User talk:Bill Williams/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, LilBillWilliams, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Art of ancient Egypt. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Aranya 23:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a quick question @Aranya: When are you allowed to archive discussions on your talk page? Also, I started editing wikipedia about a week ago with the account BobRoberts14, but I wanted an account without a number so I made this. LilBillWilliams 23:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can archive them you see fit, as it is usually done you have a couple of old discussions that are clogging a significant amount of space (see Help:Archiving a talk page). Unfortunately with your username situation, that is not a legitimate reason to edit under a new account, due to the active bans, blocks, or sanctions in place against your old account (WP:SOCKLEGIT). I strongly recommend that you stop editing under this name, and try to see what you can do about changing your old account's name or at least how it appears in your signature. Cheers!

Aranya 00:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aranya: Actually, I don't have any bans or blocks placed against my old account, only a sanction that says I can't edit post-1932 politics for the next two weeks. I will follow those sanctions and wait two weeks before editing those types of articles. Therefore there is no reason as to why I can't have this account. Also, why are you adding 11 references to a single sentence in the page Art of ancient Egypt? It looks very unprofessional, and is completely unnecessary. LilBillWilliams 00:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my reply above I said you have "active bans, blocks, or sanctions", meaning having one of those satisfies that criteria. On the topic of your edits to Art of ancient Egypt, I reverted your removal of the content from the article because I felt the reasoning you provided in your edit summary did not justify its removal according to Wikipedia's guidelines. You need to explain why the references you removed do not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines such that they cannot be used in the article. Cheers and happy editing.

Aranya 00:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aranya:There were 11 references in one sentence. What other reasons do I need? LilBillWilliams 00:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, that is not necessarily a good reason to remove all of those references. I see what point you are making, but there are a lot of valid reasons to remove content from an article, especially if the content doesn't conform to Wikipedia's guidelines (there are a lot of good reasons at on this page).

Aranya 01:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Art of ancient Egypt, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Aranya 00:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, my edits were completely fine and were correct. You added 11 references to a single sentence. That makes no sense at all, and looks very bad. I won't revert your edits without getting consensus first, but you don't know what you're doing. LilBillWilliams 00:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You said you would help me with future problems @BullRangifer:, and this is already one of them. I edited the aforementioned page, removing 11 references in a single sentence, and Aranya reverted my edits because they think they are correct. It's very apparent that they are not. LilBillWilliams 00:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before I get involved here, a word of advice. Your signature isn't complete. You need a User page link as well as the talk page link. This is especially important on your own talk page where the talk page link is automatically deactivated and doesn't provide any information readable by some scripts. Your user page link would still provide that information. When that is fixed I'll take a look at this.

Also, don't tell editors, especially those with more experience, that they "don't know" what they are doing. Start by assuming you are the one missing something that more experienced editors, like Aranya, would know and can explain when you ask politely. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The script information I'm missing looks like this, taken from my own signature: "♂, autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 62408 edits since: 2005-12-18, last edit on 2019-06-17". I've actually been here since 2003, when I edited using an IP. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more respectful in the future, sorry @Aranya:. Also, I'll fix my signature, thanks for telling me. LilBillWilliams 00:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little sleuthing and discovered that Aranya did not add that content, only restored it, which was the proper thing to do. It was this edit] which added lots of good sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: Yeah I know that they did not add it to the page originally, but they added it back when I removed them. Can you just remove most of them? Having 11 citations in a single sentence looks very unprofessional, at most there should be three... LilBillWilliams 01:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a subject expert so I wouldn't know which refs are the best to keep. I also haven't checked to see if some of them are used in more than one place in the article.

It's a matter for the editors who are watching that article to decide, so start a thread and suggest that someone go through those edits and pare them down a bit. The editor who added them is probably the best person for that job. Ask them. 3-5 is probably enough, but I can't be sure. We're really careful with sources here, so we try to preserve good sources. Better too many than too few. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill and Aranya - consider WP:CITEBUNDLE for that Art of ancient Egypt sentence with many cites. starship .paint (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, here's an example. click Edit to see. starship .paint (talk)

<ref>*{{cite journal |last=McGranahan |first=Carole |title=An anthropology of lying: Trump and the political sociality of moral outrage |journal=[[American Ethnologist]] |date=May 2017 |volume=44 |issue=2 |pages=243–248 |doi=10.1111/amet.12475 |quote=It has long}} *{{cite news |work=[[Toronto Star]] |date=December 22, 2017 |first=Daniel |last=Dale |authorlink=Daniel Dale |title=Donald Trump has spent a year lying shamelessly. It hasn't worked |accessdate=March 4, 2019 |url=https://www.thestar.com/news/world/analysis/2017/12/22/donald-trump-has-spent-a-year-lying-shamelessly-it-hasnt-worked.html |quote='We've had}} *{{cite journal |last1=Stern |first1=Donnel |title=Constructivism in the Age of Trump: Truth, Lies, and Knowing the Difference |journal=Psychoanalytic Dialogues |date=May 9, 2019 |volume=29 |issue=2 |pages=189–196 |doi=10.1080/10481885.2019.1587996 |quote=Donald Trump}} </ref>

Needs a line break just before each bullet asterisk, otherwise it runs all the cites together, making them much more difficult to visually separate. I.e., the software doesn't see the asterisk as a bullet point unless it's at the start of a line. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that you coded it correctly and {{cot}} ignored your formatting. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I now see what you meant by "click Edit to see". I get there eventually. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I could have just linked to Trump's article, but didn't want to tempt fate since Bill's got that temporary topic ban. starship .paint (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: and @Mandruss: I just don't see why the sentence needs 11 citations anyways. It's not a controversial sentence, since it just says " Studies based on morphological,[2] genetic,[3][4][5][6][7] and archaeological data[8][9][10][11][12] have attributed these settlements to migrants from the Fertile Crescent in the Near East returning during the Egyptian and North African Neolithic, bringing agriculture to the region." Those are generic ways to study migrations of people, and obviously you use archaeological evidence to study ancient civilizations. There could just be single citation for each, so three total, all at the end. Having 11 actually makes the sentence way worse, since no one is going to be able to go read all 11 citations, and they fill up so much space that it looks stupid. LilBillWilliams 13:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that that sentence would not need a citation. I can appreciate your point that the citations are ugly. Thus - CITEBUNDLE - try it out - I've started it for you! [1] Maybe some readers would appreciate reading multiple studies on this topic in this sentence. starship .paint (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: I get that it needs a citation or two, but it looks terrible having them all in a row mid-sentence, with words in before, between, and after them. I will try to use your advice though and see how to do that. LilBillWilliams 13:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can put them at the end of the sentence if you want. Just note which cite is for which topic. starship .paint (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: It took some time to figure out, but I think I bundled all the citations pretty well. Also, apparently line breaking citations goes against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Bulleted_vertical_lists. LilBillWilliams 13:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand what the latest problem is. starship .paint (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah nevermind, I thought you bundled them in line breaking form but you did them in bullet form. LilBillWilliams 14:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: actually I do have a question--How do you remove a page from a hidden category? There are some pages in the category "all articles needing copy editing", but some of them no longer have the tag at the top saying they need editing, so how do I remove them from the category? Bill Williams (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need a specific example. Also, I will be offline soon. starship .paint (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: the page Music of Myanmar no longer has a tag at the top saying "this article needs copy editing", but it is still included in the category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_articles_needing_copy_edit. Bill Williams (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the tag at Music of Myanmar#2000s-present? I'm offline, bye. starship .paint (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did miss that. Still though, for future reference, how do I remove pages from a category like "all articles needing copy editing". Feel free to answer whenever you are free and back online :) Bill Williams (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the sole copyedit tag of 1C Company as a test. It was removed from the category. Then I reverted myself. So that seems to be how it works. I have never done that before. starship .paint (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, tell me if you can read the "Burmese language text" in that article (the translations of words), because for me they just show up as boxes like this ဆိုင်းဝိုင်. Bill Williams (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond my knowledge (I can actually see the text though). Check the WP:HELPDESK. Okay I'm really going now. 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK the squares mean your platform lacks the ability to display the Burmese characters. I see the Burmese characters, not the squares. Thus edits like this appear to remove information that may be meaningful to some readers. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linking your accounts is required

Per WP:ALTACCN you are required to link your accounts. Not doing so makes it appear that you are attempting to avoid the scrutiny resulting from the discussions, warnings, discretionary sanctions alerts (on both abortion and biographical articles), and your arbitration enforcement sanction (on post-1932 politics). Meters (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: Why don't you stop pretending as if you know what I am doing? I have said multiple times that I will follow the sanctions. LilBillWilliams 02:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with whether or not you follow the sanction. This has to do with the requirement that you link your accounts,. Accusing me of harassing you for that message is a personal attack. Please redact that. Meters (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a personal attack. You are right about me linking my accounts, but I don't know exactly how to do that. You are wrong by accusing me of avoiding sanctions. LilBillWilliams 02:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of harassment is a very serious personal attack, so please avoid that in the future. You must AGF. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was using it as a synonym for "bothering", because he was accusing me of avoiding things. Obviously he wasn't doing something that would get him blocked. But I will avoid using that word in the future. LilBillWilliams 03:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, I will no longer be using that account anyways. If I am completely forgetting about an account, why should I link it to this one? I will follow the sanctions, but I don't want that account anymore. How does that involve you? LilBillWilliams 02:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that you were avoiding scrutiny. I wrote that it "makes it appear that you are attempting to avoid the scrutiny". Not the same thing. The appearance of attempting of avoid scrutiny does not presuppose your actual intention to avoid scrutiny.. Why should you link to it? Because you are required to do so. Again, if you don't it has the appearance of attempting to avoid scrutiny.. Anyone dealing with you on your new account needs to know that you have had multiple warngns from multiple editors, have been given discretionary sanctions alerts , and are currently on an arbitration enforcement. sanction. And yes, accusing me of harassment is a personal attack. Again, please redact that. Meters (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And please fix your signature as user:BullRangifer requested. Meters (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My user page is literally a redirect to my talk page, so I only need one of them linked. Many other people have the exact same thing, such as Aranya. Why don't you tell them to "fix their signature". Again, those sanctions are ones that I will follow, and it's not like I am avoiding a block or something. I made a new account for a reason. If you want to add a link to my old one, which literally redirects to this one, then do that. LilBillWilliams 02:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ALTACCN Links on both the main and alternative account user pages are required. There is nothing on this account to tell people what your previous account was, so there is no way for anyone to know what warnings, notices and sanctions you have had or are subject to. It's not for me to do it for you. If you read the link provided it tells you haw to link your accounts so " I don't know exactly how to do that" is not an excuse. And for the third time, please remove the personal attack. Meters (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: Two things: first off, it isn't a personal attack, so stop asking me about it. I'll remove it because you are probably going to report me for it. Second, I don't know how to, nor do I have the time, so instead of wasting time arguing for no reason, please do it for me. Or you can wait for a few hours and not report me till I have time to add it. LilBillWilliams 03:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the type of back-and-forth argument that is going to get you blocked completely. When an editor comes here and asks you to do something like "jump"

