User talk:Francis E Williams: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 14:02, 18 April 2011 view sourceFrancis E Williams (talk \| contribs)3,254 edits →My talk page ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 11:45, 10 June 2015 view source Acroterion (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators232,835 editsm Protected User talk:Francis E Williams: Persistent block evasion ( (indefinite) (indefinite))
(87 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	===Messages:-===


	Please do not leave any message here if it relates to any of the following:-

	(1) Errors in layout, content, references or stupid things like typing errors. If you know there is a problem, do what I have to spend a great deal of time doing ... fix it yourself.

	(2) Remarks of a personal nature ..... you have no idea what makes me tick, and I don`t want to know about your beliefs or ambitions either thank you. I have taken nearly 63 years to get this grumpy, I`m not going to change now .. my remaining life is too short.


	===Replies:-===


	(1) If I choose to send you a reply to a message ...... feel respected and appreciated.

	(2) I only display messages that relate to subjects in this Encylopedia articles, or really useful things I need to refer back to.

	===Intelligent comments live below here:-===

	(a)]
	(b) Template:In use - a pause button - an alert to other users "edit in progress". {{Outdent}} This "outdent" template moves "talk comments" to the margin.

	==Please Note:-==		==Please Note:-==

	"The Foundation does not require editors to register with a project. Anyone can edit without logging in with a username, in which case they will be identified by network IP address. Users that do register are identified by their chosen username. Users select a password, which is confidential and used to verify the integrity of their account. Except insofar as it may be required by law, no person should disclose, or knowingly expose, either user passwords and/or cookies generated to identify a user. Once created, user accounts will not be removed. It may be possible for a username to be changed, depending on the policies of individual projects. The Foundation does not guarantee that a username will be changed on request."		"The Foundation does not require editors to register with a project. Anyone can edit without logging in with a username, in which case they will be identified by network IP address. Users that do register are identified by their chosen username. Users select a password, which is confidential and used to verify the integrity of their account. Except insofar as it may be required by law, no person should disclose, or knowingly expose, either user passwords and/or cookies generated to identify a user. Once created, user accounts will not be removed. It may be possible for a username to be changed, depending on the policies of individual projects. The Foundation does not guarantee that a username will be changed on request."

			==Freedom of speech - the right for users to reply when blocked from article editing.==
			(Extract that was removed from a discussion page) Yes, but that`s where you`re wrong!. I`m not just abandoning my account, I`m leaving this site to it`s own devices. I have better things to do with my time left. Yes, it is sad that you are loosing the benefit and knowledge from what was a content contributor (with real words and paragraphs not just sentences). it is bizarre that I have to try and make my point in this fashion, when you deny free speech that makes good sense. Take the blinkers off for goodness sake and step back and take a good look at yourselves, and what is considered to be "politically correct" talking but has no basis in the real world.. Nobody can teach experience, wisdom. Until the episode with 24.177.120.138 and his various accounts I had no need to be anything but a satisfied legitimate user with ONE static i.p. address and user name. I guarantee you, (and check out the logs) I have never created any other account in any other name. I only used legitimate means (my static i.p. address) to create the "sock" account to try and give back some of the hassle I was getting. I know what to do with internet access, as I have said before don`t underestimate my intelligence or access to resources. I can access thousands of i.p. addresses, not just via B.T.s networks. All the i.p. addresses used today are all new to me and the 217.43.161.176 was a fault on your own system which accidentally gave me access to edit. I didn`t get to Wiki until way after that i.p. address was first used for one edit only. Check it out see if I`m teeling the truth if you know how. You are all assuming who I am what I am and seeing the world throught your own system only. The guys that can sort these issues out have to have a degree of intelligence (not neccessarily an education). If I can do it, surely can`t you see by now that so can anyone else, and hey, I`m on old senile soon to be state pensioner who refuses to grow old gracefully, and still remembers being a teenager with attitude! You`re as old as you think yourself to be. Walk a mile in my shoes before you judge and dismiss my character. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== How to Stop the war==
			The only problem you are encountering here is that you insist on trying to carry on a fight when you need to drop it, and you keep trolling that other IP's Talk page while he's blocked. If you're really nearly a pensioner, surely you're grown up enough to just let it go so we can try to bring and end to the disruption? We stopped the attacks on you, and we will do so again if they continue. But if you insist on trying to get in the last punch, it will never stop - and I'm sure you can understand that, can't you? It's up to you really - if you'll drop the fight and stop insisting on retaliation (including reverting edits of unconnected editors with whom you have had other previous problems), then your account is still there and I don't see why you can't resume with it. Anyway, I'm off to bed now, so I will bid you goodnight and I hope you'll have a think on these words -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
			:In reply to your observations, I don`t know about turning the other cheek with regard to this I.P. user, who has no reason to be an i.p.user, who has a serious disregard towards other users on Misplaced Pages. Trolling; is a quaint phrase, if my attempts to return the compliments received today are what it means. Yes, my body has grown old, but I`m not worn down by what life has thrown my way. I have great wisdom, but choose when to use it. I have waited patiently for this i.p. to return to my talk page with his final comment and my reply in return. Just because he has skills in various technologies and the systems in place on this site doesn`t give him the right to assume others have no right to use the same tactics against him as well. Let him learn a good long lesson from the encounter, let him suffer the knowledge that all he can do is watch the opportunity go by to reply to me today, let him lose the opportunity to exchange any further vitriolic dialogue. Unblock him, let him offer to amend his attitude, he doesn`t appear to be doing it yet, nor will he ever! ] (]) 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

