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 climate change COVID-19, broadly construed governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues the Arab–Israeli conflict gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

You may be interested in this discussion[1] based on your comments in this old RfC "far-right"_to_the_lead. I'm not looking for a specific article level change rather a general opinion about situations like this. Springee (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Springee thanks for letting me know, I definitely would have joined the discussion but don't want to get you into any trouble with any overzealous editors who think you were trying to canvass. I fully agree that the label "far-right" should never be hyperlinked because it's a completely misleading term that American media likes to use. The hyperlink leads to an article talking about Nazism and other far more extreme positions supporting literal genocide compared to the braindead American conspiracy theorists who are also called "far-right" but have expressed 0 support for murdering millions of people. Bill Williams 04:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill

Doing some googling I found an archive of a discussion you had regarding andy-academiaathotmail.com. He has emailed me 26 times operating under User talk:Fagerbakke, asking me to rollback and edit war various articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I have to admit, I do agree with some of his reasoning behind the edits, but it seems that he is attempting to use me (a reviewer perms and auto/extendedautoconfirmed user) as a shield to hide behind his edits in a war with another annoying user, User talk:Makeandtoss. Is there a way to email-ban all accounts created by his email, because I'm getting tired of him asking me to do work for him. He even reached out to me yesterday asking for general requests:

Fri, Oct 6, 12:51 PM (21 hours ago)

Could you add something about the many deadly shootings against Israelis in that town after this POV atrocity in lead?

At this point, I think he is just asking me to make edits for him because he knows it is less likely that a user with nearly 5k edits is less likely to be banned/blocked for making these types of edits. It seems that he has also been threatened on his talk page with a block if he continues to edit Israel articles. EytanMelech (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EytanMelech sorry you have to deal with that, the man is insane and emailed me dozens of times as well. Make sure you report his accounts and emails to CheckUsers, and it is possible to block his email. You can specify that specific users are not able to email you anymore in Wikipedia email settings. Also, make sure that if you do report his email itself, do so privately to a CheckUser so nobody thinks you're doxxing someone. Good luck, he is a really pathetic one. Bill Williams 04:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kast does have an article, so the whole point of removing his mention from the lead of José Antonio Last is moot. Bedivere (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke of an idea, cherrypicking one thing that I said to pretend like mentioning his father being a Nazi is relevant. He was nearly a child during the war and it has zero reason to be in the lead of his son's article, besides to commit a BLP violation and slander him. Bill Williams 18:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill. Will you please self-revert this edit? Biden's article is subject to WP:Enforced BRD, and an edit like yours which was challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by you until after you start a discussion on the talk page discussing the edit, and a minimum of 24 hours has passed since that discussion was started. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this restriction is explained in both the edit notice that appears whenever you go to edit the article, and prominently on the talk page banners. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I can self revert, even though my edit was reverted for literally no reason besides "Biden is compared to LBJ" which I find to be a hilariously pathetic reason to revert every single one of my changes. Bill Williams 19:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I recommend discussing it on the article's talk page, maybe you can convince other editors why this content should be changed. Just please be mindful in the future that Biden, along with several other articles about US politics (eg Donald Trump), are subject to this same restriction. As with Biden's page, if an article has this restriction, it'll be noted in its edit notice and the article's talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that makes sense, I self-reverted and spoke on the talk page, and will be mindful of this in the future. Bill Williams 19:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]