![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Not sure if I have to tell you or this goes automatically, but I suspect a previous abuser is actively editing with a sock again. Thanks.
You requested additional information on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Satt_2 and both parties said what they had to say couple of days ago. Could you please revisit the investigation page so that we can get it over with? The matter at hand is an unnecessary distraction from other issues.-- Andriabenia ( talk) 11:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
IP 129.252.69.40 is the most used sock IP unfortunately. User:Zscout370 had to put a 6 month block on it last spring, the IP hopping with the suspected username was so bad. I listed the other accounts, even though "stale", because those were accounts formerly used by the same puppeteer. Is this where I should talk at? ThomasC.Wolfe ( talk) 03:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Am I correct that this edit [1] now makes you involved in this dispute? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
You said "behavioral" evidence. ;) Clerk forgot to put a block on the sock master's current account, which is key here, & should be tagged out of respect for the other editors. Don't think a week is going to cover it. Previous sock master's username was blocked indefinitely, IP 6 months-- it's in the archives & pattern worsened while "undetected." It's all also in the edit summaries. I was thorough: don't like to see this, & because I really don't want to have to file another investigation. Recommend any admins with firmer experience with this type of user / next step? Best. ThomasC.Wolfe ( talk) 19:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
For your helping to end the edit war on Michael (album) I would like to award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC) |
So let me get this straight... you think that initiating a discussion and notifying EVERYONE who made ANY edit to the page REGARDLESS of which side they are on of said discussion is an invalid method of "winning" an edit war. This is what I am reading your comments as. Please feel free to clarify and/or correct. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, while lurking on WP:AN, it led me to the user's page, et. al., and noticed some edits. Are these [3] [4] [5] sock tags legit or should they be reverted? Seems rather odd, wasn't sure if anyone had seen them since they weren't reverted. No need to follow up with me, just an FYI. -- 64.85.217.34 ( talk) 15:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, is it possible to re-open the following SPI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edinburghgeo/Archive - and add user Saariselka1 and IP 129.215.4.177? Based on editing at G5 (education) it appears very likely that these are also connected and following the same behaviour. As before, there is also an apparent conflict of interest due to the controller having a close connection with the University of Edinburgh. Thanks in advance. Rangoon11 ( talk) 22:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
GotR Talk 05:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The child who kills the parents still has the right to a share in the inheritance? He may keep his vote even after what he did? -- Lecen ( talk) 12:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a stop by IRC and poke me :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how, with a three-three split and disagreement over the value of the single source (length of it) and the lack of other sources, you have come to your closing decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Lowell, Jr.. Wouldn't a "no consensus" be the logical result, both policy- and guideline based and by nose-counting? Fram ( talk) 14:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
A long time user has been impacted by a proxy-block ( Sergey WereWolf). I verified that the IP is indeed an open proxy, but I buy the story that it is a gateway for his ISP that could be used by many users, one of which is running a proxy. I've applied IPBE for the short term so he could edit, but will you opine on my judgement that there's no hanky-panky here? Kuru (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough about the CU, but could you look at the case page again please -- I think I messed it up trying to open a new case while the old one was closing. TIA. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 22:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, could you please look into this IP's activity? S/he is removing sources without much explanation, often targeting a specific domain, http://mb-soft.com. Many of the sources seem to contain valid information. The user's activity almost seems bot-like, along with a generic edit summary. I'm afraid that this user, although perhaps well-intentioned, is doing more harm than good. Athene cunicularia ( talk) 04:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It does seem like a weird site, but I'd bet that a lot of references like this one make their WP articles better, not worse. But I guess I'll just let him do his thing. Athene cunicularia ( talk) 15:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have a new suspected sock of Screwball or 68. He arrived conveniently when Screw vanished from the talk page. Can I add it to the list or do I put a new investigation up or what? Thanks, Metallurgist ( talk) 23:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow dude you're fast! ;) I just tacked another on after you did the check. Hasn't made any edits, but... Nightw 17:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm note sure what you said to HelloAnnyong in order to convince him or her to strike out his or her endorsement for a CheckUser check, but the Fluttershy is now requesting to be unblocked and has made the following statement:
No other accounts exists, and I have no knowledge of that account that you listed. Feel free to run a CheckUser.