(several things now from various editors), just ask "how high" and do it. Ask "why" afterwards. Resistance is really disruptive and a time sink. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you mean, but I am not used to just doing whatever anyone else asks, especially if I disagree. In this case though, he is correct. LilBillWilliams 03:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Also, this will be my main account, and I'm sorry for accusing you of "harassing" me. LilBillWilliams 03:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the BobRoberts talk archive into this talk page's archive, fixed the wrong link on this user page's userbox, and added a userbox on the BobRoberts page. starship .paint (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: thanks a lot, I appreciate it. LilBillWilliams 13:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! starship .paint (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for repairing my botched template use. Meters (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LilBillWilliams, you still need to fix your signature. This has been mentioned by more than one editor, you responded to user:BullRangifer by saying that you would fix it, but now you seem to be arguing that you don't need to fix it because other people's signatures are also broken. It really does not matter if there are other examples. That's an argument that is unlikely to get you very far on Wikipedia (you might want to read WP:Other stuff exists). Per WP:SIGLINK your signature must include at least one link to your user page, your talk page, or your contributions page. This is yet another example of you arguing against experienced editors who are attempting to show you how to do things properly. As BullRangifer pointed out above, at this point you should just stop this bahaviour or you may end up blocked. It does not matter if "you are not used to just doing whatever anyone else asks, especially if I disagree." Meters (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: My signature was already fixed, so stop bothering me. I fixed it hours ago, so you need to just back off. Again, stop involving yourself in my business. You're not doing any good, at all, and you're the one arguing with other people. Being more experienced doesn't mean you can continually annoy me. Bill Williams (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you were being a normal person, you would have asked Aranya to "fix" their signature as well. Their signature is literally just (flower icon) Aranya. But no, you had to tell me to fix mine when I already fixed it hours ago. Bill Williams (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All you had to do was scroll up and read my comments about the Myanmar article to see that my signature was fixed long ago. Bill Williams (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Thanks for fixing your signature.. My apologies. I wasn't aware that you had done so because you stated in this thread that you did not need to change it, and your last post in this thread still had an invalid signature..And please remove the latest harassment accusation. It is a personal attack. Meters (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters: I removed it before you posted this comment, basically immediately after adding it. I was just really annoyed because I actually did what was asked, but was threatened that I would be blocked. Thanks for understanding. Bill Williams (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was just confused earlier about you asking for both a user and talk page link, since I saw many users who just had their talk page (such as Aranya). I didn't mean that I was refusing to add it, just that I was confused and didn't think I needed both. Bill Williams (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing it, but don't make accusations like that. We have been through this before.You are really treading thin line. as I told you, being a new user only gets you so much leeway. You have had more than your share. And once again, read what I wrote. I diid not say that your signature had to link to all of those. I said that it had to link to at least one of those. And please don't ping me to this thread again. Meters (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean my signature already had a link to my talk page, so it should have been fine. I was asked to link both. Bill Williams (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a FYI...Aranya fixed her signature immediately when I asked her yesterday. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: Yeah that's fine, but I didn't see that so I was confused. I fixed it immediately after our "argument" about signatures concluded... Bill Williams (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good. All's well then. You just need to tame that irritation, as it will get you in trouble around here. It also means you're one of us, a member of the human race!

It's very understandable, but it tends toward a violation of AGF. Whenever you feel that way, don't post immediately, and then review, reword, and tame what you've written before posting it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's some very good advice. I'll definitely try to hold the urge and review before posting

Bill Williams (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how do you post a generic smiling face instead of a winking one? Bill Williams (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{smiley|1}} or your choice of various other ways.

See Template:Smiley.

Wikipedia:Teahouse and Wikipedia:Help desk were created for questions like this; the latter tends to receive the more technical questions. For suspected problems of a technical nature with Wikipedia infrastructure (as opposed to questions), use Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). ―Mandruss ☎ 01:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it

. Bill Williams (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please use accurate and descriptive edit summaries.

For example, this edit included actual changes in meaning, so "wording and grammar" is misleading. ~Awilley (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: sorry about that, but I still don't really see what you mean. How was the meaning changed? I just reworded things and changed grammar as far as I know. Bill Williams (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before it said "was a finalist for the St. Francis College Literary Prize for mid-career authors". Now it doesn't. That's a change in meaning. ~Awilley (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is a thread about you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LilBillWilliams a.k.a. BobRoberts14. You can comment there if you like. I'm interested in finding a way for you to contribute here that is less of a burden on others. ~Awilley (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, don't panic, and don't rush to comment. Read it once, read it again. Breathe. starship .paint (talk) 04:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah it's fine, I'm not angry. I know I had been involved in a lot of bad stuff earlier, but recently I have not been arguing with other editors as much, and in the article on Fetal Viability, I am instead commenting in the talk page. I get that I am debating something there, but I have many sources and am quite sure that I am correct. The previous times I debated things and got involved in edit wars I was definitely wrong, reverting things repeatedly without consensus. But I'm not doing that anymore. Bill Williams (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being "quite sure that I am correct" will not work as a defense around here. This is a collaborative project, IOW group work. You need to convince others first. Being right often leads to attempts to right great wrongs and defend The Truth. Both attitudes will get you in trouble, so the more right you feel, the more you should slow down and give it time, because there is no rush here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. It's just that I make edits that are reverted by people for such insignificant reasons, even though my factual statements are correct. I've cited sources before, including in the artificial on Fetal Viability, and someone still reverted my edit because of their personal beliefs. I don't edit things that I am political about, just things that I know about. So I am normally sure of myself when I do so. But I do agree that isn't a great defense. Bill Williams (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a very bad defense. You need to strictly follow WP:BRD. When someone reverts you, do not repeat your edit, no matter what. Instead, go directly to the talk page and ONLY discuss (very calmly and patiently), hopefully until a consensus has been reached. Violations of BRD make it easy to document who started an edit war. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my edit once. That's never allowed? My new edit wasn't the same as the old one, just partly similar. So I thought it would be acceptable. Bill Williams (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Until you get much more experience, it's safest to stay away from it. Some admins will block for very slight infractions or anything that they, not you, see as an infraction, and arguing will only get you branded as an edit warrior and troublesome editor. I have a relatively short block log. I was even blocked as an April Fools joke once, and that admin is no longer active. My first block was made by an admin who couldn't even explain to us (two of us were blocked) how we had violated 3RR. So be very careful. A block log cannot be altered. It remains as a spot on your honor forever, and it will be used against you later, so try to keep it clean. Mine is longer than necessary because the only way to fix an injustice was to reblock and unblock with an explanation, which makes my block log look longer than it really should be. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. I've been to careless, it's just that I wanted to edit articles on things that I know about. I promise I don't have a political bias on them, my bias is just me knowing about them and therefore thinking I am right too often. So I guess I won't be able to "help" with what I really want and will have to stick to doing edits on other pages, such as citations and copy editing. I appreciate the help. Bill Williams (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good place to start. Leave your own beliefs behind when editing. We all have our beliefs, biases, and special areas of knowledge, but around here it's most important to find out how to include facts and opinions about knowledge, because documenting the "sum total of human knowledge" is our primary job. I use myriad Google Alerts to inform me of what's happening on various subjects. Then I try to see how those sources can be incorporated into articles. I start with a source, not my own beliefs. Sources are the basis of everything here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I have personal opinions influencing me, it's just me thinking I'm right about something. So obviously I need to cut down on that habit and use more sources instead. Bill Williams (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s better to not have any opinions - in the sense that let the reliable sources speak for you. Read WP:VNT, and source everything. Oh and I have zero blocks so far, maybe I can offer better advice than BullRangifer (April Fool’s block is horrific and Df67 is still around actually) which is ... for now at least, until you learn policies, stay out of fights because everyone else is more experienced (which means that it’s more likely you’re wrong) starship .paint (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I got the wrong admin. It was the first one I was referring to. They are blocked. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DS notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in abortion. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

El_C 15:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me, but I am already well aware of this. I've gotten that notice already. Bill Williams (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it anywhere. El_C 15:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Discretionary sanctions notices

This user has previously been notified [1] of discretionary sanctions on the below topics. starship.paint (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Post-1932 politics of the United States - 13 June 2019 Living or recently deceased people - 15 June 2019 Abortion - 16 June 2019" It is at the top of this page. Bill Williams (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that. El_C 15:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, thanks for reminding me

. Bill Williams (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One account

Hello LilBillWilliams, On the 16th June you stated and I quote Also, I will just be using this account from here on out, since the name doesn't have a number. I'll follow the sanctions that tell me not to edit any post-1932 political articles, and I'll mainly stick to copy editing for some time. Thanks for the help @Awilley: :) LilBillWilliams (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[2] yet you have continued to use both accounts[3][4],
Please read WP:SOCKLEGIT - Unless you have clear and valid reasons as to why you're using 2 accounts I would cease editing from the Bob account immediately otherwise you are going to be blocked,
Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 17:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used the other account for a single edit to upload an image, because it is 4+ days old, and I wasn't able to with this account. Is that a problem? Bill Williams (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a problem, You treat the Bill account as if it's your only account regardless of restrictions, You made the choice to start this account you can't keep switching back and fourth even if it is just for one edit, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that a problem for a single edit? I'm not using it to avoid restrictions or vandalize, so I don't see what's wrong. Bill Williams (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ec... There you go again. Don't object. When someone says "jump" ask "how high". Stop being so argumentative or we'll just give up and jettison you as a waste of time.