			==Cryptic==
			To Francis E Williams, if you're watching here - if you have any constructive discussion you'd like to engage in, about how we dealt with your recent dispute with the IP editor (in which I thought we had treated you pretty well), you still have access to your own User Talk:Francis E Williams page if you log in. So if you raise it there in a clear manner (and not the cryptic messages you have been leaving us), I'll be happy to discuss it with you. But you will not get any response posting here from an IP address -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
			:I watch all pages relating to this encounter and have tried to add comment to defend my actions despite having my comments susequently removed. I cannot comprehend what you fail to understand. I am using English English, I cannot write it in any simpler way than I have done already. Oh, had all this happened to you, you would be happy, and content with the responses that I have received from other users for my "sins" against commonsense? We seem to be reading the same words in two seperate ways. You still seem to find it difficult to understand the deep anger and frustration initiated by the I.P. user. I have persisted in teaching this guy a lesson in the only way I can on this site. I have "crossed swords" (as one user has put it), on behalf of, and in defense of the under dog with many authorities and institutions for many years. A trifling little 3 month encounter like this with an i.p. cannot compare with what can be acheived with the keyboard. I really do have to go now, don`t take all this too personally. ] (]) 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
	== Blocked ==		== Blocked ==

Line 34:		Line 22:
	If you believe that this block was in error, and would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on the page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the ] first. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)<!-- Template:SockBlock -->		If you believe that this block was in error, and would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on the page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the ] first. — ] <sup>]</sup> 03:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)<!-- Template:SockBlock -->
	}}		}}
			==ANI page==
	===This is what the account was used for that caused this block to be applied===
			:Shortcut to ANI page is here

	'''(''add copy of users talk page involved in the dispute'')'''

	User talk:24.l77.120.74

	Jump to: navigation, search

	Welcome to my talk page!

	Not many people remember that, unlike the signatures for registered users, IP editor signatures don't include a link to the user's User Page. I sometimes think that is part of the reason registered editors tend to be dismissive of IP editors. To allow us the opportunity to avoid that particular pitfall and better work together collaboratively, I'm glad to offer you the opportunity to review my User Page!

	Please note: While I don't have any particular objection to being so advised, I'm disinclined to register an account with Misplaced Pages, for reasons that are my own. Feel free to suggest it if you like, but please know that you're more-or-less wasting your time.

	Thanks for stopping by! 24.177.120.74 (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
	Contents


	====1 Preview, pls. - (start of message to the above user who will revet this edit back)====

	Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Regarding your edits to E 14 (Norway), it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

	:Thank you for your well intentioned comments. Perhaps the history would have revealed to you that the article was already laid out correctly until another user "re-arranged" it with an automaic tool. I am assisting a norweigian contributor whose english is not as good as he would like ti to be, would you like to help him Guy?. Francis E Williams (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

	::Please keep the discussion on the talk page where it was originally placed. Edits like this could have been avoided had you used preview first. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

	:::End of conversation.Francis E Williams (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

	::::Fine by me. 24.l77.120.74 (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

	=====(End of the single post on Misplaced Pages added with new created 24.l77.120.24 account)=====

	===Account holders response to message===

	====your username====

	Welcome to Misplaced Pages and thank you for your contributions. However, I noticed that your username (24.l77.120.74) may not meet Misplaced Pages's username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you.
	The notifier has not provided a reason why this username may not meet Misplaced Pages's username policy. Incorrect notifications must be removed. If you know that your username does not violate our policy, please remove the message and leave a note on the notifier's talk page.