I've noticed that you have the checkuser right. Did you already used Checkuser on Fluttershy? Is that why HelloAnnyong struck his or her endorsement for a CheckuUser check? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Who/What is PBML? Cabal-of-rdn ( talk) 00:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I would be most grateful if you could assist with the following query. New user Ivalo2 ( talk · contribs) has been following me around and reverting my edits in a fairly blatant way (three of their four edits to date are reverts of edits of mine, and pretty pointless ones at that). It is my firm opinion that this 'new editor' is in fact a more established editor who has set up a new account purely in order to protect their main account from blocks for bad behaviour.
Is there anyway to run an SPI/checkuser without specifying the sockmaster in a situation like this i.e. to check if an account is being controlled by any other WP user? Thanks in advance for your help. Rangoon11 ( talk) 01:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:AN#Requesting reappraisal of a block. It's about something where you had offered an opinion as a checkuser, and I'd like to know what you think. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello WilliamH. You might remember me from a month ago, where you successfully helped me in confirming my suspitions regarding a sockpuppeting user. Well, something has happened to me recently, which is on the borders of sockpuppeting. A 'brand-new' user has decided to contact me on my talkpage, and proceeded to deliver some fairly aggressive statements. Eventually they clamed down and apologised, but what cocerns me is that they admitted that they have had previous discussions with me under different usernames. I have a suspition on one particular editor who could be behind the incident, who incidentally was banned for sockpuppeting and also held a remarkably coincidental interest in the exact same aircraft article. I guess what I am asking is: What is your interpretation on policy regarding editors working under undisclosed multiple accounts? And is the (potentially false) recognition that they could be a previously banned sockpuppeter of any relevance? I don't think I'll have too many problems in dealing with the user as it is, hopefully, but I thought I would come to seek your opinion just in case. Kyteto ( talk) 01:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi WilliamH,
I noticed you undid a revision on Philosophy of Education on a resource link I added and called it Link Spam, and think this is in error. Please let me know your response
- Steve
GreatPhilosopher (
talk)
18:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for the misunderstanding! GreatPhilosopher ( talk) 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear WilliamH,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah -- Yjune.sah ( talk) 22:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've sent you an email. Risker ( talk) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm considering applying to be an administrator. Could you let me know if you think I have what it takes? Many thanks!-- YHoshua ( talk) 23:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
( talk page stalker)Speaking of evaluating, being that you were my blocking admin of my first block, how think the community would perceive me at this point. I'm thinking I made too many mistakes lately but I would like an outside opinion. What is it I could still improve on and what do I do well already?— cyberpower ( Chat)( WP Edits: 521,474,194) 01:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Suggestion_for_new_crats. MBisanz talk 22:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I find this rather ironic, but if you do run for Bureaucratship, you will definitely get my support. You are a very skilled editor and I believe that an RfB is long overdue. I suggest you take the plunge— cyberpower ( Chat)( WP Edits: 521,631,155) 00:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
MBisanz would like to nominate you to become an bureaucrat. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship to see what this process entails, and then if you accept, transclude the page I created for you. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/WilliamH. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. MBisanz talk 02:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC) |
Gulp. I accept. I've answered the questions. It looks like we're good to go, so I'll transclude it. Thanks again! WilliamH ( talk) 14:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Kyle Zunker. I am a student at Michigan State University, working on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process. Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. I am contacting you in order to set up a date and time for the interview. Please contact me at zunkerky@msu.edu with the dates and times that work best for you. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact myself or Dr. Jonathan Obar, the principal investigator of the project. I look forward to hearing from you! Zunkk ( talk) 23:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello William,
I have a big problem, everytime I try to add a new message (new section) to this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Saint9016&action=edit§ion=new I am not able to. What's the problem? Where can I contact him?
