User talk:WilliamH/Archive 7

new suspected sockpuppet
Not sure if I have to tell you or this goes automatically, but I suspect a previous abuser is actively editing with a sock again. Thanks.

Sockpuppet investigation
You requested additional information on Sockpuppet_investigations/Satt_2 and both parties said what they had to say couple of days ago. Could you please revisit the investigation page so that we can get it over with? The matter at hand is an unnecessary distraction from other issues.--Andriabenia (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As it is rather protracted, I'm leaving it for a clerk/CU who has experience with this case before, or is at least more familiar with it than I am. At any rate, I asked Mathsci to provide diffs per procedure because it's not up to admins/clerks/CUs to establish the filer's argument for them. WilliamH (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

AN/I
There is a report at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

the main one
IP 129.252.69.40 is the most used sock IP unfortunately. User:Zscout370 had to put a 6 month block on it last spring, the IP hopping with the suspected username was so bad. I listed the other accounts, even though "stale", because those were accounts formerly used by the same puppeteer. Is this where I should talk at? ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you cross reference IP User:129.252.69.40 with User:GarnetAndBlack? Quite obvious this is a match.  ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's obvious, then I don't need to check; plus, CheckUsers do not publicly associate accounts with IP addresses. As for the stale comment, I only said it as general clerking; CU data is not retained indefinitely. Basically, behaviour is going to be the clincher here, not technical data. WilliamH (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Technical proof certainly would not hurt at this point. Sorry, the technicalities I am new to.  Since both user / IP have broken various rules, will those be looked at, or do editors need to file separate investigations?  Thanks. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, but there aren't many technical options. You don't need to file a new report. WilliamH (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Lastly, do I need to label all those references, or are they fine as is? ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If CheckUser is rarely used to identify anonymous IP with a specific username, what do you do about potential "sleepers"? ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I still don't think you understand. One of the reasons for editing with an account is so you can edit without your IP address on display. For a CheckUser to discuss an account's IP address publicly on Wikipedia is almost always a violation of the privacy policy. This sort of material is only discussed with other CheckUsers. WilliamH (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael
Am I correct that this edit now makes you involved in this dispute? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, please read WP:INVOLVED. I have never been a disputing party in this matter or topic. WilliamH (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You just participated in a year-long group edit-war. How is that not involved? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because he's not stating an opinion on it, but rather pointing to a discussion. Calabe1992 20:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the I.P. . Exactly the same changes, right down to the spacing Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 21:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, "patterns"
You said "behavioral" evidence. ;) Clerk forgot to put a block on the sock master's current account, which is key here, & should be tagged out of respect for the other editors.  Don't think a week is going to cover it.  Previous sock master's username was blocked indefinitely, IP 6 months-- it's in the archives & pattern worsened while "undetected."  It's all also in the edit summaries.  I was thorough: don't like to see this, & because I really don't want to have to file another investigation.  Recommend any admins with firmer experience with this type of user / next step?   Best. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking this as done, as it was dealt with elsewhere. WilliamH (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ummm...Participating in a group edit war is hardly helping to end it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The action I am issuing the barnstar for was BEFORE this edit. Besides which; enforcing consensus can hardly be called participating in the edit war! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 01:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If consensus ever truly existed, it wouldn't require a year's worth of edit-warring, threats and harrassment to 'enforce'. