User talk:WilliamH/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:WilliamH. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

System messages changes

Hello, thanks for your edit to MediaWiki:uctop, I was happy to note it today and I hope it will be soon the new MediaWiki default for English. I spotted this by chance, but it would be nice if such improvements to the English that are not en.wiki-specific were made available to everyone, see translatewiki:FAQ#Improving the English source message. It's as easy as noting your suggestion on translatewiki:Support or opening a bugzilla report, where discussion can happen if needed. Regards, Nemo 05:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL

Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to translate and review the notification that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages m:Rename practices and m:Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 13:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hello William. Upon spotting the investigation regarding my account in connection to User:Staro Gusle, I just thought I'd inform you that I am denying any link and have posted on the project page[1]. Your remark stated "likely" though I don't know whether this de facto "confirms" the suspicion but I hope it doesn't. I have noted that despite us editing on many of the same articles, there are some differences between us both in knowledge and in nature of comments and I have cited fresh examples. Also, I was involved with on the movements of Butcher of the Balkans since its creation by a disruptive user. If I wanted to make the title italic I could have done so any time in the last month before my topic ban. I am not in the habit of making arbitrary presentation changes on pages weeks after discovering them, I either would do so on the first visit to the article or not at all. So, to that end, do I strike you as someone who could be so stupid as to make that change purely for the sake of having his name on the history list!!! It's absurd!! Furthermore, I am just waiting for the dust to settle so that I can discuss my topic ban with the admin who blocked me recently, and this remains my intention. I have ideas on how to move forward and have prepared evidence on the start I made before my block. Staro Gusle has barely scraped into the ugly issues which I raised at AE against Bobrayner. I could offer more positive evidence if needed. I implore that you think wisely on how to handle this! Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Noted, I have responded at the SPI case page, and invite another CheckUser to review my findings. WilliamH (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello again William. Although my behaviour may be partly to blame, the sockpuppet investigation page is turning into Dramafest. It needs to stop. As an accused party, I believe I may enter that discussion at any time to provide citations to prove we are not the same person. Sadly we have had a new arrival, Bobrayner, and PRODUCER has poked his nose back into the discussion. Something stinks here. Rayner is an editor with whom I had had ongoing problems for months (not now). To that end, he has taken part purely to expand a continuing smear campaign. He has subsequently accused me of "using sockpuppet/s" (plural) when in fact there was one occasion when I admitted editing without being logged in, and was warned for it and it has not been repeated. No verdict has been reached, yet he took it upon himself to cancel one of Staro Gusle's contributions which raised alarms (ie. looked like mine) declaring "sock". Within a short time a third editor reverted him, Rayner then accused him of being a "sock". Furthermore he has attributed every edit to have reverted him to me though I had no trouble in locating the addresses as being in Switzerland. Not the type of confirmation admins are satisfied with but a million miles from proof of socking. The point is he has added nothing but is merely there to be disruptive, to him, every editor who opposes his is an "Evlekis sockpuppet". His mind is made up but thankfully, I don't have to convince him. To that end, can you ask him to stay away unless he has genuine proof of something not spotted, and also remind him that two CUs have been completed so the chances of him finding something new are less than slim. Dramafest is something we don't need.

PRODUCER originally had a "concern". Joy made his WP:POINT for him when launching the thread. Despite my arguments to the contrary, PRODUCER cluttered the project page even more by citing the issues raised by CU, realised by fellow admins and introduced originally by JOY. Yet neither he nor Bobrayner can find a single iota of reasoning as to how so much between two supposely "the same" users can produce material so radically opposed to one another. Both are overlooking that, deliberately ignoring it because both would dearly love to see both my account and Staro Gusle eliminated. I may not be able to influence your final verdict, but I ask kindly that you remind both these users that it is not a forum or a place to vent their opposition to my or SG's contributions. Moreover, may they leave the findings to you and your collagues. I am now off to sleep because I have lots to do over the next two days before REALLY going to Serbia from where I offered to make edits amid Staro Gusle's probable contributions on the same day. I won't do it now you don't need it but you won't find me editing until atleast Saturday 11 May when I return if I am not banned. I thank you for your cooperation here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, at this stage, neither Bobrayner nor PRODUCER have submitted anything which is out of the scope of an SPI case, so I won't be telling them to desist. WilliamH (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If that's your attitude and you cannot see it is a scheme, and you are happy to let them carry on then welcome to Dramafest. I however am now right out of time. I tell you, I am that angry that in real life I'd have punched somebody. I refuse to "stay calm" when seven years of editing is about to come to an abrupt halt on scanty evidence. No need to warn me about the personal attacks because I know a dirty protection racket when I smell one. When I log back in following my return from the trip, I expect to be banned. People's decisions look to be made up yet nobody has proven a thing. Would you believe that right up to two days ago, I was an avid supporter of CU thinking it was the miracle solution. I now see it is a propaganda tool where it suits a select committee. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you feel that way, but from my uninvolved perspective, I simply see two users explaining why they believe Evlekis and Staro Gusle to be related, in a manner in which you would be entitled to edit, were you filing evidence against someone. WilliamH (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Loganfalco Per RhodeIslandRed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgedinPhiladelphia (talk • contribs) 05:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As no explanation has been given as to what I'm supposed to be looking at, I'm not going to do anything about this. Please file an SPI. WilliamH (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Rev Delete?

