User talk:OccultZone

OccultZone (talk · contribs · logs · email · block log · global contribs)

This is OccultZone's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your new page patrolling; it's most appreciated! Ironholds (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have recognition. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting my edits?

please explain!

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggajat (talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaggajat: Which article you are referring to? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning

Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls.?--Vin09 (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If same argument has been passed more than one. It will fall under the Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. It is not very easy to discover, thus there is a script called User:Frietjes/findargdups. Recommended. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI.

I started an ANI discussion. See HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider linking to the SPI. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sock

@OccultZone:Is it correct format for filing sock.--Vin09 (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear and it looks like you are only mentioning some of their edits. You have to outline that how multiple accounts are abused by the editor in question and it should be more than just "revert" or editing same articles. You can provide diffs that show a similar type of behavior. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, how to withdraw sock investigation. See this edit--Vin09 (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can write on the SPI that you are withdrawing the report. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Louis Sette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadcaster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for years in literature

I can't see any harm in doing that - probably a good idea. Deb (talk) 11:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check

Merge proposal is genuine? Also check this--Vin09 (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can expand these articles. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any idea of later but the former is just a list which I have cleaned and looking somewhat good. Else it was a long list like a directory.--Vin09 (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we name it as List of educational......--Vin09 (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can start a page move request. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Casual

Just a casual question. Where are you from?, wanted to ask from long time. Will wiki permit such casual questions?--Vin09 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balija dynasties did I de-orphaned it? pls check it?--Vin09 (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is still backed by Balija. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

didn't get you?--Vin09 (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

now* backed by Balija. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

backed means linked? right?--Vin09 (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the first line. That's OK if you aren't interested. Fine.--Vin09 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Lowden and J. Alastair Montgomerie

Hi there, Many thanks for reviewing some of my recent articles. Could you please review the above articles, when you have time. Many thanks.Gomach (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan

To de-orphan an article, on the destination article we need to introduce the source (orphan) article name link?--Vin09 (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have to create a backlink of an orphaned article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TCKTKtool reported by User:Padenton (Result: ). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padenton (talk • contribs)

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Rape in India. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Swarm ^X 00:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Have you counted? I had made 2 reverts in last 2 days because they concerned WP:BLPCRIME. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

OccultZone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I had made only two reverts in 34 hours,[1], [2] because they concerned WP:BLPCRIME. In fact I was the one to open discussion right after first revert, check [3]. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 7:37 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)

Accept reason:

I see no reason for Swarm (talk · contribs)'s block. No prior warning was given. Two reverts in a five days, one of which I can understand (rape of 71-year old nun) doesn't make a pattern or warrant a block. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I had made only 2 reverts in last 34 hours. Let me explain you some of other aspects that even if I had made more reverts, I was still exempted from the 3rr.

Removal of any unproven and non-notable allegations about living persons is allowed.

Reverting an obvious sock puppet is another exemption from 3rr. Proof of reverting the sock puppet was the ANEW thread itself where we had discussed the sock puppetry.

My edits were also removing the COPYVIO, check [4][5], Zhanzhao has plagiarized them.

Swarm, I have to ask you, how you could make these blocks without even reading the complaint of WP:ANEW or without checking the content in question? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm, he's only made two reverts over two days (not counting the initial removal of the information). 72 hours seems high for someone with no previous block log or formal warnings on their talk page. Can you clarify your block reasoning for me? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also have emailed to JamesBWatson with additional details. I hope he will look into this matter. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to jump in on this, but since I'm being brought into this by OccultZone, I'd like to point out that I was not the one who added the copyvio text, I just reverted content that is pre-written before. The onus is on you, OccultZone, to point out which post I, personally, was supposed to plagiarised, since you are accusing me of it. I am fairly certain that somewhere earlier in the history of the article, you will notice that someone else was the one who originally added that. My fault and mistake, as is Swarms, might have been to not notice that it was copyvio, which can easily be addressed with copyediting, if you would have only pointed that out earlier that it was a copyvio issue than all the other tangents you were going off on. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be you who will be considered as the violator of the copyrights since you were eager to restore the content that is also violating a good bunch of policies. In fact Zhanzhao, it is more clearer that you were abusing that IP and the new account for keeping your preferred content. Given your history of abusing sock puppets on this article and propagating your views without making any disagreement with other violator of WP:BLPCRIME, WP:CON, and other guidelines. It is simply obvious. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gauntlet thrown, challenge accepted. Please do file another SPI, cos I'm 100% sure I will be vindicated. In return, I expect you to apologize to me after its been proven that those were not my socks. And the administrator/clerk who does the Checkuser should also point out that OccultZone has been making frivalous sock accusations when things does not go his way. Deal? PS: I've copyedited the identified copyvio writeup, so thats not an issue anymore. The attack on the swiss takes key points, but is written quite differently from the source. Next time, if you're concerned about copyvio, JUSt SAY SO.Zhanzhao (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are using an outdated excuse of "copyediting" for deflecting from the gross BLP violation that you are committing on that article and using socks. I mean you could've disagreed to some degree with other blatant sock account, but why you would disagree with yourself? It was proven that you were violating the WP:ILLEGIT policy and you are still doing it now. If they hadn't sympathised and considered that you were aware of WP:SOCK guidelines since you were blocked a few years ago for evading your block, none of us would've been blocked today for removing your content that has violated WP:BLPCRIME, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOTABILITY. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bgwhite! I have analyzed the issue a bit more. I've checked that Swarm's other blocks are also objectionable.

Vtk1987(2 reverts)
Human3015(1 revert)
Padeton(2 reverts)

While WP:ANEW requires 3-4 reverts in last 24 hours, Padenton was the one to address this edit war, he was discussing the issue and he was not going back to restore his version. They all were avoiding the violation WP:BLPCRIME, WP:COPYVIO, WP:ILLEGIT and removing the non-notable events. They were equally opposing a 3rr evading IP who recently created a new account, TCKTKtool, called other editor(Vtk1987) a sock and continued to violate the these policies.

After Swarm had blocked me, he went back to change the block settings, for explaining the reason that why he was blocking. It tells his actions are riddled with faults. I don't think that Swarm had even thought of protecting the page, and even if a non-admin editor would've thought of making 6 blocks even after agreeing that IP was evading 3rr with account. I am inclined to believe that if Swarm is not capable of understanding the stuff before making these blocks, then he don't deserve that admin bit. I am also thinking of taking this to ArbCOM. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm, Padenton, Zhanzhao, and Human3015: Occult, I don't know Swarm and this certainly doesn't arise to taking it to ArbCOM. I see no malice in Swarm's actions. I personally would have protected the page (I just did for 72 hours) and blocked TCKTKtool, but other admins would probably agree some more blocks were warranted. I do not understand the block of you, Padeton or Human3015. If you and Padeton got blocked, Zhanzhao should also be blocked for reverting too. In the end, Swarm made a judgement call. This shouldn't go any further.

I'm conflicted on unblocking Padeton and Human3015 because I'm in territory I've never been in. If I unblocked Occult, then I should be fair and unblock them too. However, Occult, Padeton, Zhanzhao and Human3015 are at fault. While I don't think it reached block level, all four of you were involved in an edit warring. On the plus side, a talk discussion did get started. Towards the end, it got confusing with a sock puppet entering the fray. I think with the sock puppet entering, things completely broke down and went to hell.

Zhanzhao, thank you for taking this matter to DRN. I wouldn't have done the revert you did at the end, but DRN was the right call. Bgwhite (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually TCKTKtool was the one who brought it to DRN. But I posted on the Talk page of the article in question about the DRN, just to keep everyone in the loop. As for OccuoltZone taking popshots at me being TCKTKtool/IP's sock or vice versa, do feel free to run a thorough check on me against them. Guess its too much to hope for a gentlemanly apology after its proven to be unfounded? Zhanzhao (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After multiple instances of socking, you must have learned new ways. Given your history of socking on this article and behavior, it is simply obvious. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vtk1987 and Padeton had made only 2 reverts. While Human3015 made one revert. Yes they should be unblocked because the article is now protected. This SPI explains how Zhanzhao, TCKTKtool and IP are same person. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am highly wondering that why Swarm or anyone would make these malformed blocks, and go offline right after I had pinged him on my talk page. He is usually online at this time[6] but due to some reasons(that we don't know of) he has not yet responded. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, stop taking potshots at Zhanzhao. You only filed a case and nothing is proven. You do owe Zhanzhao and apology for saying they are a sockpuppet and that they are wikilawyering. If they are a sockpuppet, then you gloat at seeing the blocked message on their user page, otherwise stop. In this latest round, Zhanzhao has done nothing wrong except for their last revert. You have made the unfounded accusations.

I also told you to drop about being blocked. Stop accusing Swarm of "malformed blocks" and any other conspiracy theories. Swarm live in Florida and is asleep, which I'm about to go do.

