deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G13. Requesting undeletion is the only way a non-admin can see the page history. ✗plicit 14:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks @Explicit. That explains why I don't remember it. Cheers. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Keir Starmer. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, but please be reassured that I am not engaged in any such thing per WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:3RRNO. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Nigel Farage, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There was nothing legitimate about that attack. Have you read WP:TALK? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Have you read WP:TPO? You had no valid reason to revert and adjust my comments. There was no attacks. TarnishedPath^talk 12:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it says that amongst the things that it is appropriate to remove are harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. Misrepresenting my behaviour in two different discussions as a means of attacking me, rather than the points I made, fails WP:WIAPA, which includes Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence as a form of personal attack, definately falls into that category. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You've been accusing me of BLP violations without evidence based on your personal interpretation of WP:BLP. I haven't removed those posts. Doug Weller talk 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you supply the diffs of those accusations please. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, are you sure? How was that decided? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I read this section and Talk:Nigel Farage#How was my edit not supported by the cited sources? and determined that you were continuing the same behavior that I have already warned you for, but this time in a different CTOP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, are you planning to provide evidence for your accusations? Such serious accusations surely require serious evidence, including diffs, links and cross-reference with the policies being enforced. And what is a "CTOP"? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll start with accusing another editor of weaponizing the template that explains what a CTOP is, and calling pointing out you were warned for this type of behavior 'trolling'. Here you recognize that consensus is against you, and use that as a basis for snarky attacks, then for what I assume is for irony, you accuse them of personal attacks after calling their behavior trolling. The cherry on top is following another editor to an article you had never edited to continue the dispute. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I was saying it as I saw it. If you had been following the discussion as you said, you would have seen that I was trying to ensure WP:BLP was being followed, in the face of editors who seemed to think it didn't apply to them (against policy), and who were warring and throwing unsubstantiated allegations (against policy). They even, clearly intending to intimidate me (i.e. trolling), attacked me (against policy) on the article talkpage discussion and added bollocks to my talkpage (weaponising that template), and misleadingly suggested (against policy) that I'd been warned about this before, linking to a discussion where I'd been accused of something else, and which, in its day, was so farcical I didn't take it too seriously. They won the day though, and at least one of them has been contaminating more articles with similar content, flying in the face of policy, and clearly pushing a personal agenda. These actions epitomise several of the behaviours listed in WP:NOTHERE. Why did you side with the disruptive policy breakers without even having the courtesy to discuss it with me so that I could correct your misunderstandings? Shame on you.

The message you are giving out by taking this cold-blooded and intemperate attitude is that it is ok to bully your pet piece of tabloid-style scandal into an article with no regard for the established policies and damage to Wikipedia. Perhaps that goes towards explaining why so many political articles, and especially political bios, are in such poor shape. Policy-observant editors are being hounded out and are being replaced by bullish editors copy & pasting tabloid-style sensationalism into the articles, with no regard for balance, due weight, verifiabilty, or WP:BLP.

Feel free to have the last word, I'm sure you think you know better than me what my behaviour really was, and can craft some further smart words to try to belittle me further, and perhaps find an excuse to block me for longer. Go ahead, I'm disillusioned enough by your actions already. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, No reply?

The takeaway for me then, is that one can restore, in a blatant contravention of WP:BLPRESTORE, unsourced content into a BLP article, over and over, and with impunity, so long as there are two of you pursuing the same agenda, and that, to disguise those actions, a false and malicious 'CTOP' template has been pre-emptively added to the talkpage of the editor who is attempting to stop you from contravening WP:BLP, with the expectation that a trigger-happy admin might spot the template, assume it was genuine, and summarily block the hapless and helpless good guy who was attempting to maintain article quality, without even taking the trouble to check what is going on, or ask any questions, and presumably with pre-prepared boiler-plate reasons. Tick the box.

And talking about the block reasons, I see the ones you applied were "disruptive editing", "stonewalling", and "IDHT". If I didn't know that you obviously know better than me, I would say that that was simply disingenuous, given that WP:BLPRESTORE says: When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies., and the lengths I went to to try to explain, repeatedly, how content that wasn't sourced was actually 'unsourced content' and was therefore contrary to WP:BLP and should not be restored, and that they were precisely the behaviours of at least one of the warriors pushing, and re-pushing the unsourced content into the article. Ho-hum. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

There were three editors who agreed there was no BLP issue, and you alone arguing it was a BLP violation, so we're beyond BLPRESTORE territory which requires consensus to restore. If you wanted further input on the possibility of BLP issues you should have raised it at WP:BLPN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, the three might have agreed that the content should be included, well so did I, but as it was largely unsourced and thus not BLP compliant, I don't accept that it should have been included regardless of that fact. 'Unsourced' is a fact, not an opinion - content was unsourced, and that, in itself, is a valid reason for removing it per WP:BLP, which says: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Originally, almost all of the addition in question was unsourced, I outlined on the talkpage the eight assertions that were unsourced, and most of them were fixed when an additional source was added (why would they have added it if they thought it was already BLP compliant?), but after I gave up trying, the last outstanding contravention was fixed by the third editor, who reworded the content to reflect the sources (why would they do that if they thought it was already BLP compliant?).

