| Revision as of 10:01, 13 November 2021 editBill Williams (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,450 edits →Vandalism of Urnas Abiertas article: corrected quote← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:01, 13 November 2021 edit undoRenamed user f73EZFoGLNfsepbYlj (talk | contribs)368 edits →Continued vandalism of Urnas Abiertas article: ReplyTag: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
| :I'm going to repeat myself, you cannot use random social media and about pages as supposedly reliable sources to back up your biased claims that they are an anti-Nicaraguan group that supports terrorism. ] 09:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC) | :I'm going to repeat myself, you cannot use random social media and about pages as supposedly reliable sources to back up your biased claims that they are an anti-Nicaraguan group that supports terrorism. ] 09:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ::Per WP's own Reliable Sources policy on sources, you can use social media to refer to the subject itself when ther social media is self-descriptive and run by the subject. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources'''''<big> Please immediately stop vandalizing the article.</big>''''' ] (]) 09:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC) | ::Per WP's own Reliable Sources policy on sources, you can use social media to refer to the subject itself when ther social media is self-descriptive and run by the subject. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources'''''<big> Please immediately stop vandalizing the article.</big>''''' ] (]) 09:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ::Also I never once said they were a group that supports terrorism. Everything I said is cited by good sources per WP policy. Please stop vandalizing the article and please stop lying. ] (]) 10:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:01, 13 November 2021
 | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics:
|
 Archives | |||
|
|||
|
Archives |
|
BobRoberts14 (old account, I haven't sockpuppeted since 2019) |
Question About Old Sockpuppet Tags and Detailed Explanation of My Past Actions
El_C sorry to bother, but I had a question about my old accounts' sockpuppet tags. , , and all continue to connect back to BobRoberts14, (which I just redirected the user and talk pages back to Bill Williams, if that is okay), and I was wondering if I could remove them now that I have been unblocked for sockpuppeting on this account for a while. I also wanted to come clean and tell you the true story of what occurred, and apologize for the length of the story. I think MJL should know too, since I discussed the matter with them back when it happened. A few years ago, I made BenDoverMikeHawk soon after creating BobRoberts14, since I was brand new to Misplaced Pages and immature enough to wonder if Misplaced Pages let you create whatever account name you wanted. It was blocked one minute after creation by Oshwah (I never even edited with it) , and a CheckUser later discovered it and asked me what its connection was to me, which I blamed on my little brother (see discussion below).
| Discussion of BenDoverMikeHawk on LilBillWilliams' talk page |
|---|
Accounts
Did you forget to tell us about BenDoverMikeHawk? Please identify any other accounts that you have used. BenDover created at 05:56, 14 June 2019 , when Bob's talk page was like this, full of warnings. . Bob edited at 05:47, 14 June 2019 and 07:05, 14 June 2019. Time to be honest, Bill, if there is anything else. You are exhausting our patience. starship.paint (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
No, I did not forget to tell you about the last one, because that was my little brother being an idiot and messing around. If it's not my account, then I'm not going to mention it. My little brother thought it would be funny to make an account with a stupid name. Bill Williams (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC) There isn't "anything else". What my little brother does on the computers he has access to doesn't involve me. I told him to make a Misplaced Pages account when I was editing the other day, so he decided to make an account called "BenDoverMikeHawk" without telling me, because he's immature and thinks that kind of thing is funny. Then he didn't use that account and decided to go and edit an article logged out, showing the IP. If he's an idiot and makes a dumb account, that's not my fault. Bill Williams (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Davey2010, BullRangifer, MJL, starship.paint once again, my little brother is a fool and does not know anything about Misplaced Pages. He made that account because he thought it would be funny. I would have to be even stupider than I already am to go and make a fake account with an immature name after people already threaten to block me. This computer is not a laptop, sometimes my friends go on it, sometimes my brother does. As long as he isn't consistently vandalizing things, I don't take much notice. Bill Williams (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC) There are no "other accounts that I use", and how would you think that some dumb name account like that would be something I use? Just use common sense and realize that I didn't make it, and that I wouldn't be foolish enough to edit on an account with that kind of name. The only reason I sound annoyed is because you're accusing me of doing something that is really stupid. Bill Williams (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC) On top of that, aren't you an administrator who can check all the accounts from my IP? If so, then why ask the redundant question as to whether or not I am stupid enough to make immature accounts? Bill Williams (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Again, if there are any other accounts, I would not know. I asked my brother to make an account before, so you may find another one. That's irrelevant to me, since they aren't my accounts. Bill Williams (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
After conferring with my brother, he stated that he created two accounts: "BenDoverMikeHawk", which be made as a joke because he saw me editing Misplaced Pages and was trying to be funny, and a second one that he has not told me the name of. I'm sure you can confirm this by checking what accounts my IP has made. Bill Williams (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC) |
Confirmed
–
I'd cover my built-in webcam if I were you. -- That was a lie, and I apologize for ever making it. I was embarrassed to have done something so dumb, and since my little brother actually did make some other edits on my IP address, I just blamed it on him. Some time later, I had been showing my little brother (for real this time, not some made up nonsense as an ex post facto justification of my mistake) some of my foolish edit wars, and he used my IP address to effectively reinstate edits that I had made on one article, without ever consulting me, by making three edits in addition to removing something that I hadn't edited . I chided him for this, and told him that CheckUsers can clearly see the connection between the IP's edits and my account, and that I had given up on editing those pages after I lost arguments on the talk pages (also note that I now recognize the foolishness of my past edit warring, and I was never homophobic, since I have always supported same-sex marriage, but I didn't think the specific scientific studies in that article were described accurately, so I had edited them and told my brother about it, which is why he knew about it and sadly ended up editing it not long after, without asking me). I let other Wikipedians know what happened , and explained that my brother had used my IP, so two editors told me to make an account for him . In case he wanted to edit in the future, and to ensure he was clearly shown as a separate entity from my IP, I created MarvelHistorian for him to use (he is a Marvel fan so I thought the name would be fitting), redirected the user page to the talk page, and then let him know the user and password, but he forgot it soon after and never ended up using the account. Then, at a later date, he decided to reinstate another one of my edits, but this time, he remembered me telling him that IP addresses can be tracked, so he unfortunately decided to create Roby1456 (he said he meant to call it Robby but mistyped) and edited one page with that account , once again without asking me first. I quickly discovered what he had done, and made him immediately revert his edit to the page, and I apologized for the vandalism. Then, around twenty days passed by, and my little brother had not edited Misplaced Pages since, but a disgruntled user reported me as a sockpuppet of an unrelated person due to an editing dispute. A CheckUser quickly determined that I was unrelated to this random man, but they discovered the other accounts on my IP address and blocked me (discussion below).