If you have the rights can you rev delete a few of the most recent [[2]]. Also if you notice the edit summaries note that this is a registered user is it possible to do a sweep and verify if this is true? I don't know if that's allowed or not. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to RevDel the edit summaries as they contain admissions of intention which are informative to other admins. But talk page access has been revoked. WilliamH (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you. Do you think we can check to see if this person is indeed using another account? If they do and there's a history it may need dealt with. Granted it's a wild card search so not sure if that's allowed or if it just falls under WP:DENY? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

To CheckUser a presumed sock to see if a master can be found is totally acceptable, and not fishing. However it would not be discussed, as CheckUsers generally do not publicly associate accounts and their IP addresses. WilliamH (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah I've heard that a couple times not sure why it didn't click. Anyways thanks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

CU

Hi, as the closing CU, are you allowed to confirm either way whether the IP user in the discussion on Talk:Paris is connected in any way with any of the participants?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No. WilliamH (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Amiram Goldblum

There are growing concerns that Amiram Goldblum is himself editing the article about him. He has two accounts: User:Rastiniak and User:רסטיניאק. Take a look at the this sockpuppet investigation. Also, read the following discussion. רסטיניאק has removed the POV tag from the article twice so far: 1 and 2. While I don't find this subject particularly interesting, I'm alarmed by the fact that Goldblum is fighting tooth and nail to get users who question the neutrality of his article to get blocked. I request you to help us determine whether the two accounts indeed belong to Goldblum. Nataev (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Nataev (talk · contribs) is posting this item on the talk pages of > a dozen admins. It might be instructive to investigate more deeply via his contribs as to why he is doing this -- I suggest that it has to do with his right-wing (Israeli) sympathies and his desire to smear Goldblum for being a leftist (on which [3]). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. This is the first time I have asked for help from a user who has access to CheckUser. Now Nomoskedasticity himself is calling me names. I don't know much about left-right politics. I have no interest about subjects related to Israel either. My sole problem is that Amiram Goldblum has written the entire article about himself. If doing so is acceptable on Wikipedia, then I have no problems with it. Nataev (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please file a new SPI. That's the venue for that sort of thing; less so my talk page, and definitely not the talk page of multiple admins. Make sure that you explain how you believe the accounts to be operated by one person, and how they are being used abusively, and then maybe CheckUser can be considered. WilliamH (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Nataev (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Request an account process

Hi William, DeltaQuad would like you have have a look at a waiting account request he needs your opinion on. Link to interface Link to request Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. My account has been suspended for inactivity. DeltaQuad, could you reactive it? Then I'll take a look. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Your account has been activated again. Also if you've got some time and the inclination, there are quite a few requests waiting for CU attention. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I would think that CU accounts should never be suspended for inactivity... —DoRD (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

You should mention that to the interface admins, it's a good suggestion. WilliamH (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure CU accounts aren't suspended now that they are able to be marked as a CU account. However before CU accounts were specifically marked as such (when WilliamH's account was suspended) they appeared in the inactive list as normal inactive tool users. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. —DoRD (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for approving the usurp / SUL request. Thane (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A pleasure. Not going to have to do them for much longer... WilliamH (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So, usurps will be ancient history in the new SUL regime? Thane ^{formerly Guðsþegn} (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