	24.177.120.74 (talk) 05:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
	=====Block notice was applied to the account under this line=====
	(the text below caused an edit conflict doung my posting of the above).] (]) 22:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	==Comments made during trying to post correction - thank you==
	(tekes me a long time to post because of my eyesight)] (]) 22:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	===User Newyorkbrad===
	<small>(''Note'': the below was posted before Francis E Williams' comments above.'' ] (]) 22:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)) </small>
	Commenting here in case an unblock request is posted. Having come across this block by chance, I am not certain that it was necessary. Francis E Williams is a content contributor who has made about 5000 edits over the past year and a half, with no prior blocks and to my knowledge no prior issues involving alleged misuse of alternate accounts. Although I would not have handled this situation exactly as Francis E Williams did (see his comment of today on the SPI for his explanation—and ''please'' don't somebody extend the block now for "block evasion"), I think a warning note or, even better, a request for an explanation as the initial step would likely have been better-targeted than jumping directly to a block. ] (]) 22:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	:Thank you once again for your encouraging comments, and I apologise for the delay it takes me to make simple post in return. I`ll have to give this up soon, one letter at a time is very slow.] (]) 22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	::I've put a note on the talkpage of the administrator who blocked you, so the next step is probably to wait to see what he has to say. Regards, ] (]) 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	:No comment on merits of the block, but running a CheckUser was unnecessary, as Francis E Williams' shows clearly that he created {{user\|24.l77.120.74}}. ] (]) 23:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	::I blocked the account for a number of reasons. The first is that, as Goodvac pointed out, this was obvious sockpuppeting. In , he wrote that "page 24.(l)77.120.24 was created, purely to stop user 24.177.120.24 from continually posting inappropriate messages on my talk page". That logic doesn't add up for me; how does creating a user account that's a direct sendup to an IP stop an IP from posting on one's talk page? Further, he wrote "I knew he would revert it again, so I created the page to give him a little shock." That also doesn't work for me. It's inappropriate to try to 'shock' an editor by impersonating him. There are far more constructive ways to deal with harassment (if it is indeed such), and I think this was rather poorly handled.
	::Combating perceived harassment with more harassment is certainly not the right way to go. Having said that, NYBrad is right that this is an otherwise good editor and this was the first time this has happened. As such, I've unblocked this account, and I hope that this sort of thing doesn't happen again. — ] <sup>]</sup> 23:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	:::I disagree with lifting the block. In light of the users past contributions, I would not favor a block of ''more'' than 72 hours. But there is no excuse for his puerile prank, and so far as I am aware he has not apologised nor agreed not to repeat the behavior. —] ] ] 00:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
	::::<blockquote>"User:24.177.120.74 had every right to delete your posts from his user talk page; see WP:BLANKING. And you had no right to restore them; in doing so you should have been blocked for edit warring and harassment; see WP:DRRC. (Frankly your puerile prank makes me doubt your claim of being of retirement age.) —teb728 t c 23:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)"</blockquote>
	:::::As I cannot rply to the above post on the users page, I have copied it here. I would like to address a couple of points. I also had every right to remove what was felt to be innapropriate posts to my talk page from 24.177.120.74 regarding my inability to distinguish between :; clearly when adding a category to an article page. This procedure was repeated twice with regard my edits to my own talk page as well. User 24.177.120.74 then archived the conversation for me on my talk page. Had the edit been consructive, had the reply to it been heeded, then we would not be here now. Treat adults as children and you get childish responses. I am happy to be able to "do my bit" for Misplaced Pages, but I do seem to attract and encounter some rather "unusual" followers intent on causing disruption to that work. Check out my edits, they are not "one word" edits, nor are they remarks such as this made by the user 24.177.120.138 who was previously user 24.177.120.74 who was prevoiusly another editor on Misplaced Pages for a long time.

	:::::Ask yourself these questions; why would someone with years worth of experience on Misplaced Pages want to create an I.P. account, other than to prove a point? To seek help in creating that account, to use it solely for harrassment of a few editors, Why? Why now create yet another account 24.177.120.138, yes create solely, no help required this time, this account was used to continue with the pursuit of the same editors straight away. Have a look here to see the situation develop, make up your own minds if anyone should apologise. The user 24.177.120.74 knew exactly what he was starting when he raised the issue of the spoof account, and I do regret that so many people have now become involoved in this debacle. It may have been an error of judgement on my part to continue with this interaction with this user, but it should have been able to have been sorted out between us. I am happy for the block to remain in place, rules are rules.