Thanks and best regards,
ParkJiSungFC -- ParkJiSungFC ( talk) 16:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Well still no oppose yet and you were saying that you were going to get opposition. Anyways I find it rather ironic that I suggested you to be a 'crat when you indefinitely blocked me. I think I should switch to oppose just so you have that opposition you're expecting to receive. ;)— cyberpower ChatOnline 23:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Please, check your e-mail inbox. Sole Soul ( talk) 22:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi WilliamH. Here are the questions I intend to pose at your RfB. I hope these questions will provide insights about how you will close RfAs. I have posted the questions here, instead of at your RfB, because the questions will take some time to answer. It would be unfair to place immediately all these questions on your RfB because participants may have a negative view of you if the questions were to be left unanswered for several hours. When you finish answering these questions, please copy them to your RfB. I am interested to hear your thoughts about these questions. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 05:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Questions
|
---|
At
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1, the closing bureaucrat wrote:
The final tally of the RfB was 75/29/8 at 72.1%. On the closing bureaucrat's talk page, an opposer wrote:
The closing bureaucrat replied: Earlier in the year, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 was closed as unsuccessful at a tally of 88/30/11 at 74.6%. Commentators at User talk:WJBscribe#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1 generally believed that the consensus was to promote Connormah.
The closing bureaucrat wrote at
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1:
The closing bureaucrat at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare (70.7%) wrote: Several months later, an RfA participant wrote:
|
Best Wishes and Congrats.Thank you for answering my questions my apologies if I did not phrase my questions well enough. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 19:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There are still a few minutes left of the RfB but YOU passed with 100% support. You blew away your RfB just as you did with your RfA on your FIRST try. Let me be the first to congratulate you on becoming a bureaucrat.— cyberpower ChatLimited Access 13:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations on becoming a bureaucrat!!! B music ian 14:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations Will. I have just closed your unanimous RfB as successful and you are now a bureaucrat (about the only context in which that might be seen as a positively thing). Best of luck. PS. I've always thought Will is a good name for a crat... Will 14:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, congratulations Will! Bruvtakesover ( T| C) 15:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Well done! A 100+ support RfB with no opposition. With such a good welcome to the 'crat circle you should be fine! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I really regret going inactive and missing your RfB. Congrats on passing, though, and without opposition (which makes you one of only two to do so since 2004!). Welcome aboard. Pak aran 17:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
23:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Since you were first, I defer to you. =) Though they did say to leave a message on their Basque Wikipedia talk page, I wasn't willing to cross languages to leave a note. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 00:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Hello, William! Congratulations for being the newest bureaucrat on Wikipedia! I know that handling both adminship and bureaucratship is a difficult job, however, I appreciate your efforts to handle both. Congratulations! Jedd Raynier ( talk) 13:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
Many thanks! I've put it here! WilliamH ( talk) 21:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry, the explanation is that I was testing some programs of pywikipediabot and I thought that I will test better in this wikipedia becouse in my home wikipedia has not so much new accounts as this. Until now I didn´t know that was a problem and that was a perennial rejected idea. I'm really sorry, it won´t repeat. The bot will only make edits for what is approved. Thanks for the advise and scuse me, please. Good bye. -- Enzaiklopedia ( talk) 14:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey WiliamH, wanted to congratulate you for successfully becoming our newest bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia. I'm sure you will serve the project very well in the coming time :). It feels great after supporting for you in your nomination. All the best for the future! TheGeneralUser ( talk) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, WiliamH! That was indeed the quickest SPI closure I've ever had: I've followed him since the first AN/I, and I was watching that article specifically for that edit. I had a question about two things. One should be an easy fix, and we'll see what to do about the second.
Thanks again for the quick response, and Cheers :> Doc talk 00:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
A long overdue barnstar that I should've given months ago. For keeping everything in order. — cyberpower ChatOffline 01:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC) |
Can you please explain the reason behind blocking User:Mike of Ilvadel? - badmachine 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
FDI Award |
For closing your first RfA as a Bureaucrat! Congratulations! Wifione Message 07:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC) |
Could this be another sock of User:Plankto such as the one you found here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Coordinated_voting_by_Fringe_Theories.2FNoticeboard_participants_in_AfD_and_other_debates? I notice both make effectively the same complaint and both had few edits to their name. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Not sure if I have to tell you or this goes automatically, but I suspect a previous abuser is actively editing with a sock again. Thanks.
