User talk:FactController

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Japanese garden is on my watchlist, so I noticed the link you added there. Please feel free to get in touch with me any time if you have any questions at all about editing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish, thanks! FactController (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Please thoroughly read WP:3RR which states that you should not revert an article more than three times in 24 hours. This relates to any content, and while that article is an unusual case because of the high volume of edits you have repeatedly removed the Scottish teenagers content specifically. Please be aware that you could be blocked for further edit warring. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, Scotland isn't in England. Should I call it vandalism next time it's added? FactController (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a content dispute plain and simple, similar to the other one you have been having in the infobox. violet/riga _^[talk] 21:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you issue similar advice to all the other editors involved in the alleged "dispute"? FactController (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at User talk:Rubywine#Edit war. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Are we the only two on the naughty step? FactController (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've not looked into the actions of others - I'm sure there are some but this was a particularly obvious one between the two of you. Please stop trying to pull the "why just me?" card. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You can explain why you haven't looked into the actions of others if you like, or you can let me draw my own conclusions of your action in targeting me. FactController (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter really, just remember that edit warring is not the done thing. Thanks. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you've undone other editors' work in that article more than three times today. Are you expecting a 3rr ban yourself? If not, why not? FactController (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said it's high traffic and an unusual case. The problem with your edits is that you have warred on the same content. Don't worry, now that you have been reminded of the 3RR policy I'm sure that you'll avoid any problems. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The policy makes it clear that whether it is the same or different content is immaterial. Are you deliberately disregarding the policy? FactController (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, which content are you accusing me of "warring" on? I explained the reason why the inaccurate info relating to certain events in Scotland was unacceptable, and indeed the underlying reason is precisely one of the exceptions allowed for in the 3rr policy. FactController (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This'll be my last comment on the issue. I have said what content already and made it clear that it is a content dispute rather than undoing vandalism or any other exception. The whole point of the 3RR policy is to tell people that discussion is far better than edit wars. I have not edit warred but you have. If you feel strongly about it do go ahead and report yourself (and me if you really want) or just voluntarily stop editing. As I doubt you will do either of these I don't see any point in continuing our little chat. As said above though I do really hope that the message is understood: don't edit war. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll take it that you can't justify your accusation then. Can't you see that your 3RR violation is no less of a violation than anyone else's? FactController (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny I just came here to tell you the same thing, and the same argument. At 2011 England riots, you have already violated 3RR, period. You are not being blocked because we are trying to convince you to stop edit warring, but if you continue to edit, you will be blocked. The behavior of others is immaterial, although feel free to raise any 3RR violations you see in the article with those editors, or ask an admin to look into it. Lastly, we all go over our limit from time to time, and I understand 3RR is rather dense rule with spotty enforcement, but when enforced it is always enforced with a block for a duration according to severity. PROTIP: if you are already at 3RR, take a break, or engage other editors in the talk page. If your point is agreed upon other editors, they might do the edit for you, no need to do it yourself - what should matter is what is put in the article, not who puts it in the article. --Cerejota (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Will you itemise the edits of mine that you are counting please. Are you counting everyone's and warning them all, or just mine? FactController (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at diffs, you violated the rule beginning around here, and since most of your edits have been reverts, righteous or not, not adding material, you are 3RRing ever since. Those are violations of 3RR, because they are not obvious vandalism, and this is not a BLP, so reverting your reverts is not against policy, nor are you protected or under 3RR exceptions which are very narrow. You are simply edit warring with other editors - regardless if your views are correct or not. I have only looked at you so far, but that is immaterial entirely, as I mentioned above.--Cerejota (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Your premise is false. I've just reviewed each and every one of my 80, or so, edits to this article, and about two-thirds of them add new material. Of the third that also removed material, most were removals of uncited or irrelevant material and went largely unchallenged. There are just two areas of significant contention, involving less than a handful of what might loosely be described as "reversions". One of those seems to have disappeared now following acceptance of my argument. It doesn't matter whether the article itself is a BLP, the BLP policy still applies. Please concentrate on cleaning up the article (it badly needs a lot of work) rather that harassing conscientious editors who are trying (against the odds) to create a worthy article here. FactController (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"acceptance of my argument"? No, the common sense of others who don't want to be in an edit war and initiated discussions while your preferred version was displayed. violet/riga _^[talk] 07:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