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you read the discussion? Have you seen how FEW people changed to studio after the discussion compared to how MANY reverted that change afterwards? Have you SEEN how many people participated in the discussion? Have you SEEN how strongly the consensus was AGAINST the studio edits in the discussion? If you answered yes to all of these questions then how come you are commenting as though there was a perfect 50/50 split of edit warriors? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read it and neither side had a particularly strong argument. But I already said, I don't care about the content dispute.  It's the methods being used to win the content dispute that I'm concerned with.  BTW, the only exemptions to edit-warring are obvious BLP, vandalism and copyright violations.  There is no exemption for 'enforcing' consensus.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight... you think that initiating a discussion and notifying EVERYONE who made ANY edit to the page REGARDLESS of which side they are on of said discussion is an invalid method of "winning" an edit war. This is what I am reading your comments as. Please feel free to clarify and/or correct. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what I said. What I said was that the arguments presented by both sided weren't particularly convincing.  But since you asked, I think a better way to handle that discussion would have been to file an RfC.  This way you get outside opinion.  Inviting editors with already entrenched views is unlikely to break the stalemate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK RfC's are only supposed to be used in disputes AFTER other methods of dispute resolution such as forming the solid consensus against studio and the ANI report have tried and failed to stop the edit warring as the last step before an RFAR is filed. As the ANI report so far appears to have been successful in stopping the edit war an RfC is not warranted yet... Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 01:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * RfCs are filed far more often that you think. It's not supposed to be a last step before going to ArbCom. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AQFK, first it was the semantics of the discussion you were unhappy with, now it is the strength of the arguments made. Per my final comment in the ANI thread, if you do not accept the validity of it or feel that consensus has since changed, I suggest you start a new one. WilliamH (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ummmm...no. Barts1a asked me a question and I did them the courtesy of answering it.  But since you are now involved in this dispute, I trust that you won't use your tools again.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I arrived at this article after seeing the ANI thread, and the edit I reverted by the Egyptian IP address which restored Ahmed's version is almost certainly Ahmed himself logged out. Given that I have not previously edited the article, have not previously edited the topic, have no vested real-life interest, and did not participate in the original discussion, the suggestion that I have an editorial bias in this, let alone after reverting an editor violating WP:SOCK, is ridiculous to say the least. After seeing edits like these before and after my intervention, it is self-evident that I am not the only person concerned that consensus is not being respected and/or has not been clearly presented enough. If it had been, it is likely we wouldn't be having this conversation. WilliamH (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Question re: blocked user's edits
Hello, while lurking on WP:AN, it led me to the user's page, et. al., and noticed some edits. Are these   sock tags legit or should they be reverted? Seems rather odd, wasn't sure if anyone had seen them since they weren't reverted. No need to follow up with me, just an FYI. --64.85.217.34 (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, thanks for that. Bearing in mind that one of the users in the Roozie case is Jacob1219, their could be a connection. The apparent lack of technical competency is definitely a suggestive factor. WilliamH (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re opening SPI
Hi, is it possible to re-open the following SPI - Sockpuppet investigations/Edinburghgeo/Archive - and add user Saariselka1 and IP 129.215.4.177? Based on editing at G5 (education) it appears very likely that these are also connected and following the same behaviour. As before, there is also an apparent conflict of interest due to the controller having a close connection with the University of Edinburgh. Thanks in advance. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * By all means file a new request. There is definite quacking going on there. WilliamH (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there an easy way for me to re open the prior SPI?Rangoon11 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply follow the instructions on WP:SPI and a new case relating to the master can be opened. WilliamH (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