You requested additional information on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Satt_2 and both parties said what they had to say couple of days ago. Could you please revisit the investigation page so that we can get it over with? The matter at hand is an unnecessary distraction from other issues.-- Andriabenia ( talk) 11:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
There is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review/unblock proposal, in which you might have an interest. -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
IP 129.252.69.40 is the most used sock IP unfortunately. User:Zscout370 had to put a 6 month block on it last spring, the IP hopping with the suspected username was so bad. I listed the other accounts, even though "stale", because those were accounts formerly used by the same puppeteer. Is this where I should talk at? ThomasC.Wolfe ( talk) 03:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Am I correct that this edit [1] now makes you involved in this dispute? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
You said "behavioral" evidence. ;) Clerk forgot to put a block on the sock master's current account, which is key here, & should be tagged out of respect for the other editors. Don't think a week is going to cover it. Previous sock master's username was blocked indefinitely, IP 6 months-- it's in the archives & pattern worsened while "undetected." It's all also in the edit summaries. I was thorough: don't like to see this, & because I really don't want to have to file another investigation. Recommend any admins with firmer experience with this type of user / next step? Best. ThomasC.Wolfe ( talk) 19:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
For your helping to end the edit war on Michael (album) I would like to award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC) |
So let me get this straight... you think that initiating a discussion and notifying EVERYONE who made ANY edit to the page REGARDLESS of which side they are on of said discussion is an invalid method of "winning" an edit war. This is what I am reading your comments as. Please feel free to clarify and/or correct. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, while lurking on WP:AN, it led me to the user's page, et. al., and noticed some edits. Are these [3] [4] [5] sock tags legit or should they be reverted? Seems rather odd, wasn't sure if anyone had seen them since they weren't reverted. No need to follow up with me, just an FYI. -- 64.85.217.34 ( talk) 15:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, is it possible to re-open the following SPI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edinburghgeo/Archive - and add user Saariselka1 and IP 129.215.4.177? Based on editing at G5 (education) it appears very likely that these are also connected and following the same behaviour. As before, there is also an apparent conflict of interest due to the controller having a close connection with the University of Edinburgh. Thanks in advance. Rangoon11 ( talk) 22:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
GotR Talk 05:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
The child who kills the parents still has the right to a share in the inheritance? He may keep his vote even after what he did? -- Lecen ( talk) 12:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a stop by IRC and poke me :) -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 13:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how, with a three-three split and disagreement over the value of the single source (length of it) and the lack of other sources, you have come to your closing decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Lowell, Jr.. Wouldn't a "no consensus" be the logical result, both policy- and guideline based and by nose-counting? Fram ( talk) 14:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
A long time user has been impacted by a proxy-block ( Sergey WereWolf). I verified that the IP is indeed an open proxy, but I buy the story that it is a gateway for his ISP that could be used by many users, one of which is running a proxy. I've applied IPBE for the short term so he could edit, but will you opine on my judgement that there's no hanky-panky here? Kuru (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough about the CU, but could you look at the case page again please -- I think I messed it up trying to open a new case while the old one was closing. TIA. Cusop Dingle ( talk) 22:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, could you please look into this IP's activity? S/he is removing sources without much explanation, often targeting a specific domain, http://mb-soft.com. Many of the sources seem to contain valid information. The user's activity almost seems bot-like, along with a generic edit summary. I'm afraid that this user, although perhaps well-intentioned, is doing more harm than good. Athene cunicularia ( talk) 04:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
It does seem like a weird site, but I'd bet that a lot of references like this one make their WP articles better, not worse. But I guess I'll just let him do his thing. Athene cunicularia ( talk) 15:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I have a new suspected sock of Screwball or 68. He arrived conveniently when Screw vanished from the talk page. Can I add it to the list or do I put a new investigation up or what? Thanks, Metallurgist ( talk) 23:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow dude you're fast! ;) I just tacked another on after you did the check. Hasn't made any edits, but... Nightw 17:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm note sure what you said to HelloAnnyong in order to convince him or her to strike out his or her endorsement for a CheckUser check, but the Fluttershy is now requesting to be unblocked and has made the following statement:
No other accounts exists, and I have no knowledge of that account that you listed. Feel free to run a CheckUser.