And the current consensus in that discussion appears to be to leave it that way. FactController (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that you just want to "win" rather than constructively work on an article. You must have a different dictionary to me as well because to me two people on one side and two people on the opposing side is hardly a "consensus". violet/riga _^[talk] 08:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Call agreement to stick with "my version" what you like, but in my book, no consensus to accept the changes that you propose means people are happy with it as it is. BTW, my edits have only been designed to improve the article. As an involved editor, who disagrees with some (most?) of my edits, perhaps your opinion on this matter is not quite . Had that occurred to you? FactController (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No consensus to include, no consensus to remove. I'm not talking about your other edits which I know have been helpful, I'm talking about your inability to discuss things. violet/riga _^[talk] 08:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Or my refusal to accept your imposed "correct" view, under the threat of a 3RR blocking? If you look, you'll see I've discussed and explained my actions at every step. FactController (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

How has it been imposed? It's very much not been forced because I did not edit war. Just because something is said in an edit summary does not class as a discussion. Anyway I'm bored of this and as long as you don't continue to edit war all will be fine. bb. violet/riga _^[talk] 08:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You gots to chill. If we accept your figure for edits, then 1/3 of 80 is about 27, which is about 24 edits beyond 3RR. 80 edits in 24 hours in a controversial article is generally a sign of an edit war - no matter how righteous your position, because it means you are not discussing in the talk page to build consensus, just edit warring with whoever edits contrary to your views. Consensus is not just talk page comments or edit summaries, it is gaining people over to your positions who then edit according to it. For example, instead of doing your ~27 reverts, you would have convinced ten editors - in the talk page, not by outside canvassing which is meatpuppetry - to do them, you would have had the same effect, yet neither you not them would have violated 3RR. When this article gets unprotected, if you violate 3RR again, you *will* be blocked, possibly even without further warning - as you have been warned already.--Cerejota (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Who said anything about 24 hours? They were in the 2, or more, days I'd been involved in editing the article. Where did you get the 27 number for the reversions from - I'd already explained that there were only a handful? Why egaggerate? Why the inflammatory threats? Why not concentrate on getting this article into some sort of worthy state? You should be encouraging those with a passion to get it right, not hassling them. Are you also hassling those whose edits comply with you personal POV on the issues? FactController (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me show you how consensus can change:

Attempt to build "consensus" with two people and a friendly admin Community bounces backs and protects longstanding consensus

Took 20 days for the whole cycle. There is no deadline. You do not need to make all edits yourself. BTW, one of the "stealth renamers" got topic banned for trying similar stunts in the same topic area. He, unfortunately, didn't listen when others told him that his passion for the topic doesn't mean the rules do not apply to him. We all do that from time to time, but that is no excuse. --Cerejota (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

consensus etc

I saw your comment, and I know what you mean. Many many many moons ago, when I gave a fuck, I thought the same thing. However, that is not how it works, and it will never change, so trying to do so is quixotic.

Why, you might ask?

Short course:

1) WP:NOTDEMOCRACY - Wikipedia is not a democracy: "Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting". Consensus is not voting or majority rule. Consensus is whatever the stable version of an article is in a given frame of time.

2) WP:CCC - Consensus can change: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Moreover, such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions." Consensus is not written in stone, it can change. It can change from one day to the other, or from one hour to the other, or from one year to the other. Since consensus can change, it cannot be defended against change.

3) WP:BRD - A useful essay. You edit/revert, you are reverted, you discuss. The circle of wikilife. It never ends. Why? - because:

4) WP:DEADLINE - There is no deadline. An article is never done, ever. It can always be improved, it can always get worse, it will always be subjected to editing. That is why we edit.

Faced with this reality, I have decided to live only by three principles:

1) WP:NPOV - Always edit neutrally, even if I am contradicting what I take to be the truth of a given matter. In fact, I try to stay away from controversies that are close to myself, because it can be soul-crushing to edit against one's own beliefs - which is often required in order to be NPOV. In my case, I also take this to mean verifiability, not truth, but other 3 rule people have different takes.

2) WP:DICK - Try not to be a dick, which includes assuming good faith, specially when being criticized.

3) WP:IAR - The rules usually help make good encyclopedic content, but when they don't, fuck em and send 'em to hell.

However, successful IAR is hard to pull off, and requires both boldness and understanding when the conditions are snowy, so most of the time, follow the rules.