You really need to ignore that other account. Log out of it completely. Then make sure that every single edit going forward is credited to this account. That way all of your (as in you, the person) contributions are found in only one place. Less confusion and less chance of being accused of wrongdoing that way. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just demand this and that and provide no reasoning for it. I read through the article on sock puppeting. It did not agree with his reasoning. Just demanding that I do something and making me do it isn't the right thing to do. My disagreeing doesn't make me "a waste of time". I'm questioning what he asked because the article he suggested said otherwise. Don't just tell me what to do without actually explaining yourself. He didn't say that I should do it, he said I would be blocked if I didn't. That does not seem to be true. Bill Williams (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you're going to be that way, I'm going to give up on you. If there is ever a situation where you will need my support, you will likely find me supporting your accusers. Too bad. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: Again, I am listening to your advice. I just want to be able to ask questions if I don't understand something. Why don't I get to do that? Bill Williams (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't a problem. The only listed misuses of a second account are

Creating an illusion of support: Alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists.
Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.^[1]
Circumventing policies: Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as the three-revert rule are for each person's edits. Using a second account to violate policy will cause any penalties to be applied to your main account.
Shortcut
- WP:STRAWSOCK
Strawman socks: Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side.
Evasion of sanctions: Sanctions apply to individual editors as people, not to accounts. Using a second account to edit in violation of an active block or community sanction will result in further sanctions, which may include removal of your contributions. See also WP:EVASION.
Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people. Contributing to the same page with clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited) is not forbidden.
Shortcut
- WP:SCRUTINY
Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
Shortcuts
- WP:GHBH
- WP:HAND
"Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts: Using one account for constructive contributions and the other one for disruptive editing or vandalism.
Shortcut
- WP:LOUTSOCK
Editing while logged out in order to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated as the same level of disruption as editing under multiple accounts when it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy. When editors log out by mistake, they may wish to contact an editor with oversight access to ensure there is no misunderstanding.
Misusing a clean start by switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny is considered a breach of this policy; see Wikipedia:Clean start.
Shortcut
- WP:ROLE
Role accounts: Because an account represents your edits as an individual, "role accounts", or accounts shared by multiple people, are as a rule forbidden and blocked. Many first time editors may sign up an account with a username that implies it is a role account or is being shared. Such accounts are permitted only if the account information is forever limited to one individual; however, policy recommends that usernames avoid being misleading or disruptive. As such, if you edit for an organization, please refer to Wikipedia's username policy for guidance on choosing a name or a replacement name that can avoid these problems. Role account exceptions can be made for non-editing accounts approved to provide email access, accounts approved by the Wikimedia Foundation (list below), and approved bots with multiple managers. See Username policy – Sharing accounts.
Deceptively seeking positions of community trust. You may not run for positions of trust without disclosing that you have previously edited under another account. Adminship reflects the community's trust in an individual, not an account, so when applying for adminship, it is expected that you will disclose past accounts openly, or email the arbitration committee if the accounts must be kept private. Administrators who fail to disclose past accounts risk being desysopped, particularly if knowledge of them would have influenced the outcome of the RfA.
Shortcut
- WP:ADMINSOCK
Using more than one administrator account: Editors may not have more than one account with administrator user rights, except for bots with administrator privileges. However, Foundation staff may operate more than one admin account, though they must make known who they are. If an administrator leaves the project, returns under a new username, and is nominated for adminship, he or she must resign or give up the administrator access of their old account.
Posing as a neutral or uninvolved commentator: Using an alternative account to participate in a discussion about another account operated by the same person.

None of those state editing with different accounts. So I see absolutely no problem at all with me making a single edit with another account. Bill Williams (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might be technically correct, but when you get objections, as above, you should see that being technically correct is only going to cause you more problems down the road. Being collaborative is better. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) I agree you're not avoiding restrictions or vandalising however from my understanding as I said unless you have valid reasons for 2 accounts then you do need to stick to one regardless of new-account restrictions, Many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:CLEANSTART (which is what I'd consider this to be) - I'm not going to quote it nor am I going to get into a debate over it - I'm simply giving you some advice on what should and shouldn't be done but ofcourse you're more than welcome to ignore everything I've just said.

Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 17:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You guys seem to think every one of my questions is me trying to argue. They aren't. I'm just asking because he did not seem to be correct. You're the ones responding with threats to block me and telling me to stop arguing, when all I did was ask a question. I was not being aggressive, I was asking because what he said did not seem accurate. Why is asking about things so bad? Bill Williams (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: I do not want to ignore what any of you guys are telling me. I am just asking because I am new and do not know as much as you guys, so when you give me a reference that seems to disagree with what you said, I'm going to ask about it. Bill Williams (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In heated discussions it's best for you to obey now and ask later. When you become a more experienced editor your questions will be tolerated better, but not now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, I do appreciate it. It's just that I used the other account for a good reason, but you threatened to block me, so that didn't make me happy... Questions should be tolerated at any time, so just demanding things of unexperienced people and not letting them ask about what you tell them to do doesn't make sense. Politicians are almost always the more experienced ones than normal people, but normal people still get to ask and criticize the politicians about what they do....Bill Williams (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLEANSTART is the probably the best one, Again tho read WP:SOCKLEGIT and if your account doesn't meet any one of those bullet points then you shouldn't be editing with it it's really as simple as that,

Using 2 accounts could fool people, be used to "win" an edit warring war, be used to vandalise etc etc and etc (the list goes on).... so sticking to one account makes things fair for others and saves less resources as a whole,

I have one account and have done since joining as has many many other editors here.

I apologise if the above message upset you that certainly wasn't my intention however good or bad using 2 accounts can lead to blocks that's all and I would hate to see that happen but as I said if you stick to this account from here onwards you'll be fine :), Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 17:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: thanks a lot for the advice, I'll try to only use this account whenever I can. I appreciate you helping out

. Bill Williams (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I have placed a block on your other account so we can avoid any drama in the future if you forget or accidentally log into the other account. On the images thing, I can make this account "confirmed" so you don't need to wait the rest of the 7 days before having this account "confirmed". ~Awilley (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: thanks a lot, I appreciate it, but when you blocked that account's IP it made it so I can't edit on this one... Bill Williams (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I was pretty sure I had unchecked the autoblock IP box. How about now? ~Awilley (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks, now I can edit it. Also, can I remove my template saying "this user has an alternate account", since I won't ever be using that account again? Bill Williams (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, fine by me. ~Awilley (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Pretty sure there's a different userbox that says something along the lines of "This user has a previous account" if you wanted to put that up. ~Awilley (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll add that one, thanks a lot for helping me out

. When I have time tomorrow I'll get back to editing, but not arguing or on controversial things. Just helping out on normal pages for the time being. Bill Williams (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for ways to help out, you might want to check out Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy and go through their training program. ~Awilley (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely check it out. I don't want to just cause more trouble like I have by getting involved in controversy, I'd much rather help out the community :). Bill Williams (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: and @Awilley: agree that the user should not be using both accounts, but I strongly disagree that this user should be able to remove all connections between the accounts. This is not a clean start. situation. The user has continued with the same behaviour on the same articles, has acknowledged the connection between the accounts, and has had multiple warnings and an arbitration enforcement sanction on the first account (topic banned from post-1932 politics for a period of 2 weeks from June 16 ). The account was not eligible for a clean start, It's a second account which should instead have been an account rename. Allowing the user to remove the connection between the account would have the effect of avoiding scrutiny. Meters (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

No, it wouldn't. In case you haven't noticed, there are at least a dozen people watching everything I do. I am not stupid enough to go and pretend like nothing happened. I'm also not dumb enough to go and edit post-1932 politics for about a week. Bill Williams (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And here we go again. How many times do people have to strongly suggest tot you that you not argue with experienced editors. Replacing it with a "previous account" notice is fine, but removing the connection completely is not. Not all editors who come to your page in the future will be aware of your previous account. Since this is not a clean start you are not allowed to .avoid scrutiny by hiding the actions of the previous account .It does not matter what you think. If you want a clean start, then wait until your sanction has ended, the current ANI has closed, and any possible restrictions from the ANI have ended. Then create a new account, do not connect it to the current accounts, do not make any further edits from the original accounts, and do not edit the same article or in such a manner that you will be recognized. That's a clean start. Meters (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing with any experienced editors. I just said that I would add a template saying that BobRoberts14 is my past account. Why are you arguing about that and being rude? You may not think you are, but you're definitely bothering me. You can say "that's a serious personal attack, remove that", but it's just true. I already said that I am not completely removing it. First you demand over and over that I change my signature and that I did not listen to the other editors and change it, but I had already changed it hours ago. Then you keep on arguing about numerous things. Bill Williams (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You said "And here we go again. How many times do people have to strongly suggest tot you that you not argue with experienced editors," when I literally said that I would do what he asked of me. That is completely rude and unnecessary. Bill Williams (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I literally said "I think I'll add that one", so what are you harassing me about? Bill Williams (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, I think having the connection between accounts is sufficient with the old usertalk redirecting here, a template on the old userpage saying this is the new account, the history of the old talk archived under talk page, and a note on this user page linking to the old account.

BillWilliams, for the last time, STOP accusing people of harassing you. ~Awilley (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I removed it and wont do that again. But he is bothering me about things for no good reason. Twice in a row about things that I actually agreed with him on. Bill Williams (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it has just been him that I said that about. He definitely isn't harassing me, that word would be a gross exaggeration. I was just very bothered by the fact that I actually agreed with him, yet he threatened to block me... Bill Williams (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)BillWilliams, it was simply an edit conflict on a comment to the other editors. Please WP:AGF.. Awilley, notices on the old user page are not helpful for anyone coming to this page. As for any notice on this page, it appears to be insufficient for newcomers, given that user:El_C left a repeat DS notice, and didn't realize what had happened even after being told that the user had already been given the DS notice. Meters (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And where did I threaten o block you? Meters (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You said "you should just stop this bahaviour or you may end up blocked" after you accused me of not changing my signature, even though I already had. Bill Williams (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meters, ElC, like most people placing DSAlert templates, probably didn't look at the talk page for more than 5 seconds before placing the template, relying instead on the edit filter to tell him them if Bill had been warned previously.

