Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Darron Gibson, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. O Fenian (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Consistently editing against consensus is not acceptable. Engage in conversation first. GedUK11:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to your email:
You can reply to someone's messages simply by replying underneath it (by editing the talk page as you would an article).
You're editing against a well-established consensus regarding Derry/Londonderry. Consensus can change, but you can't force it; you need to start discussions.
I don't understand why Londonderry has to be called Derry. A compromise was reached years ago and outside of Wiki by the council. The city would be called Londonderry but the council and airport would be called 'City of Derry'. It is not exactly neutral.
And also Mick McCarthy is born and bred in England and currently holds a British passport. Why is he still considered Irish?
Is it necessary to include and Irish translation for the Airport? really? there as many chinesse speakers in Northern Ireland as there are fluent Irish speakers yet there is not inclusion of a chineese translation.
I can't comment on the specfics of the arguments about Londonderry/Derry because I'm not familiar with them, and haven't been involved in the on-wiki discussions. I'm guessing that when it comes to footballers, the country they represent tends to be a good indication of their nationality; someone like Arteta who is Spanish but now qualifies for a British passport is still listed as Spanish. GedUK13:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GED, it is unfortunate that the Derry/Londonderry can not be resolved where a middle ground can be found. Would it be possible for me to set up a page for Londonderry to run in parallel with the Derry page?
Also, by general consensus, if i get enough people to agree, is it ok if I change Russia back to USSR much the same as people have changed Londonderry back to derry?Factocop (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, and that's a poor comparitor, Russia was only ever a consitutent part of the USSR, not an different name for the same thing. I see that you've started a debate on the Derry talk page, that's the only way forward. There's not much more I can add. GedUK13:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am just making the point that wiki is no longer a fact based tool but rather one based on General consensus. Because I am sure there are still a lot of people who refer to Russia as the USSR, just the same as there are people who refer to Londonderry as Derry.
Can you tell me how to lock a page as I have made some changes to other pages that keep on getting changed?
Calm down, the way you're acting isn't going to help you. You've been reported twice to the admins noticeboard for blocking and I reccomend you ought to apologize for your behaviour and open the debate on WP:IMOS or Derry talk page. I don't like the idea that the official name is ignored either but you have to go along with it if it's wikipedia policy unless you want to challenge it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised the topics in the relevant discussion forums but as yet the people who keep changing my edits have not responded but rather reported me for disagreeing. I don't think the Derry issue will be resolved as general consensus of a few over rules fact. Irish translations used un necessarily. As many people speak chineese in NI as they do Irish yet no chinesse or ulster scots translation.
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have raised topics in various discussion boards but the people who have blocked me have yet to speak to me.
I don't understand why you have reported me. I changed Mick McCarthy's nationality to English because he is english. Did you also report yourself because your were also involved in making edits. I noticed this about wikipedia, in that if someone has a disagreement, rather than discuss, you just report them instead. Shame really!Factocop (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reported you because you completely ignore anyone who disagrees with you. Many people have tried discussing things with you, and you just do whatever you want anyway. Lithistman (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. You have not reached out to me to discuss. I started a thread on the discussion board. No one has presented me with any facts that Mick McCarthy still holds an Irish passport. I have noticed that wikipedia is run by clique's of people who share the same opinion and prefer to ignore fact.I am new to wiki so not sure how to report people but it seems that I will dismiss dialogue in much the same fashion as you have and just report you.Factocop (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So now, because I disagree with your tactics, I'm part of some kind of clique? I don't really know anyone on this project, so I find that accusation really quite funny. Lithistman (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'm sorry, but you have not provided me with any facts yet regarding Mick McCarthy's nationality. Can you do so please?
So are you telling me that on his passport it has details of his actual nationality and then his footballing nationality? In another argument, Londonderry is called Derry, not factual but based on general consensus. And based on general consensus, Mick McCarthy is considered English. Can you prove that he still has an Irish passport?Factocop (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
City of Derry Airport - Edit warring
This airport is an airport in Ireland, and is in line with other Irish airports. An airport is a significant location. And you say you've changed the location. No you've just removed that it serves Derry. You have a complete dislike of the term Derry which is evident! It's good for you that someone with very similar views flagged this up... and blocked it in your vandalised state. It will be duly reverted.--NorthernCounties (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but I changed the location it serves to County Londonderry and Donegal but I don't think it came up. I think to say that it serves only Derry is wrong! Why does Belfast City or Belfast International not have an Irish Translation? Why is there no Ulster Scots translation?Factocop (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The changes I made were factual and necessary given that some of the comments were not in keeping with similar articles. I removed the Irish translation from the title of City of Derry Airport. It was un necessary considering that the other major airports in Northern Ireland do not have an Irish Translation. If those who had made complaints about me and sought to make it a neutral page they would of either left the page as it is following my edits or included an ulster scots translation as well, a language largely spoken by the Protestant community. I did open a discussion but given that there was no credible argument to my edits I was simply blocked.
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.
How should I go about it in the future? I did raise a discussion on the matter but those who made the changes didn't join. Did you also block those that made the changes to my edits? Its takes 2 to tango! If any my edits are changed in the future should I just have the culprit blocked?Factocop (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Can you suggest how I can have people enter a discussion rather than edit my changes and then block me? Did you also block O Fenian for his edit-warring? didn't think so.
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.
SarekofVulcan, why did you not enter the discussion I setup after you reverted my change? I thought that making 3 repititive changes in the space of 24hrs was considered edit- warring? I did make a valid point but no one has been able to offer an argument. why is there not an ulster scots translation along side every irish translation. It seems only fair?Factocop (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but my back was against the wall. I was out numbered really. I did raise discussion but nobody responded and then I got blocked. I have no faith in the system. Factocop (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was not an attitude, just an observation. I made a 6 reverts against 3 people who made 2 reverts each. I have read on their pages that there is need for a united front. SO it is not me that has turned this into a battle. I'm sorry if I have caused you any offense but some of the edits I made seemed pretty fair and in absense of a discussion what Im I to do?Factocop (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'll im pretty sure I wasn't editing and reverting against myself. But i think in this case I have come up against a clique so I was always going to get blocked. Should I raise the suggestion first in the discussion channel and then if nobody comments within a day I can make an edit?Factocop (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are making unfounded accusations against the motives of other editors. You got blocked because you edit warred simple fact. Know you are breaching civility guidelines with your accusations please stop or you will get blocked again. --VirtualRevolution (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
VirtualRevolution, you need to relax. I've not mentioned any names and hence have not accused anyone. Can you answer my question please? Should I raise the suggestion first in the discussion channel and then if nobody comments within a day I can make an edit?Factocop (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah edit a way. I've not created an article before then got stuck in the middle of something at work. I just noticed the poor boy didn't have a page.Factocop (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll move it back to your userspace for now: when you have time to add sourcing, you can move it back to mainspace again. Make sure it meets WP:FOOTY guidelines, though -- those folks have very strong ideas about who should and shouldn't have articles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well Sarek, if you read the comments, i was deemed politically immature. That doesnt sound like an attempt at community building? does it? I'm assuming a similar message has been left on the board of NorthernCounties? Why was he not blocked for editing the City of Derry Airport page before consensus was made? Factocop (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair I was always likely to be blocked given that my edits were being monitored by 3 other users who made reverts to my changes. But that uisn't my point. my point was that the comment you removed was equally as bad as being deemed politically immature. is it not? I raised the discussion on the city of Derry airport and posed questions that have yet to be answered. So for NC to make changes before a consensus had been reached didnt seem to be the correct process, but again i'm new to wiki so ill leave it for now.Factocop (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Respect
If you don't respect other editors enough to even respect their names, and you simply repeat your old opinions rather than seek progress towards a consensus, and moan about the principle of building that consensus, while ignoring advice; and then startapproaching others to repeat the whole whinge, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Kevin McE (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kev, I guess an adequate response would be to ignore your response and simply delete it so I suggest you change the record. You have a habit of looking over my shoulder and disagreeing with every point I have made. That is not exactly progressive. Every point I have made has been met with a series of attacks all because I value fact over consensus, especially a consensus that is generated by a clique of people who patrol particular pages. Consensus is worthly unless it is found by an unbiased jury, but as wikipedia is largely made up of contributions from users of unknown allegences or agendas I don't see how this could be seen as fair representation. So please do not preach of principles to me when you have shown no manner of decorem. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and by definition should contain facts. If you wish to ignores facts then wikipedia is not the place for you.Please close your account and get a life.Factocop (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Telling people to get a life will not win any arguments/debates Factocop... Please ensure you maintain civility. Other examples like telling me to get "back in your box" will also do no favours for consensus. --NorthernCounties (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NorthernCounties, It really is hard to find a link to discussions that have been deleted by yourself, O Fenian and Kevin McE, but I would suggest reading through your posts on everything Derry/Londonderry suggesting that I was 'politically sinister' before pointing the finger. You seem to disappear whenever a discussion doesnt go your way and then just like in this case join a discussion that has nothing to do with you and with no relevant point to make. I suggest you find that box again. And Kevin McE, you deleted our last discussion and then started a new one on my userpage. why? I distinctly remember you calling me 'politically immature'. You quote the rules and talk of respect when your handling of decorem is sadly lacking. This is a joke! but thankfully, I'm laughing.Factocop (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is deleted they an still be found in the history of the article so go look at the history and pick out the attacks made on you by other editors so that warnings can be issued if required, if none can be found it will make you accusations sound very hollow. Mo ainm~Talk08:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The silence is deafening! NorthernCounties, you seem to have a warning on your userpage for attacking other wiki editors. Care to explain? Pot, Kettle and Black spring to mind.Factocop (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Factocop, you seem to be under the pretense that I've seen and avoided your arguements... that isn't the case, as if you look at my pattern of edits, I rarely edit in the morning, do some edits at lunch time, and most of my edits during the evening. Why? because I have a job. I'm not going to deny that I said you were "politically immature" at one point and received a warning for it, but I've learned how to best react now in certain situations, and I'm sure this first warning will most likely be my last. As my last edit to this page stated, I agreed that examples of attacks against you by Kevin would be helpful, as we don't want a user like yourself being treated unfairly. Furthermore, there is no need for "Pot Kettle Black" as these could only undermine any decent arguments one may have. Finally, please allow a decent period of time for any reply, without jumping to the conclusion that I'm avoiding you. Cheers, --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well after our last discussion on 'the City of derry airport' page you disappeared for 3 days. However I am glad to hear that you have changed your ways following your warning for attacks on myself and that you have stopped the gathering of support on other users pages to have me muted. I don't see how using the words 'Pot, Kettle and Black' would undermine my argument but anyway this is a discussion between myself and Kevin McE where 3 people not involved decided to jump in.Factocop (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that there is a clique of editors of particular persuasion that patrol certain pages and in some cases fact can be ignored and replaced with the consensus of a few that seem to out number those of us with a sensible argument. But given that I am equally as anal as those who oppose me, I can not complain. You must remember that there is more than one way to skin a cat and in absence of a good argument, those you speak of generally seem to disappear and return without an argument and simply quote rule after rule. its annoying and incredibly patronising but I have become Immune to it now.Factocop (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If read what i said you'd notice i didn't call anybody a bigot - i was talking about why the IMOS was put in place. I didn't mention any names or point any fingers.
