User talk:WilliamH/Archive 6

Recent SPI
Hi, thanks for taking timely action. You missed to block the sockmaster I guess? --lTopGunl (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Another admin might, but it seems rather punitive to me. WilliamH (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. I think the edit war's been long enough to justify the preventive stand. Anyway, thankyou.--lTopGunl (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Class Project SPI
Hi, I saw you were discussing an SPI in which I and several of my classmates had our edits deleted despite containing quite a bit of sourced information and (hopefully) unbiased material. I was hoping these edits would be restored and it appears that the discussion is leaning towards allowing that to occur. If this is the case, we appreciate it. Also, you asked for editors involved to contact you, so if you have any questions, here I am.Ticctacc (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot and I'm sorry for the distraction in your project. Please understand that with Wikipedia being the 5th most visited site on earth, articles on politicians can - and indeed have - come under intense real life campaigns to present them a certain way, and while we obviously assume that people are trying to help not harm Wikipedia, It is not surprising that a recent changes patroller might be a bit concerned when a flurry of new accounts start editing a similar topic. If you find your uncontroversial edits reverted, the best thing to do is discuss them with who reverted them and/or raise a discussion on the article in question's talk page. Tell your classmates to go to this page so they can read this message, and by all means come to me if you have any further questions. WilliamH (talk) 05:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: The edits by class members were all reverted by Arbor8 on the ground that she thought the class project was a case of sock or meatpuppetry and that therefore all the content—irrespective of whether was biased or neutral, sourced or unsourced—should be removed. This has all been discussed in the sockpuppetry case, and the editor who removed the contributions by the civics class is well aware of what has transpired. I don't really see why further explanation or disclosure of identities of the teacher, the students, or the purpose of the class project should be required. Wikipedia is supposed to be an anonymous venue, and the edits were by and large constructive. Although someone may voluntarily disclose their identity or their motives, I have never before seen an attempt to require or encourage such disclosure. --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I should add that I do not think at all that you were mining for additional personal information on the teacher or the class assignment, but from reading the comments on the SPI page, it seems to me that others were. My view on the info is that if it is neutrally phrased, well sourced and pertinent to the politicians' bios, it should be in the bios, and the identity or motives—disclosed or imputed —of those who add factual information to WP is irrelevant. --Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To follow up on the discussion at the SPI, I am inclined to think (in contrast to my views of a couple of days ago) that if the edits are non-disruptive, we might be better not investigating this. I'm keenly aware that it is vital we do not mistreat new contributors like these. (Of course, I say this without prejudice to investigating the accounts with CU if they make disruptive or partisan edits.) Does that sound okay, William? I didn't want to close the investigation or take any action until I'd consulted you, because aside from Mailer you're the only other CU who has commented on the case. KeptSouth, I don't at all think we were "mining for personal information on the teacher", but I do agree it is unreasonable to compel a confirmation of the authenticity of the classroom exercise in the absence of disruptive editing by the accounts. Regards, AGK  [&bull; ] 12:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * AGK - all of that sounds spot on. WilliamH (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for following up. I've closed the case. Regards, AGK  [&bull; ] 16:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that that AGK has misinterpreted my disclaimer to WilliamH as an accusation against him. I could not have been criticizing AGK's actions because at the time I made the comment, on Nov 22, AGK had not yet issued his Nov 23 directive to seek teacher and school identity information. AGK's post here shows the same approach as an earlier post in which he spent several sentences criticizing my choice of one word, rather than discussing the substance of my comments. Why so contentious? This should have been a simple matter to just close the SPI. It was clear that the case was mistaken and unfounded right after it was opened.KeptSouth (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Need help on the Holocaust denial article
Hi William,

Please help clarify on the Holocaust denial article: "Their estimates must not be presented as a legitimate alternate perspective."