| Sockpuppet investigation that got me blocked |
|---|
|
10 July 2019 Suspected sockpuppets LilBillWilliams (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · CA) BobRoberts14 (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · CA) 184.184.80.114 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block log · cross-wiki contribs) Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour. Shortly after the previous sock (VwM.Mwv) block, LilBillWilliams and his IP confronted me on my talk page. LilBillWilliams expressed his agreement with the sock on Talk:Israel (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) before the sock's block. LilBillWilliams himself used another account previously (BobRoberts14) as indicated on his user page. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Comments by other users Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. You're just going to break the rules and get angry at me for asking you to stop? I'm not stupid enough to make a sock puppet account. I told you to not delete literally everything on your talk page, but you then did so anyways. The dumbest thing is that I literally disagreed with the actual sock puppet about what they said. Bill Williams (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC) This user shouldn't be allowed to just make false accusations at someone because they disagree over what they can do on their talk page. Bill Williams (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC) I commented shortly after the Israeli man's block because I went to go read about what he had done, and I noticed Triggerhippie4 reported them, so I checked Triggerhippie's talk page, and saw that they deleted everyone else's comments. Bill Williams (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments LilBillWilliams is Unrelated to Willschmut. However, they are Confirmed to the following accounts: BenDoverMikeHawk (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · CA) BobRoberts14 (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · CA) MarvelHistorian (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · CA) Roby1456 (talk+ · tag · contribs · logs · filter log · block log · CA) Blocked and tagged. Clerk assistance requested: Please create a new case with BobRoberts14 as the master.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC) Bbb23 - Done. New SPI report is located here. Closing this report... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC) |
The CheckUser was Bbb23, and sadly he did not check all of this history before blocking me, and I was too immature to explain it reasonably - instead resorting to long, poorly planned rants on talk pages. Even BobRoberts14 was a legitimate account blocked as a sockpuppet. I stayed blocked for some time, and at one point made a single edit with an IP and then actually created my first and only sockpuppet, DecisiveDomination (I thought the alliteration sounded cool, and I enjoyed playing Risk, which is basically where the player decisively dominating the map, since the game is called "RISK: Global Domination"). I used this account to make two edits on articles and voted in three separate RFAs. My behavior as a "new editor" was clearly suspicious, and I was quickly blocked for my actions. I attempted to get the account unblocked, but after some futile arguing that day, I realized how foolish I had been. I can't remember precisely, but I think this may have been me as well. One day, I noticed that my IP address (the original one that started this whole mess) had been unblocked, so I naively made a single edit to an article, which resulted in another block on the IP . I don't know why the IP wasn't blocked indefinitely, because some time after this second block expired, my little brother thought he could freely edit again, and made three edits to articles on video games that he played (I didn't play these games and would never cause myself to get a block extension again, since I had learned after the single edit I made on the Fram article). I tried to clarify what had occurred with Bbb23, telling him "Hi bbb23, my past accounts were blocked around seven months ago, but my IP block expired. If I edit with this IP am I violating the rules? I checked my edit history and I saw that my brother made three edits to video games articles that he likes, and I want to make sure that he wont get me blocked." Instead of explaining that I could not edit with my IP, even though for some reason he put a limited time block on it, Bbb23 stated ":Even if your little brother exists and made those edits, you are not allowed to edit, so bye-bye, this time for six months." I emailed him about what happened, but he did not respond, and then I gave up on trying to get myself unblocked for a while. Those video game article edits were the last edits made by my little brother (that I know of) and I have repeatedly reminded him since then to never edit Misplaced Pages again, under any circumstances. After waiting seven months, I was finally unblocked per standard offer. Unfortunately, I continued my old habits of making controversial edits, and misunderstood my topic bans, resulting in me being blocked for a final three months. After that block expired, I did not log into Misplaced Pages much for some time, but when my topic bans were removed, I made some more edits. I have since edited a number of articles in ways that I think were significant, e.g. updating images, maps, demographics, infobox, and other items, in addition to a number of article leads, and hope to continue doing so moving forward. I recently had a conflict with a user, but I did not break revert rules and only responded on talk pages when necessary instead of long rants - unlike my past disputes, I was on the consensus side of around a dozen editors. I think the whole dispute was a waste of time, and moving forward I will try my best to avoid such matters, even if I am on the side of consensus. Sorry for asking you to read all of that, but I wanted you to know the full story, with the compete truth, and disclose everything that happened in the past. I sincerely apologize for not telling you the whole story earlier, and I hope that I can move on from this and be a constructive editor in the future. Bill Williams 05:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Also, if I forgot to put anything in this lengthy description, I apologize and please let me know what I left out. And since I just admitted to a litany of past transgressions, I would understand if I am to face a punishment for them. Just know that I have learned from my past mistakes, am sincerely sorry for what I did, and am trying to improve as an editor. Bill Williams 05:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Vandalism of Urnas Abiertas article
Hello, I'm Asaturn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Urnas Abiertas have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Asaturn (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Stop reverting edits of mine that include sourced information. You are using undue, unsourced, original research claims that are extremely inaccurate and biased. Bill Williams 09:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Twitter, linkedin, and the about pages of two different websites do not back up your claims that they are a U.S. state department puppet meant to take down the Nicaraguan government. Bill Williams 09:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hello. I never made any of these claims. The sources are from their own website. If you have an issue with their own website as a source, please send me an alternative. Also, I undid your last blanking because it is blatant vandalism and completely inappropriate considering our history and your continued harassment and abuse of this platform. Thanks. Asaturn (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- "The completely anonymous report is only four pages (in both English and Spanish) and does not cite any specific data or methodologies. Their Twitter account has just 1,340 followers.