YGM again
GotR Talk 05:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

:-Ilhador-
The child who kills the parents still has the right to a share in the inheritance? He may keep his vote even after what he did? --Lecen (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to use murdering one's parents and abusing multiple accounts in the same sentence, but yes, it's simply punitive to remove it and it was a legitimate comment until he started socking. Denying him from having any say at all is simply going to encourage him to sock in order to get it. WilliamH (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see it. Thanks. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Poke
Could you take a stop by IRC and poke me :) -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  13:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my connection is not very reliable at the moment and I don't have access to my computer right now either. Normal service should resume in a few hours. WilliamH (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I should be within an arms reach when your back on. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  14:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Lowell, Jr.
I don't see how, with a three-three split and disagreement over the value of the single source (length of it) and the lack of other sources, you have come to your closing decision at Articles for deletion/William Lowell, Jr.. Wouldn't a "no consensus" be the logical result, both policy- and guideline based and by nose-counting? Fram (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The core contention for keep was that the source in itself was significant, so therefore comments that it was short struck me as a much weaker and less relevant argument. WilliamH (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I would have closed it differently if I would come upon it, but it is not that big a deal (I wouldn't have closed it as delete obviously, even though my personal preference would still be to delete the article). Fram (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I say, I was trying to give preference to the merits of the arguments as opposed to the three-against-three nature of the discussion. But I appreciate your point. WilliamH (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sergey WereWolf
A long time user has been impacted by a proxy-block. I verified that the IP is indeed an open proxy, but I buy the story that it is a gateway for his ISP that could be used by many users, one of which is running a proxy. I've applied IPBE for the short term so he could edit, but will you opine on my judgement that there's no hanky-panky here? Kuru  (talk)  23:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for running this past me - I didn't see any red flags, although most data is stale. I'm inclined to agree with your judgement. Added him to the log. WilliamH (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarcEdelmanFan‎
Fair enough about the CU, but could you look at the case page again please -- I think I messed it up trying to open a new case while the old one was closing. TIA. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't - your report is not a duplicate. In fact, SportsLawJunky was created after TNXMan closed the previous case. WilliamH (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Look into IP
Hi, could you please look into this IP's activity? S/he is removing sources without much explanation, often targeting a specific domain, http://mb-soft.com. Many of the sources seem to contain valid information. The user's activity almost seems bot-like, along with a generic edit summary. I'm afraid that this user, although perhaps well-intentioned, is doing more harm than good. Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC) It does seem like a weird site, but I'd bet that a lot of references like this one make their WP articles better, not worse. But I guess I'll just let him do his thing. Athene cunicularia (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks rather robotic indeed, but at first glance I'm inclined to say that that site is not a reliable source. I see no one has spoken with the IP about this activity - try doing so. WilliamH (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Screwball
I have a new suspected sock of Screwball or 68. He arrived conveniently when Screw vanished from the talk page. Can I add it to the list or do I put a new investigation up or what? Thanks, Metallurgist (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to follow due process, then open a new case so the old one could be archived. I'm personally not that picky on which ever one you do do. Or you can leave it on an administrators talkpage like this. :) -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  04:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, what DQ said. You can file a new case, but there's nothing wrong with running it by me on my talk page beforehand. WilliamH (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright. Ill do it here since that seems the most efficient of the options. My suspects are User:SirKingMan, who was created on the 28th and has made a bunch of meaningless and baseless or possibly vandalistic edits. On the Rep talk page, he is giving the exact same argument with a similar tone and insistence as Screwball/68 et al. And then User:Lolthatswonderful is a bit older, but is hashing out the same arguments in the same manner. 68 also goes back a bit, so its not impossible that Screw had this one also, or maybe its a meat? Heres a piece of evidence, altho very circumstantial. --- I hate to do a whole witch hunt on people, but I am really convinced this is one guy with several socks trying to stir up trouble. The logic of his argument makes no sense at all, and its the same exact argument rehashed several times.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. This would not surprise me if meatpuppetry was an element too. WilliamH (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, speed lightning
Wow dude you're fast! ;) I just tacked another on after you did the check. Hasn't made any edits, but...  Night w   17:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I was (and am) in the SPI IRC channel. Whacked them both. WilliamH (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nicely done! Thanks,  Night w   18:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Fluttershy checkuser
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol&diff=473711674&oldid=473707247

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol&diff=474160533&oldid=473711674

I'm note sure what you said to HelloAnnyong in order to convince him or her to strike out his or her endorsement for a CheckUser check, but the Fluttershy is now requesting to be unblocked and has made the following statement:

"No other accounts exists, and I have no knowledge of that account that you listed. Feel free to run a CheckUser."

I've noticed that you have the checkuser right. Did you already used Checkuser on Fluttershy? Is that why HelloAnnyong struck his or her endorsement for a CheckuUser check? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for running this by me. It was less to do with removing his endorsement, and more to do with simply closing the investigation. The sock had been blocked because of various technical and behavioural reasons that absolutely satisfied me it was PBML, and I didn't feel there was anything else to do. WilliamH (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarify user
Who/What is PBML? Cabal-of-rdn (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * . WilliamH (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Query
I would be most grateful if you could assist with the following query. New user has been following me around and reverting my edits in a fairly blatant way (three of their four edits to date are reverts of edits of mine, and pretty pointless ones at that). It is my firm opinion that this 'new editor' is in fact a more established editor who has set up a new account purely in order to protect their main account from blocks for bad behaviour.