@Bill, Read WP:REFACTOR. When you are changing comments that have already been replied to you need to use ~~strike~~ and underline markup instead of just replacing words. ~Awilley (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read the article, thanks for the advice. Bill Williams (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: I read the whole article, but it doesn't say exactly when you are allowed to delete things without striking through. When can you delete something instead of striking through it? Bill Williams (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: Don't you ever come onto a user's talk page and threaten them with bonus non-existent policies followed by more threats of a guaranteed oppose. Your comments are well beyond civil. All editors, regardless of experience, may ask questions. Who the hell are you to tell them not to? Please tell me you were just joking the whole time.--v/r - TP 22:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Meters: That goes for you too. There is no status or class that gives anyone more authority. Experienced editors are more likely to be right because of their experience. But their experience doesn't make them right. In this case, the experienced editors were wrong and depended on a logical fallacy to bully another editor into submission.--v/r - T P 22:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, technically you and Bill are right about this one issue, but collaboration is where the problem lies, and the quick comments above should be seen within a much larger context where there is literally a proposal now at AN/I to limit him to one edit per talk page per day and to stop him from bludgeoning when he is right, not just when he's wrong. When he's right! That leaves no room for being technically right but collaboratively doubtful. See the discussion here. Yes, it's entirely possible to be right and disruptive at the same time. We aren't questioning him when right, but just his approach. This whole business has worn down quite a few good editors here. We're tired and we also make mistakes. The AN/I thread deals with that too. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: although I am inclined to agree, they are both partially right. Sometimes in article talk pages, I go too far. But on my own user page, I normally just question what people ask of me because I am new and want to learn more, or because they seem to be contradicting something. So in my talk page, I do debate things for a long time, but normally I am just asking questions about things... On article pages though, I sometimes have gone too far. Recently in fetal viability though, I think I was completely fine reinstating part of my edit a single time before going to the talk page. The only topic you can really ban me from reasonably is post 1932 politics, because some of my arguments in those talk pages were rude and I should not have been. I do agree with Paris in the fact that I was just asking about something, and you guys kept threatening to get me blocked because I asked how things worked or was annoyed when meters accused me of things I didn't do. I don't agree with most of the users trying to get me only allowed to edit an article talk page one time, since their reasoning is normally that I am questioning experienced editors, when I am mainly confused or trying to learn. Bill Williams (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, they somehow expect me not to respond when people revert my edits or threaten sanctions on me... Why shouldn't I debate things and try to get them in my favor? I can understand punishing me for being uncivil, but just asking questions and civilly debating doesn't seem like a problem unless I am harassing editors. What most of them are asking is for me to never debate people reverting my edits, never question what people ask of me, and to not edit anything controversial until I become more experienced. I can agree with the lats one, and I should be punished if I break revert rules or become uncivil, but questioning people who revert my edits or try to sanction me is the right thing for me to do in my opinion. Bill Williams (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get that they are more experienced, but all of them have been wrong at some point when they asked me to do something or spoke to me. So when I ask if they are correct about something, it's for the benefit of everyone, making sure they know what they are saying and making sure I know what is correct. Just because they are more experienced does not mean they are always right. So again, I don't see why I can't ask them questions. I thought you are encouraged to try and learn things? Bill Williams (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: Collaboration is as much your responsibility as LilBill's. When you are wrong and you keep berating someone else because your "experience" and they aren't, that is not collaborative. You failed to be collaborative, not Bill. Your approach was at issue here. And instead of apologizing, you seem to be doubling down. Model the behavior you expect of Bill and apologize, commit to not do it again.--v/r - T P 01:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah man, I think you're being too much on my side. I sometimes do argue too much, that's for sure. But in certain cases, such as this one, I actually did the right thing, but they thought I didn't so they argued and threatened to block me. Then I was asking about what they demanded and they threatened to block me again, among other things. Still though, I questioned them making it so that I can only post one edit to any article talk page per day, for an entire year, and people responded with things such as "Is sanction negotiation a thing? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)" and "Everything's a negotiation when you're a master with the bludgeon. R2 (bleep) 00:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)" I'm trying to make it so I can actually participate in the community, what is so bad about that? Bill Williams (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I still really appreciate the support, and again, I am definitely going to try to argue less in the future. Bill Williams (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To better understand what I am talking about, read the comments in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:LilBillWilliams_a.k.a._BobRoberts14 concerning punishing me for debating things in talk pages and reverting people's edits (most are from when I first started editing about a week ago) Bill Williams (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry.

Continued from AN/I

I wanted to continue here so as not to burden the noticeboard or discuss things publicly which might be better handled with less attention. That being said, I thought I owed it to you to at least try to spell out what I meant. I certainly would not discourage you from arguing for whatever restrictions or limits strike you as fair, though I think strategically you could do so more effectively (instead of "NO. ONE YEAR IS TOO LONG" you might find "yes, I understand, but I think three months is a more appropriate length" works better). But what really struck me was when Bishonen mentioned that you had worn out BullRangifer's good will, you felt the need to say "I did not tell BullRangifer to stop bothering me or say anything rude to them, so I didn't just 'wear out' their good will." First off, when you are arguing about someone else's subjective feelings, you have already lost, full stop. Secondly, looking directly above this section, I see exactly what she means -- and it's not like BullRangifer disguised his feelings. "Okay, if you're going to be that way, I'm going to give up on you" strikes me as an indication that you have worn out someone's good will. By thgat specific response to Bishonen, you have created conflict, alienated Bishonen, possibly further alienated BullRangifer, if he is (or becomes) aware, and quite honestly, injected suspicion in my mind--to what end?

Part of being a Wikipedian -- even a low-level one, such as myself -- is learning to live with things you don't like. You will have preferred versions of articles. Sometimes consensus will be against you. You have to learn that persuasion is a slow process and not always successful. By all means, argue for your positions, but be prepared for things you don't like to persist, sometimes for quite a while indeed. Secondly, choose your arguments. If you choose to make meritless, sophistical responses to everything you perceive as an attack, then we around you will be quite within our rights to assume everything you say is meritless and sophistical.

Again, I honestly think you can do this and be, in all likelihood, a more valuable Wikipedian than I am. But you're going to have to adjust your attitude and approach. Good luck however you choose to proceed. Dumuzid (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you know this isn't private... It's Wikipedia, and anyone can still read this talk page if they want to. Second, you're exaggerating things too much. I did not say "NO. ONE YEAR IS TOO LONG," in all caps, or even in that aggressive manner with a period after "no". Don't put things in quotations like that if they are going to be far from the truth. What I said was "I also think that a year is too long of a period." I do not take everything as a "personal attack", I just debate things to try and prove my point. I do agree that some good points were made in that discussion, but some people did not need to get involved. I was annoyed at R2 because he has been blocked and sanctioned before and has insulted admins multiple times, yet he said I am incompetent and multiple other things. Thanks for the advice though, I appreciate it. I will try not to debate things as much, but it's hard with people like R2--his proposal was literally to block me everywhere, permanently. Bill Williams (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Less attention" does not mean private. I am quite well aware of the public nature of Wikipedia. I thought my hyperbolic affect would make clear that I did not consider it a direct quote, but apparently not. For that I apologize. Dumuzid (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumuzid: it's all good, you did make valid points. Also, just know that I am never actually emotional (mad, sad, embarrassed, etc.) when I respond to comments, I just have a writing style that can be too aggressive. So I apologize for that. Bill Williams (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to post this, but in general, you should not edit other people's comments per WP:TPO. Also, stop bringing R2's history up, you are being discussed, not R2. You edited in the same area as R2 before, so naturally, they are able to comment on your edits. starship .paint (talk) 06:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: no, they have continually just made stupid insults regarding me that were unnecessary. Their history isn't what matters, but they have insulted me in the thread multiple times. Bill Williams (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that their history isn't really necessary to bring up, so I'll stop. But what they are currently doing is still too much, and I was saying that they have insulted people in the past. I never have said things like "fuck off", "you're incompetent", "this is hopeless", etc. They have said all of that, yet they are commenting on me getting punished. Seems like he should be defending himself from sanctions about his civility instead of attacking others. Bill Williams (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they insult you, everyone can see it, it’s apparent nobody else thinks they are crossing a a line. Furthermore, you’re not being sanctioned on civility. starship .paint (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't edit while logged out

You need to stop editing while logged out. You must only edit while logged in to this account. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice buddy, no one said that isn't allowed, and I immediately reverted the edit and used my main account afterwards. You're helping no one by criticizing something that I already fixed. Bill Williams (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was fixed so many hours ago. What do you think you're doing criticizing something that was already fixed? Bill Williams (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's hilarious that you say "you need to stop" when I already did, and I made one edit. You're not helping anyone, so bother someone else. Bill Williams (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to make sure you understood that it's not allowed. That's all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get it man, but I already knew that. That's why I immediately reverted the edit. I didn't realize I was logged out. So criticizing that just makes it seem like I need to be punished... Bill Williams (talk) 17:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LilB - You were told editing from 2 accounts was not allowed and that you should stop .... so why in gods name would you open up wounds by editing as an IP?, Give the blatant disregard for SOCK and given the continued attempts at GAMING the system and wikilayering here I question whether you should still be editing here at all,

~~I should tell you the communities patience here only goes so far. –Davey2010^Talk 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Here we go again. Read my message... It says I thought I was logged in, and that I literally already knew this. Guess why? Because I reverted the edit immediately after making it after realizing I was logged out. You're giving blatant disregard to not bothering people about things they already know. Bill Williams (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just go do something else instead of saying "so why in gods name would you open up wounds by editing as an IP?, Give the blatant disregard for SOCK and given the continued attempts at GAMING the system " when someone accidentally makes a single edit with their IP and reverts it a minute later. Bill Williams (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is check the edit history of this page and see that I reverted it less than a minute later. Stop bothering me, you're helping no one. Bill Williams (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:::"I thought I was logged in" - Except that isn't quite true is it..... Prior to using the IP here you've been editing another article with it. Lying gets you no where my friend. –Davey2010^Talk 17:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really now? ~~Prove it, instead of being a fool and accusing people of lying for no reason.~~ I made two edits on this talk page, one reverting the other because I realized I wasn't logged in. But you're calling me the liar? Bill Williams (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: You think I am stupid enough to edit an article and start an edit war like that? That was some idiot at my school, that's why they weren't logged in. I'm not retarded enough to revert edits like that after being told not to repeatedly. Bill Williams (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever edited that article with this IP is an absolute fool. I still had it open, so after reading it they must have gone and been an idiot deciding to edit it. I only make edits while logged in if I am paying attention. But that edit wasn't even made by me either way, just some idiot on my IP. Bill Williams (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was literally just warned not to do that nonsense, so I quit editing that article because it got no where. It would be completely foolish to go and do the same thing again. I'll speak to the person who did that, because that was really dumb of them... Bill Williams (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As it shows, I went and edited that article about 5+ days ago. I quit because there was no point, since my edits were getting reverted. Someone who I was reading the article next to just decided to be a fool and come edit it after I said I read the article. I apologize for them doing that, since their edits were wrong either way. Bill Williams (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a simple mistake — let's cut the guy some slack. El_C 17:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Thanks, but whoever edited that article with my IP was being dumb. I will talk to them, but I swear it was not me on that same sex marriage article yesterday. I was talking to some people about it before, so I think I know who it was. Bill Williams (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it was my little brother, and I told him to never edit on any of the computers again. Still, it doesn't make sense for no one on this IP address to ever be able to edit, since you know if he finds a grammar mistake or something he is going to edit it. I've never heard that editing on your IP is not allowed, but I know that what he did isn't allowed. Bill Williams (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I misread. Not a big deal, but, yeah, please don't let it happen again. El_C 17:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'll try not to, but they still didn't need to be so rude about it... Bill Williams (talk) 17:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, BullRangifer was talking about my talk page, but Davey then mentioned something else. Bill Williams (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your little brother can create an account and avoid that problem. Also, that "idiot at my school" can do the same. While I only linked to that one edit, I was referring to any editing from that IP. I had already checked out its activity, the activity of your previous username, and your current username. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, using dual user names gives rise to the appearance of impropriety here, even if it was totally innocent. Just a thought. Dumuzid (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't want him editing either way, but sure, I can ask him to make an account. That would probably be the best idea, since he is probably going to edit regardless of what I tell him. He doesn't know about Wikipedia's rules very much, so he thought he could just go and change stuff without consensus or sources... Bill Williams (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New editing restrictions

