User talk:WilliamH/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Will miss you

Enjoy yourself, drink some good beer, learn something new, have fun. That sums up the meaning of life as a bonus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy yourself, drink some good beer, learn something new, have fun, 42. No... I don't get it. Have a great time out there William. Don't forget to come back. Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Since you already gave me an advanced warning of your departure, I already wished you lots of luck and fun. Now that everyone knows, I can post it here too. My favorite beer over there is Amberweizen. Do try their wines over there too. It's much cheaper than over here and probably so much better too. Don't forget to try the cheeses and their specialties. Viel Spass. Now compatible with HTML5.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

AN/I Mention

Hello, WilliamH! I'm sorry to see you're no longer an admin, and I hope your wikibreak goes well. If you have a chance, hopefully you can have a look at the thread "Promotional email for "wiki-pr.com"[1] as I mentioned you; it involves a now banned editor who you had experience with. If you can't reply due to your break, I understand, but I thought you should be aware of this. Cheers, William :> Doc talk 05:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

• In the media: Editor's response to Roth draws internet attention

• Recent research: "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation, new literature overviews, a look back at WikiSym 2012

• WikiProject report: 01010010 01101111 01100010 01101111 01110100 01101001 01100011 01110011

• News and notes: UK chapter rocked by Gibraltar scandal

• Technology report: Signpost investigation: code review times

• Featured content: Dead as...

• Discussion report: Image filter; HotCat; Syntax highlighting; and more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales

• News and notes: Independent review of UK chapter governance; editor files motion against Wikitravel owners

• Featured content: Mooned

• Technology report: WMF and the German chapter face up to Toolserver uncertainty

• WikiProject report: The Name's Bond... WikiProject James Bond

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

• News and notes: Education Program faces community resistance

• WikiProject report: Ten years and one million articles: WikiProject Biography

• Featured content: A dash of Arsenikk

• Technology report: The ups and downs of September and October, plus extension code review analysis

• Discussion report: Closing RfAs: Stewards or Bureaucrats?; Redesign of Help:Contents

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Dario Gabbai

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb-dN98VfDk&list=FLB9KVeEN_OzVJ0VNywimGSw&index=10&feature=plpp_video Dario Gabbai is interviewed and debunked at various parts in this documentary. His story is bunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.121.120 (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please attribute material to a publication from a reliable souce, such as a journal or academic institution with a reputation for scholarly accuracy; otherwise, do not add it to the article. WilliamH (talk) 10:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I get it so if a jewish owned publisher doesnt print it its not reliable. This sites a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.121.120 (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought the site was supposed to contain the entirety of human knowledge, not what the publishig companies deem appropriate. Flat out the guys a liar, you know it, I know it. You have no credibility, shill.

• It has nothing to do with whether or not the publisher is Jewish, athough the fact you make such a distinction rather suggests what your agenda is here. WilliamH (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It absolutely does. The majority of *accepted* publishers are Jewish run and they silence any opinion that doesn't troll the holocaust line. No one can validate the man's story but the man himself. Its been published. That does not make it truth or verified. It makes it published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.121.120 (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact you cling to Holocaust pages editing even minor notes out that contradict or challenge whatever "victim" claim has been made shows your real agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.121.120 (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• My agenda is for Wikipedia to be a reflection of reliable sources - regardless of the ethnic background of those sources. Your edits describe what you believe to be obvious information, and yet you are unable to provide any references other than a YouTube video, uploaded by an anonymous individual. This is simply inadequate - find references from reliable sources. If you reinsert the material, I will have no choice but to report you to the relevant noticeboard, and you may lose your ability to edit Wikipedia. WilliamH (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No its not inadequate. And now with proxies you will never stop me from posting. Though if you wanna go that route youll have the video posted up on the page daily as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.121.120 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha!