Is there anyway to run an SPI/checkuser without specifying the sockmaster in a situation like this i.e. to check if an account is being controlled by any other WP user? Thanks in advance for your help. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By way of update I should note that since posting the above query I have now opened a thread on the ANI about Ivalo2 (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). ‎ Rangoon11 (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, I haven't been very well the last few days. But I see the sock has been blocked, jolly good. Let me know if anything else resurfaces when the rangeblock I set expires. WilliamH (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will do. Hope that you feel better soon.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Asking your opinion
Please see WP:AN. It's about something where you had offered an opinion as a checkuser, and I'd like to know what you think. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted, thanks. It's complicated indeed as you say, and I've been a bit ill lately, but I've been reading. WilliamH (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hope you get well soon! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are feeling up to it, WP:AN. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time and effort on it. I've posted some follow-up questions to you there. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Query regarding a particular user
Hello WilliamH. You might remember me from a month ago, where you successfully helped me in confirming my suspitions regarding a sockpuppeting user. Well, something has happened to me recently, which is on the borders of sockpuppeting. A 'brand-new' user has decided to contact me on my talkpage, and proceeded to deliver some fairly aggressive statements. Eventually they clamed down and apologised, but what cocerns me is that they admitted that they have had previous discussions with me under different usernames. I have a suspition on one particular editor who could be behind the incident, who incidentally was banned for sockpuppeting and also held a remarkably coincidental interest in the exact same aircraft article. I guess what I am asking is: What is your interpretation on policy regarding editors working under undisclosed multiple accounts? And is the (potentially false) recognition that they could be a previously banned sockpuppeter of any relevance? I don't think I'll have too many problems in dealing with the user as it is, hopefully, but I thought I would come to seek your opinion just in case. Kyteto (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have my own suspicions too, but those now seem less likely. Who do you suspect is the master? WilliamH (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My suspition is on the banned account User:Chanakyathegreat as being an early identity, he previously used sockpuppet User:Touchtheskywithglory in his communications with me last year, which was fanaticaly interested in the HAL Dhruv article and in disputing the article's tone with me. There have been similarities in editing style between the current day suspect and the previous editor, such as the new user 'randomly' pulling up the exact same blog as evidence as had the earlier editor (as blogs are not WP:RS, their usage as reference material was pointed out as inappropriate both times). As to a current-day master account elsewhere, I don't have any theories, but it seems unlikely that this is the only account active IMO. Kyteto (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For all extents and purposes, is a ✅ match to  and I've blocked it indefinitely. WilliamH (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for thoroughly investigating this - it has given me some peace of mind to confirm who it was that was behind these messages. Kyteto (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Content removal
Hi WilliamH,

I noticed you undid a revision on Philosophy of Education on a resource link I added and called it Link Spam, and think this is in error. Please let me know your response

- Steve

GreatPhilosopher (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi - I didn't do it, it was . He's the one you want to speak to. :) WilliamH (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the misunderstanding! GreatPhilosopher (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear WilliamH,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Incoming
Just to let you know, I've sent you an email. Risker (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on Admin?
I'm considering applying to be an administrator. Could you let me know if you think I have what it takes? Many thanks!--YHoshua (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Speaking of evaluating, being that you were my blocking admin of my first block, how think the community would perceive me at this point. I'm thinking I made too many mistakes lately but I would like an outside opinion. What is it I could still improve on and what do I do well already?— cyberpower ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,474,194 ) 01:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well firstly, I take it as a compliment that you have asked for my perspective on that, not sure how you came by my userpage though! The problem is that I cannot really determine it, and therein lies the problem itself. Edit count is not the be-all-and-end-all, but you have so few contributions your suitability cannot really be determined. Candidates generally have several thousand edits across the project, and content credits such as FA/GA/DYK reflect very well. The most critical aspect is an understanding of administrative policy and guidelines, usually demonstrated among several hundred contributions to the project space. Almost all of your less than 100 edits to there were made seven years ago, so really, there's no way that a candidacy right now would pass. Build up the relevant experience though, and I would have no problem writing the nomination myself. WilliamH (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What the community thinks of you, only the community can say. You should consider Editor review. :) WilliamH (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready.— cyberpower ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,542,139 ) 13:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You are being discussed at . ..
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship.  MBisanz  talk 22:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