And whilst i agree with the IP that there is always the same "pro-Republican" clique that stand in opposition - you have to learn to play by the rules and do things the proper way and methods. Currently the IPs actions will only add them to the list of editors seen by the wider community as a problem and nuisance and no respect given to them - and yet another pro-Union voice on Wikipedia that gets themselves booted out or ignored as a rant-n-raver. Mabuska(talk)21:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you are found out to be the same person as the IPs that are claimed to be your sockpuppets, you'll only look stupid - its not too late to find the light and play by the book. Mabuska(talk)22:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to state, (As I assume I'm one of those referred too) I resent this term "pro-Republican clique". This would indicate or imply or even make way for inference, that our grouping against vandalism has some air of malice. If you check any one of our edit histories, I think you'll find that we don't go causing provocation in "Unionist" articles. Why, because we don't care and further don't intend to cause angst. Each and every editor has a number of articles that they like to nurture, improve and protect; and they will ensure that any edits to do with them are by the book and do not detract from the article. Examples of actions which may detract are the blatant puppetry and intentionally provocative edits which have been occurring over the past week. Please do not be-little the good work we carry out to improve Wikipedia. --NorthernCounties (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Falsification of the facts certainly isn't an improvement and brings the project into ridicule. Your obvious resentment at the term Republican clique only goes to justify it. Political activist would be closer to the mark possibly. Couldn't win the war so now resort to propaganda...hmmnnnnn--87.113.26.186 (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Political activist? Propaganda? And war? Who do you think I am, some Wikipedia Terrorist? Please don't make me laugh, and honestly stop with the ever changing IP's Maiden City. Finally, if I was part of a Republican fuelled clique, I would most likely be proud of that fact. If I'm a Republican; you must be a Loyalist, no? --NorthernCounties (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well to be honest you did choose a very republican-orientated term for Northern Ireland as your username. You could of choose a name that wasn't loaded with political symbolism, which only serves to give people impressions about you. Mabuska(talk)10:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My name originated due to around the time I set up the account, an old hotel building was in the process of regeneration in Derrys Waterloo Place. And before I realised there was so much politics involved in NI Wikipedia. Niavely, it was not to express deep republican undertones --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sockpuppet claims
I've been obseving this for a while and I think I ought to add my imput. Just because O Fenian and NorthernCounties edit in similar ways it doesn't mean they are the same person. Accusing them of being one and the same is quite a serious allegation. Can you prove it by matching up the edit contributions? If you can't find any evidence that they haven't edited at the same time, then your accusation does look a bit thin on the ground as a claim. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well God, I didn't think I needed evidence given that the same accusation had been made in my direction by both NorthernCounties and Asarlaí? Obviously you have not been observing this too closely or else you would of placed a similar warning on the discussion pages of my accusers.Factocop (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do need some proof for this Factocop, as just because you have been suspected, a suitable arguement is not to just accuse back. Please provide some proof that would think us. I'm suprised you haven't even included Asa at this rate. The C of E Thank you for the outside input, --NorthernCounties (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NC, I have provided as much evidence as yourself and Asa have with regards to the accusations you have made towards me, so I don't see why you feel the need to comment on this. Strange really. Now back in your box like a good little sock puppet.Factocop (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NC/O Fenian/Asa or whatever your name is ... I am shocked. I can't believe that someone with in wiki community would make such an accusation. Can you prove that I am a sock? You were first to make the accusation so ill let you plead your case first. manners and all that!Factocop (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User Talk:Explicit, you may be blocked for vandalism. Never under any circumstances change someone else's comment on a talk page--article or user. That is essentially you deleting the other comment sneakily to make it look like the other person didn't comment there. That is highly disruptive and not allowed.Qwyrxian (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Sarek, I apologise perfusely given that no amount of editing on wikipedia can be described as terrorism. Obviously I was not aware that such a claim would be deamed a crime given that accusations of sockpuppetry and edit warring had gone unpunished. Apologise
Decline reason:
While I really appreciate the apology, that was an extremely nasty thing to say, especially in the context of Northern Ireland. 24 hours is a very lenient block for such behavior, especially given your previous record. Please use the time to ponder upon how you can work better with other people when you return, as this is a collaborative project. John (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user appears to have no intention of playing by the book. They have let what appears to be personal extreme ideals and beliefs supercede sources, reasonability and neutrality. Going by their edits they are of the same political direction as i am, though they are of the more hard-lined ignorant end of it whilst i am of the more moderate liberal end of it. Their actions only have served to possibly increase division and incite problems. If they acted maturely they could be an asset to Wikipedia but i think they are years away from reaching such a stage and a longer ban would be justified. Mabuska(talk)00:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mabuska you do yourself a disservice by comparing yourself to anything the these socks stand for. You, as I know are worth more to this project than 1000 of these socks. I look forward to your intelligent input in the future. Bjmullan (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, however my worth can only be compared to those who reciprocate likewise. Some on Wikipedia don't and everybody's intentions are suspect with all anyone has to go by being a persons edits. I pride myself on my edits, which anyone can see are done in the best interests of an evenly balanced point of view that ignores personal beliefs - and by god i've ignored some personal beliefs in the aims of neutrality. Mabuska(talk)01:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This is a tad rediculous. I am not and never have been The_Maiden_City. I have been accused of sock puppetry by a clique of wiki users who disagree with my opionion. I am not aware of The_Maiden_City's history but it seems that unfounded accusations of sock puppetry can be banded around so freely. Just because 2 wiki accounts side in a particular way in a discussion does not mean they are the same person. Is it just a coincidence that NorthernCounties and O Fenian seem to back up each others argument on the same topics everytime...do I hear shouts of Sockpuppetry. No. Silence. Wikipedia is not a community if its use can be dictated by a few close minded users. Please can you present evidence that I am using multiple accounts or unblock me. Can I assume my accusers will be blocked for lack of evidence?
Decline reason:
(First of all, I am completely ignoring the accusations of others, which are irrelevant: see WP:NOTTHEM.) It is perfectly clear that you have abused more than one account. I have looked extensively at the evidence, and it goes way beyond "Just because 2 wiki accounts side in a particular way in a discussion". Whether or not The Maiden City is one of the accounts you have used really doesn't matter. Finally, your editing has been disruptive enough to justify the block anyway, irrespective of the sockpuppetry issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Look, Factocop, I tried to help you earlier. I told you how you could try and prove if those 2 are sock puppets by comparing the edit histories and timings but If you're not willing to put in the hard work and look and see if they've not edited at the same time and just want to make comments about others being socks without backing them up, It does look quite suspicious to some. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
God, you have been of no help. You gave me a warning for accusing a clique of users of sockpuppetry yet when they made the same accusations towards me you were a mute! I am very annoyed that this clique can go page to page changing anything they wish, make accusations of sockpuppetry, edit-warring and vandalism while you stand back and watch.
God, given that I have been accused of having an account 'The_Maiden_City' which I believe is currently blocked I don't see how my accusers have made comparisons in contributions and times?It is a bit tedious to troll through dozens of discussions to find contributions and timings but where do I post my findings?Factocop (talk) 08:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had been accused on various discussions as being a reincarnate of The_Maiden_City but I am currently reading the case against me. And no I am not and never have been Blue_is_better.Factocop (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well CU have confirmed that you are Blue is better. My advice would be to stop with the accusations against other editors unless you can back it up with diffs. You can email the blocking admin and explain to him your situation without blaming others. Im sure they will explain the process of CU to you in full as I don't know how it works. VirtualRevolution (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't post anything as I am blocked. Claims of my sockpuppetry have been posted on the archived thread of The_Maiden_City but I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of Blue_is_better. 4 users have spent a great deal of time to get me blocked so I am really up against it. According to my accusers Northern Ireland is no longer a country but a region.Check Giant's Causeway page if you don't believe me. This really is ridiculous.Factocop (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again this is not about other editors but about CU confirming that Blue is better and yourself are one and the same, if you have done nothing wrong and follow all rules here other editors can scream and shout all they want and you cant be blocked. I cant imagine that admins here just block editors for no reason. Just email the blocking admin as I have said. VirtualRevolution (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how the CU works either, I am not even sure who to email or how I can get their email. Can you help Virtual? I am not familiar with Blue_is_better as we have not commented on the same thread and given that he is blocked, I can't even see what they were discussing on. I'm guessing they had a difference in opinion to certain people. I am not a sockpuppet and find this very disturbing that my case can be opened and closed so quickly without my input.One of the arguments against me was that I used 'pot kettle black' and the unregistered ip used the phrase 'people in glass houses...'. 2 phrases used the world over. Another argument was that blue_is_better has commented on 2 out of the 15 pages i have commented on. ooohhhhh!The arguments against me are thread bare. A joke! Any help Vitural would be great.Factocop (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent an email to the Arb Committee so hopefully they don't get too many requests like my own. I only started my account because I was reading on wiki and wanted to edit. I am not completely sure of the rules and regulations so I am hoping this will be resolved. I am not sure how the CheckUser works but it must be broken as I have never ever used another account, ever. Levenboy has also been blocked. It seems that someone shares an opinion with someone else then they can be accused of sockpuppetry and blocked without trial. Mo Aimn, O Fenian, NorthernCounties, ~Asarlaí and Mabuska have formed a strong alliance of opinion so it is very difficult to make edits without being accused of being disruptive by either one of them.I will just have to wait and see.Factocop (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
My edits have not been disruptive, they have been factual. On all the edits I have made, I have started discussion, unfortunately those who disagree with me have sought to have me muted rather than provide valid arguments. A spate of blocking has taken place based on 3 wiki pages - Eglinton, County Londonderry, City of Derry Airport and Giants Causeway. Please read and tell me how I have been disruptive
Decline reason:
This unblock request does not even attempt to address the reason for the unblock. In addition, both the checkuser evidence and the behavioural evidence indicate sockpuppetry. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You dont seem to be listening to me or the admins, you were not blocked for the edits you made but for sockpuppetry, and again you have listed a group of editors as some kind of defense, what they do or say is not relevant to what you do or say you are responsible for your own actions. Stop with the unblock requests as an admin will remove your talk page access if you keep using the unblock template and email the blocking admin and he will explain the CU process and how the concliusion was reached that you and Blue is better are the same person. VirtualRevolution (talk) 10:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TFOWR, I have emailed Cailil as the CheckUser is broken or something is very wrong. All of the other evidence is thread bare to be honest. Can I ask why I was unable to contribute to the case against me before it was closed?Factocop (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No idea, to be honest - the case was open for nearly three days before a checkuser confirmed that you and Blue is better (talk) were the same. Plenty of time to contribute. The page wasn't protected, so I'm not sure why you didn't contribute. I doubt it would have made a difference - the decision was made on technical evidence, which is generally seen as being pretty compelling, over and above the behavioural evidence (which also seems pretty compelling). TFOWR11:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I generally only edit during the week when I am at work so the case was open and closed over the weekend when I was unable to contribute. The behavioural evidence is weak I feel other than some posts that occurred around the same time by myself and another user which was purely coincidental. The CheckUser obviously is not working or is not without its faults as I have never used another account. I will fight this out to the end.Factocop (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except you were editing at the time, and made 35 edits between your name being added to the investigation and your initial block for abusing me, before being indefinitely blocked under two hours later. In fact you were editing right before the block (and even appealed it), so your claim that you were unable to contribute is not true. O Fenian (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O Fenian, well given that I was unaware of the extent or the nature of the investigation how was I to know. I was blocked for 24hrs for insulting you which I apologised for. I was not aware of the blocking for sock puppeting until this morning when I came to work. That is true!Factocop (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Message recieved