I knew you wouldn't be able to stay away completely! Welcome back, even if it is only in wee doses :) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Help updating SPI

Hello - EdJohnston points out to me that you checkuser'd Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/God Condemns Homosexuality. Someone who presumably is also the user behind those accounts has been harassing me under a number of accounts, and I was hoping you could help me put together the necessary material to get some sort of rangeblock and prevent this from continuing to happen. Are you able to view oversighted things? A number of the offensive usernames have been oversighted, so I am not able to list them, but others are named here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Roscelese. It would be a pleasure to help, but I handed in my CUOS bits when I began my break and I'm not really in time-accommodating position to request them back. To name but a few, AGK, Courcelles, Hersfold have always been good go-to people for functionary stuff like this, and I would recommend having a word with one of them. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

FAQ

Hi, William. I've recently begun putting together an FAQ for American Third Position Party at my sandbox, based on your excellent work at Holocaust denial. If you get an opportunity, I'd love to have your input on what I can do to make it better and as effective as possible. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I confess I know very little about the given subject, but I will take a look and get back to you if I see anything. Thanks for your appreciation of my work. WilliamH (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Since things on the talk page seem to have calmed down, I think the article is likely ready to go unprotected. According to WP:RPP, it is best for me to ask you to unprotect first, since you are the protecting admin. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have done that. Let's see if things are settled. It can always be reinstated if not. WilliamH (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, its been quiet [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t916979-4/ here] for a month, but if a flurry of IPs or new accounts show up, I'd check the link to see if they are coordinating again. Right now there are 4 pages and last edited 11-08-2012, if it bumps up to 5 they will probably be active again. Heiro 21:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, WilliamH. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 11:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrat's noticeboard

Knowing that you're a bureaucrat, I thought this might be a place to post my question. I'd left a comment on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Request, but I have received little to no feedback. If you are busy or sorting through this would be a hassle, please don't worry about it, but some help in regard to the request would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, dci | TALK 19:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I did not realize you had (partially) left. I will check with another crat if you aren't around at this time, so please don't worry about the above request. dci | TALK 20:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI case

Hello, WilliamH. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment requested

WilliamH, your comment is requested here. Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I now see that you have "commented" by blocking the account. That's good enough for me! Thanks again. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello William! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

cyberpower is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

As one of my wikifriends, I would like to wish you a Merry Christmas. I hope you had a great one.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 02:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Belatedly the same thing to you, and a happy new year! WilliamH (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Belated Happy New Year with a Toast!

float	Here's a toast to the host Of those who edit wiki near and far, To a friend we send a message, "keep the data up to par". We drink to those who wrote a lot of prose, And then they whacked a vandal several dozen blows. A toast to the host of those who boast, the Wikipedians! - From {{subst:TheGeneralUser}}

~TheGeneralUser (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at ~~~~~

~TheGeneralUser (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you William! Enjoy the Whisky ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for this, and your Christmas wishes earlier. Have a great 2013. WilliamH (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Crat statement draft

Hi Following the drama at BN, I'm trying to come up with a statement all Crats could agree to. Please take a look, below. I am quite content to do this onwiki -we have always worked transparently, except where secrecy is essential (ie RTV). I think we should be able to wordsmith a statement acceptable to all, and I think it's an important thing to do.

1. In my opinion, this issue has come about through an unfortunate proliferation of documentation: policy, guideline, how-to etc
2. I am not convinced that there is community consensus on all of the points encapsulated in those various pages
3. I am unhappy at what may be described as some or all of: inconsistencies, inaccuracies or lack of clarity in that documentation
4. I do not believe that any of the issues we have faced have been caused by Crats trying to widen their powers
5. I would like to see the issues clarified, based on consensus, and for the documentation to be updated accordingly
6. I'd like to thank Griot-de for generously withdrawing the rename request

Signed [crat sig] Lmk what you think. Many thanks, --Dweller (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dweller. I apologise, but I will abstain from this - I've been enormously busy in real life, and I'm not willing to put my name on something that I've not been up-to-scratch with. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aminul802