RfB
I find this rather ironic, but if you do run for Bureaucratship, you will definitely get my support. You are a very skilled editor and I believe that an RfB is long overdue. I suggest you take the plunge— cyberpower ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,631,155 ) 00:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I must make it known, however, that I would steer clear of RFA. I am not an RFA-centric editor, though of course I am aware of its workings and generally the status quo. Of course I would be willing to close the clearest of candidacies if it means someone gets the bit sooner rather than later, but in terms of day to day operations CHU is the busiest venue, and really that is where I would contribute. WilliamH (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. Could you possibly clarify. *me scratching my head*— cyberpower  ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,635,903 ) 00:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean that I expect opposition due to my scant participation in RFA, but I would avoid RFA largely anyway: the busiest area for crats is CHU, and that's where I would focus. I have been clerking it for a few months and feel I have a reasonably sound understanding of how it all works. WilliamH (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You never know until you try. Preparing for it to fail will at least avoid the potential of you being driven away.  But, there's always the chance that you may pass, I believe there's a good chance that you may pass.  Don't make me have to drag you in there. ;)— cyberpower  ( Chat )( WP Edits: 521,655,892 ) 02:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You'd have my support, Will. Personally, I think people should stick with their original username unless they have a good reason to want to change it, but even then there'd probably be a queue of people with good reasons, so I'm sure the existing 'crats would appreciate competent help. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  08:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Harry. Some reasons are much more pressing than others, but yep, there certainly are quite a few requests. Each one I would do is obviously one that someone else doesn't have to, and that's what counts, isn't it? :-). WilliamH (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination
Gulp. I accept. I've answered the questions. It looks like we're good to go, so I'll transclude it. Thanks again! WilliamH (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I'm certainly glad we were persistent and dragged you into an RfB. It certainly is looking good now.  You expected opposition, and I expected clear skies for you being a well respected editor.  Looks like I'm the better forecaster.  I don't want to jinx it so I'm going to leave it at that now and hope it goes as well as it's going now in your candidacy.  Good luck surviving the next 7 nerve racking days or as I like to say it, nerve wrecking. ;)— cyberpower  ( Chat )( WP Edits: 522,370,418 ) 20:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

MSU Wikipedia adminship process interview
Hello, my name is Kyle Zunker. I am a student at Michigan State University, working on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process. Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. I am contacting you in order to set up a date and time for the interview. Please contact me at zunkerky@msu.edu with the dates and times that work best for you. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact myself or Dr. Jonathan Obar, the principal investigator of the project. I look forward to hearing from you! Zunkk (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied. WilliamH (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Filter
Hello William,

I have a big problem, everytime I try to add a new message (new section) to this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saint9016&action=edit&section=new I am not able to. What's the problem? Where can I contact him?

Thanks and best regards,

ParkJiSungFC --ParkJiSungFC (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that's an edit filter message. Because I'm not the one making the edit you're attempting, I cannot see your perspective. What exactly does the message say? WilliamH (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wanted to write him about Korean Football League, but even just writing 'Hello' or just the title or just his username, I can't post any message there. Do you know who can I contact? Thanks, ParkiJuSungFC --ParkJiSungFC (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've shown him this conversation, and suggested that he initiate the conversation on your talk page. What is the edit filter message? If you tell me, I might be able to help you further. WilliamH (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your RfB
Well still no oppose yet and you were saying that you were going to get opposition. Anyways I find it rather ironic that I suggested you to be a 'crat when you indefinitely blocked me. I think I should switch to oppose just so you have that opposition you're expecting to receive. ;)— cyberpower Chat Online  23:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Note
Please, check your e-mail inbox. Sole Soul (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted, all done. WilliamH (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sole Soul (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Questions for your RfB
Hi WilliamH. Here are the questions I intend to pose at your RfB. I hope these questions will provide insights about how you will close RfAs. I have posted the questions here, instead of at your RfB, because the questions will take some time to answer. It would be unfair to place immediately all these questions on your RfB because participants may have a negative view of you if the questions were to be left unanswered for several hours. When you finish answering these questions, please copy them to your RfB. I am interested to hear your thoughts about these questions. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional questions from Cunard

At Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1, the closing bureaucrat wrote: "... I have to say that I do not regard this as a particularly borderline call. I think the discussion between users in this RfA shows a consensus for promotion." The final tally of the RfB was 75/29/8 at 72.1%. On the closing bureaucrat's talk page, an opposer wrote: "I think the rationale Scribe posted is symptomatic of a recent trend among bureaucrats to be too dismissive of legitimate opposition, while weighing unexplained supports too heavily. Just one editor's opinion." The closing bureaucrat replied: "It is hard to please all of the people all of the time. If it can be said with certainty that users with x% support will pass/fail RfA, users complain that RfA is a vote rather than a discussion and that this is bad. If bureaucrats analyse the discussions and determine consensus according (leading to different outcomes for those with the same % support), results are criticised for being inconsistent and that this is bad. I suspect bureaucrats tend to be resigned to someone telling us we are wrong whatever we do, but (for the record) I am loathe to 'dismiss' any opposition, though I do think examples of misconduct are weightier concerns than general worries about inexperience." Earlier in the year, Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 was closed as unsuccessful at a tally of 88/30/11 at 74.6%. Commentators at User talk:WJBscribe#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1 generally believed that the consensus was to promote Connormah.