I got your email. I have reviewed the checkuser result again[2] and their statement is unambiguous - User:Blue is better and this account are 'confirmed' as sockpuppets. Checkuser examines the IP addresses "beneath" or "behind" usernames and cross checks them. There are levels of matches - 'possible', 'likely' and 'confirmed' (which is the highest level of match)--Caililtalk12:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IP address has been temporarily restricted. This is probably due to persistent vandalism from the IP address you are editing from, which may be shared by many people if you are connected to the Internet via a proxy server (used by most schools and corporations and some Internet service providers) or dial-up access. Could the User:Blue_is_better be within my company and hence why the CheckUser is matching me to this user?Factocop (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Highly unlikely/impossible that someone has such strong views on the exact same articles as you... maybe you should mention it to your manager, and explain how you enjoy making lots of edits whilst charging it against the payroll? --NorthernCounties (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NorthernCounties that comment is not helpful don't repeat that kind of behaviour. Factocop I'll ask het Checkuser to examine this again--Caililtalk16:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well given that I work for a company that emloys 141'000 people around the world it not entirely impossible. Don't assume NorthernCounties, that if more than one person disagrees with you and your clique that they are the same person. And yes another cheap shot but something I have come to expect.Factocop (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A cheap shot is when your edits have been disputed and you tell the person back in your box. How many times did you say that to me? 2~3. I believe in the Check User results, and still fine it suspect that unregistered Plusnet IP's always seem to side with your edits. But at least each and everyone gets blocked now. By me? No, by many different admins. --NorthernCounties (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Telling you to get back in your box was not a cheap shot, just a suggestion. And given that many of yours arguments were pretty feeble, can you blame me? You have a number of people supporting you in many of the same arguments so I can sympathise with anyone who has created a sock to stop the bullying but I have never been The_Maiden_City nor Blue_is_better.Factocop (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop bickering both of you or I will protect this page. You are both abusing the talk space. Neither of you will get any further warnings--Caililtalk16:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cailil, that isnt much of a warning, considering I am completed disabled. Have you checked CheckUser again? I still dispute that I was ever Blue_is_better. Also I did set up a sock NI4Life to try and raise a sock puppet investigation but it was dismissed as I used a sock. Can you raise an investigation against NorthernCounties, O Fenian, Mabuska, Bjmullan, SarekofVulcan and Mo ainm as so far this clique has avoided investigation by having people blocked for disruption, vandalism and the usual petty crap that they complain of. Thankyou.Factocop (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Factocop, I think you need to be a bit realistic here. While a couple of them may be sock puppets (I'm not getting involved in that) I don't think that you'll find that all are the same person as who would bother maintaining 6 auto-confirmed accounts? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
God, I understand this but it is very suspicious that all seem to exist purely to back each other up in discussions. The first Sockpuppet investigation I was involved in had me accused of being 8 different ip addresses none of which matched. So can you raise a sock puppet investigation against these 6 or very soon Northern Ireland will cease to exist in the realms of wikipedia. I still dispute that I was ever Blue_is_better but do confess to opening 2 new accounts since my blocking - NI4Life and Pilgrimsquest. I had no real choice given that I was blocked without being able to present an argument. I say again that I was never Blue_is_better and there is something very wrong with the CheckUser if thinks I have ever held this account. It obviously doesnt take into account that there are more internet users than IP addresses in the world and given that I work in a company of 141000 people there are always going to be dupicate ip addresses and shared servers. God, can you tell me what discussions Blue_is_better edited on as I am unaware of their activity?Factocop (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mabuska, the sock puppet investigations are not ment to be offensive so please don't cry....You have not exactly been helpful in any of the discussions I have been involved in. Playing Devil's advocate and sitting on the fence is of no use to anyone. I noticed you contributed to my investigation. I dont think I am anymore extreme than those who oppose me so wise up. I was accused of being The_Maiden_City and several other IP addresses. I have never been Blue_is_better and we have never commented on the same discussions so I am not sure of the link but given that I share a server with 141000 other people the checkuser is not going to be accurate! I have become frustrated that for an encyclopedia, fact doesn't carry much weight. And when fact is disputed a clique of nationalist persuasion seem to outnumber a counter argument while you do nothing. And I was unable to dispute my case given that it was closed before I could contribute.A joke! can you tell me where Blue_is_better edited?Factocop (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Playing Devil's advocate and sitting on the fence is of no use to anyone. This is not a WP:BATTLE. You are confusing editors editing according to policy with "editors not defending 'their side'". TFOWR09:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TFOWR, no I am not confused, but thanks for the concern. Are you going to help me? I have listed the names of 6 users who I think should be investigated. Are you going to do anything about that?Factocop (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to the Eglinton case - that is also laughable. There is an Ireland Manual of Style in regards to placenames that got concensus. You wanted to ignore it using non-facts and ignorance as your backup. Its hardly sitting on the fence and bowing to nationalist pressure defending the agreed conventions with which we work with on Wikipedia. All you provided to the discussion was "ignore everyone elses evidence and persue my own personal beliefs at all costs".
It is not my job to be helpful - its my job to do my best at keeping a balance between both opinions on thorny issues. If you had a case on the Eglinton talk page i'd have backed your corner no problems. You didn't have a case and wanted to plow on through the agreed conventions in place to prevent people imposing one viewpoint over another. Mabuska(talk)09:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The blocking admin had indicated that they intended to block with talkpage access revoked. Apparently that wasn't done. I've now reblocked to revoke talkpage access. Cailil, if you changed your mind about talkpage access between the SPI and the block, please do re-block - "I won't consider it wheel warring etc etc". Factocop, if you want to appeal your block you can email unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. TFOWR10:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RIRA
It appears that O Fenian is engaged in a concerted attempt to censor information relating to convicted terrorists and in particular, the self-confessed former second in command of the RIRA. O Fenian's motives are somewhat obvious since he has consistently edited articles in favour of Republican terrorists. I have no doubt that his conduct is contrary to Wikipedia policy on naming such terrorists given that several reliable sources have been given. --87.114.85.253 (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the above ip is a sockpuppet of blocked vandal The Maiden City. Any concerns regarding other editors contributions should only be handled according to WP policy and guideline, and not assumed allegiances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock
Your account should now be unblocked; thank you for your patience while we looked into this issue.
Note to others: After some investigation into the circumstances surrounding the block, it appears that there is another person near Factocop who is creating multiple accounts and editing in a problematic way. The checkuser wasn't incorrect per se, however private evidence indicates that this account is not run by the person who's been causing problems from this range. Please feel free to email me if you have any questions. Shellbabelfish19:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Straight back from a block and leaping into edit warring on multiple articles? If you're trying for the shortest unblock on record, I think you're already too late. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You must have me confused with someone else. Edit-warring is part and parcel of wikipedia. All of the pages I have been involved in, I have also set up discussions although those who oppose my edits will not join the discussion. What more can I do? I think your in enough trouble of your own to worry about me.Factocop (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion. - How can I be guilty of edit warring given that I have set up discussions and not broken the 3RR? Assuming that I am involved in an edit war, can I assume you have contacted the other parties involved? Didnt think so! Honestly Sarek, thank you for your concern but don't worry about me. If i were you, I would be watching the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents WP rather than casting a shadow over me.Factocop (talk) 13:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I am not guilty of edit-warring given that I attempted to resolve the issue with discussion. And ill ignore any further concerns you have given your recent lack of judgement on other discussions.Factocop (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey hey, calm down. Factocop, you've been given another chance after having your name cleared from a sockpuppeter, please don't waste it on petty things like 3RR and edit warring. If you avoid making more than the 3 same edits in the 24 hour period and set up the discussion and the other person ignores it and continues, they'll be in the wrong. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Factocop I thought that we had clearly explained why the Irish translations of County Londonderry is not direct and that it translates back into English as Country Derry. If you are still not sure about this please layout your concerns at the talk page and do not revert without discussion again. Bjmullan (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi facto! There's something wrong here. The blocking admin was also a party to the so called edit war, and the reverts took place over an extended period. Its also apparent that tag teaming was taking place to revert your edit. No other party has even been warned, let alone blocked. I can't explain this, but you should appeal (it won't do any good, but on principle you should try). LemonMonday Talk 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I am not sure what I have done wrong here. I have made 3 reversions over a period of 7 days. Guilty! I have raised a discussion on the topic but as yet those who oppose my editing have yet to either join the discussion or answer the questions I have posted. What am I to do? And given that the admin who blocked me has 1) recently been involved in a petty spat with myself, and 2)has been involved in an investigation for unjust blocking maybe highlights why I should be unblocked. And strangely I am the only user to be blocked. Please can I be unblocked and the blocking admin investigated further. Thank youFactocop (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I have consulted the blocking admin on this. It is clear that, although the amount of reverting you have done recently has been small, it has been part of a longer trend, and, although you have taken part in discussion on the talk page, you have done so in a spirit of proving you are right, rather than with a readiness to reach agreement. I will also give you a word of advice for any future unblock requests. Consider WP:NOTTHEM. Failure to do so does not tend to encourage admins to look kindly on block requests. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Though I'm not at all familiar with this situation, a few facts I'd like to point out. One is that edit warring is not necessarily making >3 edits a day, even if the reverse is true. WP:3RR is merely a "bright line rule" for what unquestionably IS edit warring; it isn't the sole defining criterion. Repeating the same reversion over and over is still edit warring, even if it occurs over an extended period. The other is that the blocking or lack thereof of other individuals is rarely, if ever, relevant to any given case of a block. See WP:NOTTHEM. In short, whether or not other people are punished has no bearing on what you did or didn't do. I do understand you're arguing you weren't edit warring here, and I'm not saying bringing up that other "edit warriors" were not punished nullifies your central argument. I do count two identical reversions of changes to your edit, but whether that constitutes an edit war is rather relative. I think it would be somewhat on the low end of the spectrum, if I'm not overlooking something. - Vianello (Talk) 19:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt mention the 3RR. I simply mentioned that in total I had made 3 edits...anyway it seems that I can only set up a discussion according to JamesBWatson with the intent of proving myself wrong? Very strange that Sarek chose to block only me in this so called edit-war? Unfortunately when I raised a discussion those who opposed me chose not to join the discussion, or simply ignore my questions. It seems the only way to get any ones attention is to make an edit or revision.A very unjust block and I will be reporting both admins.Factocop (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To claim that I suggested you "can only set up a discussion ... with the intent of proving [yourself] wrong" is to change the meaning of my words considerably. You can set up a discussion in the hope of proving yourself right, but a willingness to accept consensus if it is against you. It is a very different matter to set up a discussion in which your only consideration is imposing your own view, to refuse to accept it when you find most other participants in the discussion are against you, and to go ahead with your own agenda in the face of consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just seen that Sarek has blocked NorthernCounties for editing on a page that I have been editing on. He failed to join the discussion and made a revision without consensus. Blocked for 24hrs. I raised a discussion and made a revision when those who opposed me refused to join discussion...and I get 48hrs block. Doesnt make sense?Factocop (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Unjust block by Sarekof Vulcan. Blocked for 3 edits in 7 days and raising a discussion on the topic but those who opposed my edits failed to join discussion. This block does not make sense
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.