As will simple renames - local bureaucrats on all projects will lose the ability to rename users. Following finalisation, renames will only be carried out by stewards on Meta, and an account's SUL will become irrevocable. WilliamH (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you WilliamH. I'm sure I have a tremendous amount of reading ahead of me, but I look forward to it. Thanks for everything. Mkdw ^talk 18:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Benedictdilton wants to be deleted from WP

diff, could you take care for it ?-- Dravidian Hero 19:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am wondering whats happening with the investigation aganist me. Will I be banned or something like that??? A little anxious. Right now I am trying to me more transparent in wikipedia. Planning for adoption from some senior editors. I would like to discuss with some one who is having a thorough knowledge of WP:RS. It will be a great help if you can suggest somebody. I would like to change my name as "Cyber Cop" can you help me in that.Benedictdilton (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No, nothing like that, don't worry. Just bear in mind my comments on the SPI, and there is absolutely no prejudice against you continuing to edit. Good luck! And go here to file a request to change your name, although I would pick something other than Cyber Cop, it sounds a bit...confrontational. WilliamH (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case I will stick to this name only. I have some genuine doubts about WP:RS. It mainly involves news portals publishing news provided by reputed wire services like Reuters. Can such websites be used as a reference. Benedictdilton (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't necessarily involve that. To find some sort of consensus on the source you have in mind, you could start a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. WilliamH (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

user name move issues

Hello, It looks like you moved User_talk:THATSIT as part of a user name change request [4]

The user has been notified of the name change [5] but is continuing to edit under the re-established former user name.

Is there anything that should be done about that? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No doubt he recreated the old username because he couldn't log in with it, not realising that the reason why he couldn't log in with it is because it had been successfully moved to the target username with the same password. He should stop using the old username and continue to edit under the target username, especially to prevent the appearance of sockpuppetry. WilliamH (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

I have placed on hold an unblock request at User talk:EdoOnna, relating to a CU block you placed on the IP address 69.126.206.152. My impression is that the request should probably be declined, but I though it better to consult you, as you have access to evidence that I don't. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - your intuition is correct, it's a sock. WilliamH (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ping

Howdy, just pinged you at User_talk:Tokyogirl79#Wlinkster. At this SPI you mentioned you had blacklisted a site and a few people were asking how we might black list another (unrelated) site, so I suggested they contact you for some advice. Hope you don't mind! Cheers, Stalwart111 12:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I definitely recommend blacklisting the site. The amount of articles created and the sheer vandalism done in order to get around the deletion of the pages is pretty ballsy and enough to suggest to me that he'd just keep trying to get his website added to Wikipedia. I hope that the blocking gets the hint across, but considering that he just kept coming in under different IPs tells me that he's likely to try coming back later on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi WilliamH, the main problem with this SPAMMER as Tokyogirl mentioned is the use of multiple IP addresses. It maybe more then one person involved or they are using an unbanned proxy, but nevertheless the article has been recreated multiple times. I think we counted 4 or 5 and they keep vandalizing the pages (i.e. removing AfD or Speedy tags) etc. I feel very strongly that the best way to discourage this person(s) from future abuse is to blacklist their website as the domain serves Wiki no purpose. Thank you very much. Tyros1972 Talk 08:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Following the range block I placed yesterday, all of his activity has subsided. But let me know if it resurfaces, and we can put an edit filter in place. Thinking about it, that would be far more effective than the blacklist. WilliamH (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems sensible, and thank you for taking the time to put that in place. As Tokyogirl79 has pointed out on her talk page, the spammer in question has also vandalised other articles (replacing content with content about his company). An edit filter would prevent that too, right? Stalwart111 10:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep. An edit filter allows for many more variables than simply hindering an URL from being written to the database. WilliamH (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to look into this. My question is how can I (or we) monitor for this spammer? Can I set up something or just do a daily search for that name? As it may come up and none of us who know this issue get to see it. Tyros1972 Talk 11:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, you could do that. We'll cross the bridge when/if we come to it. WilliamH (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Will

Need your help. Sory I use Translator. I now write you. Oleola — Preceding unsigned comment added by Świniakulturą (talk • contribs) 11:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Adminship Request