 * 11. wrote in the above discussion: "I think this demonstrates that bureaucrat discussions should be more of a common practice than they are currently, especially when an RfA is at the lower end of the discretionary area."  wrote: "HJ Mitchell make a good point that in cases where the outcome is likely to be a close call, having a crat chat would be useful ... Having crat chats in close cases like these is useful, both for more accurate determination of consensus and for greater consistency, particularly so that future RfA candidates better know what to expect."  Should bureaucrat discussions have been opened for the above two RfAs?

The closing bureaucrat wrote at Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1: "... I note that (as has been the case for a number of years) there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator ..." The closing bureaucrat at Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare (70.7%) wrote: "To quote WJBScribe, 'there remains no consensus as to whether a proven record of article-writing ability should be a prerequisite for a contributor to Wikipedia to become an administrator.'" Several months later, an RfA participant wrote: "Last time I checked, the closing bureaucrats here have stated that 'lack of content building' as an oppose rationale carries zero weight."


 * 12. In your answer to question five, you wrote, "Given that the opposes are pertinent, that 70% support is the low end of the scale, and that both sets of voters are quite clearly consolidated, I would probably lean towards no consensus to promote. The two schools of thought when it comes to article creation and content credits in relationship to administratorship are relevant not only to said candidacy but RFA in general, and I do not think such a closure is a departure from community expectations." Your opinion, one with which I agree, seems to be at odds with the statements in the two RfA closes by and . In cases such as these, when bureaucrats can reasonably have differing opinions about community expectations, should bureaucrat discussions be held? What weight would opposes based on content creation carry in relation to opposes based on (1) maturity, (2) inactivity, (3) lack of edit summaries, and (4) knowledge of policy?


 * 13. What is your opinion about vote-striking during and after an RfX? Refer to Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 12, Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 16, and Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 16. For more recent discussion about whether bureaucrats should "police" RfAs, see Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 23 in November 2011. See also the commentary at Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 23 on 14 January 2012, as well as 's comments at Requests for adminship/Dpmuk on 13 February 2012. What are your thoughts about these issues?


 * 14. Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2 was placed on hold by bureaucrat and checkuser . Deskana's comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2/CU discussion were criticized here and here. After his actions at the RfA, recused from closing the RfA; see User talk:Deskana/Archive 25. As a checkuser and bureaucrat, how would you balance the two roles? How would you have approached the situation at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2 had you been in Deskana's shoes and discovered a possible violation of Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings?


 * 15. At Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 23, suggested on 8 February 2012: "I propose that when an admin or crat requests desysopping and states they are 'invoking RTV,' 'requesting a courtesy vanishing,' 'vanishing,' or otherwise making a direct allusion to WP:RTV, the reviewing crat would specifically inform them that by doing so, they could never reclaim the bit without re-seeking RFA and require the user to confirm they are aware that what they are requesting is permanent and different from retirement, leaving, or taking a break." What is your opinion about this proposal?


 * 16. In your answer to question four, you wrote that "crat discussion should happen only frugally". Are there any RfXs at Bureaucrat discussion for which you would not have opened a bureaucrat discussion?


 * 17. How would have closed the following RfAs? (successful, unsuccessful, bureaucrat discussion, or extension) If you intend to initiate a bureaucrat discussion, would your opinion be to promote or fail the candidate?


 * a. Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare – closed as successful on 16 August 2010 at (87/36/8) at 70.7%


 * b. Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1 – closed as successful on 28 July 2010 at (75/29/8) at 72.1%


 * c. Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab – closed as successful on 11 July 2009 at (69/33/4) at 67.6%


 * d. Requests for adminship/^demon 3 – closed as successful on 23 February 2008 at (89/52/14) at 63.1%


 * e. Requests for adminship/Logan – closed as unsuccessful on 21 May 2011 at (76/29/4) at 72.4%


 * f. Requests for adminship/Slon02 3 – closed as unsuccessful on 12 March 2011 at (45/19/10) at 70.3%


 * g. Requests for adminship/GiantSnowman – closed as unsuccessful on 21 January 2011 at (76/36/10) at 67.9%