''There are different death estimates. According to some holocaust deniers these estimates are telling lies. Jankiel Wiernik was a Polish-Jewish Holocaust survivor. Wiernik writes in his book ‘A Year in Treblinka' that states a camp guard shot him in the shoulder at close range: "Believe it or not, the bullet did not wound me. It went through all of my clothing and stopped at my shoulder leaving a mark." ''

''According to some Zionists Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the world’s most dangerous anti-semite. Document reveals Ahmadinejad has a Jewish past. A Neturei Karta Jew hugged Ahmadinejad during the Iran Holocaust-denial conference. ''

It might be helpful to discuss.

--Regards--Christopher Forster (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure. Firstly, what is the source for this? I mean the source for everything, not just the Wiernik quote. WilliamH (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Langwieder lake district
Orlady (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 00:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Cung Le's Nationality, please view my Talkpage
I posted this on The Bushranger's talkpage as well. I am requesting for more editors to look at the current evidence provided and determine a final conclusion, especially since Cyberpower may have not verified his source as compared to the sources I have provided. I am trying to deal with this in a civil manner and would not try to make any personal attacks towards editors nor try to threaten to sue Wikipedia, joke or not. However, I am questioning the source of information regarding Cung Le's Nationality given by both the user Glock and even Cyberpower, who said he was handling the matter. As Wikipedia requires, a source of information needs to be verified. The source for his nationality given by Cyberpower apparently is a user on Facebook that claims to work for Cung Le and knows specifically which citizenships/passports that he holds. I am asking directly for more administrators to step in and view and verify this source to be legit, as compared to all the sources I have provided including direct tweets and quotes from Cung Le himself and his website. I further ask for the admins to tell Glock to stay away from my Talkpage and other ways of communicating because I find his comments absolutely ridiculous, outrageous, and disruptive, while I am trying to deal with this in a civil, respectful, and reasonable manner. All I ask if for everything to be verified, just like Wikipedia requires. I find the co-worker who claims to be Cung Le's co-worker rather suspicious, and evidence must be shown on how he knows the information that is being seeked. If this can not be provided, I ask that Cung Le's Nationality be reverted back to an American of the U.S.A. Please clarify if you can. This is the Facebook user in question who claims to be working for Cung Le and knows exactly which citizenship he holds: redacted This is Cung Le's facebook page (redacted) where a user claims to represent Wikipedia (Cyberpower?) directly posted on Cung Le's wall and received a response from the user who claims to know specifically what type of citizenship and passport that Cung Le holds. However, he has yet to provide enough evidence that 1) He actually works for Cung Le 2) That he specifically knows that he has a Vietnam passport. To me it is highly suspicious, if this can be proven otherwise and that his claims are legit, I will stop from dispute and no longer further try to research this issue. But again, all I ask is for more admins to take a look at this. No disrespect to you Cyberpower, but I just find the current source from a Facebook user that claims to work for Cung as not enough proof. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * William, I saw that you redacted those Facebook links. I did not know if it's against Wikipedia policy to use Facebook links. However, I just wanted to show you what I saw and hopefully you took a look because I was wondering exactly what source Cyberpower was using. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I goofed when considering source reliability. I will revert any change.  WilliamH, please explain why you blocked Pinoy. —cyberpower  (Talk to Me )(Contributions ) 10:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm a clerk at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm trying to figure out what exactly caused you to indef PinoyFilAmPride, however the best I can come up with is a Privacy argument. If this is the case please let me know as I'm trying to straighten out your oversighting of their posts that you left partially on the page. Hasteur (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Block reason needed
User talk:Glock17gen4 is requesting an unblock. I have declined it, preliminarily, but if you could indicate on his user talk page, in general terms (specifics not needed, just generally) what he did to get blocked, that would be very helpful to me and other admins who may come by to respond to his unblock requests. -- Jayron  32  01:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And another one. User talk:PinoyFilAmPride is also requesting an unblock.  I know you have a reason to block these accounts, but really you need to leave a block notice or a nice handwritten note explaining why they are blocked, if not for their edification, then at least for us admins that need to deal with the usual unblock requests.  I'd like to respond to these people intelligently, so a simple note explaining what they did wrong (again, not for them, but for the rest of us) would be nice.  -- Jayron  32  02:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And a third: User talk:Cyberpower678. Upon my own investigating, all three blocks seem related, but since you didn't let anyone know why they are blocked or how they are related no one can respond to the unblock requests.  Please advise.  -- Jayron  32  02:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have declined all three requests and sent them to WP:BASC based on your email.  I agree that the situation is far too messy for simple admins to deal with, and as such, should be passed upstairs.  -- Jayron  32  03:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Doctor of Education Protection Extension Request
You recently semi-protected the Doctor of Education page. I request an extension of that protection due to continued socking from Onemoreforyou on that article's talk page since protecting the article itself. See SPI history for the user in question here and here for more. Until the socking stops, I think it safest to keep the article semi-protected. Thank you--Lhakthong (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A rangeblock is currently in place regarding the recent socks. I agree that the article should remain protected, but to be honest I'm not willing to protect the talk page for this - my advice would be to simply revert on sight and report the socks on the SPI case or drop me a note. WilliamH (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I was not asking to protect the talk page but rather to extend the protection on the main page (which is set to expire December 2). I will follow your advice regarding the talk page.--Lhakthong (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocking of editor done way too quickly
As per Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents there appears to be information that editors did not take into account in their rush to indef an editor based upon one-sided information. Whilst that information may have been presented in good faith, it would be pertinent to wait for the editor in question to comment. They have now done so on their talk page, and their comments have merit. You are getting this message as you have supported their block on the thread in question, and I think you should go back and read their comments and reconsider your position. It is disappointing that too many people jumped the gun on this occasion in condemning the editor in question. Russavia Let's dialogue 05:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