I am asking you to look over my 20-month Wikipedia history to see how far away you think I am from becoming an Administator. I have asked others as well to get different opinions. Myself, I don't exactly think I am ready just yet, but it would be good to get an idea on where I am. I was rewarded Rollback status in November 2012, I have created 36 articles (with the only stubs being TN highway articles that can't be expanded for lack of information), and I have done extensive work for WP:NASCAR, WP:SEVERE, and WP:Tropical Cyclones. I occasionally get into it with others (mostly because of my difficulty adapting to change), but I will calm down and get over it. I try to welcome users, issue warnings, and report them for vandalism when necessary. What do you think? Feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, United States Man (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi USM, sorry for intruding but I felt it was relevant. I have been on Wiki for 3 years and I am just happy being an editor and anti-vandalism contributor. The nice thing about Wiki is we can all contribute in multiple ways. I don't know why you think being an admin is so important or will some how give you more "power", it's basically another job with more responsibility. Why do you want to be an Admin? What makes you qualified? How will that help us? Do we need more admins right now? My advice is just focus on helping Wiki and not to worry about a "status" as if that time comes and you are right for the job, you will get people asking you "why don't you become an Admin?" rather then you asking everyone about it. It's just my personal advice and opinion and I thank you for your help and contributions to wiki. As "wiki" is our community and must remain free, clean and notable for future generations. Tyros1972 Talk 11:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

With the ever growing level of vandalism, I feel that sometimes admins are slow to get to the job when it comes to blocking, deleting pages, protecting pages, etc. I would like to be able to help out with that, as well as any other things that admins do (I would learn). But like I said, I'm not ready yet, just asking. United States Man (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Daily vandalism isn't new to wiki, and I don't have any statistics to prove an increase so I can't comment on that. I understand what you mean about the admins being overwhelmed at times but everything is taken care of within 24 hours I can tell you that. As someone who focuses on vandalism I can tell you that "admin rights" won't do you much good as if you submit a Speedy or AfD you cannot close it, another admin must do it. So you will still be dependent upon admins. As someone who has run many web forums in his life, admins on here are we would actually define as a "moderator", it's actually the "bureaucrats" like William who are technically admins. It's just wiki uses different terminology. As I said for what it's worth just focus on what you do and keeping wiki clean, you don't need mod (admin) powers to do it. Tyros1972 Talk 10:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but that's really not a helpful reply. It comes across as "we're always going to need admins whether you are one or not, so you might as well just stay as you are and let the big guys take care of it", which is the very last attitude that should be fostered here. WilliamH (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean it to sound that way, I was more or less stating that people can do a great job with being standard users. You don't need any special rights to fight vandalism and to find your own niche. I didn't mean in it that "we don't need admins" but it's not a necessity to deal with vandels etc. That's all I meant and I am sorry if it sounded that way, wasn't intended to. Tyros1972 Talk 13:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I did not imagine that that was your actual intended meaning. WilliamH (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, as I am am still learning my way around wiki.Tyros1972 Talk 14:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I see many positives, but I think that your intuition is correct, and my feeling why is because you have very few edits to admin-related areas - 139 edits to the Wikipedia namespace. A successful candidacy will almost certainly expect more consolidation in project maintenance. And bear in mind that permissions are functional, not decorative. Yes they are an indication of trust, but they should never be referred to as a reward or a promotion. WilliamH (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

How would you suggest that I make edits to that namespace? I am sort of confused as to how I could be useful in that sort of area (Maybe if this was 5-10 years ago). Maybe I should stick to my specialty: content editing. United States Man (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits to that area are made via administrative/maintenance tasks, reporting vandals, etc, basically the tasks you would do in their entirety if you were an admin. That's good - the more admins doing that, the better. But if you want to stick to your preferred area, that's fine too. At RFA there is often the "does the candidate need the tools?" argument, but there is also the school of thought that there is no reason why astute, content-inclined editors shouldn't be made admins if they consistently demonstrate good judgement across Wikipedia, regardless of their preferred activities. WilliamH (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will probably wait several more months before doing anything. Thanks again, United States Man (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry/Meatpuppetry

Hi William,

I don't want to bother you, but I felt a big concern with this. It appears that a software group of people are "attacking" wiki in order to get their software/company listed. They have advertised on the "talk page" (which I left intact) and are using multiple accounts/related employees? to help cast votes. It's a mess!