Drop it. Bgwhite (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did that because even for making an allegation, one has to be sure about it. Good night and I will surely see what will happen next. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations here are ridiculous. Of course I spent a significant amount of time fully reviewing the situation, just as I would any other ANEW report (something Bgwhite apparently didn't do, as their unblocking rationale doesn't even make sense). Do you really think I just arbitrarily slapped you with a 3 day block for two reverts because I hate you? You've been edit warring over that content for quite a protracted period of time and were continuing the same edit war as of the ANEW report. ANEW doesn't require any certain number of reverts, contrary to that untrue and ridiculous claim that 3-4 reverts are required. An edit war can contain multiple parties on each side (and in this case, did) and that does not excuse editors from participating in the edit war, and editors can be blocked without violating WP:3RR. The block (and every other one) was perfectly in accordance with blocking and edit warring policy. BLPCRIME is meant to prevent harm to persons accused of committing crimes. Your BLP defense is debatable at best and it's certainly not a "gross" violation. Sources were provided and no living persons were identified in the text, thus the argument that it was in dire need of removal to prevent harm isn't a particularly strong one. BLPCRIME isn't a blanket ban on any mention of allegations of crime in an article. Next, the article is under discretionary sanctions and any uninvolved administrator is authorized to impose blocks (or other sanctions) to facilitate the smooth running of the project. I'm not sure whether you're aware of this so I declined to invoke it, but just as an aside, a higher standard of collaborative conduct is expected on that article, especially from editors who should know better. Another thing, no warning was given? Seriously? Apart from the fact that there's no requirement to warn someone before blocking them for edit warring (in fact policy specifically states that a warning is not required), you shouldn't need a warning, as you're supposed to be familiar with that policy already. Lastly, feel free to elaborate on which text was a copyvio. Obviously you can remove copyvios without it being considered edit warring. However I find it hard to believe that all of that text you were edit warring over was in copyright violation. I'll let this go as I don't really care that much, but just to be clear, I completely reject your arrogant, self-righteous condemnation of the block as abuse of the tools and stand behind it as fully in accordance with policy. Swarm ^X 15:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANEW report requires at least 3-4 reverts in 24 hours, not just 2 reverts in last 5 days and not those edits that were removing the violation of WP:BLPCRIME, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:COPYVIO all together. There were concerns about the obvious sock puppetry that you haven't even mentioned in your explanation. Your claims regarding the "protracted period" are also incorrect, I had made 4 edits in last 8 days. Yes it is necessary that the editor had to violate the 3rr or made a few reverts in a small period of time, you cannot block someone for making only 1 edit in more than 30 hours. ANEW board also reads that an editor has to be warned before they would be even reported. Where I was reported? Just point me out. Can you find any warning for edit warring since they day I have joined en.wiki or even last few months? We are aware of discretionary sanctions, and also know that how it works, but first let us complete the discussion about WP:ANEW/3RR and how it works? I had also listed 3 other editors that you blocked for reverting an obvious sock, and only about 1 - 2 times under 24 hours. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: Occult, Swarm is completely correct in stating that 3RR etc. doesn't require three reverts. Swarm, perhaps in the future you could note that in the block template? Putting a stop to what you believe is a long-term period of disruption is much different (in my eyes) than the standard definition of edit warring, and I suspect Bgwhite may have been confused by your interchanging of the two. Moreover, this may just be my opinion, but a block for something like that should be prefaced with a warning; there's no obvious step over the line like 3RR. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3rr doesn't require 3 reverts, it can be also 4 reverts in 48 hours. But then again, 2 reverts in 2 days is certainly not edit warring, or 4 edits in 8 days. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't reported, and you didn't need to be. You weren't warned, and again, you didn't need to be. And again, while 3rr is a brightline that you're not even accused of crossing, edit warring isn't defined by a certain number of reverts in a certain period of time. It's defined as "repeatedly [overriding] each other's contributions". Slow-moving edit wars involving multiple parties are no more productive or exempt from policy than one editor who violates 3rr immediately. Of course 2 reverts in 2 days does not necessarily demand a block for edit warring. However your self-victimization as if that's the reason you were blocked is simply not on point. You were one of many editors involved in this edit war, and you were blocked for your role just like the rest, having performed at least nine reverts this month alone over this issue (one two three four five six seven eight nine), with plenty more repeated examples of you reverting additions of "non-notable" incidents lasting over the course of several months. For that, your behavior stood out as among the most problematic within the scope of the incident I was reviewing and you were given a longer block. True, you're clearly a serious editor in good standing with a good reputation, and I appreciate that. And there's no beating around the bush regarding the fact that well-established editors routinely get special treatment and much more leniency from administrators, which is why I'm not surprised by your unblock nor very torn up about it. But again, I can say with 100% confidence that this block was perfectly justifiable, and your blatantly vested attitude, along with your accusations of abuse and threats regarding ArbCom were so far beyond the pale that it's shocking. And that, coupled with your complete failure to understand what problematic behavior might've gotten you blocked in the first place completely convinces me that this immediate unblock without any consultation with the blocking administrator was nothing short of a bad move. No hard feelings, though. Swarm ^X 19:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is also defined by the type of edit that has been made and if it is exempted from the 3rr or not. What made you count 9 edits as 9 reverts? Have you even checked that most of those edits concerned the same policies(WP:BLPCRIME, WP:COPYVIO) and I was also reversing a sock puppet who often misrepresented the sources. I was not even alone.(Not to talk about the sort of information that he was adding) That's something that you have again not addressed in your message when you were recently asked to do so. How many revisions I had made in last 30 days including the previous month? Have we counted it? Or how many reverts I had made in last 60 days? Not even 12. I am amazed that you are ignoring the violation of WP:ILLEGIT by other editor. Then again, your blocks didn't just involved me but also other 3 editors who you blocked for reverting an obvious sock. They didn't reverted for more than once or twice. Reverting an obvious sock is another exemption like I have told you, and when you had already considered an IP and an account as one person, you should not even count any reverts against the sock puppet 'revisions' per WP:SOCK. In both of the messages, you have sure made repetitive explanations to justify these blocks and they are not compelling. Let me also point your another misrepresentation, can you provide how listing any non-notable allegations is actually policy based? We don't list every incident unless the involved entity has own article or the incident has it's own article. When you are making multiple incorrect blocks and you are still not understanding that you cannot block anyone without even learning about the whole situation, the exemptions, without even counting the amount of revisions, and without even looking into the content in question, anyone would want to think about your understanding of blocks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, unfortunately when you asked me to look at the block, I was away from home without internet access, which is why I didn't respond. I see the block has been lifted, but I have had a quick look anyway. (It has had to be a quick look, as right now I have very little time.) I must say that on the basis of my quick check (which included checking all the edits that Swarm posted above) I have not seen anything that looks to me like edit-warring. Yes, over the course of several weeks you made several edits that reverted other editors, but most of them were reverts of quite different material. It is true a number of reverts spread over a long period can be edit-warring, but only if the reverts are so closely related as to effectively amount to continuing the same dispute over essentially the same content, and that really does not seem to be the case. It would be absurd to extend the concept of edit-warring to cover a number of unrelated edits over a long period, just because they all undo something done by some other editors. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case Opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck to all! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good decision. I hadn't really hoped for two different cases. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad to see what is happening...

I have not seen WP more block happy than what I've seen in the past few months. All this business with ARBCOM, AE, and the like. DS have gone wild. Guidelines taking precedence over policy. Bossy admins I've never had the occasion to collaborate with on an article, so they are complete strangers. And I used to be quite respectful of the position, but that is slowly changing because of the discrimination and abuse. I was just accused of violating OR policy over a post on a TP so it isn't even applicable!! And now poor Collect has to go through this ARB mess. Atsme☯^Consult 05:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20th century in music‎

Hi! I noticed You added cat 20th century in music‎ in over 100 pages. I think you should have not since every page already belongs in a more specific category. For example, 1998 in music already belongs in the cat 1998 in music which is a direct sub-category of the 20th century in music category. What do you think? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. However we are trying to manage all of the categories. A nice example would be 1998 in Ireland, check the categories. That means Category:1990s in music can be also added to 1998 in music. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's also wrong. I refer to WP:SUBCAT and I recall back in 2006 (approx.) there was a discussion about it. Otherwise, the category tree gets a lot of duplicates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must be correct. Check Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Categorization of Years articles. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help in removing the categories then? Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 07:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we inform Wikipedia:WikiProject_Years first? So that their active editors can also share the opinion on the above thread of the guideline about categorization. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. We may need the extra help! -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, OccultZone. You have new messages at Padenton's talk page.
Message added 23:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

― Padenton|✉ 23:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Journalists of The Guardian

The article Journalists of The Guardian has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

If anything, this should be a list called List of journalists of The Guardian. Instead, this is a list in article format, albeit extremely incomplete. The Guardian#Notable regular contributors (past and present) is more complete (but problematic in and of itself). This page also has no criteria for notability, and would therefore be very unwieldy to expand and maintain.

Better yet, we could just let this exist as it already does under Category:The Guardian journalists.