	:::::In reality what did creating another account do?, it was not used to gain concensus, it was not used in any article, it was not used to impersonate 24.177.120.74 on any other page either. With regard to my use of my dialup networking account to defend myself at SPI, when was I to be informed that there was an allegation made against me? As I have stated, I do not deny the creation of the spoof account, I could have created it with my dial up account and no one would have been the wiser. I deliberatly left a trail behind to be followed. I have followed this conversation around all the relevant pages, I think it would be more productive to look futher a into other areas surrounding this case. Thank you all for your patience. ] (]) 10:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
	::::::P.S. I have read this article, it does seem to explain what I did regard unwanted comments.<blockquote>"Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters if needed." - "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)." - "If the material must be addressed urgently (for example, unambiguous copyright, attack, defamation, or BLP reasons, etc.), the user appears inactive, the edit appears unlikely to cause problems, or you are quite sure it is appropriate, then remove or fix the problem material minimally and leave a note explaining what you have done, why you have done so, and inviting the user to discuss if needed. If the entire page is inappropriate, consider blanking it, or redirecting the subpage to the userpage, or to the most relevant existing mainspace or project space page."</blockquote>
	::::::] (]) 11:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

	== Talkback ==

	{{tb\|User talk:TEB728\|Francis E Williams - "sock puppet investigation"}}

	==Other comments beyond this talk page==
	===80.225.213.191 - Block evasion at ANI===
	80.225.213.191 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) is an IP used for block evasion by blocked user Francis E Williams (talk · contribs). (See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Francis E Williams). I think this is the right place to report it? Thanks ] 20:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	:Blocked the IP for 72 hours to match the block on Francis E Williams. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	===User HelloAnnyong===
	Block of Francis E Williams

	Hi. I'm sorry to advise that I find myself in disagreement with one of your blocks—that of User:Francis E Williams. I've explained my thoughts on his talkpage.
	Of course, it's possible I've missed something in the situation, in which case I will stand corrected; I've commented based just on the information I was able to pick up on-wiki. In any case, your thoughts would be appreciated. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	:Hey. That's alright; I'll chime in over there. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	::I also very much disagree with lifting the block on User:Francis E Williams. In addition to the sock account proved by CheckUser, he's also admitted to being User:80.225.213.191, and is quite likely also User:24.I77.120.74 (with an I, not an L). 24.177.120.138 (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
	:::Ugh, what a mess. He was confirmed as being the latter account. Anyway, the unblock gives him some rope; let's see what happens. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
	::::Quoting from WP:ROPE, “When not to use … If the user was justifiably blocked but is not giving any indication that they even feel they did anything wrong” BTW, User:24.l77.120.74 (with an L) was confirmed, but so far as I know User:24.I77.120.74 (with an i)) was not. —teb728 t c 06:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
	::::::Both are blocked right now. Look, the unblock is done and I'm not going to reinstate a block for the (now past) situation. If there are any further developments let me know. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

	===Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:24.177.120.74===
	< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion
	Jump to: navigation, search
	User:24.177.120.74

	This anon’s user page is being used disruptively to camouflage the relationship between:

	* User:24.177.120.74 (edit\|talk\|history\|links\|watch\|logs)- the anon,
	* User:24.l77.120.74 (edit\|talk\|history\|links\|watch\|logs)- with a lc ‘L’, and
	* User:24.I77.120.74 (edit\|talk\|history\|links\|watch\|logs)- with a capital ‘i’

	—teb728 t c 10:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

	* Speedy keep / close - You may want to read Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Francis E Williams. ] 08:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	* Oppose speedy closure. I see now that the anon claims to be the victim of username spoofing. I hope it can be investigated whether that claim is true (rather than the anon being a party to the deception, as I originally suspected). If it is true, the spoof pages should be deleted instead. —teb728 t c 11:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	* Keep - I can assure you that the spoof page was not created by the user who's page you're proposing to delete. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
	===Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Francis E Williams===
	< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations

	Symbol comment vote.svg – This SPI case is closed and will shortly be archived by an SPI clerk or CheckUser.