It is clear from the history that you were edit-warring. However, it is also clear that per WP:UNINVOLVED, SarekOfVulcan should not have blocked you because they were engaged in the dispute with you as an editor, [3]. I am asking SarekOfVulcan to comment before undoing the block. Sandstein 09:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take into consideration also that there is a mistruth in the unblock request with the claim that "... but those who opposed my edits failed to join discussion." I can count 5 editors who have responded to Factocop. Also a slow edit war is just as damaging if not more so as this editor has just refused to listen to any comments made against his anti-Irish language campaign and will just revert at every opportunity. Mo ainm~Talk09:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The block as such is perfectly OK, but it should not have been imposed by this administrator. Any uninvolved administrator is free to reimpose it if it is still necessary. Sandstein 09:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Block is fine for the slow edit war, and the false info in the unblock request makes for a valid denial. If desired, I willhave reblocked right now in order to remove the possible conflict. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what I mean by opposition - SarekofVulcanm, NorthernCounties, O_Fenian, Djegan and Bjmullan were the 5 users who reverted my edits. But only 3 of these joined the discussion but none of them were able to answer my questions or made contructive contributions except for Bjmullan who did answers my questions but by that stage I had been blocked. O_Fenian's contribution was to say 'there was no rationale for the change' - Thats not really contructive? And Djegan simply qouted the 3RR even though I was not in breach of this rule.Factocop (talk) 10:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You used those words in the reason for reversion. Your previous posts were not really contructive and you refused to move on the topic or answer my questions. Also O_Fenian please be careful with your sock puppetry accusations. I was blocked for a considerable time due to unfounded accusations made by you and your friends ... and all because I didnt agree with your anti-british, anti-Northern Ireland campaign.Factocop (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"You used those words in the reason for reversion" - where exactly? You are a self-confessed abusive sockpuppeteer by your own admission, the links prove it. Speaking of "unfounded accusations", how about a diff where I ever said you were Blue is better prior to your original block? I bet you cannot provide one, so kindly retract your false accusation. O Fenian (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O_Fenian, here are the 2 discussion contributuions you made before my block:-
There is no Irish name for County Londonderry, and no valid rationale for removal of the native name. O Fenian (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You will find that Irish is an official language of Northern Ireland, and is used by the Northern Ireland Assembly. English is not an official language of Northern Ireland, for the record. O Fenian (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I made three. And yes, they are constructive. Despite what you may believe, English has no legal status in the United Kingdom, it is only a de facto language. Irish actually has more standing than English. O Fenian (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your right, so O_Fenian. Here is your 3rd irrelevant point - You will find that Irish is an official language of Northern Ireland, and is used by the Northern Ireland Assembly. English is not an official language of Northern Ireland, for the record The native language of Ireland is Irish. If you have a reliable source for there being an Irish name for "County Londonderry" provide it, if not I will not indulge you any further. Do you actually consider these points constructive? Seriously? .....ohhh and where is my apology as you did accuse me of being The_Maiden_City? Care to comment?Factocop (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC
Either provide a diff that shows me making that accusation, or retract your comments. If you do neither, I will ask for action to be taken about your persistent false accusations. O Fenian (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only person that edited that report? Where do I say it? Diff please? If you even read the comments near the top I say "I have not added any account other than Blue is better". O Fenian (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O_Fenian, During the entire time I was blocked you were keen to stick the 'boot' in along with the rest of friends and you made no apology for it. You conspired to have my removed from wikipedia and following my investigation I was found to be true and honest in my case. You have been casting a shadow over me the entire time i have been on wikipedia gathering support on various user talk pages to have my arguments and discussions muted despite fact and sources presented. This is an encyclopedia, not a medium for you to air your polictical extremes and hide truth and fact. The sooner you realise that, the better.Factocop (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24 hours is standard for a first-time offense. You received that on September 13. Escalation is the usual response when the transgression is repeated. Favonian (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
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.
This doesnt seem correct. I have seen users in the past who have been blocked for edit warring on multiple occasions but never for more than 24hrs. That being the case Favonian, can you take a look at user:NorthernCounties as he was blocked yesterday for 24hrs for edit warring but he has been blocked for this in the past. I will assume that you will extend his blocking aswell?Factocop (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a) I have no intention of second-guessing other admins' decisions just because you want me to. b) At this point in time, the user in question has only been blocked once, witness this block log. Favonian (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the block log link. Never seen that before. As for the other point. It doesnt seem correct that an admin can be actively involved in a discussion and block a user at the same time? Thanks for being so passive. Your a great help:/Factocop (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Sarek made only one edit to that article (and one edit to the talkpage) prior to blocking you which does not make him involved or a participant in your edit war. 2. In any case, the block was confirmed by a completely uninvolved administrator. 3. Escalating blocks are standard procedure per policy for repeat violations. Therefore, I can see no valid reason for overturning this block. (P.S. Hurling an insult at a potential unblocking admin is not an effective appeal tactic.) —DoRD (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh ok, Sorry, Im really not thinking straight, because when Sarek made a reversion to an edit of mine, I thought that meant that he had become involved. How silly of me. Im an idiot. So, just a question, how many edits does an 'above the law' admin need to make before they are deemed to be involved?Factocop (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To give a straight answer to your question, WP:INVOLVED states: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. " --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek, I think your blocking was more to do with your dislike for me and my views and less to do with your role as an admin and custodian of wikipedia. Having raised a discussion on the topic, few people joined. It seems the only way to get the attention of those who made the reversions to my edits was to make a further edit. I cant force people to join a discussion. And given that my edits were reverted by a group of users who I have known to of collaborated together in other topics to gather consensus, I was always going to be out numbered. Please, please tell what I can do to avoid edit warring when my edits and discussions are met with oppoistion by a group of users who collaborate together on a number of contentious articles? 5 of my edits can be met by 5 users who make a single reversion each, yet I will be charged with edit warring. How can I avoid this?Factocop (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the 5 editors fail to join the discussion topic for lack of argument except to say 'just because', how can you tell? and given that certain editors troll pages like a pack of dogs forcing opinion over fact, consensus means little and is partly why wikipedia has become more of a forum than an encyclopedia.Shame really.Factocop (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might suggest you review carefully the policy on dispute resolution.. Just because you are outnumbered doesn't mean you are wrong but it also means you cannot ignore other policies such as those on edit warring. Make use of the dispute resolution process and it will keep you out of trouble. 17:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Again with the lies 5 editors joined the discussion if you didn't like what they said then nothing anyone else can do, so just carry on as you are because you are right and everyone else is wrong. Mo ainm~Talk17:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mo, with every post you make, your condition becomes more apparent, so you have my pity....but as I have said before and if you look through the history you will see that yes 5 users did join the discussion but they were not the same 5 that made the reversions to my edits. ok pumpkin?Factocop (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also Sarek, just a mention about NorthernCounties. You blocked him for edit warring on 'Brandywell Stadium' WP but you did not undo his edits. Why not? my fear is that if I revert back to the original, I will be blocked again for edit warring.Factocop (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the DR process allows you to take concerns and discussions away from the immediate topic and seek a broader area of expertise. That is why it is valuable and so useful. Once a wider community consensus is established you then have a foundation upon which you can make your changes. But edit warring is never acceptable under any circumstance. From the looks of your block log what you are presently doing isn't working out too well. Explore the DR process in your off time and make use of it later to bring about positive change. There are no Lone Ranger's here - we all must work together. JodyBtalk17:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my take on blocks and appeals (taken from User:Triton Rocker's talk page) - Block appeals are rarely, if ever, successful. Why? Because of two things; 1) Admins are always right, even if they're wrong. 2) You were blocked because YOU were at fault, even if you weren't. The admin cabal is one of the major shortcomings of Wikipedia. LemonMonday Talk 17:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Factocop - we're up against a big POV pushing problem here, and that coupled with the admin cabal is making things extremely difficult. Look what's happened to TritonRocker and LevenBoy. In the near future I'll be developing a fairly detailed submission as an RFC on the whole British Isles/Irish Nationalist problem at Wikipedia. I hope you'll contribute. Thanks. LemonMonday Talk 17:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok ill admit, this could be helpful. But does this mean you will actually respond to my comments or just ignore them as per usual?Factocop (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No this will help. I am not your question and answer person. I have in the passed answered questions for you but that doesn't mean I have to or will in the future. Part of working at Wikipedia is to find the answers yourself, it can be fun :) Bjmullan (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bj, the only reason why I requested you to answer the questions is because you raised the objection in the first place. The onnus was on you then to provide sources. If you can not find a source then do not raise an objection on the basis of 'just because'.Factocop (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify what you mean by this? For example, if user A adds something to an article, it is their responsibility to source it immediately or it can be removed. It is not the responsibility of user B who raises an objection to the addition to find sources. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to Brandywell Stadium WP. It had 2 unsourced Irish translations. I intended on removing them. Bjumullan made an objection to this. I asked if he could provide sources for these translations on both the topic discussion page and his user talk page. He ignored this request.That is what I mean.Factocop (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean wikilinking? If it's an internal article you do [[The Article Name|short]] but if it includes an entire url, you still paste the entire url but put [http://www.thewebsitehere/thedocument.html short]. Is that what you mean? Secondly, foreign language sources are fully acceptable as WP:RS in Wikipedia. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yeah wikilinking. thanks. OK I couldnt see that part about foreign languages but ill take your word for it. Just one question though. If the source is in a foreign language...how can you tell if it is actually relevant to the article?Factocop (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have people who are proficient in other languages than English. If you question the translation by one editor, you can then find another who speaks the same language to confirm it. That's why people have which languages they speak on their userpage. For example, I could skim through a French source and verify the translation in a pinch. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it really is a matter of acting in good faith. Well Bjmullan has not mentioned any proficiency in the Irish language on his page and given that only 3% of people on the Island of Ireland speak the language fluently, you will be hard pushed to find 1, let a lone 2 people who can speak and verify the language.Factocop (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek, I thought you were not speaking to me? Ok will do. But for Mo to consider my edits labelled 'test' as vandalism is a joke. when are you going to do something Sarek?Factocop (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Factocop, I am going to weigh in on this and advise you about WP:TPO if Mo comments with what you call vandalism again. Whether it is or not, I'm not getting involved but I'm just pointing you towards a policy you may find useful. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. I actually posted on NorthernCounties user_page and he removed my post with summary reverting vandalism. will deal with the pair of them tomorrow.Factocop (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek, why have you blocked me? There is a long established consensus that Northern Ireland is a country and this is evident across Northern Ireland related pages. Why is it then that the 2 against 1 consensus on the Giant's Causeway page outweigh a long established consensus on the topic?Factocop (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldnt remember where the dispute resolution was, but if you look at my contribution history you will see I did ask the question in the admin beginners discussion page. Fair enough, I shouldnt of made the edits but I was just getting frustrated with repeating myself. I will seek dispute resolution in the future? Could you not weigh in and mediate in the dispute? You have to admit that my point of consistency is pretty logical though given that the consensus of Northern Ireland as a country extends across wiki, except this 1 page.i just think its bizarre that 2 users can ignore the greater established consensus.Factocop (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I have been blocked for apparent edit warring. As this is an encyclopedia, I wish for consistency. At present and justified by the last consensus outcome, 'Northern Ireland' is a country'. This is a long established consensus and is evident across 99% of Northern Ireland related pages. However this consenus has not stretched to WP:Giants Causeway.Please can someone unblock me and also explain why the consensus of 2 against 1 out weighs an established consensus?
Decline reason:
I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
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.
{{unblock|This block is no longer needed as I will raise any future edits through discussion. I thought I made a constructive edit, based on a consensus raised at a larger discussion forum. In future I will perservere with the discussion in the talk pages before any future edits. This block is no longer necessary and I will proceed with dispute resolution to resolve the issue. Thankyou}}
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Editor has agreed to pursue WP:DR instead of edit warring.