- Hello. I never made any of these claims. The sources are from their own website. If you have an issue with their own website as a source, please send me an alternative. Also, I undid your last blanking because it is blatant vandalism and completely inappropriate considering our history and your continued harassment and abuse of this platform. Thanks. Asaturn (talk) 09:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
While this organization does not list official staff, the blog page on their official website links to a presentation given at Wilson Center, a US government-funded think tank. This talk was organized by two individuals who claim to work for Urnas Abiertas, Pedro Salvador Fonseca Herrera and Olga Valle López—both partisan right-wing activists. Pedro Salvador Fonseca Herrera is an anti-Sandinista National Liberation Front activist affiliated with the European_Commission and also worked as a "consultant" for Organization of American States during the 2018–2021 Nicaraguan protests.
"Urnas Abiertas stated prior to the election taking place that their goal was to discredit the results in a presentation done in partnership with International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance and Venezuelan right-wing activists at the Andrés Bello Catholic University (Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, UCAB). Unlike the report published on their website, this report from Urnas Abiertas lists the authors: three foreigners from International IDEA, two Venezuelan anti-Chavista activists, and just two Nicaraguans: Olga Valle and Pedro Fonseca of Urnas Abiertas. UCAB is directed by XXX, a conservative priest who openly supported the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt."
"Urnas Abiertas". Urnas Abiertas. Retrieved 13 November 2021. "Twitter.com: Urnas Abiertas". Twitter.com. Retrieved 13 November 2021. "Nicaragua 2021: Abstention, Paramilitary Control and Harassment of State Workers on November 7, Election Day" (PDF). Urnas Abiertas. Retrieved 13 November 2021. "Urnas Abiertas Blog". Urnas Abiertas. Retrieved 13 November 2021. "Pedro Salvador Fonseca Herrera". Wilson Center. Retrieved 13 November 2021. "Olga Valle". Wilson Center. Retrieved 13 November 2021. "Pedro Salvador Fonseca (He/Him)". LinkedIn. Retrieved 13 November 2021. "Nicaragua Elecciones 2021: Un Plan doloso Para Acabar con La Democracia" (PDF). ""There will be no dialogue or transition with Maduro in power"""
This is your edit and sources, which basically consist of social media and the about page of two different websites, none of which backs up your claims. Bill Williams 10:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Continued vandalism of Urnas Abiertas article
Hello, I'm Asaturn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Urnas Abiertas have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. This is the 2nd time I've asked you to stop blanking the good faith content. If you have an issue with the content, let's talk it over on the talk page. Asaturn (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- I'm going to repeat myself, you cannot use random social media and about pages as supposedly reliable sources to back up your biased claims that they are an anti-Nicaraguan group that supports terrorism. Bill Williams 09:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Per WP's own Reliable Sources policy on sources, you can use social media to refer to the subject itself when ther social media is self-descriptive and run by the subject. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources Please immediately stop vandalizing the article. Asaturn (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- Also I never once said they were a group that supports terrorism. Everything I said is cited by good sources per WP policy. Please stop vandalizing the article and please stop lying. Asaturn (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)