	* 1 Francis E Williams
	:o 1.1 18 February 2011
	::1.1.1 Comments by other users
	:::1.1.2 Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

	Francis E Williams

	:Francis E Williams (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • spi block • block log • SUL • checkuser)

	18 February 2011

	Suspected sockpuppets

	* 24.l77.120.74 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • spi block • block log • SUL • checkuser)

	* User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

	Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "] (]) 13:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)"

	suspected sockmaster has edits minutes prior to and subsequent to edits by suspected sock with inapprops username, suspected sockmaster edited user page for suspected sock with inapprops username, suspected sockmaster and suspected sock both edited my talk page in relatively close temporal proximity 24.177.120.74 (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

	:HelloAnnyong—this edit 24.177.120.138 (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

	Comments by other users

	Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

	Hello, please take a look here for my comments to this investigation.Francis E Williams (talk) 17.55, 21 Ferbruary 2011 (UTC)
	Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

	* Clerk note: Sorry, I don't follow. What makes you think Francis E Williams is the user of this sock account? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
	* Symbol support2 vote.svg Clerk endorsed - Heh, alright. I'll endorse. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
	* Confirmed - Tiptoety talk 01:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
	* Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: Master blocked 3 days. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	::o Just as a follow-up, I've unblocked the master following discussion on their talk page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
	===User talk TEB728===
	====Francis E Williams - "sock puppet investigation"====

	Hello, I have been watching the case unfold. Please look at my archive page here, you will find all the historical information you require. This will allow you to see why the page 24.(l)77.120.24 was created, purely to stop user 24.177.120.24 from continually posting inappropriate messages on my talk page. Every time I posted a copy of the conversation on his talk page he would revert the edit. I knew he would revert it again, so I created the page to give him a little shock.

	This user has been causing much disruption under this new identity. he has history with one particular user, (see archive 2). It`s about time he stopped chasing a few editors around and causing a lot oif un-neccesary hassle to them. If I had not wanted to be discovered as the creator of the page, I would have done what I am doing now, used my old Dialup networking account.

			==]==
	As a retired I.T. professional I know all about audit trails, and the many logs that are used on Wiki. I left enough evidence for anyone with half a brain to find me easily. I have not ,(nor doI intend to) use any "hacking" tools to make my point that confusion can be caused by a few users by using very simple techniques as I did. My intention is to allow the anonymous users know thaat they can be identified and be brought to account. Read my user page - section - vandalism.

			] Leave off the snarky personal comments at ] please, or you could end up on the wrong end of a block yourself -- ] (]) 17:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
	I personally don`t worry about the block, as it serves my user page as an example. Francis E Williams (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.213.191 (talk)
			:And do not carry on the baiting here either! -- ] (]) 17:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
			::You`re just a tad too late with your biased comments, sorry not to have time to chat.] (]) 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
			==To all the good guys and gals==
			Thanks, for your help co-operation and support in my time on Wiki. WORD . ] (]) 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

			== May 2011 ==
	:User:24.177.120.74 had every right to delete your posts from his user talk page; see WP:BLANKING. And you had no right to restore them; in doing so you should have been blocked for edit warring and harassment; see WP:DRRC. (Frankly your puerile prank makes me doubt your claim of being of retirement age.) —teb728 t c 23:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
			<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for continuing to bait a blocked IP editor after a rather nasty personal dispute. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. -- ] (]) 18:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->
	=====My added response here=====
	::The phrase "you had no right to restore them" also applies to user 24.177.120.74 as well, after all he restored them 3 times after my blanking them, and then restored them yet again in my archive page. Then he issued the same message again about my edits to my own talk page about using preview. Are you saying that my user rights differ from his?. The purile behaviour of 24.177.120.74 makes me beg the same question with regard to mental age. Perhaps you would like to consider that it makes any difference as per your age or behaviour when being harrased. ] (]) 14:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
	:::Sir,
	:::You are correct that you had a right, per ], to remove most things added to your talk page. So, when ] added this , you were within your rights to remove it . Further, ] should not have kept reverting your removal, as it did repeatedly , , - at this point, ] was in violation of both ] and ]. Nor should it have removed it from your talk page and then added it to your archive page - that editor's doing so was in violation of ].
	::: In the future, rather than making a ] by adding that text to the IP's talk page in response, or by creating an alternate account as you did, ask for help. There are several ways to do so. Perhaps the simplest is adding the helpme template.
	::: Best wishes, and welome back to editing, ] (]) 17:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for the good advice Joe, I was prepared for the outcome of my actions, but I don`t think the other party was. I don`t like to bother admins, they have enough to do with the constant disruption that this project attracts from vandals. I think that good lessons were learnt (especially by me), about the tools that are available here to deal with a disruptive minority. If anything, the experience was a positive one for me. I note your words of encouragement and <del>assure you that there is still a lot more I can do to (hopefully)</del> regret to say that there is not a lot more that I feel can be done to help improve this project. Regards.] (]) 17:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

	==~~Help?~~==		==ANI==
			Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.
	Hi. I noticed you had a helpme template which didn't appear to be used. I've unlinked it - but if you do require any help feel free to put it back or leave me a note on my talk page. ]] 13:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
	:Sorry to have troubled you, mistake on mt part in a copy and paste exercise.] (]) 13:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
	::Not a problem, give me a shout if there's anything I can do ]] 14:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