SPI question
If a Check User is declined, and the case must be examined by behavioral evidence, does that mean that 1) I need to reopen the SPI without the CU request, or 2) that the SPI is dead in the water? Erikeltic ( Talk ) 19:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think there is behavioural evidence that needs examining, you don't need to file a new SPI but it would be a good idea for you to present any behavioural evidence and the conclusions you think can be drawn from it so that passing admins/SPI clerks can more easily decide whether any action is necessary. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean either of those things - the data that the CheckUser tool retrieves is not stored indefinitely, therefore if an account hasn't edited for a certain period of time, CheckUser can't do anything. By all means continue to use the report to file evidence where you think accounts have been used abusively, and a patrolling admin can act accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gottcha. Thanks to both of you for your responses to my question.   Erikeltic  ( Talk ) 12:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If you would, please take a look at the SPI that I opened and you declined a checkuser because the account was stale. The sock master recently logged in for the first time since June just to threaten me. Perhaps it's no longer stale now? At least we'd know one way or the other w/ something more than behavioral evidence. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 00:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Dewan SPI
Thanks for the digging at Sockpuppet_investigations/Dewan357. It sometimes seems that practically every contributor to Yadav whose account is less than a month old is a sock ... and that is becoming very tiresome to deal with. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, and that's entirely understandable. WilliamH (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/G5 (education)
Given I am the only !vote delete on this AfD other than the socking, block evading creator, would you consider CSD G5'ing the page as per WP:DENY ? Mt king  (edits)  13:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On top of that there is the somewhat comic coincidence of the name of the article and the CSD criteria name. Mt  king  (edits)  13:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah, I see what you mean. To be honest, I'm rather indifferent to it. No harm in having consensus determine the inclusion of this article, and not the indirect actions of a socking editor. WilliamH (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Block Evasion. Thank you. Mt king  (edits)  20:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Brand new to Wikipedia
Well, let's see if I'm doing this right. Thebuser (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All good so far! WilliamH (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I need your input
Hey William. I'm sorry about the incident from before you know, Oversight. Anyways. I need your input about what you think about me and if I would be a capable admin. I appreciate your response.—cyber power  (X-Mas Chat )(<font color=green face=arnprior>Contrib. ) 22:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been rather busy with functionary stuff lately, but I'll take a look through your contributions in due course. WilliamH (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks.—<font color=green face=Neuropol>cyber power  (<font color=yellow face=arnprior>X-Mas Chat )(<font color=yellow face=arnprior>Contrib. ) 15:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. WilliamH (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