All this said, if you wan't sound advice, read this: WP:DONTPANIC. --Cerejota (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

All good, wise, advice. So what exactly is the point of thrashing out a consensus on the talk pages you you think? Should I, if disagreeing with a declared "consensus" that has just been signed & sealed, go ahead and put my favoured view back in, and if I did, what should I expect to happen next? FactController (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it depends. Consensus - and no one says it out loud AFAIK - is ultimately whatever edit remains in the article that doesn't get reverted by anyone. We do have a bright line behavioral control, the 3RR (and in some topic areas and individual articles, there is even 1RR - and edit warring can and has been used to block editors even before 3RR if they are persistent in their edits against a set of editors), as you know from experience. Consensus discussion is essentially "rallying the troops" to defend a given article status, but also a way to identify possible avenues for a broader solution. In pov polarized articles, I have found, there are often editors willing to see the other side, while "defending" their own - independent of wikiphilosophy. They end up making an NPOV encyclopedia in spite of themselves. No of this would be possible without discussion, however.

We are not even required to discuss, and with a few exceptions we are not even required to put edit summaries (although, if one makes an edit summary, it should be truthful or at least not misrepresent the edit being done). However, like all human interaction, there are a lot of things there are no laws about, yet people do it anyways because its decent, or common sense or even tradition, and if you do not conform, you often get negative responses. So in general, an editor that refuses to engage on discussions and who doesn't put good edit summaries, is shooting him or herself in the foot if there is WP:DR escalation - no one likes a deaf-mute who edit wars.

Take for example the see also issue at 2011 England riots. Someone attacked the principle of see alsos, and I think the consensus has been clear in not supporting that view. It has been less clear on what the see also should contain, but it is currently a vast improvement on what we had before. I like to think that is because people got the point, that a see also is not a coatrack to hang POV - a very valid point, but not a reason to get rid of it altogether - but something to widen the encyclopedic view of a topic without WP:UNDUE distractions in the article. That is the current consensus, but WP:CCC.--Cerejota (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

By police

My mistake. I was getting it confused with the shooting of Duggan. Gregcaletta (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I was beginning to wonder. Well-done for doing the decent thing. FactController (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

2011 England riots

FactController, I believe that your behaviour concerning 2011 England riots is obstructing progress on the article. Your ceaseless argumentation about issues long after it has become clear that the overwhelming weight of opinion is against you is disruptive. You show no signs of recognising when there is a strong consensus of opinion against you. By repeatedly making edits to the article against long established consensus, you have shown a lack of respect for other editors and you have needlessly forced us to revisit issues already discussed, and to spend an inordinate amount of time in doing so. What is far more worrying to me than that is that your pre-conceptions about the distribution and impact of the English riots appear to be so fixed and rigid, that when faced with clear and reliably sourced counter-arguments, for example mine and Cerejota's in the current discussion, your immediate response has been to find reasons why the evidence we've provided can be disregarded. In my case, you also implied strongly that my argument on the West Yorkshire issue was based on cherry picking, flouting WP guidelines and resorting to hearsay and rumours; that is nothing less than offensive. I find this type of behaviour so annoying, and so needlessly time consuming, that it has put me off wanting to work on the article at all. In summary, you have demonstrated on the talk page that you cannot be trusted to use reliable sources correctly on this topic, or to respect other people's use of reliable sources. I think this suggests that the net effect of your unsupervised edits will be to endanger article neutrality. I think that you should take a break from editing this article, and any related articles, and take some time to reflect on how you are approaching the tasks of editing and communicating with others. Rubywine . talk 13:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My dear Rubywine, I think that you are getting overly frustrated by one or two trivial matters of simple disagreement. I have made over 200 edits to this article - all in good faith, with the sole purpose of improving the article (and it sure needs improving) and reliably sourced where applicable. I have trawled tirelessly through the never-ending mire of misleading and false representations of sources, opinions asserted as fact and POV-pushing at its very worse, and attempted to re-organise it into something resembling a coherent article. Now it could be that some of your edits were casualties of my endeavours, but I'm still a little dismayed that you characterise my input as you do above. :( Look back at some of my edits, then rather than blaming me for the lack of progress, you might feel motivated to praise me for my part in the progress so far made. :) Consensus in this sort of article and in this sort of environment can be very fickle and very transient. If I perceive that the balance of the article doesn't match the balance of the RS support, then I try to do something about it. Wikipedia encourages pro-active editing, and it does tend to concentrate people's minds. Also, please don't attribute your choice to "waste" your time on this article to me. You are a free agent in this, as am I. May I respectfully refer you to WP:AGF and WP:NPA for a bit of light bedtime reading. FactController (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've not commented upon your good faith, nor made a personal attack on you. I don't dispute that you have made many edits to the article. But you are totally ignoring the points I've made, and the obvious fact that you are in a minority of one. While Wikipedia encourages bold editing, it certainly doesn't encourage violating consensus or repeated reversions of edits by multiple other editors. Wikipedia discourages ceaseless argumentation and refusal to accept counter-arguments. You would help yourself far more by reflecting on the points I've made here than by dismissing them. Rubywine . talk 16:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:AAGF. To point out problems with your approach is not a personal attack, and I also perceive your well-intentioned efforts on the article as bordering on tendentious editing. We had the spurious [sic] tag where you were arguing against everybody else, now I see you have made an entirely spurious "1%" claim which has also been shot down. While I do not question your good intentions, you need to realize that this is a collaborative project where consensus determines our decisions. You refer to WP:BOLD above, but you need to remember that WP:BRD requires that you discuss in good faith when your bold edit has been questioned. This I do not see you doing and this will lead to problems for you if you do not change your approach. --John (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The "sic" was grammatically correct - not "spurious", the quoted text was factually incorrect and all objections were purely subjective opinion. The 1% point about incidents in cities hasn't been been addressed, it was evaded - so how can it have been "shot down"? I welcome your comments here but please don't throw around wildly inaccurate allegations. Do we want a quality article or a coatrack dangling with pushed-POVs? FactController (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