Article 1: Angelfish (software) Article 2: Urchin Software Corporation

Advert by newly registered user: Talk:Angelfish (software) Advert on user's page: User:Impunity

I see someone has looked into it, but felt I should bring it your attention. As I never encountered an attack like this and want it to be properly and professionally handled. It's so sad when I see this, as this really hurts us :(

Thank you for your time. Tyros1972 Talk 10:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

When sockpuppetry is suspected, please file a case at SPI. WilliamH (talk) 10:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've just seen that a case has already been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ooni. WilliamH (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks will keep that in mind for future ref. Tyros1972 Talk 11:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Note

I've been working on User:Dennis Brown/Dealing with sock puppets with the goal of moving into meta space soon. Basically a guide for newish users that covers the basics, written in a style any editor can understand. Your input on the page/talk page is welcomed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 13:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. WilliamH (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

To be or not to be...the same person.

I'm a bit confused as to proceed. Is User:Lauriacts the same as User:JarlaxleArtemis? The SPI case was on Lauriacts, but someone tagged him with a tag linking him to JarlaxeArtemis and someone mentioned this on my talk page. NawlinWiki tagged him as being connected, but I would like your opinion before I start trying to merge anything. You CU'ed the case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lauriacts. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 19:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

JarlaxleArtemis is probably a justifiable tag for those accounts, but thinking about it, you may as well just leave everything as it is per WP:DENY. That's what I'd do. I don't think there's anything to be gained by tinkering with the tags at least. WilliamH (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your closes of RfAs

I just wanted to give a friendly notice that your closes are improper. By not following the close instructions in the header, the misformatting breaks the reporter the report page about an RfX and other RfX related tools.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 11:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What exactly should I be doing? WilliamH (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Use the {{finaltally}} template. The stuff you replace when you close has the instructions in it. It's ultimately up to you, though.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, great. Each time I go to close one, I just see a templatey mass whose syntax I don't know, so thanks for the template documentation, that's very helpful. WilliamH (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Organic farming methods reversion

Months ago I worked on cleaning up some articles related to organic farming. Today you reverted my redirect of Organic farming methods to Organic farming, which I had set up after I had merged the contents of Organic farming methods into Organic farming, which I had done because there was a great deal of overlapping content and sources in the two articles. That edit has stood til now. Your edit note says "Rv banned editor." This is a false statement - I have never been banned. Would you please revert your reversion with an edit note that your characterization of me was incorrect? If you have some other, valid grounds for reverting I would be happy to discuss, if you like. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Jytdog (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem, but please remember to assume good faith should something like that happen again. As you are not a banned editor then it was surely self-evident I made a mistake/that you were not the target of my edit, rather than that I was making false characterisations of you. Best, WilliamH (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of bad intent and I wonder where you find that in what I wrote. Would you please tell me? I stated that you made a mistake - a false statement - in characterizing me as a banned editor, and asked you to correct it, and I said nothing about your intention. (I am generally very careful to avoid discussing contributors and their intentions instead of content, and I don't like it when people do that to me.) And I appreciate that you did correct it. Thank you again. Jytdog (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem, happy to correct it. I guess it's the wording "false statement" which implied intention, because I didn't make a false statement, rather, I made a true statement about another editor which inadvertently and unintentionally characterised you. WilliamH (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

great, same page. you got it - "false statement" is purely descriptive of the statement, just the opposite of "true statement". nothing about intent. thanks for all your great work, btw! Jytdog (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not though, because in order for the statement to be considered false, the assumption must be made that I was referring to you when I made it, when I wasn't. Anyway, thank you for your contributions as well - I notice that you have been here quite a while too; I have granted you rollback, so that you may revert vandalism in one click. Just remember to use it for vandalism only - if it's not 100% sure that an edit was made in bad faith then use the undo button. Good luck! WilliamH (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

OH now I see! What was confusing was that the edit you reverted was mine, and I inferred that the "blocked user" you referenced was me. I see now that you were doing something more complicated. Thanks for explaining that. Thanks too for your trust in giving me expanded rights! I will use them only as instructed. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits of User:GradyJames

I think it would help to provide some indication of why he was banned and how that could possibly mean that his edits should be removed no matter how appropriate and well-sourced they might be, especially for this removal. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, sure. User:GradyJames is a sock of User:MooshiePorkFace, a sockpuppeteer who has been banned by the community. His edits are thus considered a net detriment to Wikipedia, i.e. that any positives are outweighed by the negatives, and that unlike the normal reversion/deletion process, his edits and articles may be reverted and deleted unilaterally by any editor. If, however, they have been independently reviewed and another editor in good standing can do something constructive with them, then I have no problem with that. WilliamH (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It would help to have that indicated on GradyJames' user and talk pages, with links to whatever discussions took place. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Normally I do, or it is at least self-evident from my contributions whose mess I'm clearing up. Apologies it wasn't clear that time. WilliamH (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Much obliged. Thank you for the quick autoblock review.