I think my proposal was the most lenient so let's go with that, for now. If there's consensus that it's not severe enough, we can always tighten it on-the-fly. Anyway, you are now prohibited from reverting without gaining consensus first (excluding obvious vandalism), are topic banned from American politics and abortion, and may only use an individual article talk pages once per ~~24 hours~~ day. Subject to appeal in 3 months. Finding a mentor is advised but is not mandatory. Good luck. El_C 17:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just think one edit per talk page is too low. The others would definitely be reasonable, but it's too hard to get consensus on a talk page by just posting a single message, in my opinion. How about three edits per talk page? If not, that's okay, I just think three would be better. Bill Williams (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is not a negotiation. Once a day is 7 edits a week per article. El_C 18:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You've been given lots of leeway, this is relatively lenient for the level of disruption, and trying to negotiate this is not a good idea. Show us that you can abide by your restrictions and follow the normal rules for constructive participation in Wikipedia and the restrictions can eventually be loosened. Meters (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm allowed to try and negotiate if I want to.~~ I didn't say I refuse to accept these, that would just get me immediately blocked. Bill Williams (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And obviously if it isn't a negotiation, I won't pursue that further. Bill Williams (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: thanks for giving me a chance to prove that I can improve. I'll make sure to use the next three months wisely and do a good job editing articles

. Bill Williams (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Good luck, again. El_C 18:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Would you mind modifying some of the details of this restriction to match the wording that I proposed on AN/I? For instance, "you are now prohibited from reverting without gaining consensus first" is quite different than my proposal "If an edit you make is challenged by reversion, you may not reinstate that edit without consensus", as the former prevents Bill from reverting vandalism. I also think wording the talk page limitation to "once per day" instead of "once per 24 hours" makes more sense than forcing him to count hours for multiple articles and progressively push his talk page posts a little later each day to avoid overlap until he has to skip a day and start over posting in the morning. ~Awilley (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: - see above. @Awilley: - pings only work when there are new lines of text and with ~~~~ in the same edit. starship .paint (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 14:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C and Awilley: I think LilBillWilliams has broken their "one edit per day on a Talk page" editing restriction at Talk:United Kingdom, with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 edits (not including wording changes or typos) there today. Ca2james (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm sorry about that, I forgot about the one message per talk page rule. I'll refrain from making further edits to that page. Bill Williams (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance

Regarding personally-identifiable information: that is something you should be extremely cognizant of. On that avenue, please feel free to email me the diffs you need redacted. And please be more careful in the future. Anyway, maybe I thought it was implied, but I want you to stay away from conflict from now on. Please don't edit that article (or articles related to the city, in general) or its talkpage again, as part of your editing restriction. Try to edit collaboratively elsewhere, with the knowledge that you're now very close to a lengthy block, which another admin may yet apply. I would have expected you to tread lightly and am dissapointed to learn this not being the case. El_C 17:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll make sure to just stay away from that page for now, since I'm not being beneficial to the article. Bill Williams (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: for the personal information, just check the article quickly to see what I removed, and you'll understand what personal info I was talking about. I assumed that removing said personal info would not be a violation of the redaction guidelines on talk pages (I read the article on guidelines as well), but I guess I was wrong... Bill Williams (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, don't remove talk page posts that have already been replied to, and don't remove other editor's posts. El_C] has already offered to remove the personal info for you if you wish,. I won't object if you redact just the personal info from that post yourself, but don't remove the entire thread and just leave a blank. That completely wrecks the history and the context of the replies. Meters (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, sorry for breaking the rules, I just didn't think I was going against any guidelines. Bill Williams (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Again, please feel free to email me the pertinent diffs you need redacted (revision deleted). Protecting personal information of minors is a priority for us. But, for your part, you have to act responsibly on that front from now on. El_C 18:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that I made a foolish mistake. I would prefer not to email, since that too would be giving up personal information (one of my main emails). Just check the latest edit that I made on the talk page, and you should see what personal info I am talking about. Bill Williams (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to list the diffs here and I will revdel that list, too, once the redacting is done. Also, please don't edit that ANI report anymore, or ANI in general. I want uneventful editing from you from now on. El_C 19:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the edit you made on the article was what I wanted removed, thanks a lot. Also, I'm not going to go and comment on everything (I made too many comments earlier), but am I not allowed to comment on my own sanctions at all? Bill Williams (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I want you to stay away from ANI. If you have questions about your editing restrictions, please feel free to pose these here. El_C 19:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, and I am very sorry for causing you all this trouble. You've been a great help, getting me sanctions that I think are pretty reasonable. I'll try to repay you by doing a good job editing the wiki on issues that are not controversial. I haven't been able to do much yet (just haven't had the time with a lot of work in real life, and editing the talk page is pretty easy and quick to do), but soon I'll be able to actually help out by correcting grammar and spelling. Bill Williams (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I may butt in with a constructive suggestion... Many editors set up a new, anonymous e-mail account just for Wikipedia. You should consider doing the same. R2 (bleep) 19:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I'll definitely take your advice and do that

. Later today I'll be able to actually start editing some uncontroversial Wikipedia articles, since I'll probably have the time. Bill Williams (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions on Politics

@El C: sorry to bother you, but is my newest edit on Scjessey's talk page breaking the sanctions? I just wanted to make sure, since I didn't edit an article or talk page on politics, but I did mention something they wrote in the Donald Trump article. I told them that saying "The simple fact of the matter is that in the last 50 years or so, Republican presidents have generally managed to do a lot more bad shit worthy of scathing critique than Democratic presidents, and Trump is perhaps the worst of them all. The same is true for other politicians, although as you get closer to the local level it seems like Democrats tend to be more problematic," was too biased against Republican presidents and Democratic local representatives, and asked them not to include language such as "shit" and "Democrats tend to be more problematic", since those don't really belong in the talk page. Bill Williams (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it most certainly does. When in doubt, just don't do it. Again, I'm looking for uneventful editing, but you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word. What would you do if you were me? El_C 22:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wanted to make sure, so I asked you, but I added that to their talk page because I just thought what they had said was too inappropriate in terms of the words they used. So do the sanctions mean I cannot mention politics anywhere, on any article or talk page, even if it is not a talk page on politics? I know what you mean by uneventful edits, I just thought that was important to tell them. Later when I can I'll try to make some good edits that are just correcting grammar and spelling on articles. Also, can you please tell them to not use those words, since I am not allowed to? Bill Williams (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except, you asked me after the fact. No, I prefer not to. And I prefer for you to adhere to your editing restriction, no matter what. You have zero rope left, by all accounts, this should be in a freefall. Again, what would you do if you were me? Seriously ask yourself that question. El_C 23:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you immediately after though, because I realized that I probably had made a mistake. Again, I did not know I was breaking anything, so I just wanted to ask you to make sure. If I were you, if I am being honest, I would probably block me for two weeks and tell me to go read a bunch of guidelines before being able to edit again. But I am not you, since you obviously are a nicer person. I would prefer that you help me improve and learn what to do, since I make most of my mistakes because I am confused about policies and guidelines. I appreciate the question either way. Bill Williams (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your honesty. I try to be lenient, but there is a limit. I have blocked you for two days. Please take that time to observe and, indeed, acquaint yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and all that. El_C 23:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I am honestly asking you -- you have got to take the gloves off, at least in the short term. People expressing political viewpoints with which you disagree, people using mild profanity in a general way, these are the things you need to let roll off your back to be a successful Wikipedian. In the short term, I would highly recommend that not only do you refrain from actively creating conflict (even if it's civil conflict), but that you think very hard if you so much as suspect it may result. I still believe in your sincerity, but you display a real knack for exasperating the people with whom you interact. Tread lightly. Dumuzid (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misreading what I said. I never said I disagree with their viewpoints, because I actually agree that there have been many bad Republican presidents. I said them using "shit" is not appropriate as an insult to presidents, so I do not believe that it is "mild" profanity. They were trying to prove that someone else was biased, but in doing so showed that they obviously were. There is a difference between that being a problem because a violated sanctions and them actually being right. Their actions were not correct, and neither were mine by accidentally breaking sanctions. Bill Williams (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are, quite simply, wrong, both in your perceptions and your approach. With that, I'll stop bothering you and simply wish you the best of luck. Dumuzid (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you think it's appropriate to say that "Republican presidents have generally managed to do a lot more bad shit worthy of scathing critique than Democratic presidents"? How could you possibly think such language belongs on the wiki? I would not comment further here, but the thing is, you saying I am "wrong in my perceptions" implies that anyone can just insult other people for whatever reason. Bill Williams (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same goes for the language " local level it seems like Democrats tend to be more problematic," since that is just as biased but without the word "shit". Bill Williams (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are admins who are reading this, I do have to ask: Are you allowed to say stuff like that in Wikipedia? I thought that you weren't. Bill Williams (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are allowed. Wikipedia is not censored, and although it's also not a forum, users are otherwise allowed to express their views in any way they see fit. I'm not seeing anything egregious with the two sentences quoted. At any rate, not your cross to bear. El_C 23:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for telling me. I assumed that saying Democrats and Republicans are bad in certain ways was biased and uncivil, therefore not allowed on the wiki. But I was wrong, so thanks for correcting me. Bill Williams (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating the editing restrictions. Please don't do this again. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 23:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I deserved that because of me accidentally violating sanctions, since I definitely should have been more careful. I'll take this time to read over guidelines and policies that can help me become a better editor. Bill Williams (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LilBillWilliams: If you have questions about your editing restrictions in the future, please use the "email me" feature and send me a note before making the edit. I'll be happy to let you know.--v/r - T P 23:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will make sure to ask you in an email about further questions regarding my sanctions. Thanks for the offer. Bill Williams (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, this is disappointing. I warned you about violating the topic ban before, even linking to the policies. [5]. Please do read them again. You are not to discuss post-1932 American politics and related people during your topic ban. That even includes topics like Dwight Eisenhower the 34th President. Got it?

Also, try not to keep correcting other people’s talk page comments because you don’t like them. It’s not really a productive use of time here. If their comments violate any policies, discuss with an admin. If their comments don’t violate policies, grow some thicker skin and focus on articles. What are your interests, I'm sure we can find a suitable topic. Sports? Sciences? Arts? Humanities? Games? We even have projects on United States Roads....

I just read the latest stuff on ANI. This applies to your restrictions - when in disagreement with other editors, stop editing that portion of the article where the disagreement is occurring until a consensus is formed on the talk page. starship .paint (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just got you off a different TP (replied there in context) and saw you got blocked in the meanwhile, my advice to anyone sanctioned under topic bans is to steer clear off it immediately. I recommend you stay off politics entirely, and delve into something else, it's not easy sometimes to determine the locus of your topic ban and thinking, this looks fine to edit! But it's not. There's other projects like Video games, television, flora and fauna (especially!) which need a lot of work and you can devote your time there. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comment

I wanted to let you know that I had just read the comment you briefly left on my talk page. While I don't necessarily agree with your suggestion that I was expressing my own bias, I do admit that my comment wasn't really all that constructive. Sorry if it got you into hot water. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah it's fine, I shouldn't have made the comment, I juts didn't think it broke any sanctions. I was wrong. Bill Williams (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts

Confirmed

BobRoberts14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
LilBillWilliams (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
BenDoverMikeHawk (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Did you forget to tell us about BenDoverMikeHawk? Please identify any other accounts that you have used.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BenDover created at 05:56, 14 June 2019 [6], when Bob's talk page was like this, full of warnings. [7]. Bob edited at [8] 05:47, 14 June 2019 and [9] 07:05, 14 June 2019. Time to be honest, Bill, if there is anything else. You are exhausting our patience. starship .paint (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Be totally honest, as our sleuths have the ability to see which PC you are editing from and what operating system you used, among other things. They can tell whether it was you or your brother.