 * h. Requests for adminship/Ling.Nut – closed as unsuccessful on 3 November 2010 at (113/63/7) at 64.2%


 * i. Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 – closed as unsuccessful on 17 July 2010 at (88/30/11) at 74.6%


 * j. Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be 2 – closed as unsuccessful on 26 October 2010 at (123/59/21) at 67.6%


 * k. Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2 – closed as unsuccessful on 13 January 2009 at (132/60/11) 68.8%


 * l. Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2 – closed as successful on 10 May 2011 at (166/63/10) at 72.5%


 * 18. At Requests for bureaucratship/Hersfold, wrote with regard to Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2, "Discuss with opinion towards accepting. As with ^demon's, this is a reconfirmation RFA, so I'd consider the bar to be a little lower than usual." Should the bar be lower for reconfirmation RfAs such as Requests for adminship/^demon 3 and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2?


 * Thank you for the insightful answers to my questions. I have posed two follow-up questions. The first question challenges the consistency of your previous responses. I've posed this question to gauge how well you will respond if your RfA closes are challenged. I don't think the previous responses by bureaucrats to contested closes here and here were very helpful. Better responses would have been more detailed analyses of the support and oppose votes. To borrow the words of at Requests for bureaucratship/Hersfold, "It is reasonable to close that RFA as promote, but not with as little analysis as was provided". In other words, a relatively lengthy close was provided but one without sufficient analysis of the most significant factors to justify a close as "promote". I did not participate in the GorillaWarfare RfA and know little about the editor beyond what I've read in the RfA, but I chose that RfA to focus on because it nicely paralleled the RfA in question 5. With regard to the second question, I don't believe your opinions about reconfirmation RfAs sufficiently cloud your judgment to compel you to recuse from them. But if you believe they do, then I do not object. One reconfirmation RfA that I recall, Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2, did serve a useful purpose as an admin recall that resulted in the admin's being voluntarily desysopped. Regardless of your opinions about reconfirmation RfAs, I don't think you should recuse from RfAs such as that one. Cunard (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Congrats
Best Wishes and Congrats.Thank you for answering my questions my apologies if I did not phrase my questions well enough.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Nevermind, I still feel like I grasped what you were getting at. WilliamH (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are still a few minutes left of the RfB but YOU passed with 100% support. You blew away your RfB just as you did with your RfA on your FIRST try. Let me be the first to congratulate you on becoming a bureaucrat.— cyberpower Chat Limited Access  13:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm genuinely surprised there were no oppositions, I expected one at the very least. Not that I'm complaining! :) WilliamH (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, still five minutes left, but...
Congratulations on becoming a bureaucrat!!! B music  ian  14:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, and thanks for your support! :) WilliamH (talk) 14:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You are now a bureaucrat
Congratulations Will. I have just closed your unanimous RfB as successful and you are now a bureaucrat (about the only context in which that might be seen as a positively thing). Best of luck. PS. I've always thought Will is a good name for a crat... Will 14:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I say, 'tis a splendid name for a crat! Many thanks! On a related note, because I can't be bothered to hand out 120+ thankspams, many thanks to you if you participated in my candidacy and should be passing by my talk page - I look forward to serving you as your next crat. WilliamH (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You can start by making me an administrator. ;)— cyberpower Chat Limited Access  15:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Congrats buddy!  MBisanz  talk 15:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations Will! Bruvtakesover (T&#124;C) 15:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. Wifione  Message 15:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Congrats. That's the biggest landslide I've seen at an RfB... well... ever.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't believe I missed your RFB. Just shows how much I've been paying attention to Wikipedia lately. Consider this a belated support, not that you needed it or anything :-) Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 19:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done! A 100+ support RfB with no opposition. With such a good welcome to the 'crat circle you should be fine! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I really regret going inactive and missing your RfB. Congrats on passing, though, and without opposition (which makes you one of only two to do so since 2004!). Welcome aboard. Pakaran 17:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