See, there's the problem. Nobody agreed with your use of the [sic] tag, but you still maintain you were right? The 1% allegation you pulled out of thin air has been roundly demolished by Rubywine, yet you maintain that it has been "evaded"? I strongly advise you to rethink the entire basis of your involvement here. Let me clarify; although I am an admin I will not personally exercise admin options on you as I have edited the articles myself. I will escalate the matter of your editing to a central venue so that uninvolved admins can do so, unless I see a change in your approach. Your call. --John (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

None of the editors who contributed agreed that the "sic" should stay - that's not quite the same as what you said is it. The phrase was as written, but factually inaccurate, so "sic" was grammatically appropriate. The arguments against hinged on insight - not facts. The 1% throw-away-remark was evaded - it wasn't addressed. I edit to improve NPOV and to improve quality - why would you wish to supress my enthusiasm and passion in that direction? Has someone asked you to "lean" on me? FactController (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I spotted your behavior all by myself. --John (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This contribution to your talk page yesterday, to which you responded thus and then archived earlier today didn't influence you at all then - good. FactController (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And I just spotted this from a couple of weeks ago. If you are unable to edit this article without resorting to this sort of pointedness, you may be better staying away from this area. If you find you are unable to work effectively with others, which takes a high level of compromise, you may need to modify your approach or reconsider your suitability for this project. --John (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It was accurate given the then content and it went unchallenged until the section was (relatively) cleaned-up - it had the desired affect. It was a means to an end - creative editing to achieve a desirable goal. What was wrong with that? FactController (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT before you make any more edits to Wikipedia if you really still think this was ok. It wasn't. --John (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I've read it and it doesn't appear to have any relevence in this case. I was working to MOS:HEAD, have you read that - It is more appropriate and I seem to have complied with everything there. FactController (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As an admin of over five years' standing, yes I have read and even try to keep up with the changes in all our policies. Our behavioral policies always trump the guidelines in MoS. My advice to you stands, and it is up to you how or whether you implement it. --John (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll be familiar with the lengths that some editors go to then in their pursuit of revenge when one of their hobbyhorses is chipped. FactController (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Such as yourself, perhaps? Looking over the edit history of the article, and the commentary on the article's Talk page, your edits appear to not only run counter to WP:CONSENSUS, but actually fly in its face. And no, I'm not WP:INVOLVED in editing the article, so don't try to trot that straw man out; it's rather flammable. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Such as myself? You'd need to explain what you think my "hobbyhorse" is, and my revenge actions, to justify that. I meant more something like this. FactController (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

edit warring report

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:FactController_reported_by_User:Cerejota_.28Result:_.29 I take no great pleasure, but it had to come to this. We tried, its all I can say. --Cerejota (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I go off-air for one day - and you try to get me barred! The charge sheet looks a bit spurious - especially the 4 constructive edits (which still stand) that you construed as "reverts". Justice appears to have prevailed though, more or less. FactController (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at 2011 England riots

Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:FactController reported by User:Cerejota (Result: Warned), which contains a warning for you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reasonable judgement. FactController (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)