Cjmclark ^(Contact) 22:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

IPjonehurricane95

Just wanted to be certain that you saw my question at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IPhonehurricane95.—Kww(talk) 00:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. WilliamH (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Puppetfunny

Not User:Kgk1g2kgkh and User:Userpassword11111? I'm a bit surprised. :) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

They didn't come up among the original bunch of socks, but birds of a feather flock together indeed. :) WilliamH (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Request help regarding the usernames

Hi Will,

Greetings from my side!!! Could you help me in deleting my account (this account) with username Sai.Putrevu? I haven't made any edits. I created this account in an Impulse two days before and I regret it now. I would want to rename my username of my previous account. Present username of my previous account is abhilash.sai. I want it to be changed to SaiP.

Could you help me in this?

Best regards,

Sai.Putrevu (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted - if you no longer wish to be associated with the username Sai.Putrevu, simply cease using the account. As for SaiP, it looks like it's possible for you to have it. Please reply to me using abhilash.sai so I can verify your request. WilliamH (talk) 07:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot WilliamH. I will reply using abhilash.sai. Sai.Putrevu (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi WilliamH. I am back as abhilash.sai. Can you rename my username to "SaiP"? Please reset my signature to default so that if I insert my signature, one should be able to click on that to get my user page.

Regards,

SaiP 06:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. The account "Abhilash.sai" has been renamed to "SaiP". Only you can adjust your signature settings. Go to Special:Preferences. WilliamH (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet

You blocked a sockpuppet of MangoEater yesterday. Here is another one. ElKevbo (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Done Already dealt with by another CU. WilliamH (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated decline of unblock request

I wondered about this edit. I have no disagreement with what you said, but I wondered why you removed my unblock decline and replaced it. Was this deliberate, or some sort of mistake? JamesBWatson (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

No, not intentional, and I recall the same happening to me. What undoubtedly happened was that 1) I copied the pre-prepared decline template 2) you declined the request 3) I hit edit, and pasted the template over your decline, ready to replace it with my own. Needless to say, I didn't see your decline in the midst of the wiki markup, and didn't need to make a distinction for it anyway, because as far as I was concerned, of course, I was dealing with an unblock request that hadn't been dealt with. WilliamH (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought that was probably what had happened, but I asked just in case you had some reason. Anyway, thanks for your answer. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

More than welcome. WilliamH (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Katie Hopkins

Hey Will, thanks for semi-protecting Katie Hopkins. I've been watching it all morning, or afternoon for you over the pond. It's been bad for the past two days with BLP violations and general vandalism. So, just wanted to say thanks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Aye, she made some rather outspoken comments on a prime morning TV show, so it's pretty much the only course of action, bearing in mind the reaction. WilliamH (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Email

Hello, WilliamH. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

(It will also be helpful if you can drop a {{you've got mail}} on my talk page when you reply.) JamesBWatson (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet of user:MooshiePorkFace

Hi, I've tagged User:Bostonian2 as a suspected sockpuppet of user:MooshiePorkFace, given the overlap of interest with Special:Contributions/BondMikeBond. Will it get picked up from there? – Fayenatic London 20:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think meatpuppetry is a more likely explanation than sockpuppetry, but for Wikipedia's purposes they're the same thing, and either way it's definitely operating in BondMikeBond's shadows, so I've blocked it. WilliamH (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Also User:JerseySouth, see User:JerseySouth/sandbox – Fayenatic London 22:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/Pasternaker. – Fayenatic London 23:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Both blocked. WilliamH (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. BTW, I'm not sure whether you saw my last reply at User talk:Fayenatic london/Archive09; please reply there if it would be useful. – Fayenatic London 12:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No I didn't, sorry. Best ping me in future, as I pretty much never watchlist talkpages for active discussions. I've sent you an e-mail. WilliamH (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, WilliamH. You have new messages at Fayenatic london's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Permissions errors

Hello William H,

I have recently encountered a red error message on several occasions, saying "You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia" saying that editing from 70.197.24.0/21 has been blocked by you, WilliamH for the following reason(s): evasion of scrutiny. This has been while attempting to edit using a mobile device.