100 up! Well done, Sir :)
23:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Enzaiklopedia/‎EnzaiBot
Since you were first, I defer to you. =) Though they did say to leave a message on their Basque Wikipedia talk page, I wasn't willing to cross languages to leave a note. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, no worries. I didn't realise that, just assumed that link would go to their en.wiki talk page. I've left a note on their eu.wiki talk page. WilliamH (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Many thanks! I've put it here! WilliamH (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: Bot welcoming users.
Hi, I'm sorry, the explanation is that I was testing some programs of pywikipediabot and I thought that I will test better in this wikipedia becouse in my home wikipedia has not so much new accounts as this. Until now I didn´t know that was a problem and that was a perennial rejected idea. I'm really sorry, it won´t repeat. The bot will only make edits for what is approved. Thanks for the advise and scuse me, please. Good bye. --Enzaiklopedia (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, thanks. WilliamH (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on Successfully becoming a Bureaucrat!
Hey WiliamH, wanted to congratulate you for successfully becoming our newest bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia. I'm sure you will serve the project very well in the coming time :). It feels great after supporting for you in your nomination. All the best for the future! TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm confident the community's trust is not misplaced. :) WilliamH (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations!! I'm very impressed that you've passed your RfB unanimously! (Which may be an unprecedented record in the history of Wikipedia.) Just dropping by to give you some more praise. lol — stay ( sic ) ! 02:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You went for an RfB while I'm on a bloody wikibreak? Ah well, it's good to see that my support wasn't necessary. Congratulations, mate. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, just a pity sod's law didn't prevail and two RFBs like buses happen while you away. Genuinely surprised it was such a landslide... WilliamH (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't. Well, I was by the unanimity, but not at all surprised to see you get through without any difficulty. Have fun with those nice, boring tools! ;) Oh, and come to a meetup (London, Coventry, or anywhere else...)—I'll buy you a pint to celebrate your 'cratship. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

MooshiePorkFace & Co.
Hello, WiliamH! That was indeed the quickest SPI closure I've ever had: I've followed him since the first AN/I, and I was watching that article specifically for that edit. I had a question about two things. One should be an easy fix, and we'll see what to do about the second. Thanks again for the quick response, and Cheers :> Doc   talk  00:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Originally a sockpuppet category page was created for WizardlyWho, but I changed it to reflect the oldest account. Since I emptied the category: could the page be deleted?
 * 2) Since the SPI for OldGeorgie was filed withe WW as the master, will the Mooshie and WW SPIs be separated and have two archives? Shouldn't they be linked on the same page when archived? I don't know how to do this, or if it is normally done.
 * To be honest, I wouldn't worry yourself about it - that'll be an issue for us at WP:SPI to sort out. MooshiePorkFace is obviously the master though, as the oldest account, so everything else will follow from there. :) WilliamH (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Cheers! I've put it on the list. :) WilliamH (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Question
Can you please explain the reason behind blocking User:Mike of Ilvadel? -badmachine 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really, because I'd have to publicly confirm his IP address. I spoke with another functionary before placing it, and he believes it's fair and square. WilliamH (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So you can block a user without giving any logical reason? -badmachine 22:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If it means not violating the privacy policy in publicly confirming their IP, then yes. WilliamH (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not making any sense, and I still do not see why said user was blocked. -badmachine 17:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes complete sense. The block is based on evidence which only functionaries have access to. If I explained it to you, I would have to give that evidence to a non-functionary, or publicly confirm his IP address. Both of these would be a violation of the privacy policy, therefore I will not do it. WilliamH (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So essentially, the monarchy of Wikipedia can decided what they want and tell us little people that we cannot handle your reasoning? -badmachine 23:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As you're ignoring the issue at hand to setup a straw man argument pretending that I can act with with impunity, there is no point to this discussion. WilliamH (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no point to this discussion because you refuse to tell me why you blocked an innocent user. -badmachine 04:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're doing it again. WilliamH (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No sir, you are doing it again :) -badmachine 19:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All of my blocks are open to scrutiny from other admins and other functionaries. If you truly believe it was unjust, feel free to raise it with another functionary. WilliamH (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I "Finally Did It!"

 * Cheers! It was clear cut and I was online...it would be daft not to! WilliamH (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppets
Could this be another sock of User:Plankto such as the one you found here Administrators%27_noticeboard? I notice both make effectively the same complaint and both had few edits to their name. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Who are you referring to? WilliamH (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yikes sorry, completely forgot to add the name. User:Hapmano, he makes a complaint at the bottom of Articles_for_deletion/Mundane_astrology which is the same as the sock puppet did at AN. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers. is ✅ from  and behaviourally they are WP:DUCKS of Plankto - both now blocked. I also found one I missed,, who is a ✅ sock of  - now blocked.WilliamH (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the quick response. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)