Just so you know, I ran a check regarding an unblock request, and added my own 2 cents to your results on the Aminul802 case. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your follow-up, yep, I took another look and I agree. Not that another CU would have come to a different conclusion. Cheers! WilliamH (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual‎

Hi! Would you mind clarifying the result on the above case? Thanks! --Rschen7754 10:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems like it was done already. --Rschen7754 18:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks. That was indeed him. WilliamH (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yurasis Dragon

Just so you know, I ran the master through CU on your CU decline, and found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yurasis Dragon. Just thought I would let you know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, bloody sod's law that is. Thanks for letting me know. WilliamH (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser request

Hi WilliamH. A week or so back, the sockpuppet case against User:AuggiePaoli was archived with no action on two of the suspected socks. Wikibronx is, I'm now fairly convinced, not a sockpuppet (it looks now as though he simply made some very badly timed deletion requests), but IamVince, who at the time had not made enough edits to merit a checkuser investigation, has since edit-warred extensively and exclusively over the same article as the three blocked accounts. I'm not absolutely certain that it's the same person behind the account (the communication style is somewhat different), but I would like a checkuser's opinion and/or technical input as to whether a sockblock is necessary. IamVince is currently under a 48-hour block for edit warring; I'd like to know whether this should be extended to an indef for sock/meat puppetry. Much obliged, Yunshui 雲‍水 07:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think a sock block is necessary, and there isn't much evidence that it is a sock anyway (another individual might be the most likely explanation). He's been blocked for edit warring, which is entirely fair enough, so I would just make it clear to him that resuming his behaviour when the block expires is going to have no effect other than getting him blocked for longer. WilliamH (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it for me; I appreciate the second opinion and will take your advice. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Jeb2003 Sock case

The autoblock is now cleared and he was using the IP to remove the csd tags tonite so even if article was deleted there is disruption...it may be a duck test but can we revisit that, because if he was blocked for sockpuppetry and upon block lift immediately starts again we have issues. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that the article has been deleted, the disruption has been stopped. We can revisit it if the article is recreated, but there's nothing further to do there. Note that CheckUsers do not publicly confirm the relationship an account and its IPs. WilliamH (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hello,

I would like to bring to your attention that the users I reported as suspected sock-puppets, User:Samar Layoun and User:MariaFrangieh, are now editing the same article as User:SSTUTTON. I think that by most standards, this kind of behavior is seen as abusive.

Finally, concerning the article itself, there must be some mention about corruption in the lead, as is the case in articles about people such as Mobutu Sese Seko and Ferdinand Marcos.

Best, Argo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argo333 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the abuse of multiple accounts to spread scrutiny or slant consensus is never allowed. But article X is never an excuse for article Y, and while his sockpuppetry is unacceptable, so too are the edits you wish to introduce. He is absolutely within his right to remove this edit. You've used two individuals' self-published sources about a living individual (which in itself is unacceptable; see Wikipedia:SELFPUBLISH) to assert their opinion as fact (which again is unacceptable, as Wikipedia must not present opinions as facts), and nowhere at all does it say in this and this article that Berri is "widely criticised" anyway. You are going to need to seriously reconsider how you edit if you don't want to run into hot water. WilliamH (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hello,

The sources that I introduced in the lead may be self-published, but both are from reputable scholars of the Middle-East, including a Harvard PhD (and Brown professor) and Michael Totten. The lead is also backed by the sections within the article which is not self-published.

Furthermore, concerning my other account, I clearly stated on that page that User:IranFactChecking was a separate account of Argo333, which is not the case with User:Samar Layoun who used three accounts in an edit war on one single article which, I suppose, is ethically questionable and disallowed.