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Dispute resolution
After checking the list at WP:Dispute resolution, I'm not sure if any of the noticeboards are really suitable, although a couple of them might be. I'd suggest settling this by a WP:Request for comment, posted on Talk:Northern Ireland. A neutral phrasing for the RFC would be something down the lines of "Is it appropriate to refer to Northern Ireland as a country, or constituent country, in Wikipedia articles?" You could then proceed to give a reliable source for it being referred to as a constituent country of the UK. It would also be best if you provided a reliable source on the other side of the argument (UK has never formally given legal status of NI, or something like that), because if you don't, you will be criticized for it. I would avoid claims that all these other articles do it this way, because as you've heard before, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for itself. Once that's determined in a month or so, you'll have a stronger position for your edits -- or you'll know that there's insufficient consensus for them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK ill try that. But i have said in the past that I am not referencing other wiki pages but I do think that they should be in toe with each other. I know you are probably using it as an example but a constituent country is still a country. Im just guessing here but Im sure if I went on the Ireland page and suggested a change like 'Republic of Ireland is a constituent country of the British isles' there would be uproar from the same people here who wish to demote Northern Ireland to the status of a birds nest.Factocop (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm suggesting an RFC -- it should bring in uninvolved editors. Except, of course, the ones who go "oh, they're at it again?????" and run screaming. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Please can I be unblocked. I have been blocked for apparent edit warring but in fact I was only reverting a change that had been made with out consensus. A discussion had been set up, but no consensus was reached, so I reverted page back to original. Seems an illogical block. I was just restoring a page.
Decline reason:
Let me get this right; you had just returned from a block for edit-warring, and you decided to make three reverts, more or less straight off? This block is lenient in the extreme and you would be well advised to use the time reassessing your participation in the project we are working on here. The next block should probably be indefinite, in my opinion. This one clearly needs to stand. Sorry. John (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
John, if you look at the argument. 1. page was not restricted. Sarek only imposed the 1RR on the page in the last 20minutes. 2. I made 2 reverts to 2 edits and I let the 3 edit alone. the 3 edits were made without even discussing in talk page, and users knew the change was controversial. 3. A discussion was set up, but no consensus was reached. 4. I reverted back to original page given that no consensus was reached. so why should an edit stand if it was not agreed? What have I done wrong?Factocop (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack redacted and additional {{unblock}} request removed. Factocop, please confine your comments to content, not individual editors. I know it may seem like you are being kicked when you are down, but don't make it worse by attacking admins who are enforcing policies. There is a good-faith unblock above which was in response to you specifically stating you would seek consensus instead of making article changes. You didn't do that. Frank | talk 18:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frank, please take a look at the edit history. I did not make an edit so I did not need to seek consensus. A clique of users made 3 edits without prior discussion or seeking consensus. I simply reverted their changes and told them to discuss. After discussion, consensus was not reached, so I reverted the page back to the original. what have I done wrong? If Sarek had stepped in when I had asked, this would never of happened. Why should a page edit stand if no consensus was reached in the first place? I was not aware of the 1RR and I did not break 3RR, I simply made reverts to 3 disruptive edits. I had made a similar edit a few days prior to this and received a warning from Sarek, yet he failed to warn the other 3 users. strange?Factocop (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made one, two, three identical edits in six hours on the same article. Calling it a "revert" and claiming you "did not make an edit" doesn't change that. Your change is a particular POV regarding how something should appear in the article; the fact that you are going back to something that someone else may have put there first doesn't mean you are not editing. The changes you made were not undoing vandalism. Trying to blame this on others ("clique of users", "If Sarek had stepped in...") is not helping your case. There are policies in place to prevent edit warring. If you don't follow them, you'll be blocked; that's what happened here. Generally, each time it happens, the block gets longer, because the amount of disruption is increasing. Frank | talk 12:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek has asked me to clarify here that I was aware when declining above that the talk page restriction took place after the block. I am happy to confirm this; 3RR is not an entitlement, and you broke your promise as Frank observes above. All the wikilawyering in the world can't make that disappear. Endorse block. --John (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek, should not even be involved. He was actively involved in this discussion. So to ask him for a 2nd opinion is hardly an unbiased call. Can I ask what you would do John? what would you do after 3 revisions had been made to a page without consensus or even a discussion raised(assuming vandalism). And afer discussion was raised, consensus could not be reached. Would you not revert back to the original prior to the disruption?Factocop (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also pretty disingeuous to say that "Sarek only made it subject to 1RR 20 minutes ago" - you already know that every single article around X (broadly construed) was subject to a limitation. If the article was broadly construed to be part of that topic, it's under restriction. I don't care if it's about a 3-legged toad that only lives in a certain country/province/region, it's broadly construed to be part of the restriction. You knowingly violated it, and continued to do so. I would have blocked you for violating the no-whining ban if Sarek had not intervened first. (talk→BWilkins←track) 18:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have said before I was not aware of the 1RR. No sir! I did not break the 3RR. I made a 3rd revert in response to 3 revisions that had neither been discussed prior to the 3 changes nor had a consensus been reached after the a discussion had been raised. I dont see how I am in the wrong. Can you tell me why a revision should not be reverted if there was not consensus for change in the first place?Factocop (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
1. page was not restricted. Sarek only imposed the 1RR on the page in the last 20minutes. 2. I made 2 reverts to 2 edits and I let the 3 edit alone. the 3 edits were made without even discussing in talk page, and users knew the change was controversial. 3. A discussion was set up, but no consensus was reached. 4. I reverted back to original page given that no consensus was reached. so why should an edit stand if it was not agreed? What have I done wrong? Please may I be unblocked
Decline reason:
The article is part of an entire series of articles that you are already aware are subject to 1RR - this article did not magically become subject to 1RR, it always has been since the "broadly construed" statement was provided ages ago. You were made aware that articles inside that broadly construed topic were under 1RR. You have agreed in the past as a condition of unblock to seek WP:DR. Instead, you broke a longstanding 1RR and your unblock request continues to show you have no desire or understanding of the DR process (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
BW, Iwas hoping that by requesting Sarek to join the discussion, DR would not be needed. Why am I the only person to receive a warning? 4 others made 1 edit each. 3 of those edits were made prior to any discussion so I can only assume that it was vandalism. Are you going to give them a warnign as well? Why should the page stay in the same state even after a consensus could not be reached on the edits? If you can answer these questions, I would appreciate it.Factocop (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you still do not understand Wikipedia after all that you have been through so far, I'm not sure you ever will. Have you ever read WP:BRD? How about WP:CONSENSUS? You don't always gain consensus first then edit accordingly, but if you edit and it gets reverted, then you clearly don't have consensus. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BW, you really are not getting this. I did not make the initial edit. Mo Aimn made an edit without discussion. I reverted and told him to discuss. Then O_Fenian made an edit and they did not discuss. I reverted and told him to discuss. VirtualRevolution made an edit and they did not discuss. I reverted and told him to discuss. I did not revert his time as I did not want to go near 3RR. Discussion took place but consensus could not be reached on the edit made by the 3 users. As consensus could not be reached. I reverted back to the original. I did ask Sarek to step in but he was passive. Do you understand? By your logic I would need to seek consensus before I change an edit that had been made without consensus in the first place. That is rediculous. This is why it is so difficult to not get blocked.Factocop (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I totally get it: you admit you broke WP:1RR. It does not matter if you made the first edit, you made at least 2 reverts to an article that if you understood the words "broadly construed" was clearly under the influence of a 1RR restriction. Thank you for confirming. (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Factocop - I suggest you step back and look through policies while your block remains in place, rather than making repeated unblock requests. It is quite possible that any additional unblock requests will result in a longer block (because the repeated requests are disruptive by themselves) and/or access to your own talk page being removed until the block is complete. Frank | talk 13:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I received a warning for that edit and the change was reverted. Why is it the 3 users in question have not received a warning and their edit stands even without consensus. I dont think you can answer that?Factocop (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I have been blocked for breaking 1RR but blocking admin had previously warned me not to break the 3RR. I did not break the 3RR and so I do not see a reason for this block.
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.
If you keep the above unblock request, I will be forced to remove your access to your talkpage for continual abuse of the unblock process. It has been proven you broke 1RR - you even admitted it. The 1RR block expires in a couple of hours, so your "current" block is for WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA. Your call. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As i have explained, blocking admin blocked me for breaking 1RR but warned me of 3RR so there is an injustice here. And he blocked me for 72hrs not 48hrs.Factocop (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the record shows, I am currently the blocking admin. Sarek blocked you for 48 (although he intended 72) after noting you had broken 1RR not just 3RR. Yesterday I added 2 extra days for NPA/BATTLE. Address the current block or bye-bye talkpage access while you're blocked. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained I was not aware that the page was under 1RR, and Sarek was the initial blocking admin and he blocked for breaking 1RR already. SO are you blocking twice for the same offense? I thought you had extended the 2nd block because you found offense in an innocent comment?Factocop (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me type slowly and clearly: on Nov 9, Sarek blocked you for 48 hrs for breaking 1RR. It has been upheld as valid, so further attempts to argue otherwise cannot work. That block would have been scheduled to expire in about an hour. However, because you chose to violate WP:NPA and WP:BATTLE, an additional 2 days were added, as you had already been warned about the phraseology you used. As such, appealing block for 1RR that is almost done, and has been upheld is invalid. Your next edit should be to fix your unblock to address the current block, or I will remove access to your talkpage for abusing the unblock process. (talk→BWilkins←track) 11:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you feel that I deserve the 2nd block of 48 hrs then that would mean that I will soon to have completed a 48hr sentence, but you are aware I should not of been given the 1st sentence as Sarek reminded me of 3RR but blocked me for breaking 1RR. This fact is clear as day. I am not abusing the unblock process, I am just trying to appeal a block that should not of been awarded. And it is slightly hypocritical to warn me of my phraseology, given your use of the english language in the past. If you are not going to unblock me, then please do not comment on my page any further as to so would be deemed unnecessary aggrivation.Factocop (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because of this edit, which is using terminology that you have already been warned about elsewhere, I have added 2 additional days to the block for WP:NPA. Due to the nature of escalating blocks, it should have been a week. Take some time off and read policy - understand that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Rethink your personal strategy here. (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on content, not users - I have commented solely on content. You have my sympathy as it is a very confusing topic. If you find that offensive then I suggest you never leave the house. Although in saying that you seem to be rather generous in your foul language yet that is deemed acceptable. It smells a little of hypocracy, but something I have come to expect from a self righteous admin. I will appeal this block as it is complete bollicks. Another case of bad administration on your part and you should hang your head in shame.Factocop (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus to avoid using the pipe-link? Seems to me, every editor in the discussion, didn't want the pipe-link, but you. Why should your lone objection there, become a veto? GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a contradiction in that statement. I think you mean that there was no consensus to keep the pipe? I was not alone as there was a 2nd user - Jeanne_Boleyn who disagreed with your edit. Well given that the changes happened before a discussion was set up, how was there a consensus for the change in the first place?
The consensus is to not pipe-link. I'm sorry if that annoys you, but that's the way it is. You have a choice now: Either accept it & move on 'or' go right back to reverting the article & risk future blocks. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was a bit sneaky given that the 3 edits had been made without consensus or even discussion, and when a discussion is set up, it is not even to discuss their changes but whether they should revert back to the original rather than revert back to original and then discuss the changes they wish to make. I always thought that in cases like this the page should be reverted back to original until outcome. What percentage of support is needed for consensus as their were 2 against?Factocop (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you promise to accept the consensus (no pipe-link) & thus stop reverting (to the pipelink)? I believe your block will be lifted. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have no choice. I just think it seems a little unfair that I had previously been warned by Sarek for 1 edit made a week ago, for spill over and not starting a discussion. Here we find 3 users who have done just the same and yet they received no punishment.