I'd cover my built-in webcam if I were you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My general opinion is this: Given it was created a week ago IMHO this should be a last warning - Any lies, deception or other bullshittery from this point forward should result in them being indeffed, I somewhat sympathise with them as I never got off to the greatest of starts either however there comes that point when you have to question whether that person is a net positive or a net negative and right now I'm only seeing net negative,

Mentorship may help or failing that staying under the radar and staying squeeky clean works. –Davey2010^Talk 17:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Is this an indication that you'd be willing to mentor this new user? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:MJL, Unfortunately not - I feel there would be much better editors who could do a much better job than me at mentoring someone, Mentoring would also require patience something here and IRL i don't really have so it would certainly be better to have someone patient too, Sorry I couldn't be of help. –Davey2010^Talk 21:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: It's cool lol. We all have commitments lol. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I would love the help, I don't think I am worth an experienced editor's time. It would be better for me to just read rules, policies, and guidelines on my own and maybe ask someone every once in a while about them. Bill Williams (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of surprised you haven't done that already? Either way, the best place to go for questions is the WP:Teahouse, however you're like on the shortest bit of rope right now. Therefore, you'll have to wait a bit before getting a chance to ask questions (which is good because I guess you have a lot of reading to do) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've already read many articles on guidelines, but I don't know exactly what I should read next. Whenever I see something I don't know mentioned in an article or talk page I go and read it. For example, I've read the articles on all the permission groups, blocking, sock puppeting, bludgeoning, etc. Bill Williams (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not forget to tell you about the last one, because that was my little brother being an idiot and messing around. If it's not my account, then I'm not going to mention it. My little brother thought it would be funny to make an account with a stupid name. Bill Williams (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't "anything else". What my little brother does on the computers he has access to doesn't involve me. I told him to make a Wikipedia account when I was editing the other day, so he decided to make an account called "BenDoverMikeHawk" without telling me, because he's immature and thinks that kind of thing is funny. Then he didn't use that account and decided to go and edit an article logged out, showing the IP. If he's an idiot and makes a dumb account, that's not my fault. Bill Williams (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, BullRangifer, MJL, starship.paint once again, my little brother is a fool and does not know anything about Wikipedia. He made that account because he thought it would be funny. I would have to be even stupider than I already am to go and make a fake account with an immature name after people already threaten to block me. This computer is not a laptop, sometimes my friends go on it, sometimes my brother does. As long as he isn't consistently vandalizing things, I don't take much notice. Bill Williams (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "other accounts that I use", and how would you think that some dumb name account like that would be something I use? Just use common sense and realize that I didn't make it, and that I wouldn't be foolish enough to edit on an account with that kind of name. The only reason I sound annoyed is because you're accusing me of doing something that is really stupid. Bill Williams (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, aren't you an administrator who can check all the accounts from my IP? If so, then why ask the redundant question as to whether or not I am stupid enough to make immature accounts? Bill Williams (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if there are any other accounts, I would not know. I asked my brother to make an account before, so you may find another one. That's irrelevant to me, since they aren't my accounts. Bill Williams (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, calm down please. You're posting an awfully lot more than necessary. We'll get this sorted out, okay? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm sorry for posting a lot. I was just bothered because I honestly wouldn't do something like that, and don't want to get blocked permanently. Bill Williams (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am calm and not angry, nervous, or any other emotions, I was just typing in multiple lines because I didn't know exactly what to say at first. Bill Williams (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After conferring with my brother, he stated that he created two accounts: "BenDoverMikeHawk", which be made as a joke because he saw me editing Wikipedia and was trying to be funny, and a second one that he has not told me the name of. I'm sure you can confirm this by checking what accounts my IP has made. Bill Williams (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A way forward

Bill, your block seems to be over. Let's get you positively contributing here while we find that rogue account. What are your interests (beyond anything you are topic banned from)? Sports? Arts? Science? Games? History? Let's get to adding content, shall we? starship .paint (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me, I appreciate it. First off, it's funny how you didn't ask "politics"

. So another subject is science, and also history. I am not as interested in Sports, since overall they are a lot like videogames (not having much of an effect on the world other than entertaining one person, the people they are playing with, and people watching them), except at least sports are good for your body. Either way they aren't something that affects many people other than the ones playing and the ones watching. History, science, and politics all affect a large number of people, so I am more interested in them. And because I obviously can't go and edit politics for the US, I'll stick to history and science. I probably won't be able to do much today, but tomorrow I'll try to help out where I can. Bill Williams (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For science, I am not that knowledgeable compared to a professional scientist, but I have taken AP Physics 2, AP Chemistry, and AP Biology at a nearby highschool (I'll be in 9th grade after the summer). And I know a lot about history, although I sadly do not read as much nowadays with all my school work. Bill Williams (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can try history, that requires less technical expertise than science, I believe. What history are you interested in? starship .paint (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know a lot of history about the US first, then Europe, then Asia (including the Middle East), and also a good amount about South America, but not much about Africa (other than the Mediterranean and Greater Middle East nations). Bill Williams (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try, you go to the WP:HELPDESK, say you want to expand articles on the history of the US, and see what they point you to. starship .paint (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well currently my internet doesn't work well and I can only access certain sites, so I'll just fix grammar, spelling, and citation mistakes for now. Bill Williams (talk) 02:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about you join the Guild of Copy Editors? Here is their Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/How to page for you to read up on. There is a step-by-step guide for beginners prepared by members of the Guild. starship .paint (talk) 02:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think that's a good idea, thanks for the suggestion. For now, I would rather just make copy edits, since adding or removing important stuff to articles is more controversial and can result in debate, which I am trying to avoid. Bill Williams (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think adding stuff is an issue. I think deletions are an issue for you. You can, and should work, on expanding articles. starship .paint (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On adding stuff, use reliable sources. Check WP:RSP, anything in red or yellow, you as a beginner, avoid. If it's not listed at WP:RSP, search WP:RSN. Avoid self-published posts like blogs. starship .paint (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that makes sense. Also, I do know about reliable sources, I just am not always able to access and cite them when I state a claim. But if I were to add something to an article, I would definitely find a source for it if need be. Bill Williams (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[10] [11] [12] - tell me when you've finished reading this pages. Also, why not introduce yourself at [13]? starship .paint (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I am reading the guide to the Manual of Style right now, and I also finished copy editing a lot in the article Crime in New York City. I'm going to go and fix some citations there next, then I'll finish reading the suggested articles. Also, can I just put the copy editor template on my user page and say I am part of the guild? Bill Williams (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? Please don't modify comments that are not your own! El_C 04:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Comments

El C sorry to bother you, but what exactly are you supposed to do with comments responding to a deleted comment? In the RfA for Daffy123, I striked out comments that were pinging/responding to a deleted comment. The original comment was deleted because the user was topic banned. Bill Williams (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I striked them out because they were telling a user who was topic banned not to comment, but the topic banned user's comment was deleted. Bill Williams (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't do anything. You're too new, anyway, to be involved in any of that. El_C 04:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it looks like they are pinging some random guy about nothing, because they are responding to a comment that isn't there. You're not supposed to do anything at all? Bill Williams (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comments now say "Please drop it. @Eric Corbett: Your comment here appears to violate your RfA topic ban. It would be better to withdraw it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett, it's always nice to see you. I plead guilty to voting for this candidate whose nomination will never pass. Take care, Drmies (talk) 21:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)" but the user Eric Corbett no longer has any messages in that section. Bill Williams (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another user will take care of it, I assure you. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, that is probably true, but I just want to know for future reference anyways. I also saw that you reported him for violating the topic ban but were unsuccessful in getting him punished. Still, his comment was removed in the end. Bill Williams (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I kinda don't want to talk about that report anymore... Also, these questions aren't going anywhere. All the users involved know what they are doing (besides me of course). I have a task for you incoming btw. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. You're not allowed to modify comments which are not your own. Anyway, this is not uneventful editing. El_C 04:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So there is nothing that even an admin can do about that? It just looked to me like something that needed to be fixed, and you're the more experienced one. Bill Williams (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also I didn't think of it as major, but now that you mention it I guess it was not as minor as I initially believed. Bill Williams (talk) 04:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing needs to be done. I don't know why you continue to seek melodrama. El_C 04:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah I was just wondering, thanks for answering the questions, I appreciate it

. I'll make sure not to make that mistake again. Bill Williams (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something, something... killed the cat. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way El C, I'm obviously not going to comment much on the RfA (since have only been editing wikipedia for two weeks), but I am just watching all the edits to the page to learn more so that I can participate in RfA's in the future, when I am more experienced and knowledgeable. Bill Williams (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I have a question about those; When do people normally close a RfA because of the snowball clause? Mainly, what percentage of support/opposition is necessary for it to be closed? Bill Williams (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Task: WP:TWA

Bill, I need you to play TWA for me.

Thanks. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is TWA? Bill Williams (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Click the link to find out!

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what I expected; I thought you meant a fun game xD. I guess some people would consider learning how to edit wikipedia fun. Bill Williams (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it'll be worth it for you when you finish! You'll be a more confident editor soon enough. Plus, there's space aliens, and who says no to that. In all seriousness, I do have some American history related topics that I could use help on, but I want to make sure you are fully knowledgeable about Wikipedia before I ask. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'll complete the game, but I can't do it right now. I'll sleep, and after I wake up (and finish work for school) I'll make sure to do it. Bill Williams (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, good to see you back. You should play TWA. I finished it myself when you were blocked, so I know what you're in for, and I know you can complete it. starship .paint (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block for 72 hours

Cullen328 can you specify exactly why I was just blocked? Bill Williams (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was already described above, and obviously I made an error. But it was immediately fixed and I know my mistake, and it did not disrupt much at all. Bill Williams (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Coming right off your block, you have no business jumping into a contentious RfA and acting like a clerk. You are nowhere near experienced enough for that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a single edit that was incorrect. I was warned, and did not make the same mistake again. Yet you're blocking me for three days. Bill Williams (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize I did not know that I was making an error, since I would not have done anything if I knew I was. That's why another admin warned me about it. It was a single mistake, and it did not do much damage at all. That's why I think 72 hours is a bit much, since you're not going to be teaching me anything. I was already told my mistake and learned what to do in the future. Bill Williams (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, what will blocking me for 72 hours do? It's not like I am going to go and accidentally mess up something in the RfA again. I'm obviously going to be more careful now. This just seems like a punishment for something that I already have learned from. Bill Williams (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You returned to disruptive editing as soon as your first block ended. You are no longer allowed to participate in disruptive editing. Period. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I made a single mistake by accident... Had I known that I was editing something contentious, where I could easily made a mistake, I would have never edited it in the first place. I did not "immediately return to disruptive editing", since I didn't go straight to that page and mess things up on purpose. Bill Williams (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bill Williams (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think blocking me for three days over a single edit where I made a minor mistake is unnecessary. I was already told what I did wrong, and I learned from my mistake and will try not to do that again. Bill Williams (talk) 12:37 pm, Today (UTC+7)

Decline reason:

It took me an hour to read through all the recent discussion on your talk page. Cullen328 doesn't make mistakes when he blocks users and as this is only a short block you can sit it out. It will give you time to reflect on how you can approach your editing here with a greater level of maturity and to understand that your next block might be indefinite. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bill, what is this? What happened to "Sounds good, I'll complete [TWA], but I can't do it right now. I'll sleep, and after I wake up (and finish work for school) I'll make sure to do it." Like it wasn't even an hour later and your asking Cullen here whether moral supports count at RFA? Come on...