			<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for repeated trolling and block evasion - to be unblocked, you will need to give us some commitment to stop this tendentious behaviour. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. -- ] (]) 20:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->
	== My talk page ==
			==Edit conflict has occured==
	I don't believe what he has posted here violates policy. ] (]) 02:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
			::Well, can you just explain what you want to happen? What you want people here to do? If you are not happy with the way the Misplaced Pages community and its admins have responded to you, please explain where we have fallen short and what you would like us to do. What we want is to bring to an end the fight you've been having with the IP editor, and we can't achieve that by your insisting on "teaching this guy a lesson". He's been blocked, and if you are attacked again, we will block again - as many times as necessary, up to a permanent block. So what we're asking is for you to stick to Misplaced Pages's guidelines yourself, and leave the resolution of your disagreements to the usual Misplaced Pages channels. If you are prepared to go forward in a collegial an cooperative way, you'll get the same approach from us. But if you insist on acting out of anger and continuing the fight, then you will just turn the community against you and we will have no real option but to try to stop your continuation of the fight. And please, you're asking us to accept that you are intelligent and knowledgable. Of course we do, but please don't treat us as stupid in return. Anyway, I hope we can resolve this in an amicable manner. (And no need to worry about "Englishisms" - I'm English myself) -- ] (]) 23:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
	:At a quick glance, I have two thoughts:
			:Block him (and any other user) indefinitly at the first (proved) violation, from now on, that will send out the right message to everyone. Insist on account creation to be able to edit to help prevent drive by vandalism. I use this procedure on sites I manage. Have a seperate section where new pages can be built and assessed before they are released into the main "Live" encyclopedia. Have contributions held over for checking before they are added into articles undergoing edit warring. I don`t assume that all admins are stupid, perhaps misguided by the current approach to problem solving is a better way to put. Much time is spent overcoming issues, not contributing on Wiki. I re-read your comments and had established that you could only be Englsih with a user name from the "magic roundabout". As you can see, I was busy amending my hastily constructed comments and just about to post them when you posted your last edit. It takes me ages to type this stuff in. Part of the problem here with edit conflicts. I have a final message for the i.p. user, this really is the last and final WORD.] ([[User
	:*Rightly or wrongly, ] issues don't seem to be addressed as rigidly as, say ]. WP is certainly not a "civility-free" zone like some places on the Internet, but it isn't all ], either.
			talk:Francis E Williams#top\|talk]]) 01:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
	:*My own experience is that some editors are best avoided. When it comes to your own Talk page, the Revert and Ignore parts of ] are pretty effective.
			I appreciate what you're saying, but unfortunately none of those things is in our power at this moment. Requiring registration, mandating a "new pages" section for review and pre-approval - both ideas certainly have merit, but it would require a major change to the way Misplaced Pages works, a huge consensus-building effort, or perhaps a mandate from the Wikimedia foundation - and there's no way it's going to happen any time soon. As for an indef block for a first proven offence - if I did that, I'd probably get blocked myself, because again it would be a pretty major violation of policy. And I don't think it would be a good idea - I've seen many instances where violators are actually turned around by early warnings and early blocks, and we'd be throwing out lots of redeemable editors just to get rid of the bad ones. I think the system of escalating blocks works pretty well. And if you can just leave it to the admins here to manage those blocks, we'll get the problem stopped a lot quicker than your carrying on a seemingly never-ending war of words with the guy. It's been going on for months and getting worse, but if it had been brought to the proper channels earlier it would have been settled earlier. So please, I'm asking you, can you just leave the guy alone and don't try to have the last word in your fight with him - he's being watched, and if he resumes after his block expires, he'll be blocked again for longer and any new transgression will be reverted. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
	:] (]) 13:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
			:::What crap is this? certainly not what adults behave like ...a dictatorial regime with no regard to free unfettered speech ...A sham in every sense of the word.!!!!
	::I must bow to your wisdom Joe, and with a flick of the mouse, just you and me on here now. ] (]) 14:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
			=
			::::Having left this page to fester for a few years, havong now suffered a stroke and am diabetic illness (with even poorer eyes than before ...I can safely say...I don't miss this environment or the mentally retarded people who pretend to "adminiser" it. I'd love to shake the hand of the person who wrote the above comment. Francis E Williams 11.55 GMT the 24th June 2014. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 11:45, 10 June 2015

Please Note:-

"The Foundation does not require editors to register with a project. Anyone can edit without logging in with a username, in which case they will be identified by network IP address. Users that do register are identified by their chosen username. Users select a password, which is confidential and used to verify the integrity of their account. Except insofar as it may be required by law, no person should disclose, or knowingly expose, either user passwords and/or cookies generated to identify a user. Once created, user accounts will not be removed. It may be possible for a username to be changed, depending on the policies of individual projects. The Foundation does not guarantee that a username will be changed on request."