I've noticed that you have the checkuser right. Did you already used Checkuser on Fluttershy? Is that why HelloAnnyong struck his or her endorsement for a CheckuUser check? -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 20:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Who/What is PBML? Cabal-of-rdn ( talk) 00:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I would be most grateful if you could assist with the following query. New user Ivalo2 ( talk · contribs) has been following me around and reverting my edits in a fairly blatant way (three of their four edits to date are reverts of edits of mine, and pretty pointless ones at that). It is my firm opinion that this 'new editor' is in fact a more established editor who has set up a new account purely in order to protect their main account from blocks for bad behaviour.
Is there anyway to run an SPI/checkuser without specifying the sockmaster in a situation like this i.e. to check if an account is being controlled by any other WP user? Thanks in advance for your help. Rangoon11 ( talk) 01:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:AN#Requesting reappraisal of a block. It's about something where you had offered an opinion as a checkuser, and I'd like to know what you think. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello WilliamH. You might remember me from a month ago, where you successfully helped me in confirming my suspitions regarding a sockpuppeting user. Well, something has happened to me recently, which is on the borders of sockpuppeting. A 'brand-new' user has decided to contact me on my talkpage, and proceeded to deliver some fairly aggressive statements. Eventually they clamed down and apologised, but what cocerns me is that they admitted that they have had previous discussions with me under different usernames. I have a suspition on one particular editor who could be behind the incident, who incidentally was banned for sockpuppeting and also held a remarkably coincidental interest in the exact same aircraft article. I guess what I am asking is: What is your interpretation on policy regarding editors working under undisclosed multiple accounts? And is the (potentially false) recognition that they could be a previously banned sockpuppeter of any relevance? I don't think I'll have too many problems in dealing with the user as it is, hopefully, but I thought I would come to seek your opinion just in case. Kyteto ( talk) 01:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi WilliamH,
I noticed you undid a revision on Philosophy of Education on a resource link I added and called it Link Spam, and think this is in error. Please let me know your response
- Steve
GreatPhilosopher (
talk)
18:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
My apologies for the misunderstanding! GreatPhilosopher ( talk) 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear WilliamH,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Young June Sah -- Yjune.sah ( talk) 22:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've sent you an email. Risker ( talk) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm considering applying to be an administrator. Could you let me know if you think I have what it takes? Many thanks!-- YHoshua ( talk) 23:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
( talk page stalker)Speaking of evaluating, being that you were my blocking admin of my first block, how think the community would perceive me at this point. I'm thinking I made too many mistakes lately but I would like an outside opinion. What is it I could still improve on and what do I do well already?— cyberpower ( Chat)( WP Edits: 521,474,194) 01:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Suggestion_for_new_crats. MBisanz talk 22:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I find this rather ironic, but if you do run for Bureaucratship, you will definitely get my support. You are a very skilled editor and I believe that an RfB is long overdue. I suggest you take the plunge— cyberpower ( Chat)( WP Edits: 521,631,155) 00:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
MBisanz would like to nominate you to become an bureaucrat. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship to see what this process entails, and then if you accept, transclude the page I created for you. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/WilliamH. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. MBisanz talk 02:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC) |
Gulp. I accept. I've answered the questions. It looks like we're good to go, so I'll transclude it. Thanks again! WilliamH ( talk) 14:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Kyle Zunker. I am a student at Michigan State University, working on an exploration of the Wikipedia adminship process. Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. I am contacting you in order to set up a date and time for the interview. Please contact me at zunkerky@msu.edu with the dates and times that work best for you. If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact myself or Dr. Jonathan Obar, the principal investigator of the project. I look forward to hearing from you! Zunkk ( talk) 23:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello William,
I have a big problem, everytime I try to add a new message (new section) to this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Saint9016&action=edit§ion=new I am not able to. What's the problem? Where can I contact him?