TL;DR: WP:N, WP:CFORK

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TritonsRising (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TritonsRising: In the light of this AfD, we had discovered that it is nearly impossible to have second hand sources on many of the journalist articles other than those that have been majorly written by the subject of the article. If you think that the article should be called "List of journalists of The Guardian", you can move the article to this proposed title yourself. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: Fair enough. I'll retract the PROD. I don't think a list would be particularly informative either, though. Thanks! TritonsRising (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet problem

I have now put out a request to both you and ZhanZhao on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations to add me on Skype so we can have a group call and clear up this confusion. I hope that you both will accept my request. 49.244.254.201 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is Bargolus by the way, see how easy it is to forget to log-in by mistake? Bargolus (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at User_talk:72.196.235.154. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bgwhite (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted seven times in a two hour period. There is no excuse for that. In addition, I'm getting close to doing a civility block for accusing people of being socks when the SPI report came up with nothing. Stop accusing people at Talk:Rape in India. Either you discuss what is at hand or you keep silent, no attacks. I highly suggest you walk away from Rape in India for awhile. Bgwhite (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD had told the concerning IP to stop abusing IP for further abuse of WP:ILLEGIT.[7] And you are yourself aware of it. He even blocked one of the sock recently.[8] Are you saying that the potential sock puppetry of this article must be ignored and no one should talk about it? Well that is how others would think if they have been redirected to this page, even if they have got proofs. Also the SPI has further strengthened with more evidences, you cannot treat a old SPI or old evidences as a rationale for a block or rejection of ongoing sock puppetry.

You also know that you are highly involved in this article and you are asking me to "walk away" from it. You have made major edits on this article recently[9][10] and you have also discussed your edits.[11][12][13] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

OccultZone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I had already stopped reverting at the IP's talk page per my own admission[14][15] on multiple namespaces. How much more proof you require? You are using this block for influencing an article where you are heavily involved especially when you are asking me to "walk away" from an article where I hadn't edit warred. :Still I would tell the background. Originally I had the doubt if the IP,(that was being abused for socking, per this CU's[16] and behavioral evidence) is even allowed to revert on their talk page or not. ::If I had to edit war on IP's talk page with intention, I wouldn't be even asking to Kuru if IPs are allowed to revert or not.[17] Neither I would've stopped after reading his comment. And I had already left a dummy note[18] in edit summary because I knew that this can be further used for blocking me if I don't clarify it well.
::Didn't I made every single attempt to avoid block? And any circumstances of others believing that I was edit warring or having even a single doubt that I was actually edit warring or wanted to continue? I had myself admitted that I wasn't aware. But you are using that obvious accident as a rationale for block, because you want to influence decision of an article where you are WP:INVOLVED. :Was there any warning on my talk page regarding this edit warring on IP's talk page? You had once said yourself above in a block that "No prior warning was given". ::Furthermore, check my 50 or more edits from last 4 hours? Were they reversion on IP's talk page? Nope. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

The edit warring had already stopped at 17:55, as OccultZone finally understood that it was okay for the IP to remove the block notice. Diannaa (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also I had myself asked Kuru if IPs are allowed to revert or not, I wasn't being told that I should stop reverting and I had stopped reverting already. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone hi. I only came here to tell you that you need to WP:KEEPCOOL. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite, the edit warring had already stopped at 17:55, as OccultZone finally understood that it was okay for the IP to remove the block notice (the block did not take place until 21:06). I'm not sure you should have blocked OccultZone regardless, as you might be considered involved, due to your editing on Rape in India and its talk page. I am unblocking now. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further examination

First we will discuss the background. Bgwhite has made major edits to the article called Rape in India.[19][20][21] He has also made major discussions on this article's TP.[22][23][24]

The points listed below occurred in less than 16 hours.

On 06:02, 29 March 2015, Bgwhite first reverted to his preferred version[25], then he protected this article,[26] even after knowing that he was not allowed to protect this article, and certainly not as "persistent vandalism",[27] since none of these edits[28][29] were WP:VANDALISM.
On 08:27, 29 March 2015, he imposed full protection,[30] and he had reverted to his version.[31] His reason was again "persistent vandalism", though there was still no vandalism.[32]
During this same day, I had an edit war on the UTP of a IP sock who was vandalizing atleast one[33] namespace, and he got blocked after he himself filed a report on AN3.[34] Before he was blocked, I had doubts if WP:DENY applies on the UTP of IPsock as well, I myself attempted to ask the admin who had blocked this IP, that whether an IP is allowed to remove messages from talk or not.[35] You can see that I accepted his rationale and I tried to make every attempt to avoid anyone from thinking that I was going to revert, I even left a dummy note in the edit summary that the previous edits that were opposing my reverts are correct.[36]

However, 4 hours(3 hours and 59 minutes) later, Bgwhite blocked me for 24 hours and for something that he never discussed nor I was warned by anyone. He is not addressing that how reverting was totally intended or I was still reverting. But Bgwhite told me to "walk away from Rape in India",[37] he also told me to stop addressing about sock puppetry that includes this kind of IP hopping,[38][39][40] while one CU just blocked the technical master of another IP.[41] This IP has been edit warring on this article for over 2 weeks.

How these actions are not violating WP:INVOLVED, and shows the failure to adhere to WP:BEFOREBLOCK? Forget about a block, I didn't even deserved a warning because after reading this edit, it is affirmed that it was over. Would somebody even warn after that? When the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking is inappropriate. Even my next 60 edits that came before the block speak for themselves. And when the admin is involved, he should not make such block because administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators.

Page protection policies say that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes." And the involved admin should not edit the article the protected article if there is an ongoing content dispute, there are some exceptions such as vandalism, BLP violation, none of these were an issue.

Apart from these 16 hours, I am not aware of any other actions of Bgwhite except one, where he has violated any of the above policies, it can be because I haven't checked his history of blocks yet. The one incident I know of, I consider that he was involved in content dispute with the major editor of that article(Phineas Gage), editor was EEng, Bgwhite blocked only because EEng had said "self-satisfied roving enforcer". I cannot find any warning by Bgwhite prior to the block myself, though I can be pointed to the diff where EEng was warned. John Vandenberg had considered that block to be outrageous.[42] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone I understand complaining about your block and explaining why this is unjustified by your point of view. I do not understand why you involve previous block cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the block of EEng because IMO it is meaningful to mention any past incidents when we are talking about the new incidents, falling under similar categories. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, you sure know how to make enemies out of friends. You sure don't know when to stop. I did unblock you this past week, but you now have made me regret that decision. I sincerely apologize to Swarm for doing that. You asked me to help in the Rape in India mess. Ironically, I made reverts to your preferred version. The "major edits" I made was out of discussion that you participated in and agreed with. Funny how you claim I'm involved, but have done things that appear to be on your side. You need to read WP:INVOLVED, ... or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. I didn't have any bias against you, if anything, I had bias for you. Also, one doesn't need to warn on a 3RR block and one can still be blocked if the reverting has stopped.

Face the facts... You broke the rules. You reverted seven times on somebody's else's talk page in a two hour span. The same person you accused of being a SP. The same person you had reverted in the past. The SPI case you filed turned out to be false. Today, you accused yet another person of being a sockpuppet. You are already asking other people to join in the conversation and emailing people about me. Hmmm, I remember the emails you sent me last week on how you want to take Swarm to Arbcom, punish him and make him pay.

You have learned nothing. You keep doing the same patterns. You sure know how to burn a bridge. I'm done. I will no long leave a message here. I will not respond to any more of you help requests like I have done in the past. Please don't send me any harassing emails like you did Swarm. Bgwhite (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing same article and making major edits, acting as a disagreeing editor on multiple occasions, such actions speaks for themselves and defines an editor to be heavily WP:INVOLVED. Those edits, that I have mentioned at the top considerably shows your signification involvement with the content and those edits are not minor or obvious, they are rather speaking of your point of view. In this sense you didn't had to protect this article, label any other version than your favorite version as vandalism, block anyone who has contributed into this article, tell others to leave this article, and any of the other roles where an administrator should be uninvolved.

I don't see any facts here at all, first you will have to have to provide a policy that would backup your misjudgment that "one can still be blocked if the reverting has stopped". You are actually admitting that there was no reverting being done neither there was any possibility that I was going to revert. Which rule I had broken and which seven times revert you are talking about? There is no rule mentioning that a block should be enforced when a problem has been already solved, and at least the problem that I had myself tried to figure out.[43] Purpose and goals of this policy defines that "once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not seen as appropriate." When the blocks shouldn't be used? This block fails all of those 4 noted points.

