This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.132.139.203 (talk) at 14:29, 1 May 2011 (→Random profanity from User:Francis E Williams). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements

(b) Template:In use - a pause button - an alert to other users "edit in progress".

This "outdent" template moves "talk comments" to the margin.

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."

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)

This is what the account was used for that caused this block to be applied

(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).Francis E Williams (talk) 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)Francis E Williams (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User Newyorkbrad

(Note: the below was posted before Francis E Williams' comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)) 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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 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.Francis E Williams (talk) 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, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No comment on merits of the block, but running a CheckUser was unnecessary, as Francis E Williams' account creation log shows clearly that he created 24.l77.120.74 (talk · contribs). Goodvac (talk) 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 his explanation, 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. — HelloAnnyong 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. —teb728 t c 00:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"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)"

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. Francis E Williams (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I have read this article, it does seem to explain what I did regard unwanted comments.

"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."

Francis E Williams (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

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 CharlieEchoTango 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. — HelloAnnyong 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. CharlieEchoTango 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 "Francis E Williams (talk) 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.

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)

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)

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. Francis E Williams (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sir,

You are correct that you had a right, per Misplaced Pages:UP#CMT, to remove most things added to your talk page. So, when User:24.177.120.74 added this , you were within your rights to remove it . Further, User:24.177.120.74 should not have kept reverting your removal, as it did repeatedly , , - at this point, User:24.177.120.74 was in violation of both WP:3RR and WP:UP#CMT. 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 Misplaced Pages:UP#Editing_of_other_editors.27_user_and_user_talk_pages.

In the future, rather than making a WP:POINT 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, JoeSperrazza (talk) 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 assure you that there is still a lot more I can do to (hopefully) regret to say that there is not a lot more that I feel can be done to help improve this project. Regards.Francis E Williams (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Help?

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. Worm 13:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to have troubled you, mistake on mt part in a copy and paste exercise.Francis E Williams (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, give me a shout if there's anything I can do Worm 14:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

My talk page

I don't believe what he has posted here violates policy. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

At a quick glance, I have two thoughts:

• Rightly or wrongly, civility issues don't seem to be addressed as rigidly as, say 4 reverts in 24 hours. WP is certainly not a "civility-free" zone like some places on the Internet, but it isn't all WikiLove, either.
• My own experience is that some editors are best avoided. When it comes to your own Talk page, the Revert and Ignore parts of WP:RBI are pretty effective.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I must bow to your wisdom Joe, and with a flick of the mouse, just you and me on here now. Francis E Williams (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Random profanity from User:Francis E Williams

• Francis E Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was hoping someone could help the author of this drive-by talk-page vandalism out with Misplaced Pages's civility policy. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's confusing, but the IP user reporting the incident (24.177.120.138) appears to have been involved with Francis E Williams before, in which case the edit cannot be regarded as mere "drive-by talk-page vandalism". The first edit the IP user made was to Francis E Williams's SPI page (). Then there's this edit to the MfD for a supposed sock. And this rather strange, unexplained edit. Someone needs to get to the bottom of this mess (i.e., I don't really understand it. Another sock?). Guoguo12--Talk--  03:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

it's all because you are such a miserable old fcuker. --82.132.139.203 (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

omg

24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

More than glad to help out at any time.Francis E Williams (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep taking the Sanatogen old boy. --82.132.139.203 (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)