. Bill, do you have the ability to join us at WP:Discord? You'll be able to ask a lot of your questions there with more or less impunity (as in it is a more nurturing environment, but don't hassle people obviously). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's me asking a single question... Is there a problem? I said I don't have time to complete a multi-hour guideline lesson, but obviously I can ask a single question. I doubt I'll join the discord server, but I may possibly do that. Either way, asking that question is not a problem. If I am not bothering people, I am allowed to ask questions. I was not bothering him there. Bill Williams (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to complete something right now, since I just am working on stuff for school and have a Wikipedia tab open with my watchlist, so I can respond to things from you and others. Bill Williams (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new account and joined the discord server. My username is Bill Williams#1639. I have used discord for about 5 months and know basically everything about it

. Bill Williams (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Bill took up the offer to join the server. He is now asking his questions there for the time being. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, when you're back, some advice from me: do not edit, or move, other editors comments - at all. Treat this as the status quo going forward, until 2020 at the least. As for your own comments, do not delete them, instead ~~strike~~ them if need be, (Redacted) them if need be, and ask for revdel (revision deletion) if really sensitive. starship .paint (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bill, it might seem like the entire community is against you but you really need to heed everyone else's advice here (since you didn't listen to mine). To put it simply enough, you edited disruptively, did not disclose an account you made and came off a block to make more contentious edits. If you do not get blocked for WP:NOTHERE first, it will result in a WP:CIR block. Now, we all make mistakes when we're a nascent editor and sometimes it's too late to recover from them but people on this talk page are still willing to assume good faith about you, but only if you listen to our advice and keep your head down and learn before chaotically going into the most complex of places. Find a good stub, work on it, give it some time and mainspace edits, you'll get it soon. Good luck. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right that I didn't edit properly and made mistakes, so I am sorry about that. Thanks for the other advice, but I never made an account that I didn't disclose, because that would be completely retarded, especially with such an immature name. I'm not going into this again, since I already explained above. It's pretty obvious that me doing that would be way more foolish than anything I have already done, and that is because my brother was just kidding around when he made the account. He did not realize that he could be punished, since he's just a little kid. When I am unblocked I'll stay away from anything contentious and try to improve the Wiki, since I have not done a good job of that in the past. I do promise that I have been trying, I just debated things too far sometimes and didn't know policies properly. Bill Williams (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, we don't like to restrict you, but we're doing it to protect you from being banned. Are you able to access WP:TWA while blocked? starship .paint (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I am able to access it. And it's okay that you blocked me, I agree that I made stupid mistakes and need to learn my lesson. Bill Williams (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't worry about it. As long as your intention is to be WP:HERE to help Wikipedia, we are on your side. It's good to hear that you will do your best in that regard!

--qedk (t 桜 c) 16:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... on the other hand, I'm sure we've banned some people who were WP:HERE for being a net negative to the project *shrug* starship .paint (talk) 08:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi LilBillWilliams! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 05:21, Monday, June 24, 2019 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Anne Hathaway

Hello LilBillWilliams - I just have a couple of points to raise with your recent edits. First off, please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Usage guidelines. We generally don't add hatnote disambiguation to pages like Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare) back to Anne Hathaway (the actress) because it is unlikely a person will search for the former when actually wanting to grab the latter. Additionally, your file File:Anne Hathaway 2.webp is unclear in terms of its copyright attribution. You will need to clear that up or it may be deleted. I have restored the previous version, which was taken by a person and uploaded with proper copyright attribution to Commons before an IP user changed it. Cheers and good luck on your editing journey. Sasquatch t|c 01:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, sorry for the confusion. I didn't know how to specify the copyright, but I did know where it came from. I was just trying to re-upload the previous image with a different summary, since the old summary was " I don't show just anyone my signature dance moves, but when I do it's with Anne Hathaway and Mindy Kaling. Check out my new video to see my full interview with some of the cast of Ocean's 8! A huge thanks to Warner Brothers for the Opportunity :)" which is pretty unprofessional and advertising their youtube channel. Thanks for fixing things up

. Bill Williams (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Article Lead

@El C: sorry to bother you, but I think the wording "systematically murdered some six million Jews, around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population" is a bit odd, since the "some" part sounds like they murdered some of the six million Jews, i.e. it is a bit confusing. Also, I think that sentence is going on for too long, since it's got a lot of info in a single sentence. Would there be any other way to improve it, or do you think it's fine? Bill Williams (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I previously changed it to "systematically murdered over six million Jews--around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population" so that there was a pause in the sentence before the last part. Bill Williams (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the confusion. And you changed it to over six million, anyway. Anyway, lot of thought went to constructing that lead over the years. Maybe it's better to use the talk page to suggest improvements to it, rather than being bold. El_C 03:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh okay, I see what you mean. I may ask about that in the talk page, but as you said, that article has had a lot of work, so I probably should just stay clear of it. Bill Williams (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do see the potential for confusion. I changed "some" to "approximately" because that seems to be a clearer synonym. I suspect that "some" as used in this context is more common in other variations of English than American English, and it is best to use more widely understood and unambiguous terms.

Yes, I recommend that you stay away from direct editing of FAs and GAs at this time. Discussing things in advance, as you have done here, is a very good thing, and I thank you for it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for changing the wording Cullens, I appreciate it. I agree that "approximately" is a good word to use in that context. Bill Williams (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and I appreciate your comment. I know that you have had a rocky start and that I have been a part of it. But I want to assure you that I hope that you will develop into a respected contributor. That would make me very happy. I wish you well going forward. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely going to try to not make the same mistakes that I did before. I went into contentious articles and argued too much in the talk pages, and I don't want to make that same mistake again. I also reverted people's edits too often, but now I will make sure to use talk pages instead. Bill Williams (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I'm giving you a barnstar for this particularly apt comment made at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Valereee. Sometimes, it is the newest among us with the best insight. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha thanks, I appreciate it. I know I am new to this, but that editor was pretty obviously qualified to me. Bill Williams (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bill, this is unrelated, but good luck on here. I should never have bragged to you about never being blocked. I'm leaving this website, and I hope you'll still be here if I return. Don't get blocked again! Subjects like the Holocaust ... very controversial. Be careful. Oh, you were interested in WP:FRAM. Well, there's WP:FRAMSUM. starship .paint (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: yeah I saw what was happening on your talk page and BU Rob13's, and I'm sorry to hear that. You seemed like you always did a good job editing, and you helped me out, so it will be sad without you on the wiki. Good luck with everything else

. Bill Williams (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was nuts. At least, now I understand what it feels like to be blocked indef. I definitely didn’t before! Cheerios. starship .paint (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP Block

@Bbb23: My IP has rarely made any edits, and almost every one was made by my brother, since he doesn't have an account. The ones made by me were accidental, so I removed them and re-posted them with my account. I don't see why my IP needs to be blocked. The account BenDoverMikeHawk wasn't even made by me, that was my brother being an idiot, since he didn't realize there were consequences. The other two accounts aren't even mine, so I would assume they are also my brother's. When he made some dumb edits on my IP I asked him to make an account, so those would be his, not mine. Regardless, he has barely even used those other accounts, and he hasn't used them to do any disruptive editing, so there is no reason to block my IP. None of them are "sock puppets" of my accounts, that's just a stupid thing to say. They didn't even make edits related to anything I would ever edit, and MarvelHistorian didn't even make any edits. His other account did make some dumb edits on a page that I previously showed him, but why not just block that one account? I can tell him not to make stupid edits like that in the future, he hasn't made any since. It's completely inaccurate to say that they are my sock puppets, because they are not at all my accounts. It's even dumber to call this account a sock puppet of BobRoberts14, which is an account I haven't used in weeks, and that I disclosed as my original account. Your "sock puppet" tags are all inaccurate and false. I asked my brother to make a Wikipedia account instead of editing with my IP, which he did in the past, and then he made one stupid edit that I told him never to do again, so that gets me blocked? I was literally asked by other Wikipedians to get my brother to make an account, and that's what I am getting blocked for? Bill Williams (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not foolish enough to go and make sock puppets after already being warned not to, especially since I know it is easy to check all of the accounts on my IP. My brother is the one who made the other accounts, and I can't stop him from doing it. He only made two different edits that were disruptive, and both were weeks ago, so I do not see the problem with him editing on my IP and with his own account, as long as he does not edit disruptively. If you really have to, then block my IP, but only if he is disruptive in the future. Either way, remove the tags about sock puppets, since those accounts are not at all related to mine, and I do not want them to be. I'm not a complete idiot, and I would have to be to try and get away with making sock puppets when I know people are watching and would report me. The tags stating that I am a sock puppet are just false. Bill Williams (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: to answer your question, yes, there are multiple computers that are all on the same subnet, so he may not always use the same device, but it is still the same router. @Bbb23: MJL asked a simple question, and it was valid, so why did you delete it? You could at least be a respectful person and respond to my own comments, but instead you're just going to sit back and delete anyone else's comments about it? You aren't supposed to delete other user's comments like that, and you're an admin, so you already know that. Bill Williams (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is absolutely hilarious is that on Bbb23's own talk page he literally said "With limited exceptions that are not applicable here, you have no right to remove anything from another user's Talk page, whether they are blocked or not... Leave the page alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 10 July 2019" Take your own advice Bbb23, and don't delete someone else's comment asking a valid question. Bill Williams (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not ping me again. If you do, I'll revoke TPA. Indeed, based on your ranting, I'm very close to doing that anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I will not ping you again. But you didn't even respond to a single question, and you deleted another user's comment, which you shouldn't have done. Just keep doing whatever you want, it's not like I can stop you. I'll wait a month, but then I am going to try and get those stupid "sock puppet" tags removed, because they are nonsense and false. You can complain about me "ranting", but it's what any normal person would do to defend themselves from a false accusation. Bill Williams (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LilBillWilliams, you have been blocked by a CheckUser for deliberately using multiple accounts. You will not be returning to Wikipedia any time soon. And on this, I am removing your talk page access. Being blocked does not mean 'business as usual'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to make an unblock request, please see: WP:UTRS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see this happen. But reviewing [14] [15] these accounts contributions, I think it's likely that these were yours, Bill. If so, you should have come clean. I don't know if you'd be allowed back, but even if you are indeed allowed back, then any further accounts surely would result in an indefinite ban. starship .paint (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Standard offer - if you want to come back, don't ever sock again, and apply back in six months via WP:UTRS. starship .paint (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TPA restored

...so that editor may make on wiki appeal. Admins see case archive and note that editor states that they do not have password for original master.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bill Williams (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for giving me the chance to request an unblock. I'll send roughly the same thing that I did in my UTRS submission; It has been many months since I edited using the IP or accounts blocked for "sockpuppeting," and I have no intention of sockpuppeting in the future. I would like to be unblocked so I can participate in the Wiki once again, and this time I will refrain from arguing incessantly on talk pages. Over a year ago, my account was blocked for sockpuppeting by Bbb23, and Kudpung removed my talk page access (which was recently restored by Berean Hunter). I have since learned more about the Wiki, its policies, and how to fix some of my mistakes, so I believe it is time for me to be unblocked.