And also the fact that you were unable to prove to me that the Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland do not share an international border...but to say that this is the way it was going to be. That annoyed me.
Honest question, what is the percentage of votes needed for consensus because it looked like 5 votes against 2?
And the fact that I received a further 2 day ban for saying You have my sympathy by an admin who using foul language at every oppotunity.
Well Frank, if you had read WP:CONSENSUS it does mention that when voluntary agreement of all interested editors proves impossible to achieve, and a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes. So it may not be an exact percentage but it does eventually boil down to numbers and who has more friends.Factocop (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not an exact quote, but it's beside the point anyway. (Have you read WP:WIKILAWYERING?) Consensus is about agreement - and sometimes it is agreement among parties that what is going in the article is least objectionable to the greatest number of participants.
If you feel that Wikipedia is a MMORPG and is about friends and numbers, perhaps it isn't the best place for you to be. Wikipedia does have policies and procedures, and the vast majority of the time, everyone must follow them. All of them. It would be silly of me to claim that every single policy is followed by every single editor in every single case, but you must understand: those who don't follow policies are likely to find their time here difficult...and, often, short. Frank | talk 17:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that were the case. Unfortunately I have come across a lot of the same people on different articles, whether they communicate privately I am not sure but sometimes it is about numbers especially when trying to push through a motion eg a political POV. I will not mention names as that is sure to have me blocked further but I have seen other users muted for similar claims....In relation to the WP:Carlingford Lough, consensus for the original change was not discussed. And consensus to change the page was not met.
In this case I have followed the rules. I joined the discussion before reverting previous edits made without consensus and I was told to obey the 3RR but was blocked for breaching 1RR. Not sure what else I can do. Also it not nice when other users have already tried to stick the boot in during my block.Factocop (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, atleast you know about 1RR now. When one's around these articles, one must always assume that they're under 1RR restriction. This assumption of 1RR will save alot of headache for all editors (including yourself). GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure, I seen your notice, but given that you are not an admin, I ignored it. An given that Sarek is an admin, I just assumed that he knew what he was talking about. Ill remind you Dom that the point of a discussion is to discuss, you should try that sometime rather than attempting to be a biased referee.Factocop (talk) 09:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then he should be an admin. I was not sure that article was under the 1RR, and given that he opposed any change without actually presenting a reason, I assumed that he was not being completely honest. I was reassured by this when Sarek warned me of the 3RR. Who would you believe? An admin or a user opposed to the discussion?Factocop (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admins cannot know everything about all the millions of articles. When faced with possibly conflicting information, err on the side of caution until you have had it clarified. (talk→BWilkins←track) 09:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bwilkins, Sarek is very familar with Northern Ireland topics, Very! So if an admin is not aware of the 1RR, How am I?, given that he had told me to be weary of the 3RR. I will be requesting another unblock.Factocop (talk) 10
If he can show that he's willing to conform to Wikipedia etiquette and conventions then he should be allowed back, however he has to prove it and put forward a compelling enough case to get unblocked. Mabuska(talk)21:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel sorry for him, as he's come up against the same brick wall that I have found in recent days. A case of the numbers game. he was out numbered and didnt know when to quit.Homebirdni (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Curious that you 3 should show up here...hmmmmm....Now I remember why I took that sabatical. Any disagreement with this clique and a sock puppet investigation occurs.Homebirdni (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just used 'user contributions' to follow mabuska here. If I use 'user_contributions' or 'watchlist', you get labelled as a stalker and if you disagree with O___Fenian, you get labelled a sock. Is there another way to do either of these things with out getting into bother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebirdni (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never started. So i'll take an apology now or one later after the investigation. its up to you. There is a certain amount of irony as well that a sock like yourself seems to raise so many sock puppet investigations.Homebirdni (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact they both use the incorrect "chineese", see higher up on here for Factocop and the SPI page for Homebirdni's use of it. O Fenian (talk)
We both also like watching 'Friends'. We have so much in common. Maybe when Factocop gets unblocked we could maybe organise a friend date. Homebirdni (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Release
Can I appeal to all admins, please release me. I have made several attempts to contact the arbcom but they seem willing only to listen to my case once every 6 months. I have been blocked for an eternity and I wish to continue using my wiki account. I have appealed to the arbcom committee and a explained my reasons for socking, wish I regret. But apparently my continual block exists because I have not outlined my reasons for edit warring. I did not know that I had been indefinitely blocked for edit warring and now I have to wait another 6 months to have this case reviewed. Please assist.
Bwilkins, my point is, I did not make those contributions. As I said years ago. Look at the contributions, they are so varied. Its a joke, that a case can only be reviewed once every 6 months. And apparently I am being blocked for Edit warring, so it seems slightly unfair that a block of this type should last so long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.44.208 (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I honestly do not see how editing my own talk page is block evasion. If I am being blocked for edit warring then I should at least be able to write on my own page FFS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.44.208 (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing has changed with this editor. This edit went against consensus and while a discussion was going on at the talkpage. Carlingford Lough was one of the article where he was involved in both edit warring and also socking. Bjmullan (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Under the authority of WP:TROUBLES#Standard discretionary sanctions, and per this AE thread, you are hereby banned from all articles, discussions and other content related to the Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed across all namespaces, until 00:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC). You may appeal this ban at WP:AE or to the arbitration committee. T. Canens (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At a glance, it looks like I've received a topic ban, not for diruptive editing on the said topic, but for interacting and reacting to comments made on user talk pages and on my one talkpage. Plus I also received a 48hr block for interacting and reacting to comments made on user talk pages. Anyone ever heard of double jeopardy?Factocop (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were cautioned and warned many times since your unblocking and you near enough picked up from where you let off. From the moment I saw that you had returned to Wikipedia my eyes rolled anticipating here we go again. When your topic-ban expires and you decide to un-retire as so many do, please try to play by the book. Mabuska(talk)19:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a revert. As that is a violation of your unblock conditions I am imposing a 24 hour block. Discussion is the way forward in a content dispute - edit warring destabilises the encyclopedia, and provokes anger. If you find yourself so strongly disagreeing with another editor that you find yourself unable to refrain from reverting, then do not edit in that topic area. SilkTork✔Tea time23:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Silktork. I didn't use the revert tool, but manually edited the page to remove vandalism, which us allowed under my sanctions. You say discussion is the way forward? We already had a discussion. So are we now to have a discussion on the outcome if the discussion? Brilliant. Grwat idea boss. Factocop (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm reading this right. "...Factocop does not use the revert tool (or any variation of it) at all - not even once, and not even to revert clear vandalism."(My emphasis) Your reverting, manual or otherwise, is clearly not allowed under the wording of the sanctions. Have they been lifted? Six months of successfully not reverting have not passed. Doctalk11:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the most important phrase in "though can make an edit of a current version of a page and manually add sourced material, and/or remove inappropriate material, and/or amend current text in a constructive manner" are the last 4 words: in a constructive manner. Changing UK to Northern Ireland would be covered under other other AE decisions, and would therefore not fit into the term "constructive" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would of thought that making an edit in keeping with the consensus of a discussion would be considered constructive and that Mo ainm s edit as destructive. Am I wrong here?Factocop (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Eraser, though its still pretty annoying. I anticipated an edit war and contacted ANI and I get blocked for making the edit in line with a consensus of 4 against 2. Also IRWolfe removed comments by a user who is only blocked for 3 months and not indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Complete joke this project has become.Factocop (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove any comments, I struck them through. One was "by a user". No it was by 1. sockpuppet Hackneyhound 2. another sockpuppet IP [10]. Striking posts by socks is fairly standard practice. IPs are almost never blocked indefinitely because they aren't permentantly fixed, that's the only reason it's not blocked indefinitely. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Factocop, I think that all of the above posters have been trying to get the message across in as nice a way as possible. I also have the impression that they have not succeeded so I think it's incumbent upon me to spell it out:
1) Putting things back the way they were is a revert. In fact, even writing things in a new way, if it has the effect of undoing even part of someone else's edit, is a revert. It has nothing to do with using tools. You knew this. You knew it even before you were banned from doing it.
2) "The basin country of Lough Neagh is the United Kingdom" is a valid, factual and verifiable statement. You and three other users may not agree with it—even I might prefer it to be phrased differently—but it is not vandalism. You knew this when you did the revert.
3) Your only edit to an article since the expiry of your three-month topic-ban was this tendentious edit of the very kind and in the very area that got you topic-banned in the first place. Trying to justify it with "I would of thought that making an edit in keeping with the consensus of a discussion would be considered constructive" doesn't wash, and you know it.
Given your resentment at IRWolfie removing comments, I would ask you not to remove this one of mine (as you did with a recent post of mine). In fact, I would consider it as deliberate disruption of a block discussion if you did. Scolaire (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scolaire, unless you aream admin I dont think there is amy need for your input, though having witnessed first hand how you operate I dont think ill be taking any advice from a self appointed wiki police officer. No offense.
1) my sanctions are not black and white as you make out and carry contradictions and barely allow me to login let alone edit but unless you can read minds please do not pressume you know what im thinking. Shame on you for not assuming good faith.
2) valid argument? Maybe. But discussion consensus was 4 v 2. And an uninvolved editor closed the discussion. I made the edit in keeping with that. Mo went against discussion consensus and reverted. He knew his revert was not in keeping with discussion but made it anyway.
3)so an edit in keeping with a duscussion consensus isnt a constructive edit? Jez, the goal posts keep moving.
The last comment I removed was by Rashers...confused?