Freedom of speech - the right for users to reply when blocked from article editing.

(Extract that was removed from a discussion page) Yes, but that`s where you`re wrong!. I`m not just abandoning my account, I`m leaving this site to it`s own devices. I have better things to do with my time left. Yes, it is sad that you are loosing the benefit and knowledge from what was a content contributor (with real words and paragraphs not just sentences). it is bizarre that I have to try and make my point in this fashion, when you deny free speech that makes good sense. Take the blinkers off for goodness sake and step back and take a good look at yourselves, and what is considered to be "politically correct" talking but has no basis in the real world.. Nobody can teach experience, wisdom. Until the episode with 24.177.120.138 and his various accounts I had no need to be anything but a satisfied legitimate user with ONE static i.p. address and user name. I guarantee you, (and check out the logs) I have never created any other account in any other name. I only used legitimate means (my static i.p. address) to create the "sock" account to try and give back some of the hassle I was getting. I know what to do with internet access, as I have said before don`t underestimate my intelligence or access to resources. I can access thousands of i.p. addresses, not just via B.T.s networks. All the i.p. addresses used today are all new to me and the 217.43.161.176 was a fault on your own system which accidentally gave me access to edit. I didn`t get to Wiki until way after that i.p. address was first used for one edit only. Check it out see if I`m teeling the truth if you know how. You are all assuming who I am what I am and seeing the world throught your own system only. The guys that can sort these issues out have to have a degree of intelligence (not neccessarily an education). If I can do it, surely can`t you see by now that so can anyone else, and hey, I`m on old senile soon to be state pensioner who refuses to grow old gracefully, and still remembers being a teenager with attitude! You`re as old as you think yourself to be. Walk a mile in my shoes before you judge and dismiss my character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.7.252 (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

How to Stop the war

The only problem you are encountering here is that you insist on trying to carry on a fight when you need to drop it, and you keep trolling that other IP's Talk page while he's blocked. If you're really nearly a pensioner, surely you're grown up enough to just let it go so we can try to bring and end to the disruption? We stopped the attacks on you, and we will do so again if they continue. But if you insist on trying to get in the last punch, it will never stop - and I'm sure you can understand that, can't you? It's up to you really - if you'll drop the fight and stop insisting on retaliation (including reverting edits of unconnected editors with whom you have had other previous problems), then your account is still there and I don't see why you can't resume with it. Anyway, I'm off to bed now, so I will bid you goodnight and I hope you'll have a think on these words -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In reply to your observations, I don`t know about turning the other cheek with regard to this I.P. user, who has no reason to be an i.p.user, who has a serious disregard towards other users on Misplaced Pages. Trolling; is a quaint phrase, if my attempts to return the compliments received today are what it means. Yes, my body has grown old, but I`m not worn down by what life has thrown my way. I have great wisdom, but choose when to use it. I have waited patiently for this i.p. to return to my talk page with his final comment and my reply in return. Just because he has skills in various technologies and the systems in place on this site doesn`t give him the right to assume others have no right to use the same tactics against him as well. Let him learn a good long lesson from the encounter, let him suffer the knowledge that all he can do is watch the opportunity go by to reply to me today, let him lose the opportunity to exchange any further vitriolic dialogue. Unblock him, let him offer to amend his attitude, he doesn`t appear to be doing it yet, nor will he ever! Francis E Williams (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Cryptic

To Francis E Williams, if you're watching here - if you have any constructive discussion you'd like to engage in, about how we dealt with your recent dispute with the IP editor (in which I thought we had treated you pretty well), you still have access to your own User Talk:Francis E Williams page if you log in. So if you raise it there in a clear manner (and not the cryptic messages you have been leaving us), I'll be happy to discuss it with you. But you will not get any response posting here from an IP address -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I watch all pages relating to this encounter and have tried to add comment to defend my actions despite having my comments susequently removed. I cannot comprehend what you fail to understand. I am using English English, I cannot write it in any simpler way than I have done already. Oh, had all this happened to you, you would be happy, and content with the responses that I have received from other users for my "sins" against commonsense? We seem to be reading the same words in two seperate ways. You still seem to find it difficult to understand the deep anger and frustration initiated by the I.P. user. I have persisted in teaching this guy a lesson in the only way I can on this site. I have "crossed swords" (as one user has put it), on behalf of, and in defense of the under dog with many authorities and institutions for many years. A trifling little 3 month encounter like this with an i.p. cannot compare with what can be acheived with the keyboard. I really do have to go now, don`t take all this too personally. Francis E Williams (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked for sock puppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Francis E Williams. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that this block was in error, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong 03:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI page