Since I am by no means trying to evade scrutiny, let me be completely open about any issues that may be of concern to you. I openly disclose my real world identity (Jim Heaphy) and have no privacy concerns about these matters. I am an active editor for about four years with a clean block log and well over 20,000 edits. I frequently edit using a Droid RAZR with a Verizon account, and I assume that the IP address above is connected with my mobile phone. I am not highly knowledgeable about such issues, so please bear with me.

I am sending this message from the desktop computer I use most commonly, so please feel free to do a checkuser or whatever you need to do to verify that what I say is accurate. I live and work in American Canyon, California, a literal stone's throw from the Vallejo, California city limits. I assume that the IP address for this machine will show up in one of those cities. Feel free to check anything.

I have a hunch that perhaps this issue may have come up because my wife, who is User:ChesPal, has been editing more actively recently. We disclose our marriage on our user pages. I am much more active than her, but am very gratified that she has been getting more involved with the project in recent months. I invite you to take a look at our edit histories if you have any concerns. My wife is not a sockpuppet or a meat puppet. I have been assisting her in learning Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but every edit she makes is her own, and I don't ask her to do anything on Wikipedia. She asks me to help her understand various things when she needs it, and I offer her advice and guidance just as I do for other editors at the Teahouse.

My wife and I often use the same desktop computer. We own a small business with three desktop computers. She also owns a laptop. I am often away from the office for long periods of time, as I work in construction, so I might edit from a mobile device while my wife is editing from a desktop computer at or about about the same time.

I have tried to provide all the information you may need to resolve this matter, but as I said, I am weak on technical details. So if you need any more information, please let me know. I want to assure you that I am not trying to avoid scrutiny, and will happily provide any information that you request. Thank you for the important work that you do to protect the encyclopedia. Sincerely, Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No cause for concern - you're both occasionally caught in a hard rangeblock meant for someone else. I've granted you both IP block exemption. Thanks for letting me know, and your kind words. WilliamH (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and professional response. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sublimeharmony

Thank you for looking at my report. I think I've come to a good stopping place: I looked through all the revisions of the sandbox11 file, and also found one possible sockpuppet (Henriette.Kilo) from before the creation of that file. My evidence is weakest for Henriette.Kilo, but that account might lead to others. I thought it would be okay to keep adding to "my" section; didn't mean to interfere with your checking. —rybec 23:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

~~== Interest in assisting Wikipedia as an Administrator ==

Hi there Will, My name is James and I noticed that you were an Wikipedian willing to nominate.

I was wondering if you would consider examining my Wiki contributions on my account for the potential of becoming an Administrator,

If so, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Thankyou,

Sincearly James'ööders 16:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll cut to the chase: your editing is almost entirely automated, and is characterised by months of inactivity, followed by sporadic bursts over periods of a couple of days, then months of inactivity again. An RFA at this stage would not be successful, sorry. WilliamH (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I Thought Id ask first! Thanks for you're time Will James'ööders 12:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Gyula Horn

William, I am utterly perplexed by something going on on the Gyula Horn page. Horn has just died. I intended to use the Daily Telegraph obituary to contribute but found a virus on the first reference I looked at.
From Kaspersky HEUR:Exploit.Java.CVE-2013-2423.gen Inactive 17/07/2013 12:05:06 http://www.aerialviewpoint.com/images/_notes/43c87891bf/
I therefore removed it, providing a full edit summary. It was reverted with a comment about Jews and an accusation of anti-Semitism when I asked the user for an explanation. Any suggestions? JRPG (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's all bit of a mystery to me too - I'm not experiencing that. Is the virus local to your machine? WilliamH (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

No. I'm sure it came from the link but it was clear after the IP reverted. I use what is supposed to be the best anti-virus and it immediately complained about the link -and neutralized the virus. I have no idea what's going on! JRPG (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The link looks fine to me, in terms of virus/malware at least. And the IP which subsequently reverted you is Hungarian, so I think "wasn't jew" isn't anti-semitic at all - just someone whose first language isn't English. It all looks OK to me. WilliamH (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I put a note on the user talk page and the response said I was anti Semitic. Perhaps its just one of those incomprehensible things but thanks for looking. It did upset me JRPG (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Surely 94.21.92.142 was addressing 178.164.161.177, not you? WilliamH (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh good :) Think in future I'll confine myself to my usual diet of UK politicians and shipwrecks. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)