If you cannot backup with the right policy for your argument, then your arguments holds no water. My SPI didn't turned out to be false, because this particular IP and its technical master are currently blocked.[44] If we take a look at the behavior evidence and compare with the other accounts,[45][46] we can really find clear similarities that are also passing the duck test. I have to write that again, because you have either ignored to read it above or you are repeating the same point. If we take a look at their behavior evidence we find no difference between them. Furthermore, it is affirmed that the sock puppetry has carried out by a single editor since 2010. Most of the evidence has been discovered after the SPI, through which we can see that the sock master has been edit warring and move warring by abusing same accounts on a same article and using sock puppets on other articles for evading 3rr, as well as other namespaces like voting in same ban discussions, deletion discussions, deletion review, accepting own article submissions, etc. That alone passes the WP:DUCK test. Check this sandbox and how many recently viewed it. Most of the bytes and diffs are newly discovered and the case is under investigation. You are talking about the things that you haven't even touched and you are providing a misleading context. Are you now saying that it was a bad decision to overturn a block that was again made without any prior warnings(no warnings since I joined en.wiki) or it constituted any violation? Looking at the rationales of other admins, it seems like none of my actions even required a warning and one was already far from blocking. And more obviously no one would want warn me of edit warring after reading this edit carefully.

I would also like you to backup your other malformed accusation, of "harassing emails", it can be confirmed any day through the mail system as well as by Swarm that none of my email involved any harassment. I had rather asked a simple question about a policy that I hadn't discussed with him before. You've been already told about that before[47] when you had made this false accusation about something that you haven't seen or confirmed,[48] and you are not getting it at all. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone I think Bgwhite is right on the block. WP:3RR is absolute. I see not exceptions like as "the reverting has stopped". The unblocking admin, Diannaa assumed good faith and never wrote that you did not violate the rule or that you should not have been blocked. the reason that the rule is absolute is that usually the person who reverts thinks they are right. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. I ve been to a similar situation myself. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR is absolute only when the edit warring is obvious. Here it wasn't and as per this edit, it has been already clarified. Diannaa has considered it as a "bad block".[49] In no sense it was a blockable offense, there was no warning or any indication that I was going to make any revert per my own admission. I can be convinced otherwise if any of those requirements were fulfilled. That way it didn't even constituted a single warning, none of the Bgwhite's own block rationale describes it, instead he is asking me to stop contributing on an article where he has majorly contributed as well as stop addressing the obvious socks, without looking at the recent block or similarities that they share per WP:DUCK. Totally inappropriate blocks are quickly reversed, they are distorted because they weren't even needed at first place. Blocks have procedures and Bgwhite has not followed them per WP:BEFOREBLOCK, none of his reasons comply with the 4 reasons where block is required. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kuru blocked the IP for edit-warring. In fact the IP was right in removing noticed from their page. My point: You are edit-warring even if you were not aware of that -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issue was totally different. IP was wrong when he was continuously creating deletion entries of a non-existing AfD.[50][51][52][53] Such edits are considered as vandalism since he had also refused to create an AfD per his statement on AN3[54], and Kuru had seen the AIV report.[55] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this block hadn't been overturned, it would be considered as a established block in greater extent and Bgwhite would be repeating the same episode even if he would be seeing small conflict and include any new reasons. At least per the note he left, Bgwhite would be making longer blocks on me, whenever he would see me addressing IP hopping or any forms of socking. Blocks would also include any mention of this concerning article anywhere on whole en.wiki because he had cleared it himself in his own note, "highly suggest you walk away".[56] Next time he would just say "Had warned and blocked you before for the same." I am not the only editor who he disagreed with, that's why I am expressing the consequences. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're within your rights to delete my comments, but just so we're absolutely clear, that message remains a documented administrative warning that I would advise you not to disregard. Just a friendly reminder. Best, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: Your statements included no evidence. Though its good that you agreed that the block was inappropriate. But you accuse that I am responsible if a sock is edit warring and making personal attacks on multiple editors, you regard vandalism as non-vandalism even when IP had himself refused to create AfD per his own statement,[57] while continued to create malformed entry of a non-existing AfD. You also talk about edit warring on multiple pages without providing another namespaces where it was being done, "stop violating our policies" which policy? And then you ask me to address any concerns in appropriate fashion, though you have failed to provide even a single diff for any of these unfounded accusations that you have made. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor interaction

Hi, I noticed at ANI you commented about two editors (a sock) at the same pages. Did you figure that out manually or using some tool? The reason I ask is that I used to use this interaction tool, but lately it doesn't seem to work. Just sits and spins. Can you suggest an alternative tool that looks for editor interaction? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That tool works only for those accounts that were created a while ago. I check their edits manually. Just check their last 5000 contributions and take the advantage of "Ctrl+F". You also get the idea of edit summaries, similar namespaces, etc. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if you run across an auto-compare that works well, please ping me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know about this tool? It is an updated one. It works a little ([58]), although not very revealing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review of recent blocks

OccultZone has asked me to look into his past couple of blocks. I consider myself uninvolved, I've not editted in India-Pakistan articles, and have not had significant interactions with any of the parties (though I did nominate Swarm to be an admin a few years ago).

I'm aware that India-Pakistan articles are under discretionary sanctions, and those sanctions do extend to the Rape in India article, which both blocks have been centred around. OccultZone is certainly aware of these sanctions, they were discussed with him at the end of January, where he was explicitly told that 1RR could be invoked with respect to India-Pakistan articles.

Looking at the recent blocks. The first was for "edit warring" - edit warring does not require 3 reverts in a 24 hour time period, but rather a pattern of edit warring. OccultZone appears to have only made one revert at the time, but there was certainly a pattern - in the preceding 2 months, OccultZone had made 13 reverts to the page, including 2 on 12th Feb, 3 on 5th March, 2 on 14th March and 2 on 21st March. That's 4 minor edit wars in 2 months. The arguments given by OccultZone are not clear cut - as Swarm points out, WP:BLPCRIME is not pressing when no personal details about BLPs are given.

Regarding the specific incident, on 22nd March, there was an edit war, involving multiple parties. No one party appeared to be the instigator and so I would have recommended protecting the page in those circumstances. That said, given the history of the individuals, blocking each was also a reasonable course of action (though 72 hours does appear excessive) and I am surprised that Bgwhite overturned it unilaterally. I'll be dropping him a note on that and on other things I've spotted.

With respect to the second incident - OccultZone made 7 reverts to an IPs talk page in a short period. I do understand the confusion there - I've seen it regularly that users do not understand the rules on talk pages. A block is often warranted when a user goes past the bright-line of 3RR, even if the edit warring has stopped, as prevention goes beyond the immediate prevention of short term edit-warring into the longer term threat of future edit-warring. However, I'll WP:AGF that OccultZone did not realise that the IP could legitimately blank his user talk page and so am willing to believe this will not happen again. As such, no block is necessary, though again the block was not inappropriate.

Having reviewed the situation though, and erring on the side of caution, I'm minded to implement a 1RR on any articles related to India-Pakistan, similar to the one Callanecc proposed. Comments are certainly welcome. Worm^TT(talk) 10:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't knew that you had nominated Swarm for adminship. Although I know that Magioladitis(who has also written above) had nominated Bgwhite for adminship.

Callanecc had told that during that discussion to me and TopGun, "I'll log a reminder (not a warning so it doesn't need to be taken as seriously in future AEs) that any edit warring on India/Pakistan related article can be dealt with by 1RR (I'll include my wording above)." So it was not a proposal, but rather an advice that are usually logged whenever there is a discussion about any arbcom sanctions. Not that I had done edit warring on any of the article then.

Above, JamesBWatson had reviewed those reverts of last 2 months, and he didn't considered any of them as edit warring because they are totally different from each other and some of them are partial reverts. You can also see the timespan of these edits. Block on 23 March was highly inappropriate because I had received no warning neither there was any offense that worth even a warning. Did it? I wasn't even reported. Even right now there are concerns about the on-going sock puppetry that you haven't mentioned. On 29 March alone there was a huge influx. You haven't highlighted the concerns over sock puppetry above. WP:BLPCRIME was not the only matter, other matters included WP:ILLEGIT, WP:COPYVIO and that was only 1 revert from last 34 hours.

Should we ask that why this article had no edit war since its creation, and why it is having edit war only since 5 March 2015? I am willing to be convinced otherwise if there was any. I can be also reminded if there are any other article where I have edit warred since I have joined en.wiki.

Furthermore, recent block was inappropriate because it was made by an involved admin as administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. You haven't highlighted that above. Also on the talk page of the IP, Calton has[59] restored to the version that was being reverted by the IP. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc advised you that 1RR could be used if you edit warred. You edit warred and now I'm considering 1RR. I fail to see the confusion. I certainly welcome any comments from JamesBWatson on the matter, but I don't see that he'd disagree. You're complaining about sockpuppetry, but at least of your report has been confirmed inaccurate and the checkuser in question has told you to ~~stop filing frivolous reports~~ get better evidence, yet you do not seem to have accepted that. If you are confident in your evidence, file it - or perhaps even contact the checkuser in question with your new evidence to ask if it's worth filing. Either way - don't bring it up here, don't bring it up at the talk page. Keep it separate, keep it at SPI. Finally, I don't agree Bgwhite is involved. He has given an appearance of possible involvement, so I've asked him to refrain from using his tools further, but I do not see anything untoward in his actions. Worm^TT(talk) 11:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc's discussion and concerns were actually about TopGun's removal of topic ban, if it would lead to edit wars. He asked me to refrain from any potential edit warring, he won't see who is right or wrong except under special circumstances, and such consequences can lead to 1-rr. TopGun and me had content dispute on about 4 different articles, but we already sorted them out ages ago. You want to see a recent example of our harmony? Check this: Talk:Kargil War#Peak 5353. Tell me, if that cannot be considered as an improvement? We are having no conflicts since this year at all.