Thanks and best regards,
ParkJiSungFC -- ParkJiSungFC ( talk) 16:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Well still no oppose yet and you were saying that you were going to get opposition. Anyways I find it rather ironic that I suggested you to be a 'crat when you indefinitely blocked me. I think I should switch to oppose just so you have that opposition you're expecting to receive. ;)— cyberpower ChatOnline 23:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Please, check your e-mail inbox. Sole Soul ( talk) 22:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi WilliamH. Here are the questions I intend to pose at your RfB. I hope these questions will provide insights about how you will close RfAs. I have posted the questions here, instead of at your RfB, because the questions will take some time to answer. It would be unfair to place immediately all these questions on your RfB because participants may have a negative view of you if the questions were to be left unanswered for several hours. When you finish answering these questions, please copy them to your RfB. I am interested to hear your thoughts about these questions. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 05:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Questions
|
---|
At
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1, the closing bureaucrat wrote:
The final tally of the RfB was 75/29/8 at 72.1%. On the closing bureaucrat's talk page, an opposer wrote:
The closing bureaucrat replied: Earlier in the year, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Connormah 2 was closed as unsuccessful at a tally of 88/30/11 at 74.6%. Commentators at User talk:WJBscribe#Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1 generally believed that the consensus was to promote Connormah.
The closing bureaucrat wrote at
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bsadowski1:
The closing bureaucrat at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare (70.7%) wrote: Several months later, an RfA participant wrote:
|
Best Wishes and Congrats.Thank you for answering my questions my apologies if I did not phrase my questions well enough. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 19:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
There are still a few minutes left of the RfB but YOU passed with 100% support. You blew away your RfB just as you did with your RfA on your FIRST try. Let me be the first to congratulate you on becoming a bureaucrat.— cyberpower ChatLimited Access 13:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations on becoming a bureaucrat!!! B music ian 14:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations Will. I have just closed your unanimous RfB as successful and you are now a bureaucrat (about the only context in which that might be seen as a positively thing). Best of luck. PS. I've always thought Will is a good name for a crat... Will 14:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, congratulations Will! Bruvtakesover ( T| C) 15:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Well done! A 100+ support RfB with no opposition. With such a good welcome to the 'crat circle you should be fine! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I really regret going inactive and missing your RfB. Congrats on passing, though, and without opposition (which makes you one of only two to do so since 2004!). Welcome aboard. Pak aran 17:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
23:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Since you were first, I defer to you. =) Though they did say to leave a message on their Basque Wikipedia talk page, I wasn't willing to cross languages to leave a note. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 00:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Hello, William! Congratulations for being the newest bureaucrat on Wikipedia! I know that handling both adminship and bureaucratship is a difficult job, however, I appreciate your efforts to handle both. Congratulations! Jedd Raynier ( talk) 13:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC) |
Many thanks! I've put it here! WilliamH ( talk) 21:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm sorry, the explanation is that I was testing some programs of pywikipediabot and I thought that I will test better in this wikipedia becouse in my home wikipedia has not so much new accounts as this. Until now I didn´t know that was a problem and that was a perennial rejected idea. I'm really sorry, it won´t repeat. The bot will only make edits for what is approved. Thanks for the advise and scuse me, please. Good bye. -- Enzaiklopedia ( talk) 14:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey WiliamH, wanted to congratulate you for successfully becoming our newest bureaucrat on the English Wikipedia. I'm sure you will serve the project very well in the coming time :). It feels great after supporting for you in your nomination. All the best for the future! TheGeneralUser ( talk) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, WiliamH! That was indeed the quickest SPI closure I've ever had: I've followed him since the first AN/I, and I was watching that article specifically for that edit. I had a question about two things. One should be an easy fix, and we'll see what to do about the second.
Thanks again for the quick response, and Cheers :> Doc talk 00:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
A long overdue barnstar that I should've given months ago. For keeping everything in order. — cyberpower ChatOffline 01:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC) |
Can you please explain the reason behind blocking User:Mike of Ilvadel? - badmachine 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
FDI Award |
For closing your first RfA as a Bureaucrat! Congratulations! Wifione Message 07:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC) |
Could this be another sock of User:Plankto such as the one you found here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Coordinated_voting_by_Fringe_Theories.2FNoticeboard_participants_in_AfD_and_other_debates? I notice both make effectively the same complaint and both had few edits to their name. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |