Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bill Williams: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:06, 24 February 2021 editBill Williams (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,455 edits Appealing Editing Restrictions: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 22:10, 24 February 2021 edit undoEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,806 edits Appealing Editing Restrictions: sanction rescinded — good luck! (Bill)Next edit →
Line 60: Line 60:


{{Ping|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. ] (]) 22:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC) {{Ping|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. ] (]) 22:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
: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 Let's just consider the sanction rescinded and see how you do from here on out.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, ] 22:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:10, 24 February 2021

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
  • articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles
  • post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
  • abortion
They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Editing restrictions: "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)"

If I violate these restrictions, please warn me directly on my talk page, and I will try to correct my mistake. Bill Williams (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

Bill Williams (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Misplaced Pages: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)
Indeed, I am discussing it on the talk page to help reach an agreement. Bill Williams (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
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)
@Starship.paint: understood, I'll keep that in mind. Bill Williams (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Stop icon with clock
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)
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 logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (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)


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)

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)
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)
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)

@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 , 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

That's definitely American politics, Bill. –MJLTalk 23:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
Thanks for making that clear, I appreciate it. Bill Williams (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@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 , but it was added back 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)

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

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)

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)