I have made only 2 edits since in last 8 days thus I wonder if it would be constituted as edit warring. I had asked if there is any other article where I have edit warred since the day I have joined? Proof is my talk page, that I was never warned for edit warring until 23 March when I had a block for 2 different reverts in 5 days. And if we are going to take only this article in account, can we find any edit war before 5 March on this article? This article is being affected by edit war because of sock puppetry and I've been told that it is being investigated.

How Bgwhite wasn't involved? He has made major edits to this article, [60][61][62] he has argued as an opposing editor[63][64][65] as well. If you are saying that an admin has also discussed the edits on the talk page, thus he is allowed to use administrator's tools on the same article and further block other editor[66] and tell them to "stay away" from the article. Such is violation of WP:INVOLVED, he cannot protect his own preferred version of article. Such usage of administrative tools to gain an advantage over another editor in a dispute over content, even if the administrator is convinced that he or she is correct is clearly not allowed. Except under the special circumstances, none of which had been met here.

What could be constituted as WP:INVOLVED then if these actions don't constitute as involved? He made 2 reverts in 2 hours,[67][68] over the exactly same content, and everytime he imposed a greater kind of protection,[69][70] without ever discussing the new content on the talk page. He didn't used the option "Content dispute" for protection, he instead used the reason "Persistent vandalism" as the reason, while none of these edits[71][72][73] are vandalism or copyvio or violation of BLP.

Another obvious thing is that if an admin, who has protected the page, is also proposing his content on the article, acting as an disagreeing editor, other editors would be under-pressure to agree with him since he is the one after all controlling the whole article and protecting his own version. That's why our page protection policies say that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes." He had protected the page at first as {{pp-dispute}},[74] but he never had to join the content dispute. If he wanted to join the content dispute, he should have requested the protection from any other admin. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are indeed saying that this is the only article you've ever edit-warred on, the simple thing to do is to topic ban you from "Rape in India". Edit warring is never a solution. Bgwhite has no prior history with the article, came in and helped. Every party agreed that his help was good, including yourself. Again, sockpuppetry accusations need to be kept to SPI. If you keep spreading them around, I will be blocking you. Finally, can you please forward to me (or Arbcom) every email you've sent to Swarm and Bgwhite in the past 2 weeks? I'm unhappy with some of the accusations that are going round. Worm^TT(talk) 07:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worm, consider trusting me a little. My edits cannot be conceived as edit war on this article. Now I've made over 800 edits in last 24 hours(I think) and none of them were normal reverts. In fact I asked for a page protection on a page where edit warring was on going and I am a major editor there. I know you are thinking that I am being a trouble on this article to some sort and I understand your circumstances. Do a sanction, that is indeed doubtful, or whether it is wanted or not, cannot be conceived voluntarily? What if I said that I am not going to edit this article for an indefinite period of time? Yes we will review the situation, when the things will seem better than they are now. After all, I have got thousands of other namespaces to edit and create, I can put my efforts there instead. That's better that I should open a new SPI, its good that you came to show a way. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently deciding between 1RR on all India/Pakistan articles or a topic ban from Rape in India. Or both. Worm^TT(talk) 07:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emails have been forwarded and I have rephrased my above post a little. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

Following this discussion, TBAN was not only lifted, but removed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Under the India-Pakistan discretionary sanctions, I'm hereby imposing a topic ban on "Rape in India". Per policy, this includes not only the Rape in India page, but also parts of other pages related to the topic. The period is indefinite, per your agreement above. I will consider overturning this if fresh evidence comes to light, especially regarding the SPI you say you intend to file. Otherwise, as this topic ban is under discretionary sanction, appeals or modifications should go through the appropriate channels. Worm^TT(talk) 11:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I would welcome if anyone, including DoRD, would like to investigate further with the newer and far better evidence that I've got and there is finally no doubt concerning the evidence, in previous case I had re: the technical evidence, but this time there are none. This discussion is becoming lengthier, any related replies can be posted below. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Worm That Turned Consider mentioning on the restriction page that I am not allowed to edit this article and its ATP. Otherwise if I mention the diffs of this article during an SPI, it would constitute as a violation of topic ban because topic ban says that "any mention and anywhere in whole en.wiki" is forbidden. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to explicitly allow mention of the topic for the purposes of filing a single further SPI. Worm^TT(talk) 11:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct and although it is more appropriate if you regard it as SPIs, sometimes it is not just one editor who is socking, like it happened before on Kargil War, Indian century, etc. If I have to mention SPIs elsewhere I would directly contact you from here. Alright? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: Pinging in case you missed the above required modification of this entry,[75] re: exemptions from sock puppet investigations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss it. I'm not modifying it. If you want to submit that single SPI, you can refer to the diff where I said it's fine. If someone is unhappy with that, you can refer them to me. Worm^TT(talk) 11:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: This account is much older than Zhanzhao, that's why any new SPI would be needed to be filed under his name, not under Zhanzhao. That's why I echoed "SPIs", because this would be a new namespace that is not yet created. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're fine to create a single new SPI. Either as an extention of the old one or in a new namespace. However, I'm not leaving this open indefinitely to create lots of SPIs. Worm^TT(talk) 12:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: I am confident that I am nearing to the completion of this quest. You can help me by wholly exempting from any SPI discussions. Please do the needful? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check your email for additional details. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

@Worm That Turned: You might be interested to see this before considering any changes to these restrictions. —DoRD (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I am saying is that this matter will need to be discussed with a previously involved CU(like DoRD, Ponyo) before anything will be done. Because details are tough and only a CU or the one who is qualified with technical evidence can understand better. After hearing from worm, we will see. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get back to you. Worm^TT(talk) 06:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have used the checkuser facility and also made CU blocks in the past, I have found a better solution. If you allow, I can mail you the evidence related with this case that I regard as highly compelling, after that you will have no doubt when you will be modifying the restriction. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the checkuser facility in the past. I've also asked for it to be removed and have no interest in going down that road again. However, I've discussed the matter with some people I trust. My understanding is that the users are not the same, both technical and behavioural evidence point to that. Indeed, I spoke to one of the specific checkusers who has looked into the case and despite you implying that that checkuser agreed with you on behavioural evidence - he says that there is specific behavioural evidence that points the other way.

So, no. You will not get my blessing to file more SPIs. I will not be modifying the restriction. As you pointed out above, the topic ban only covers Rape in India, so it is plausible that you could file a new SPI without hitting that topic. My advice on that echos DoRD's and Callanecc's. Don't do it. Drop the matter. Move on. If you go down that route, you are liable to be blocked for harassment. Worm^TT(talk) 07:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: Filing SPIs are not an harassment, unless the evidence has been presented that way. There is a reason why the policy says that it is not required to even notify the suspect. Solution is that I can talk with any other CU involved in blocking any of the related accounts. Although the evidence would somehow link to this subject, because the diffs that I would be citing would be somehow related with the subject. They will surely strengthen the evidence.

Let me explain this way: if I edited any of my above sections where I have talked about my blocks, it would be a violation of topic ban because in those diffs I was talking about the subject from which I have been topic banned. If I cited them elsewhere it would be a violation as well. Like I've told, this is wholly different case because the master is different, it has to do nothing with Zhanzhao really but much to do with this subject. That's why I am asking for the exemption, and I believe that I have clarified the matter. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Filing repeated SPIs on the same accounts, when you are told that they are not connected, is harassment. You can talk to the checkusers. If one of them believes I'm wrong, then I'll listen. But I advise you, you've had 2 checkusers say no so far. They're a busy group and don't take well to "asking the other parent". Worm^TT(talk) 07:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your kindness. Again, this master is wholly different, nothing to do with Zhanzhao, we can think of WP:MEAT but there is no need when we have something better to think about. Hope you will be active. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the two emails that you sent me, I don't understand why you are asking me to review SPIs going back to 2013; the data will all be stale. I understand that you say you have new information, however with multiple Checkusers (including DoRD and Callanecc) telling you to drop the stick and move on, it does seem very much like a form of admin shopping (or Checkuser shopping in this case) to come to me. Please discuss this with Checkusers who are more familiar with this specific case. If I have blocked a sock in the past that you believe is related to this case I can provide information to the reviewing Checkuser if they ask for it, but I'm not going to wade through reams of behavioural evidence in a case where the technical evidence that discounted socking is now stale and unavailable to me.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Just clearing one thing, Callanecc had not checked any of the accounts because he hadn't played any role of a checkuser here. Main problem is that when the same checkuser(DoRD) seemed to have declined, you have to look for another who had blocked any older account as a CU. This issue might not be important for anyone else, anyone would say 'drop the stick', but that's important for me because this is the best way to get rid of this topic ban. I haven't said that I would be opening that SPI myself. I would like to hear from DoRD if he wants to discuss, and I wonder if he would want to, though it would be great if he would. He would know about everything else that I have just discovered. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over three hours, did anyone heard about the two indef blocks[76][77], and a six-month block[78] ? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that the accounts were blocked as socks of a master that was never presented to me. My advice to you, OZ, is to drop all the cloak-and-dagger secrecy. Emailing admin after admin, or CU after CU, with "private" evidence that really should have been presented publicly really clouds the water. If I didn't think otherwise, I might think that you were trying to play some kind of "gotcha!" game here. I'm glad that my colleague was able to puzzle together the evidence, but I don't appreciate the way it was done. —DoRD (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had said it a few times that no one is aware of what I had found. Anyone who had given even 5 minutes to read this SPI where I had attempted to file this case would've knew that this account is treated as related to Sonic2030 aka Marlin1975, including the diffs that I had presented they were also treating them as one. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways DoRD, would you like to investigate further? If so, kindly inform me. I have also posted a related query on your talk page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned Although I had detected a few problems with this topic ban before, at this moment I see even more problems. Would you like to discuss about them? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok OccultZone. I've pondered long enough. I'm lifting the restriction, satisfied that going forward you will not disrupt the topic. I will keep the article watchlisted and if I am of the opinion that your future behaviour does deserve a topic ban I will not hesitate to reinstate it. Furthermore, I must remind you to be careful about your off-wiki correspondence - transparency on Wikipedia is important and behind the scenes "wheeling and dealing" has been the downfall of a number of editors. Worm^TT(talk) 13:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never disrupted the topic at all, I only pointed out the obvious socks. An ancient Arbcom principle goes on to say that "Accounts and anonymous ips which mirror the behavior of another user may be treated as though they are that user."[79] Yes you need proof or at least justification, otherwise many of us would have been blocked long ago. If I had made disruptive edits, I can tell that I would've never appealed so quickly. I agree with the last sentence of yours and this all trouble took place only after 23 March, never before that. I will see what I can do about it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Apologies about WASABI undo

Sorry about this edit. Think my brother might have been messing with you from my PC but he won't admit it. I've changed my password so it won't happen again. You can delete this, just wanted to clarify and avoid further drama. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IRC cloak request

Hello OccultZone. You recently applied for a Wikimedia IRC cloak, but it looks like you forgot to register your nickname first. Could you please log on to IRC and do:

/msg NickServ REGISTER <password> <email>

where <password> is a password of your choice and <email> is your e-mail address? After you do that, please follow the instructions that are e-mailed to you to confirm your e-mail address. When you're done with that, I just need you to confirm your cloak request:

/msg MemoServ send wmfgc IRC cloak request

After you finish all of that, I'd be happy to get you a cloak. :-) If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my Meta talk page. Barras ^talk 18:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was registered, you had to see the underscore between the two letters, maybe that's where you might have mistaken. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwa Shanti

Regarding this page move, I am not sure that the word stupa in the title counts as a proper noun which is what your page move changed. If it is not, it should not be capitalised. In any case, it is not currently in agreement with the article text. SpinningSpark 12:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check [80] [81][82], 's' should be written in upper case. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but my point is that you have left the article inconsistent. It should be one thing or the other throughout. SpinningSpark 20:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks for reminding. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Oh dammit

I just noticed about ten seconds before you started fixing it. Ugh, so sorry, and thanks for fixing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Ancient proposed principle

I am not sure, to be honest. I assume it is, as nobody has called it into question, but whether it's still valid is ultimately up to the current ArbCom. Neutrality^talk 05:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

Your comment regarding SPI Clerks

You've used a very broad brush to paint a negative picture with regard to SPI clerks here, going so far as to accuse them of purposefully misrepresenting evidence presented. I understand that you are frustrated by some of your recent experiences with various socks and SPI, however leveling these types of accusations against volunteers performing some of the hardest and least rewarding tasks on Wikipedia is, in my opinion, both misguided and petty.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Such conclusions are drawn only after viewing multiple regrettable incidents, not really a matter if I have participated or not, I have still measured. My comment is not ruling out the fact that I am trying to improve such atmosphere. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please provide me a dif from one of the "regrettable incidents" wherein an SPI clerk has misrepresented the evidence presented in a case, unrelated to your SPIs. It's a very serious accusation to make, so if it is as systemic as you seem to believe it to be it needs to be investigated. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before I chimed in,[83]: It is not necessary to have all suspects on one or multiple articles. [84] Nearly a discarded SPI, "having similar interest, and editing similar articles is not very strong evidence", though evidence was just bigger, including the alteration of same images, promotion of same articles, etc. I didn't said that it is systematic, but only those on those SPIs where you don't find a policy based result even if the presented evidence is actually compelling. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the evidence needs to be compelling, yet it also needs to be presented in a way, preferably concise, that the reviewing clerk or admin can make heads or tails of it. This particular SPI is all over the place and I fail to see how it shows a clerk misrepresenting evidence. Also you write above that you don't believe it to be systemic, but what you wrote in the dif I provided was "Clerks usually turn the sock puppetry case into meat puppetry...Or they misrepresent the diffs that are presented as evidence and claim the results to be unrelated or inconclusive." (bolding mine). Please be careful when making such accusations unless you are prepared to back them up with clear evidence of wrongdoing.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was made in conjunction to the statement where I talked about the "amount of those SPIs are on increase", since I had at least 3 myself and all recent. What I have realized after your messages, it is that you are correct at what you are saying. Complaints should be raised at the appropriate place and no one should be targeting substantial amount of people working in that field. Sorry for that inconvenience. Hope you have accepted my apology. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't expecting an apology. I wanted to ensure that if there was a problem it was dealt with, and if there wasn't the accusations would stop.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some of the problems are still remaining, given the amount of backup and their adherence to appropriate policies, they seem too easy to solve. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence closed

The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Comments

Why you selectively removed the comments of at least 2 editors[85] on the talk page of the Future Perfect at Sunrise? Don't do this again unless you have their permission. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I did that it was an inadvertent mistake. I know better than to delete comments on purpose.--EditorExtraordinaire (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Habd' Shiek

Re your message: Yeah, got it. Taken care of. Sorry that I didn't pick it up earlier. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Kandhamal gang rape case

i dont want 2015 Kandhamal gang rape case to delated because news of cruch attacks by some hindu racdials by --Sunuraju (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please describe some more. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for tracking down the AE decision that I had overlooked. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR

OccultZone, please refactor your comment here. The COMPETENCE essay is bad enough as it is without it being used as a direct personal attack. Nothing in that essay is relevant to your disagreement with Salvadrim's decision, and even if it was "riddled with errors" - the essay would still not be appropriate to link to. Worm^TT(talk) 14:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understand situations like this can be stressful, but please do keep in mind that there are people behind the keyboards and they are trying to do the right thing. All of them. Worm^TT(talk) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah unnecessary stress.. Had I ever expected this all? Never. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thanks, but...

I'm withdrawing my opposition. I'm not supporting an IBAN either. I'm just staying the hell away. The whole well seems poisoned. You may be right. Or Zhanzhao may be. Given your provision of diffs that actually appear to support your case I'm inclined to believe the former. But it's not worth the hassle. I say drop the stick at least for a few months. If what you were saying is true then someone else will figure it out soon enough and when Zhanzhao asks for an IBAN with them maybe people will get suspicious.