This is my talkpage. So ill do what i want. Now please never post on my page again. Factocop (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, Factocop, that adminship gives no special insight into the history and workings of the project, and an editor who is "long in the tooth" may well be worth listening to, especially as a non-admin. I've seen admins blast through their RfA's virtually unopposed... and then disappear mysteriously, forever. And I've seen IPs that have no visible editing history give remarkable insight into a situation. Admins are not gods, but merely experienced users with extra tools. The opinions of other editors should never be dismissed because of their lack of authority. Doctalk11:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
all true Doc, but I don't think Scolaire came to this page to help me to be honest, and he also removed a comment of mine from the IMOS talkpage without my permission. I'll dig up the diff. I would say that the goalposts are constantly moving and if you read my sanctions, my hands are pretty much tied and my eyes blind folded. I can't edit. I did post a comment at BWilkins page but he didn't seem interested in answering my question only delete it. The problem is that I made an edit inkeeping with consensus. If consensus has changed Mo should of raised a new discussion but he didn't. That is disruptive yet I am the one getting the slap on the wrist.joke!!!Factocop (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think lies are helping you here. You posted on my talkpage, I told you that conversation should have continued here, and I referred you to the original post, and actually responded to your question. You then unbelievably continued the conversation there again. At that point, I realized that you simply were refusing to listen to any advice, nor were you going to change. The fact that you're discounting Scolaire's comments - even though they're probably the best piece of advice you'll ever get in your life, anywhere, shows that you're possibly just not "community" material. As you don't get Wikipedia, I have no need to try and continue to bang my head against the wall to help you get it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were referring to the closed discussion at Lough Neagh talkpage. You need to be more clear. Scolaire has offered advice and ill take it but not all of Scolaires comment was "advice". If you can be so kind as to answer the question I posted at your talkpage that would be great. BW I only posted on your talkpage as you had not responded to my question to you above. That's all.Factocop (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I follow the indents, I see that you never asked me a question above. Nevertheless, it has been replied to multiple times, and wikilawyering is not a positive trait (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of the article is riddled with socks, and as soon as your arb enforcement ends you are straight back doing the exact same thing and getting blocked again, you have deleted comments from editors and dismessed others comments seems your battleground mentality is still going strong. Mo ainm~Talk12:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mo, please show me the diffs of the user comments I had removed from the article talkpage? Why did you ignore the discussion consensus? Please scrap your comments or show me the diffs.Factocop (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sorry Mo. You really must say what you mean, and mean what you say. You said I had removed user comments from an article page. I removed unneeded comments from uninvolved users from my talkpage. Not a crime as i am sure you have done the same. Please stay off my page please as you have made my entire time on wikipedia rather uncimfortable.Factocop (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're claiming you asked me here, which based on the above discussion is false - I don't give a crap what you say you asked me at my talkpage, and once again I have replied to anything of yours that I ever intend to reply to. Your editing style has not changed, and your endless drama, wikilwayering, pushing the envelope, etc has not changed. Unless you're willing to change, I personally hope you stop wasting people's time - one would have thought the imposed ban would have helped you to change your mind about your interactions here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
jumping the gun again BW? Here I posted [11] but you did not respond so i posted on your talkpafe and you still havent answered my question, only an excuse to be rude and uncivil. Wikipedia: the home of the over sensitive and easily offended.Factocop (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Factocop - no, that was clearly not a question directed at me. You do know how to use colon's to indent. That question is outdented from my comment, and is therefore not directed to me, so why would I respond to it? I've ALREADY brought that to your attention above. Stop playing stupid games and stop trying to justify your actions through wikilawyering. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So because i missed 2 colons you would not answer my question. Seriously? Now who is wikilawyering. Either way i posted on my talkpage and on your own talkpage and did not answer. That is just plain rude and typical of your attitude. Please stay off my talk page now as you are serving no purpose here. Your refusal to answer my question is noted. Goodbye.:-):Factocop (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You requested administrator assistance, and I came to answer it. Although I will gladly extract myself from this - after all, the question was responded to ages ago - you cannot prevent me from returning should there be further administrative requirements. I do hope you fix your attitude, or else we'll be back to square 1 in no time. Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Do hope you take your own advice as your attitude has been saddening. If you cant be civil on my talkpage or your own by answering a simple query they we will struggle to make any head way. Til next time :-) . Factocop (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. If I was, I'd have to take classes from Brocach. I've already taken his "Excuses 101" class. Fave take-outs included "I was only informing / The dog ate it / He provoked me". Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, can I please ask you to think a bit more carefully about your contributions here? You must realise that you are not going to convince any die-hard opponents of yours, so you are left with the option of trying to convince the undecided, neutral newcomer or reviewer. Your style is moving towards attacking other editors rather than arguing your case and your method of arguing is actually harming your chances of being taken seriously by any impartial observer. Quite apart from that, it's reinjecting a tendentious way of debating which we had, mercifully, begun to move away from. Please revisit how you make your contributions there - and even whether you need to say anything further at all. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)12:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, take a look at the edit history. I was the last new comer 3 years ago. There is no neutral, no new comer, just the same people. Factocop (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kim, I'm simply responding to comments and a discussion started by another user and after the consensus was reached. I haven't insulted anyone and the discussion has been civil. Advising other users to 'ignore' my comments should be more of a concern. I have presented a point as to why the template could be confusing. Users that may disagree with me have been unable as yet to find a counter argument, unless you count Scolar's call for other users to ignore me as a constructive counter edit?Factocop (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh and he didn't compete for Republic of Ireland. So we are both wrong then? IABA is a member of European boxing and organises boxing on an all ireland basis. ROI is not a medal country at the european championships. Ill raise an rfc as your pov is obvious.Factocop (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked
After thinking about it for several days, this is what I have decided. You admit that you were User:Hackneyhound. Since Hackneyhound was blocked, IPs in that range and on that type of kit have continued to make the same type of edit. I am still of the opinion that if it was you on that range making those edits the first time, it is still you now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Arbcom Committee/User:Silktork allowed back onto wikipedia despite my socking past and under strick sanctions. I have not socked since my unblock and have maintained as best I can behaviour under sanctions that were close to impossible to live with but I have done it. I have admitted to being a sock and disclosed all of my accounts, including HackneyHound. HackneyHound, I operated on a talkmobile network(which carries on vodafone), but was subsequently blocked. This is the only account I have operated on this network. But due to paranoia, other users have been connected to my hackneyhound account and blocked and other users continue to use a vodafone network to edit, but they are not me. A dozen users have been blocked against hackneyhound, and they are not me. I would not of admitted to being Hackneyhound if I were still socking on this same network and risking an indef. block. I wish Silktork to respond to this has he has been understanding in the past. I am not socking and I am only using my Factocop account as agreed with Silktork. This is typically unfair.Factocop (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Look at the past edits of my mobile IP. There were 4 edits made in June 2010, corresponding with Highking, a full 4 months before I first edited on wikipedia EVER as Factocop, and a good year and a half before I socked as Hackneyhound. Do you see? If User:Martin911, User:Martin912, User:BlackDavePrince used their vodafone or talkmobile network to edit wikipedia then ofcourse they are going to come up as a match, but they are not me, they are not related to any of my past accounts, not least Hackneyhound. Maybe they are the same user that corresponded with Highking in June2010 but that is not me and I have not socked as anyone since my factocop account was unblocked by Silktork. Please, if you are going to look at the facts, look deeper than what is presented in an SPI case by those trying to block me, please. Use your head.Factocop (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Luke, in response to this comment here [13], your hunch radar is way off. Whats the point of socking? to avoid a block or to double up on an article. Defacto was set up a full 5 years before I had even setup an account on wiki, and that user was blocked in 2012, a year and a half after I had setup my first account Factocop. And we have never collaborated on a single article. Seriously, if you are going to throw stupid accusations at people, do some research. A hunch based on the fact we both have 'Fact' in our name. really? take a bow.Factocop (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the hunch is based on the Facto part of your name, the fact you've both been caught using the SAME Vodaphone IPs, and your edits centre around MOS and British topics - different topics, yes, as I stated, but still those topics. The coincidences there are enough for me to be suspicious, but not enough for me to bring a case against you. I didn't bring that here because it's not relevant to your unblock appeal. Telling me to "use my head" and look at the facts - I did. CheckUser states there's a match, and there's also editorial behaviour and such that goes into it. It matches you. End of story. Lukeno94(talk)19:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my ignorance, but I can not remember ever being linked to the customer before in an SPI or otherwise. Can you show me this case? Very few of my edits are around british topics. MY history is majority Northern Ireland related. It would seem weird though to start Factocop, if at the time, DeFacto was not blocked, and the two accounts did not lay into a collaboration. Next time you have a hunch, ill duck. Please show me where I have collaborated with this user? I think your biggest problem is not suspicion, its paranoia.Factocop (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly paranoia, and at the risk of hearing more garbage, Northern Ireland = British. I never stated anything about a collaboration. I stated that you have similar names, have edited with similar IPs on related but not identical, and you have a history of sockpuppetry. These are facts, based on SPIs and similar things. The interpretation of it is my own suspicion. It would seem weird to continue socking whilst your main account was unblocked, or in fact, to sock at all. Once a liar, always a liar... Lukeno94(talk)19:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would make no sense to sock if I were not avoiding a block, and not using the numerical advantage on at least one discussion or article. Plus given the 5 year difference in open dates, you should lay your suspicion to bed. Once an idiot, always an idiot...Factocop (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The IP used above is, to describe it, a local loop maybe or a series of dynamics that repeat themselves after a period of time or even a business with a large network of computers (either moving from one to another or being assigned a different IP daily). 212.183.128.71 comments here and here comments on a Factocop SPI. here 212.183.128.70 puts in a comment with similar wording and style to Factocop at Northern Ireland. reverting HighKing on Anti-Irish sentiment, this time as 212.183.128.69. Reverting in any form is not allowed by Factocop as part of his ArbCom unblock- not to mention he has to logged in to his account while editing, double opps there. adding random characters or letters as while editing as 212.183.128.68, as did Hackneyhound, this IP also reverts HighKing, at John Lingo and Kerry Sheep. These edits are spread over a period of time and constitute socking, both while blocked and since his unblock, and clear wikihounding. I could search over more of the range but I couldnt be arsed, the pattern is going to be the same, same language, same sense of rigtheousness, same editor, same mind set. He will the same in two months, two years or two decades. He might point out that they are shared IPs, he might say its his house mate he shares his bathroom with, but in my opinion its the same editor, and I honestly believe he had a prvious account before FC and after his block, or even during, he will sock again. Murry1975 (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Murry, I have come across you on a few occasions, and I have found you an awkward customer, and more recently you seemed determined to have me muted and blocked, well you win, I'm blocked. But lets get the facts straight, as you seem to struggle with facts as here [14] with a lame apology. Lets look at these. When it comes to SPI's against me, I welcome any support from any anom IP or user who thinks I may be getting bullied out of this project, I seen a case at ANI, where Rashers sought to protect Highking from a block. So user support from another user is not uncommon. 2nd, I am always dubious of someone who says that another user has the same writing style, a quantity which is almost impossible to gauge or measure. So here here where an anom makes an edit consisting of 10 or so words(without breaking any WP policy), and then they go on to edit on the 4th episode of the 4th season of Glee, and doesnt comment on any other NI article, you are able to gauge that this IP has the same writing style as me? really? Seriously? thirdly we have 3 reverts of edits made by Highking where they have again seemingly removed 'British Isles' from text. Users have been reverting Highkings pov edits like these long before I came on the scene, and hopefully will continue, but those IP's have no relation to me so I am not in breach of my current sanctions. I hope youre not a lawyer. This is more poor research, but not surprising. I refuse to be linked to every IP on wiki who takes offense to the pov that is pushed on to Troubles/British Isles articles. Not today!!!! Now please never comment on my page again as you are simply not welcome, nor helpful.Factocop (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few last things from me FC.
1) I could have got you blocked before for your reverting, however I AGF and tried to work with you on it.
2) The IPs I have listed are on your mobile IP range, and carry out the same style edits as you.
Apologies Murry, in reponse to this [15], got the dates wrong, and admitting this doesnt help my case either. But like I said its impossible to compare styles based on 10 words or the actions of clicking a revert button, as many users have reverted Highking, not all on vodafone IP, though as Elen noted somewhere else it is the 2nd largest mobile network in the world. I will troll through every IP linked to my Hackneyhound account to find further reverts of highkings edits, but if you look at the first SPI case against me, there is no link to my hackneyhound account through evidence anyway just a hunch based on British Isles disputes that I was never involved in. Feel free to comment.Factocop (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FC when people say BI they can mean Irish, Northern Irish or even British articles sometimes. It may be the 2nd largest network in the world but its the location and range of the IPs that is close. I see you are still denying being Gravyring, pointing out the lull in edits, I know why this happened, and I will put it forward- you can admit or disagree if you want. There is no overlap because you used your house based PC/laptop for this account, and mobile device and IP for HH, when you went back to Antrim for St. Paddy's day and a holiday home you only could use HH, it was not possible to use your home IP range (GR) and if you used the mobile IP range it would give a direct link. No housemate, the language and edit style (which actually means a few things- but I'm not giving them away ;) ), is the same. My only question is why you are admiting most accounts now, and denying the IPs.
And on me being a sock, no, only ever had this account, never edited prior and only edit as an IP when I forget to log in, which I try to correct. But feel free to ask any questions. You have, not disappointed me, but left me confused as to why you do somethings. This is meant to be a free encyclopedia for the people, the thing that draws me to it, why cant we just write it? POV pushing? Or just stubborness (btw that applies to everyone, every now and then, not having a pop at yourself).