SPI - Spudpicker 01
No request has been made to publicly link User:Spudpicker 01 to a specific IP address, and because it is a dynamic address, seeking correlation with any static address would be meaningless. However, if the IP geolocates to the same area as the other dynamic addresses, it is a reasonable confirmation of sockpuppetry.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, that's really not my place to say. The geolocation of the open IPs is public info, the gelocation of the account's IP(s) is not. It would be a privacy violation to reveal it. WilliamH (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about a CheckUser of (who the anonymous editor is now claiming is his friend) and, a brand new user created by the previously anonymous editor?-- Jeffro 77  (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav
Hi there, I saw your note at the above SPI. I do understand your comment, but it still leaves us in a rather difficult situation, as the person behind the Sju hav socks has relentlessly been creating BLP violations over the last months. Do you have any suggestions as to how we could put an end to this incessant advocating? Regards. --<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Eisfbnore <font color="#009900">talk 12:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not really familiar with this user, but I'll leave it for a patrolling admin who is to act. WilliamH (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I'll hope that another admin can give us some further advice. Regards. --<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Eisfbnore <font color="#009900">talk 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Another RfA
Hello, WilliamH,

I am the beginner in Wikipedia, but would like to become an admin sometime, so your kind assistance would be very useful to me. I hope to count on your nomination as I reach the level of edits required by Wiki rules (soon, hopefully) - have only 1500+ edits so far in English Wiki. I will really appreciate your support when I reach the edit number necessary for adminship --Orekhova (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no set edit count, it is a de facto level of a few thousand, perhaps consider 5,000 as a minimum. However, your comment leaves me with the impression that once you have hit a certain edit count, you can run for adminship. This is absolutely not the case. What matters is the journey you have taken, not the amount of steps it took you. For example, I took this article into a Good Article in only six edits. And this is also relevant - content credits, such as DYK articles or Good Articles (it doesn't have to be Featured Articles) will reflect well.


 * What matters most is a history of understanding policy, reflected across contributions in administrative related areas; WP:AFD, WP:RFP and WP:AIV are obvious examples, although there are many more. According to your project space edits, you lack this completely, so this is what you need to establish. Basically, edit count doesn't mean much; if you don't have or gain the qualities that are expected in an admin, then you won't become one whether you have 50 or 50,000 edits. Good luck! WilliamH (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, WilliamH,

thank you very much for guiding me --Orekhova (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
—<font color=green face=Neuropol>cyber power  (<font color=red face=arnprior>X-Mas Chat )(<font color=red face=arnprior>Contrib. ) 20:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible impersonation?
I just noticed User:Mr.WilliamH pop up at the New Users blog. I seem to recall an admin having a problem with impersonation - don't remember if it was you, but if it was be warned. For future, should I send something like this to UAA? Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've blocked it, thanks. This is not the first time I've had an admirer so to speak. It's probably related to the sockfarm I blocked yesterday, much to the puppeteer's presumeable disappointment that I found more of his socks than he anticipated. WilliamH (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * XD No problem. --NellieBly (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

YGM
Check yer e-mail, please. GotR Talk 18:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I got it, thanks. WilliamH (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Willietell
Hi, you might want to look at User talk:Willietell where he's appealing his block and denying being a sock, and asking how he can complain about other editors (including to an extent me). Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

BabbaQ
I realize this will be very tedious for you to look through, but I do believe the admin BWilkins closed this case prematurely (and a little disrespectfully, I fail to see how it is a laughing matter). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Conduct_of_BabbaQ Twafotfs (talk) 13:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)