But I'm staying the hell away, and you should too.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: Your comments were excellent, you could've just struck the vote. I have got an alternative, would you see if I post there? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN

I tried to help you there. A whole series of people have tried to help you regarding this saga. I'm afraid I won't be helping again, since I don't know how, if all advice to disengage is ignored. Good luck. I suspect you will need it. Begoon ^talk 16:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Begoon: There are some faults that I have figured just now. You may want to cancel your vote if you would like to hear further. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've been pretty clear on the fact that I would not "like to hear further". In fact, I think everyone's been abundantly clear on that. I'm very sorry that you didn't hear it. Begoon ^talk 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really wrong with giving a try. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But everything wrong with refusing to accept consensus and just shut up when the world and his dog has begged you to. Really. Learn the difference. Begoon ^talk 17:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever I have heard or read the word "dog", I have often questioned, "What breed?" OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, I want to publicly thank both you and Zhanzhao for coming to an amicable agreement in this matter. Hopefully, everyone involved here can put this situation behind us and get back to furthering the aims of the project. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was the correct approach as long as I just wanted those "reverts" look no more real, they don't look like they were intended on 100% legit editors. Now obviously such a positive outcome going to benefit me, I had enough trust in community that's why I just advised Zhanzhao to try WP:AN. Thanks for heads up! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: You can also change your vote, thus helping the closing admin to know your view that has been updated in the light of these new changes these changes to the environment. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for what you did to The Next Step (James Brown album) Dfrr (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC) (Talk to me:-))[reply]

@Dfrr: Always welcome, let me know if you need any help with any of the articles. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well i do need help about improveing this Happy Days Article named Lori Beth Allen.Dfrr (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)(Talk to me:-)).[reply]

Sure, I am checking each now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

April 2015

Hi. Evidently you weren't notified for ArbCom sanction. How did you find out about it? -- Magioladitis (talk)

I have checked that table. Every area has a specific code. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that you know how to search things around this site. If you need any further help please check Help:Contents. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing on my talk page

Resolved

Dear Occult, I see you edited my talk page. You edited the section "My blocklog" and crossed out the replies by the IP user. Was there any reason for that? Cheers! CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CookieMonster755: Yes you were talking to a banned editor who was evading his ban. None of your fault. It is essential to highlight that the editor was evading his ban. You can also remove their comments and edits, I just thought of striking those talk page messages with short summaries. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: I completely understand. I will leave it the way you did it. Thank you for taking care of the issue! Did not know I was talking to a banned user, opps! I hope this is okay to ask, but what was he banned for? If I may ask. It's fine if you don't say, I completely understand. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check this section, you will have to open it because it was collapsed by the closing admin. Over there I would recommend you to read that comment of Binksternet, it sums up everything. Here is the link to ban discussion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: So this IP address is a sock puppet of Rgloucester or whom? I am a little confused. I will ask the people who blocked the IP address in the first place. Maybe they can provide more details. Cheers! CookieMonster755 (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CookieMonster755: User:Kumioko, check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kumioko. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! CookieMonster755 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CookieMonster755: I have seen what you had written on the UTP of HJ Mitchell, and pinged me[86], I can describe it here. There are three major sets of IP extensions related with these accounts, they are 96., 216. and 138. It can be often confusing that which editor it would be, because there are multiple block evaders who contribute to same subject. I first thought that it was someone else, later found that it was Kumioko. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: Okay, so this IP address is a sock puppet of Kumioko, and Kumioko is a major sock puppeteer? Why is this not listed at the sock puppet investigation if the IP is a sock puppet and why does Kumioko's user page redirect to another user? So sorry I ask so many questions, but I need answers since I am all tied up in this mess. Thanks! CookieMonster755 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Kumioko" is a globally locked account, it cannot be accessed anymore, that's why that userpage redirects to another userpage. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Okay OccultZone. Why is this IP address not listed at Kumioko's sock puppet page if the IP is a sock puppet of Kumioko? I don't really want to be involved with this, its creeping me out! CookieMonster755 (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the extension like I have told, socks can be also acknowledged without an official SPI. There is no reason to file an SPI that would concern this IP address, unless there were many. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... Okay OccultZone. I just don't want to be involved with this IP address if he is a sock puppeteer. Hopefully this case is closed soon! CookieMonster755 (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CookieMonster755: Now that I have responded to your queries, I would just say that you should collapse the comment that you have made to the talk page of HJ Mitchell or let him know that you have got the answer. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to hear HJ opinions as well. You have been blocked, for apparently exhausting the community of Wikipedia. Please don't interact with me unless you have been unblocked or if you allowed to post on talk pages while being blocked. Thanks. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, I just wanted to let you know I am sorry for the rude comment I made above. We are all exhausted from sock puppeteers. Just take a Wiki break and everything will be fine. Cheers. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page

Hi, OccultZone. I think you meant well in removing the IP posts on my page, but please don't do that. If the message itself isn't mere abusive vandalism, I want to reply to people who post on my page, be they Kumioko, Colton Cosmic, or whoever. Or if I don't, then I'll remove them myself. I don't want this done to them, either. It looks from Bgwhite's message above as if you're on something of a crusade. I understand life here can be very frustrating, but please find some other outlet for your concerns. Bishonen | talk 08:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Same here. AWB's bug page covers commons, wikia, etc and not only en.wp. Do not remove any bug reports and certainly do not insist by removing them twice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Bgwhite's comment, it is mostly misleading and even misrepresenting the usage of AC/DS. Magioladitis, I hadn't reverted once other editor had restored. It is a sign that someone is willing to take responsibility of others edits on that AWB page if they have restored them. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You failed to notify me of the ANI discussion, either by using the Echo notification system or by leaving a message on my talk page. In future, when making posts at ANI that name specific editors, would benefit from the involvement of administrators involved with the issue, or the editors involved, you MUST leave them notification on their talk page. Failure in future could result in sanctions, such as a topic ban from posting at ANI or a block on your account. Nick (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: You can see none of my messages were about you, it was another editor who notified you through pinging. I left the notification on Bgwhite talk page,[87] when I went to notify Magioladitis I had already seen him on ANI. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's patently nonsense, as you're discussing a block that I performed. I really don't like to see you lying in addition to the disruption you're causing elsewhere. Nick (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: You are correct that way about notifying. But what disruption you are talking about? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told by an ever increasing number of people to drop your complaint about Kumioko, you've been edit warring on talk pages, modifying comments on others talk pages and it's difficult to post at ANI because you're busy replying to everybody, and you've failed to notify people about the ANI thread. It's classic disruption which needs to stop, which is why I'm supporting you being blocked. Nick (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marking and modifying are two different elements, stop misrepresenting them. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

I notified whom I had involved(by mentioning), and didn't knew that you had to be notified as well due to the block, now I do know. But who is left to notify and actually involved? I made 1-1(two different reverts) same with Bgwhite and Magioladitis and I haven't repeated them, their edits are violating the WP:TPG, Magioladitis has abused rollback. We have made the comments for each other, just let the people decide and let any uninvolved admin close the complaint now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Nick.

Since you have made some of the very good points about notifying the editors who are clearly involved in the dispute, I have some questions.

The notification, either made as {{ping|username}}, [[User:username]]], etc, should look neutral? That is, notify every editor who has been mentioned in the speech, or notify no one through pinging feature. In my opinion, I believe that either options should be selected, and no one should be omitted from the mention, and if someone has been omitted, then the complaint/request would look non-neutral and failure to take responsibility of actions. Looking at your above mentions, maybe that's what you really wanted to tell me. Am I correct? Kindly inform. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to drop the stick now

This is getting beyond a joke. The notes on my talk page are unnecessary. You could simply have left a comment to the effect that the IP had been blocked as Kumioko, but even that is unnecessary—I can see at a glance that the IP is blocked, and having seen that I would immediately have looked into the reason for the block. Edit-warring over it was doubly unnecessary, and in fact downright silly. I strongly suggest you take a few days off from Wikipedia, and then focus your energies on something other than sockpuppets. Accusing everybody in sight of being a sockpuppet (especially when the best part of a dozen admins, CUs, and SPI clerks have told you there's no evidence of socking) is only going to piss people off. There comes a time when—even if you're right—you have to drop the stick and let the issue go. I'm afraid if you carry on on the course you've set yourself, the only thing awaiting you is lengthy block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I am not gonna revert or reinstate my edit on that talk page. I just hope that you will tell the same thing to Bgwhite and Magioladitis who have also made 2, 2 reverts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to walk away from the whole issue, and from the Zhanzhao issue, and find something else to do. This is just friendly advice for now, but if I have to revisit this issue, it won't be with advice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Zhanzhao's issue is already outdated and resolved. If you are talking that I should do something else, well, for that anyone can judge my activity by checking my last 50 edits. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you didn't take my advice. You're still going on about this issue even now—hours after I thought we'd put it to bed. You've exhausted everyone's patience. So this time I'm not her with advice; I've blocked you for 72 hours and I recommend, in the strongest possible terms, that you take the time off and regain a sense of perspective, then come back and do something, anything, else. You can of course appeal using {{unblock}}, but given the number of admins whose patience you've exhausted (I count at least seven, including me, just today), I would advise against adding to the list. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Where did I talked about the ban proposal anymore? You haven't described that, nor you have cited any diffs. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the ANI thread with a disingenuous summary which implied that Magioladitis' use of rollback was the primary issue, when the issue was in fact your refusal to let the issue go. Since that closure (at 15:39 UTC), you've repeatedly posted on Magioladitis' talk page to argue with him, posted about the issue on your talk page, posted about the issue on Nick's talk page, and obliquely accused Magioladitis of hounding you on Sandstein's talk page. That's not my idea of dropping the stick. I advised you to walk away from the issue altogether and warned you of what would happen if you didn't, so nothing that follows should surprise you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: It was included as a result, because it was one of the reason why I had opened the ANI. As long as every of these messages are different to what could fall under your "warning", I would also question if your actions are supported by the steps noted at WP:DR for resolving issues or having normal discussions.