Thank you Argo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argo333 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Also, you can see from the other user's most recent edits that they consented to the two sections I added within the article and were only opposed to the header. So, please don't act in bad faith. Argo333 (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed one sweeping unreferenced sentence from the beginning of the other section. Berri is largely considered to be among the most corrupt political figures in Lebanon. - by who? Do not editorialise things; remember, if it hasn't been explicitly stated in a reference, then Wikipedia can't say it either. WilliamH (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser check requested

Hi Will. I wonder if I could trouble you to take a look at User:Ajayupai95? T. Canens check showed him up as a sock of Vrghs jacob, and he was blocked accordingly; since then he's expended about 8,000 bytes of text protesting his innocence. As he's asked (repeatedly), I'm putting his request for another checkuser in front of you, to deal with as you see fit. I'll let T. Canens know as well. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 08:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, we await his response. WilliamH (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the changes to Uctop

Hello. User:Fuhghettaboutit has made some objections to your edits at MediaWiki:Uctop here. I just wanted to let you know. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Solera Networks

I removed the remaining section pertaining to the banned editor. I reviewed the citation and I don't consider the reference credible or notable. A lot of companies are involved in lawsuits and I looked over the case citiations and the content appears to have been vetted by a PR firm proxy editing for hire which is not allowed anyway. Thanks for catching this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.166.126 (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: IPBE query

She's an instructor in the Education Program. In the unfortunate situation where if one of her students got blocked and attempts to login through school computer (desktop or wireless network), the autoblock will kick in and the collateral damage will block everyone (including the instructor) on campus. Without the IPBE, she would not be able to communicate and participate in discussion with regards to her student or even updating the course page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you disable the autoblock option on the original account, that would probably solve the issue of blocking everyone, and the IPBE wouldn't be needed. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 17:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That would indeed work under the presumption of the blocking admin being aware that the student is in a class and turning off autoblock. Would the blocking admin do so much investigative work? Highly unlikely. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I understand that the blocking admin probably wouldn't do such level of work, but the way you said it, it sounded like one account, and one account we can fix. Or is this a case of socking? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

To answer your original reply to me, all that's needed is for the autoblock to be deleted via Special:BlockList. Either way, IP block exemption is not merited. WilliamH (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

More User:MooshiePorkFace articles

Here is another one. Found it while running down some primary and secondary references. Roland Lee (artist) 68.69.166.126 (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Noted, well done. WilliamH (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for Renaming my username  :) WikiJet (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, just doing a job. WilliamH (talk) 13:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd possible sock-puppet situation - how would I mail you?

Hi William,

I am doing an initial sockpuppet investigation that may require some discretion (Involves an existing user and a public IP so I don't want to post this at SPI), and I have come across something odd I was wondering if I could get your take - how would I email you? Use the one at your blog? Thanks!Patriot1010 (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• What do you mean by discretion? It's perfectly acceptable to file an SPI where you suspect an association between an IP and an account. CheckUsers won't confirm that connection on wiki due to the privacy policy. If there are additional factors though, which you'd prefer not to mention on wiki, then the best thing to do would be to contact the functionaries mailing list as explained here. WilliamH (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would have but the last time I emailed the Arb-I email it tipped off one of the socks and they did a name change within minutes and hasn't edited since. The Functionaries list also contains the Arb doesn't it? Patriot1010 (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case, send me an e-mail via the E-mail this user function in the toolbox. I will take a look at it, but be aware that I may have to pass it over to another non-arb CheckUser due to time. WilliamH (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Will do, totally understand, thanks! Patriot1010 (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You have mail!Patriot1010 (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I did receive your e-mail, but I forwarded it to another non-arbitrator CheckUser who has always been an excellent "go-to" person for things like this. Apologies I did not reply, but I assumed that that's what you assumed I had done, as I said I might have to.

I find myself struggling to explain this in a way that does not come across as disrespectful, because being disrespectful is not my intention, but your lack of understanding of how various things on Wikipedia and the internet work is enormous. For example, regarding your comment here, there were not almost 2,000 name changes on 23rd Jan. The page which you refer to, this one, is a hit counter. It tells you how many times the page was viewed. In the same way that someone viewing an item on Amazon doesn't mean that they bought it, just because a page was viewed does not mean a user was renamed. Indeed we have the rename log, which is an automatically generated log of renames done on the English Wikipedia. As you can see, only 10 rename actions were performed on 23rd Jan.