I'm admitting my accounts now because I seen a case at ANI where Highking was apparently toeing the line following his release from sanctions. This I think off top of head was raised by BPD, who was subsequently accused of being sock of HH by Rashers which wasnt true, as I have only ever used Hackneyhound on vodafone IP range. I am denying Vodafone IP's as they are simply not me. But I admitted registered accounts as was fed up of seeing users accused of being me when I knew they werent. Also when I refer to British isles disputes I refer to the removal of the term 'british isles'. I more or less edit exclusively on Troubles disputes. So i see a difference between troubles articles and BI articles. look at the first Hackneyhound SPI [16], Highking has raised this against me but has not pieced any evidence together, only that he thinks the accounts tagged against hackneyhound are socks of each other, based on British Isles disputes. I did recently revert 8 of Highkings edit following the ANI case were I was made aware of his behaviour. And I can honestly tell you that my friend was at the helm for Gravy. I think you can see why I suspected you to be O_Fenian, similar pov and styles, but apologies. Factocop (talk) 13:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you note, that I may have mis applied IMOS, maybe not, but looking at Highkings most recent edits, he has managed to apply IMOS to 12 pages in 9 minutes(thats including 2minutes he took to edit at his own page). How can a user apply the policy correctly if they dont even read the articles?Factocop (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes IMOS was misapplied in the ones I have looked at, even if NI is mentioned Ireland could still be used for the state, is a comparitive thing, if there is other states mentioned. The Organic farming, the ref may use ROI but that is there styling, where as we have MOS and IMOS, to use other stylings in the encyclopedia would be confusing. I do believe that we do on here use BI if the ref is for BI as we cant the use Ireland and Ireland, or GB and Ireland, as this reference refers to the islands that arent included in these (IoM and so forth). Murry1975 (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think there was definitely 1 article that had NI in the same paragraph as Ireland, and the IRA article had 21 mentions of NI, which whether it was in the same paragraph or not would eventually become confusing. Does show that if a user is applying IMOS so quickly 12 edits in 9 mins that they are not really reading the article and are systematically changing terms without actually checking if they are correct and hoping no one reverts. I think you can admit that at least?Factocop (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the governence clause, if you will, if it is to do with governance [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] can be used. But you should have pointed that one out to HighKing or on IMOS, not a revert dude, just a impulsive reaction from yourself now at this stage. I have came across worse (IMO) "Area of operations: UK and NI", NI edited in to where Ireland had been! Either way there are occasions all of us make poor judgement calls. Also an edit on Isreal-Ireland relations, used the uncommonname of both, unpiped Ireland and the added a redirct link for Israel. Discussion and communication help resolve things before they grow.
The troubles restrictions and BI ones are hand-in-hand, and do get lumped together at times.
I will check out OF's edits to see if they are simiar to mine, our paths never crossed, as you pointed out, but I assure you its not me. Murry1975 (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the 8 edits I picked out from Highkings contribution list were spot checks, because in their last 250 edits they have made 89 IMOS edits and 39 edits relating to British isles, so obviously their time spent under British isles sanctions has not done any good. And these edits have been essentially been made blind, given the velocity of the edits. Also I have been quoted that the onus is on the user proposing the edit to made a case for it, so if I made a revert, HK, should of gone to the talk page, not me, but it was irrelevant as Rashers reverted my 8 edits immediately then took my 8 edits to 2 user talkpages and the IMOS page, in an attempt to have me blocked. Very sporting behaviour. I really can't win. If you want to help, you can try and help me find controversial troubles/BI edits made prior to me opening my factocop account. But Elen has noted at User:Defacto SPI page that there is more than 1 sockmaster on vodafone IP range, editing on BI topics, not me.Factocop (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this edit [17], I thought was against IMOS, but Rashers reverted. Ireland pre-partition is mentioned 6 times before the last paragraph, [Republic of Ireland|Ireland] is mention post partition. That is really confusing.
Pointed this out already but I have gained nothing from full disclosure, only that if I had kept my mouth shut, I would still be free to edit. And now I am blocked.Factocop (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above, there were 4 edits made on that same IP range 4 months before I even joined wiki. As for you AGF, the edit at Carl Frampton was not a revert, as I removed a duplicate insert made by yourself. And as for dyslexis, I'd say that is the least of your problems, but it makes sense as I asked you to stay OFF my page and yet here you are. I'm sure its no coincidence that you appear after User:O_Fenian went into hiding. Now stay off my page.!!!!Factocop (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Making those sorts of comments to me, based on my stance towards you, is one thing. Making them to an editor who tried to AGF for a while is completely out of line. Factocop, how many people need to point out that it's not just the fact that the IPs match you, it's the EDITS that match you. I have, Murry has, multiple other users (including sysops) have... Just because other people have used an IP doesn't mean you can't have been using it to vandalize/push your POV. That's an absurd suggestion. Lukeno94(talk)21:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bless, very naive to think that Murry was AGF, when he has on countless occasions attempted to have me blocked by gaming my sanctions. I am saying that I have not socked since I was released in Sept 2012. That is the truth and I have shown that my hackneyhound account shares a vodafone IP but should not of been the main user in the SPI, as that is the only account on my phone that I have used. Saying someone uses the same style of language, a quantity impossible to measure based on a 10 worded edit is bullocks! Murry,Rashers,Highking all exhibit a similar POV/style and collaborate on many articles, so it is fair to assume that someone out there shares my opinion, and even before I came on the scene. Be careful, I have seen users accused of being me based on 3 dots(...) which sometimes I use in my edits. I have seen you also use 3 dots(...) which would mean that we have a similar style. You must be a sock of me then? Please stay off my page. You have already falsely and idiotically accused me of being Defacto so please stay away from here as you are not welcome.Factocop (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said he tried to AGF. If an account makes the exact same edit on the exact same subject as you had (or nigh-on identical, your particular POV-pushing is fairly distinctive), which is what has happened, did you really expect to slip under the radar, so to speak? Lukeno94(talk)08:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Gravyring was not a sock of mine but my housemate, who I roped in, not sure if thats meat puppetry as we shared a bathroom at the time."[18] is a "housemate" you recruited? Was it actually you, or really a "housemate"? Doctalk08:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Factocop would have us reorganize Hackneyhound and Gravyring into confirmed socks of him, and we would have to put all the rest as suspected socks of Factocop (rather than Hackneyhound). All the confirmed socks of Hackneyhound are false positives, perpetrated by systemic idiocy. Correct? Doctalk09:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the SPI cases against hackneyhound, the evidence is just a copy and paste of same language and same topics and that edits were centred around British Isles but as hackneyhound I never edited on british isles disputes but because the 1st case listed British isles as an area of dispute every case there after did the same. And as I have shown there were edits reverting Highking's POV long before I joined as Factocop. And as the anon IP `range was not blocked, why did I not collaborate with anon IP using my Factocop account? Hackneyhound is a sock of me, yes, and so should be at Factocop SPI, all the other cases at HackneyHound should be at their own SPI and unrelated to me.Factocop (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are Hackneyhound (HH), any suspected HH accounts would have to be re-listed as suspected socks of Factocop. Challenging the confirmed socks of HH (you) is where you are really mucking about: they would have to be de-confirmed and moved to the suspected socks of Factocop. Solely based on your testimony. You see the dilemma? Whether you knew it was meat-puppetry or not, Gravyring is a sock of yours; and your dodging my question as to whether we are expected to believe it was really you or some housemate of yours behind that account is not going to help your case. Doctalk09:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gravy was my housemate yes, obviously didnt have put the same time or effort in, when you look at the unblock request at their page link you provided, they made 4 edits across 3.5 weeks, not eactly an addiction like my own. I'm saying that suspected socks of Hackneyhound should be at another page of their own against another user as they are not me and were first linked to Hackneyhound based on British isles disputes that I as hackneyhound were never involved in.Factocop (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, look at the first Hackneyhound SPI [19], Highking has raised this against me but has not pieced any evidence together, only that he thinks the accounts tagged against hackneyhound are socks of each other, based on British Isles disputes, which as Hackneyhound I was never involved in. err? And in the same case, Elen dismisses any link between Hackneyhound and Factocop. If this is based on behavioural evidence, then how can other users turn this around based on behavioural evidence and link every account there after to Hackneyhound? maybe the first SPI should of been against Levenboy or something, but not me.Factocop (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
also as Factocop, I was not british isles topic banned so I didnt need a sock to edit at british isles disputes, when the first Hackneyhound SPI was raised. That and I wasn't aware of the disputes at the various pages noted.Factocop (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to get the tagging right. You are HH by your own admission, and you are "responsible" for Gravy by the same token. That still means that all suspected socks of HH are actually suspected socks of you. The categories for all those socks need to be changed from this to this. What do you suggest we do with the confirmed socks of HH? Simply vacate them? Doctalk10:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you must tag HH and Gravy(not me) as me, only if you must but all the socks suspected of being me(HH) are not me. Tag them to Levenboy or something, other wise every vodafone IP is going to be tagged to me(Factocop) which isnt fair, nor true, based on british isles disputes that I am not involved in.Factocop (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is LevenBoy a Vodaphone IP? I didn't know that. He's not blocked or otherwise restricted from a clean start, so he shouldn't be considered a good candidate to heap sock categories on, in my book. Suspected socks of HH are suspected socks of Factocop. They need to be moved there. Confirmed socks are something else entirely. This is a procedural observation. Doctalk10:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This doesnt make sense. I don't know what IP Levenboy is but they were suspected of being HH, by Highking, so they must be a vodafone IP. So if he is a suspected sock of Hackneyhound, why would all the other suspected socks (16 accounts and 9 IPs) not be suspected socks of Levenboy? I'm starting to think by helping you, I'm not helping myself.
Are you an admin? can you not go back to the first SPI and find and read into why all those accounts were linked to me if not by IP or content dispute. Its a bloody joke. Through muck at an SPI and hope it sticks, and it has. Look at the first SPI please.Factocop (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin, and especially not a CU. The CU's will have to answer for their own conclusions regarding HH's confirmed socks, should they choose to. I'm still not comfortable with the housemate excuse, personally. Unless you were not somehow standing over their shoulder every step of the way, Gravyring was, for all intents and purposes, your sock. Meat=sock in this case. Why you contend it was not you is odd. Doctalk11:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not odd because It was not me, but its irrelevant now as I'm blocked, but I rather you took no action as for all intensive purposes, you are an uninvolved editor and would prefer someone(admin) more familar with my case to deal with tagging such as Elen, if she wishes.Factocop (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your email: I have a note on my talk page that I may, at my discretion, respond on wiki rather than by email (and since as Elen notes your email address seems to be bouncing) I am exercising my discretion to do so in this instance. You have used your talk page for spreading accusations about another user that is not appropriate at any time and when blocked it is grounds for talk page access revocation. You have not used this page for appealing anything for over a month. In any event any appeal you might make is not inhibited by the revocation of talk space access - as evidenced by your ability to contact Elen, myself and others by email. Please remember that any appeal based on comments about others is very likely to be rejected as per WP:NOTTHEM--Caililtalk22:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've sent 5 emails - in the last 5 days all to do with another user (all covered by WP:NOTTHEM and explained above as inapropriate). If your ONLY reason for using this account is to continue your battle with this person by emailing others you will simply have your email access revoked. This will not impact on your ability to appeal your ban - it will merely disable your use of wikipedia's internal email system, which you are abusing. This is your only warning--Caililtalk17:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