Accept reason:

Accepting per standard offer. only (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from a CU standpoint to another admin unblocking. Neutral otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said you learned "how to fix some of my mistakes". Can you please describe what mistakes you made and how you will be fixing them going forward? Additionally, what do you intend to edit if unblocked? only (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My main mistake was frequently editing talk pages and lobbying repeatedly to get what I wanted, instead of accepting that something was not going to be added into the article. In the future, I wont go on for too long trying to get an edit that doesn't really matter into an article, especially if it is opposed by most people and wouldn't add much anyways. I would want to edit a variety of articles, and I saw many mistakes while reading Wikipedia articles, but I couldn't fix any of them because I was blocked. They were mostly geopolitical articles on countries, ethnic groups, and their demographics. Bill Williams (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of what I would edit, I was reading the "Edward Snowden" article and noticed that it said "Snowden scored consistently above 105 on two separate IQ tests," which seemed low for a "computer wizard," so I checked the source and it actually said "scored above 145 on two separate IQ tests," so if unblocked that is one example of a mistake that I will fix. Bill Williams (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

only thank you for accepting my unblock request, I really appreciate it (I already fixed the two mistakes that I mentioned). Also, I don't want someone seeing me edit, and then my sockpuppet tags, and blocking me again thinking I should still be blocked for sockpuppeting, so is there any way that I can get the sockpuppet tag removed? Bill Williams (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap

You jumped right into Donald Trump. Big mistake, in my opinion, because editors have been fighting over that very issue (COVID-19 in the lede) for ages on the talk page. starship .paint (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed, but someone already placed the info in the lead and it has stayed there (compared to being removed in months prior), so I think it's reasonable to edit it somewhat since the general idea is still the same. What I changed is still similar to what was already in the article. Bill Williams (talk) 09:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given your history, I'd advise: CAUTION, CAUTION, CAUTION. I'd stay out of the political arena, at least regarding the 2020 presidential election and the most prominent controversies (say something like the death of George Floyd). At this point in time, you want to avoid conflict and learn the ropes. Could you edit on topics that aren't that controversial? People who aren't AOC or Ilhan Omar, for example. Towns. Animals. Roads. Sports! Surely there's something. starship .paint (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I will make sure to communicate with people and not repeatedly revert anything like I did some times before, so I think I can help bring about positive change this time. Bill Williams (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did edit some other articles and files as well, Donald Trump was only one of them. Bill Williams (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Current areas of conflict - read this list, and be very very careful inside these controversial areas. starship .paint (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am discussing it on the talk page to help reach an agreement. Bill Williams (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, okay. Now, always ping me {{re|Starship.paint}} when addressing me. I won't be irritated, alright? (but for other editors, see what they say, don't necessarily do the same) starship .paint (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: understood, I'll keep that in mind. Bill Williams (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for Violation of topic ban (American politics) and editing restriction (prohibited from reverting without gaining consensus first) and talk page restriction (one post per day) placed by El_C. Also violated the 24-hr BRD rule at Donald Trump. Not what we want to see 2 days after coming off a yearlong block.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Awilley (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bill Williams (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was never informed of those sanctions, considering it has been well over a year since I even saw them, so of course I forgot. Also, it said a period of "three months," and it has been well over a year, so I don't get why they would even apply. I never made more than one revert, only one edit adding something, then another edit adding something slightly different (basically a revert). Then I civilly discussed it on the talk page, and no problems arose at all. Note that I edited nine other articles and one file other than my two edits on the Donald Trump article. I had no clue of any talk page restrictions, and I only made four edits to the talk page instead of the one allowed, so I can easily change my behavior to accommodate the restrictions. If you expect me to follow some old sanctions that I have no chance of remembering, you should have informed be before blocking me instantly. I will follow those in the future if I am unblocked. I have waited well over a year, and now that I know what sanctions I must follow, I would prefer not to wait another three months, because I can follow them now.

Decline reason:

You were warned about the sanctions. You chose to remove the sanction notification from this page. It is your responsibility to read the warnings and notifications, and removing them is expressly considered acknowledging them. Yamla (talk) 21:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Additionally, please make clear what my sanctions even are, because again I had no memory of them whatsoever since they were from over a year ago, and no one warned me recently before you immediately blocked me. If you write clearly what all of my sanctions were, I will follow them. Bill Williams (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one who removed the sanctions from your talk page. Now you're saying that you need us to post them here for you to remember to follow them? In this edit, the sanctions were applied. The admin said the sanctions are "subject to appeal in 3 months", which means you could appeal them in 3 months, not that the end in 3 months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed literally everything from a year ago, and I didn't read through dozens of paragraphs in the process, I just clicked delete because it took up space... Bill Williams (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't get why you think I would immediately violate sanctions if I knew they were in effect. Now that I know what they are, I wont violate them again. Bill Williams (talk) 21:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I disagree with your reasoning, but that's fine, if you want to block me for three months instead of warning and informing me first, so I can actually improve instead of being forced to wait even longer than a year long block that had unjustified pretenses (I already discussed those "sockpuppet" accounts months prior and disclosed them [16] [17] [18], and they hadn't edited for over a month when Bbb23 blocked me for an entire year), then I guess I will have to wait until the block expires. Thank you for reading my unblock request, and I hope that I can return to productively edit in three months. Bill Williams (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please block my IP address as well if I am not supposed to be editing with it, I don't want me or my brother making that mistake and getting blocked for longer. Bill Williams (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is surely unpleasant. Bill, I think you should restore the bans to your talk page, to remind yourself, actually. I can see why you forgot. starship .paint (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: Yeah I agree, I'll add it to the top. Bill Williams (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s good. Note that your prohibition on reverts applies to all topics. Also, {{re|Starship.paint}} only works BEFORE your signature is applied, because it requires the ~~~~ in the same edit. The edit also needs to be on a new line of text. starship .paint (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Regarding Topic Ban

@El C: sorry to bother you, but I had a question regarding my talk page restrictions: am I allowed to edit Donna Soucy since she is an individual, or am I not allowed to edit the article because it tangentially relates to American Politics? The problem with the article is that the lead is not updated to show the new President of the New Hampshire Senate, who is Chuck Morse, and has some grammatical errors. Bill Williams (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely American politics, Bill. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bill. No worries, it isn't a bother. But MJL is right. She is, indeed, an American politician of some import (and although no longer holding office as of Dec 2020, not "tangentially," either). That clearly has been her career path for a while now. Her formerly serving as the President of the New Hampshire Senate, for example, cements her as such pretty unambiguously. Regards, El_C 00:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that clear, I appreciate it. Bill Williams (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: (and MJL if this appears on your watchlist) how can I confirm that I have consensus to make an edit? I removed part of the lead of China's article [19], but it was added back [20] soon after. I then went to the talk page, and asked for consensus to remove it again, but only one person has responded in the week since (they agreed with me). I doubt anyone else will reply. I checked back today, and saw that the info that I removed was only added five days before I removed it, therefore it is not longstanding info, and someone agreed with me to remove it, so am I able to remove it from the lead, or would that violate my editing restrictions to not revert? Bill Williams (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get a chance to look into the edits in question too closely (though likely that isn't really necessary for our immediate purposes here), but my take is that, since the editor who is advocating for the contested version has not bothered using the article talk page for almost a week now, they have effectively forfeited their position. So, you, as the editor who is advocating for the longstanding version, are on the right side of consensus, even if there wasn't another editor who also was similarly in support. Bottom line: you did all you could. You're fine to revert. El_C 03:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Thanks for the advice, and am I able to ping you like this in the future, or is that too much of a bother? I just want to make sure I'm not violating any editing restrictions so I can eventually get them removed, since to be honest I've been discouraged from editing since they were placed. Bill Williams (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And in the future, should I also ping the editor of something I want to remove when I ask for consensus on the talk page? Bill Williams (talk) 03:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Bill. Certainly, please do not hesitate to call on me for, really, whatever. Can't guarantee I'd be around, but if I am, always happy to drop by! In answer to your second question, a ping on the article talk page to the other editor/s involved in the dispute is always a plus. Best, El_C 03:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, thanks for the help. Bill Williams (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing Editing Restrictions

@El C: I am currently subject to the editing restricts in the message "You are now prohibited from reverting without gaining consensus first (excluding obvious vandalism), are topic banned from American politics and abortion, and may only use an individual article talk pages once per day. Subject to appeal in 3 months. Finding a mentor is advised but is not mandatory. Good luck. El_C 17:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)" and I was unblocked on November 23 of 2020, so it has been three months since then. Am I now allowed to appeal my editing restrictions? I haven't felt like editing much since I'm always scared that I will accidentally violate them, and I don't want that mistake to be possible in the future. Bill Williams (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Bill. But don't bother appealing. Let's just consider the sanction rescinded and see how you do from here on out. Good luck! Best, El_C 22:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Bill Williams (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally, Bill. But remember, sanctions can be re-imposed as easily as they're rescinded — please don't make me send Buck Flower after you. He is not nearly as gentle as yours truly. El_C 22:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, if an edit of mine is rejected, I wont start an edit war like I did on some occasions in the past. Bill Williams (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eric Rosen (chess player), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Evanston. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral version

You can edit in Talk:Josip Broz Tito#Lead's POV sentence for a neutral version: I did it. Ciao--Passando (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check it out. Bill Williams (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Ban

Snooganssnoogans I can discuss it if you want, but it violates NPOV to call it a "muslim ban" without clarifying that it only banned 12% of Muslims.[21] I removed the "pejorative" and "inaccurate" part, but the fact still stands that it was referred to as the "muslim ban" by critics[22][23][24] and the "travel ban" by most news sources[25][26][27]. Bill Williams (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry.

[1]