If you wish to continue editing Wikipedia without running into difficulty, then you are drastically going to need to adjust your understanding of how things work here. WilliamH (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey no problem WilliamH, as you can see from that thread I posted on another user's talk page that you quoted, (I feel so lucky to have a guardian angel like you tracking my contributions helping me out!) I just found out about the /stats.grok.se page last week abouts. And as you saw from my most recent sockpuppet investigation I found a new way to track anonymous ip accounts. Isn't that great? I'm sure as a Checkuser this is of interest to you. But I agree, in my most recent case, there just wasn't enough understanding of the two it seems and as a result, like the previous RolandR sockpuppet case, (which I see you decline checkuser due to lack of evidence), so too was checkuser declined in my case. So I will make it my personal mission to write an article about it, (starting on my sandbox page of course) and find out everything I can about the two topics you mentioned. Thanks again!Patriot1010 (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You can't track anything with page view counts. All stats.grok.se tells you is the number of views on a particular page: no IP address, no user name, no time, nothing. All you can tell from it is that somebody (and even that is questionable if you understand how page views really work) looked at a particular page. I recommend that you go read Web analytics before you infer too much from stats.grok.se. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You have not established a new way to track IP editors. You are drawing conclusions which have no basis in fact, because you are basing those conclusions on pages and tools whose functions you do not understand. Stats.grok.se shows you how many times a page was viewed - nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else. The notion that this data can somehow be used to "track" IP editors - whatever that even means - is pure nonsense.

OK, I have just seen your edit to DoRD's talk page. Stats.grok.se tracks the views of all pages on Wikipedia; that is to say, articles as well as user pages. In the case of http://stats.grok.se/en/201303/Materialscientist, it is tracking the views of this page, as if there were an encyclopedia article entitled Materialscientist. As for your description that it shows "anonymous IP hits", again this is completely wrong: the tool does not distinguish between logged-in and non-logged in users viewing a page. WilliamH (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, well I'll be documenting my experiences in the wonderful world of http://stats.grok.se on my sandbox page to like you say - find out all these little details you have vast experience about! Also since it is on my sandbox page, I won't offend anyone, as this seems like its a very touchy subject for some reason. Feel free to ask questions, or give me hints on my talk page!Patriot1010 (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

It's less of a touchy subject, and more to do with the fact that your misunderstandings are a little, uh, exasperating to deal with, if I'm honest. The best advice I can give you is that you edit less, and read up on things a bit more. The better you know how things here work, the less of an uphill battle editing is. WilliamH (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks! That is why I am practicing in my sandbox. Do you have any links or good spots where I can find some of those cool division lines or other graphics? Patriot1010 (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No I don't, I'm afraid. Graphics here is not really my forté. WilliamH (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• William, thank you for being as cool as a cucumber and as patient as a saint. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged. WilliamH (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

TimothyHere sock

There goes the internet (talk · contribs) looks like a good candidate for Timothy's sockfarm, and as usual a sweep will probably be needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Already taken care of. Y. WilliamH (talk) 09:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who There goes the internet is, but it isn't TimothyHere. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent check

In this check, if you remember or if you checked, was one IP by chance geolocated to an office building, and/or the other to a residential building?

Reasoning is that Dimitri is the self admitted owner of the company, and the results (to me and my backstory at least) all but confirm at least meatpupetting, if not socking. If one IP was a residential and/or the other from a work location, it may be more indicative of socking from multiple locations to avoid scrutiny.

Thanks for doing the check however :) gwickwire^talk_editing 19:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. That was convenient. WilliamH (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup, I realized after I asked that it'd be potentially super hard to determine office/residential location, so glad it didn't put too much strain on you. Thanks :) gwickwire^talk_editing 23:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

And in case you cared (just like to keep people updated), there's another one that's most likely a sock :) gwickwire^talk_editing 04:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WilliamH. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KuhnstylePro.
Message added 03:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12