Shortcut to ANI page is here

User talk:24.177.120.138

Leave off the snarky personal comments at User talk:24.177.120.138 please, or you could end up on the wrong end of a block yourself -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And do not carry on the baiting here either! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You`re just a tad too late with your biased comments, sorry not to have time to chat.Francis E Williams (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

To all the good guys and gals

Thanks, for your help co-operation and support in my time on Wiki. WORD . Francis E Williams (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continuing to bait a blocked IP editor after a rather nasty personal dispute. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated trolling and block evasion - to be unblocked, you will need to give us some commitment to stop this tendentious behaviour. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict has occured

Well, can you just explain what you want to happen? What you want people here to do? If you are not happy with the way the Misplaced Pages community and its admins have responded to you, please explain where we have fallen short and what you would like us to do. What we want is to bring to an end the fight you've been having with the IP editor, and we can't achieve that by your insisting on "teaching this guy a lesson". He's been blocked, and if you are attacked again, we will block again - as many times as necessary, up to a permanent block. So what we're asking is for you to stick to Misplaced Pages's guidelines yourself, and leave the resolution of your disagreements to the usual Misplaced Pages channels. If you are prepared to go forward in a collegial an cooperative way, you'll get the same approach from us. But if you insist on acting out of anger and continuing the fight, then you will just turn the community against you and we will have no real option but to try to stop your continuation of the fight. And please, you're asking us to accept that you are intelligent and knowledgable. Of course we do, but please don't treat us as stupid in return. Anyway, I hope we can resolve this in an amicable manner. (And no need to worry about "Englishisms" - I'm English myself) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Block him (and any other user) indefinitly at the first (proved) violation, from now on, that will send out the right message to everyone. Insist on account creation to be able to edit to help prevent drive by vandalism. I use this procedure on sites I manage. Have a seperate section where new pages can be built and assessed before they are released into the main "Live" encyclopedia. Have contributions held over for checking before they are added into articles undergoing edit warring. I don`t assume that all admins are stupid, perhaps misguided by the current approach to problem solving is a better way to put. Much time is spent overcoming issues, not contributing on Wiki. I re-read your comments and had established that you could only be Englsih with a user name from the "magic roundabout". As you can see, I was busy amending my hastily constructed comments and just about to post them when you posted your last edit. It takes me ages to type this stuff in. Part of the problem here with edit conflicts. I have a final message for the i.p. user, this really is the last and final WORD.Francis E Williams ([[User

talk:Francis E Williams#top|talk]]) 01:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, but unfortunately none of those things is in our power at this moment. Requiring registration, mandating a "new pages" section for review and pre-approval - both ideas certainly have merit, but it would require a major change to the way Misplaced Pages works, a huge consensus-building effort, or perhaps a mandate from the Wikimedia foundation - and there's no way it's going to happen any time soon. As for an indef block for a first proven offence - if I did that, I'd probably get blocked myself, because again it would be a pretty major violation of policy. And I don't think it would be a good idea - I've seen many instances where violators are actually turned around by early warnings and early blocks, and we'd be throwing out lots of redeemable editors just to get rid of the bad ones. I think the system of escalating blocks works pretty well. And if you can just leave it to the admins here to manage those blocks, we'll get the problem stopped a lot quicker than your carrying on a seemingly never-ending war of words with the guy. It's been going on for months and getting worse, but if it had been brought to the proper channels earlier it would have been settled earlier. So please, I'm asking you, can you just leave the guy alone and don't try to have the last word in your fight with him - he's being watched, and if he resumes after his block expires, he'll be blocked again for longer and any new transgression will be reverted. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What crap is this? certainly not what adults behave like ...a dictatorial regime with no regard to free unfettered speech ...A sham in every sense of the word.!!!!

Having left this page to fester for a few years, havong now suffered a stroke and am diabetic illness (with even poorer eyes than before ...I can safely say...I don't miss this environment or the mentally retarded people who pretend to "adminiser" it. I'd love to shake the hand of the person who wrote the above comment. Francis E Williams 11.55 GMT the 24th June 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.240.74 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)