You would have seen, and know all of that if you were properly across it. This was an unjust block which can only give succour to those not here to build an encyclopaedia. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, have you had a chance to reassess this yet, bearing in mind the points above related to the serious (8 unsourced assertions) BLP infringements which you appeared not to have considered in your judgment, which demanded immediate removal of that content, and which you have not addressed yet? -- DeFacto (talk). 06:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

There was consensus on the talk page that there was no BLP violations, especially not of the severity that demand immediate removal. That you disagree with that consensus doesn't absolve you of your behavior. In the future I suggest you immediately bring such concerns to WP:BLPN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, you know as well as I do, that consensus, even if one existed, does not trump policy. And when a policy demands that content is supported by an inline source, and the content is not supported that way, then it has to be fixed. There is no escaping that, and that this was thus an unjust block. Please accept that graciously, and stop digging. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus about the application and interpretation of policy trumps your own. If you believe my block was in error WP:XRV and WP:AN can handle that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I don't see any room for "interpretation2 in the BLP policy statement: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Especially when it is followed by Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Note that it says that of "Users who persistently or egregiously violate" the policy, not of users who, in good-faith, attempt to apply the policy in the face of persistent and egregious violation.

I see the sharks have started circulating below, so I can't image I'd survive long at WP:XRV, or wherever. I was hoping that you would have accepted that everything I did was in good-faith, and intended to change the article for the better. Wishful thinking it seems. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It's becoming hard to avoid the impression that the behavior that led to the recent block is likely to persist in the future, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Calling out BLP violations when I see them? Expecting a plausible rationale for a block? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You have been previously CBAN'ed for behaviour related to WP:IDHT. Notably the community lifted that and you've been progressively successful in your appeals to WP:AN for various restrictions to be removed. However you still have two restrictions imposed on you per your last appeal to WP:AN, per the message that @Vanamonde93 left you at User_talk:DeFacto/Archive_2015-2020#1RR_restriction_lifted (correct me if you've had more restrictions lifted since then). Notably one of those restrictions is that "Further disruption or failure to get the point will be grounds for an immediate block". You need to drop your attitude that you and only you have interpreted policy correctly and listen to consensus as it forms. TarnishedPath^talk 14:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Jeez, why are you so desperate to find something to hold against me? How many years did you trawl through to find that historical misdemeanour? This is a question about whether a straightforward BLP direction can be ignored, nothing else. And no, I don't have any restrictions imposed on me.

Sorry, it looks like you'll have to analyse some more of my 42,000-odd edits from the last 18+ years to see if you can find something I did wrong relating to inconveniently trying to correct a policy contravention. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Please drop the personal attacks. I'm not desperate for anything. I'm advising you that you need to listen to consensus particularly given your history. You are not the sole arbiter of what policy means or requires. TarnishedPath^talk 00:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

BRD

I started a thread here because my comment related to your behaviour, not the article. It is a ridiculous interpretation of BRD to decide that your removal of content counts as the revert and therefore anyone else is required to start a discussion in order to overturn it. SmartSE (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Have we moved into another universe where long-standing customs and conventions of Wikipedia editing have been inverted? I was following the original and conventional Bold-Revert-Delete steps. I never added that phrase, it was boldly added by someone else earlier. All I did was revert that addition. Isn't that how it works?

Anyway, there is a healthy discussion about it taking place now on the article's talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You were the one who invoked BRD after I had reverted you. That's what I take umbrage with. There would have been no need for a discussion (or this) if you had either provided a policy-based reason for removing it, or just left reliably sourced content alone and not imposed your own personal opinion, that information is irrelevant despite multiple RS reporting it. SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Smartse, in an article that's less than a day old, it's obvious that removal of content is a revert. Here's the sequence:

• B1 at 2024-07-31T09:34:23 (someone boldly added it)
• R1 at 2024-07-31T15:30:57 (I reverted it)
• B2 at 2024-07-31T15:40:07 (you boldly added it again)
• R2 at 2024-07-31T15:43:14 (I reverted it again)
• B3 at 2024-07-31T16:04:51 (someone else boldly added it again)

You could see that my edit was a removal, and you presumably knew that this article was only a few hours old. How could I possibly be boldly removing something when nothing had been there long enough to be considered stable?

The content discussion is on the article's page. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You're also at four reverts on that article, [3][4][5][6]. Please do not revert at this article again. Consider this your edit warring warning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish, thanks for the warning - I won't nudge my count any higher now I know you are on my case. ;-)

I see I'm one of several editors in the same boat, diligently donating their time to trying to improve the article - have you visited them all with the same advice?

I've worked on several new articles like this in the past, which have been magnets for fanatical, yet inexperienced, editors, with a limited understanding of Wiki's lore and customs, wishing to push their POV to the forefront, and can't remember a single instance where the good guys attempting to temper it a bit were warned to keep their eyes on their clock or they'd be sanctioned. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: By their own definition of a revert, I count considerably more than 4 reverts. Removing content can't be a revert if someone else reverts that edit, but not if nobody does. SmartSE (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Smartse, thanks for your support here. I use the WP:3RR definition myself: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. I agree with SFR's count of 4.

Did you check your own count? I see 4 reverts there too. Or anyone else's? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

these need secondary sources to draw these conclusions

You need to use the article talk page to discuss this edit. Yes, your edit summary was a good one: these need secondary sources to draw these conclusions, not Wiki editors combining primary-sourced opinions. But if you want your edit summary to stick, you need to open up a talk page discussion on this.

With respect of the above, I suspect that Wiki editors are combining their own interpretation of primary-sourced opinions.

(The message is not intended as a criticism. I know you are using the article talk page.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

TB

Hello, DeFacto. You have new messages at Talk:2024_Solingen_stabbing#Amaq_news_agency_posted_a_video_of_the_attacker_giving_bayah.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Thanks for pointing out Wikipedia:CATV with reference to some of my recent edits on MPs pages. Think I was a little over-enthusiastic there. Will add sourcing etc. and try again, but when I do please do feel free to be in touch if still not quite right per policy. :) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Notice of dispute: Metrication in the UK lead photo

The Lead photo. I have added this to a dispute notice board. Your comments on why you have a issue with a new imagine is required. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Summary_of_dispute_by_DeFacto Friendliness12345 (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)