I only responded on my talk page when I was notified on your talk page.[88] I didn't posted on yours, there was nothing about ban proposal. I have posted a few times on Nick's talk page since last year, I have it on my watchlist, whole discussion was about me, still I didn't talked about the ban proposal or anything related to your "advice". I had asked Magioladitis to not engage on those areas where he is not involved but I am, that has to do nothing with your 'warning'. I never mentioned Kumioko or ban proposal.[89] Now he posted on the talk page of Nick, where he was not notified, nor he was involved, he never even posted there before,[90] and he also notified a number of editors who were not involved in that discussion either. That's why I am concerned.

I have not mentioned Kumioko's ban proposal on any of these pages, neither you ever said that discussing with any of these editors even about non-Kumioko stuff would lead to a block. Was there any indication that I was going for another ANI regarding Kumioko? There is some misunderstanding. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm... it's a bad block. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ditto. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Hi. Whitecirius (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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

OccultZone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not bringing the ban proposal anywhere. In blocking summary[91] HJ Mitchell has pointed to a closed ANI, that I had myself agreed to close HJ Mitchell has not described any breach. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Please take the lesson from this, and avoid any future crusades, especially when people ask you to back down. And for crying out loud, don't edit war on someone's talk page. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, PhilKnight, Dennis Brown can any of you please have a look? I had withdrawn ANI in order to avoid any potential criticism, I refrained from discussing about his ban proposal already and I have not done that anywhere. What was more needed?

I was not in violation or made any edit that would disagree with what HJ Mitchell was saying above, my other conversations were made in order to avoid any conflict in future, they were not evoking Kumioko's ban and other issues(rollback, reverting) that I had raised on the ANI. Furthermore, these[92][93] discussions are stale since I had viewed them, much before the block. I was focusing elsewhere and I was clearly editing other namespaces.[94][95][96][97][98][99] I really cannot find any policy breach, or why this block was needed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any of these discussions and edits don't even share a slightest resemblance to that ANI section that was closed a few hours prior this block. Clearly no violation of any rules before or after. I cannot agree with such a block. Delibzr (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I was pinged; I have no involvement in this discussion. It looks long and sprawling and complicated, and I don't have time to get involved. Whether a block was justified or not, it is pretty clear from a brief review of the ANI thread that a few days away from WP might be a good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your very uninvolvement was (probably) the reason; an uninvolved admin is needed here right now. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's bugging, to think if it was justified, of course it wasn't. Break after getting rid of slander through unblock would be a better thing and it would produce such. Delibzr (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of moving on (we are currently arguing about arguing, about 7 levels deep), I will accept this unblock request if OZ promises to drop the issue. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: I had no interest in that issue anymore. Originally I had asked for increasing the block length(to another 6 months) that actually caused the issue,[100] and Floquenbeam has already indeffed Kumioko, so there are no chances anymore either. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Says it all :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	All the best during this time. Hang in. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kindness. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

		A beer on me!
		Looks like you've had tough couple weeks. Relax, have a beer or few and forget about sock-puppetry for a while. All the best. RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really tough, thank you for acknowledging that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your chin up! Take the time to enjoy the beer, contemplate life and how it could be better.. ;) -- Ohc ^¡digame! 06:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have one from me too! Delibzr (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block review

See [Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents#Block review]. Delibzr (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Delibzr: I don't think there is any benefit, you should've asked me first. Usually those people would make better comment on block, who have reviewed the situation, and it depends how they are viewing it. You might have tried your best but not many of those would look into the blocking rationale, they would rather like to observe the way I was blocked and who blocked me. I would say that you should withdraw that ANI. And 50.0.136.194 was incorrectly blocked before. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for withdrawing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

(talk page stalker) @OccultZone: can we still be friends? I am sorry for being rude. Friends?

CookieMonster755 (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes no problem with that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This block has been reinstated. Please drop the stick, or the next block will be indefinite. This is coming from a completely uninvolved administrator. Stop, full stop.. Nakon 07:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakon: Sorry but what is the reason? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were continuing to wield the stick even after your unblock. You need to stop this activity and start editing something other than the Wikipedia namespace. Nakon 07:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. That once-a banned editor has to do nothing with this all![101] He was never mentioned not even once on my talk page not even once by anyone. No one has to do anything with it, neither any of my blocks at all! Check yourself. AN and ANI are not equivalent to each other, neither these two editors in question are same, they live in different continents. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once your block expires, please start editing constructively in the main namespace. This editor-based drama needs to stop. Please take a few weeks off from editing the Wikipedia namespace. Thanks, Nakon 07:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it was going to make any sense. It is necessary to include a link to ban discussion at the top for ease, something that you clearly ignored and wheel-warred for the reasons that are irrelevant to any previous block. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I had 23 edits to non-wikipedia namespaces, and 4 edits to wikipdia namespaces, contrary to your statement that reads like I was only editing the wikipedia-namespace. Is that even a blocking rationale? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An offer

Hi OccultZone. Can I make a suggestion? No, an offer. You've had a tough month on wiki, multiple blocks, a topic ban, lots and lots of noise. Now, you've got thousands of edits and a couple of years of work under your belt - can we not go back to that? Here's my suggestion - take a break from the drama, for three months.

To formalise that, if you agree to stay away from all administrator aspects of Wikipedia (WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:SPI, WP:AN3... in fact most of the Wikipedia: space) - for three months - and not contact any administrators about administration, I'll unblock you and we can all get back a productive encyclopedia. I do ask that you keep to the spirit of the offer rather than the wording though - keep away from the drama. Worm^TT(talk) 07:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do something about this wheel-warring instead? We need a case here. No admin is allowed to restore a undid action. In this case, no. Because even if we take that non-policy based rationale of "dropping stick", I had dropped it already, my contributions had to do nothing with any of the previous block. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that you can undo this block, unless you have told to Arbcom first. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. There's no wheelwarring, you were unblocked on the condition that you dropped the stick... not on one issue but in all "future crusades", and didn't. So you were therefore reblocked. Worm^TT(talk) 07:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"..especially when people ask you to back down", Nakon did? It is wheel-warring, to restore a previous block without any strong reason. None of my previous blocks had to do anything with that AN, where I have clearly proved the topic ban violation, unless I had been topic banned from posting on WP:AN. You have to do the needful. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, the needful is to up your block to "indefinite" for escalating the situation again. I'm very tempted to. Worm^TT(talk) 08:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Is he allowed to patrol for vandalism/new pages? Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zeke, based on his response, I don't see how we could look at that offer any more. Worm^TT(talk) 08:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

....oh. Okay. I wish he'd cool down. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned, how about 3 months from WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:SPI, WP:AN3? And any of the threads of WP:AN, WP:ANI, where I am involved should be closed right now. I don't need anything else, but I can keep myself away from editing these 4 namespaces. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so OccultZone, as I said to Zeke, based on your reaction I'm not currently willing to unblock. Furthermore, my offer was a lot wider than those three, I just used them as examples. Worm^TT(talk) 08:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can see if my proposal works or not, you should acknowledge such a move. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what. Sit out the rest of your block, then keep yourself away from those pages for 3 months. Sounds like a plan. Worm^TT(talk) 08:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the namespaces that I have mentioned, those 4 right? Why the block is so necessary? I can say that I am not going to contribute anywhere until the block duration, block is still not required. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: Funny thing is that you have made that proposal without even finding a single disruptive edit on that namespace. The day when you will find after all this discouragement, what you will actually do? Let me know. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeke Essiestudy: New Pages yes, see Special:NewPagesFeed, it is special. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, you ask why the block is still necessary and your argument seems to be going down the "preventative, not punishment" route. Prevention is a very misunderstood term on Wikipedia, which is odd, because it's explained very clearly at WP:PREVENTATIVE. Assuming we believe that you will not edit those spaces again, that only takes care of the first bullet point. The preventative block actually goes further by deterring the behaviour in future and encouraging better behaviour. Worm^TT(talk) 10:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better behavior? Let me know that how this edit could be better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By not making it. When you were unblocked, you were told by Magog to "take a lesson from this". That lesson should be to move on, let things take their course... basically to "drop the stick". You have a lot of sticks that you seem to want to hold onto. Worm^TT(talk) 10:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same logic, this edit, this edit, this edit - all perpetuating drama which needs to stop. Worm^TT(talk) 10:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who actually asked not to make them? They were unrelated with anything that happened before. No one ever told me "you will/may be blocked" any before 23 March 2015. I had 186,000 edits then. Since that day, I continued to have blocks without any prior notification. Each of them contravenes blocking policy, could someone just ask me a minute ago what they wanted from me? I would have never talked about it. Just imagine, and put yourself in my place, you shall understand what I am saying. It was my mistake to even join en.wiki? Maybe, but whatever I did here, and any of the recognition that I had, they speak for themselves, they say no. If someone says that, yes, I made a mistake, and someone else says that it was not really a mistake. I would say that I am just doubtful and I cannot decide between these two. This is the first time that I spoke a bit and I don't know if that was against any of your values. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting into that territory. You have been around long enough to know how to behave. Worm^TT(talk) 11:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And get blocked for making 1 revert in 5 days. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for WTT (or any other editor), but I think the suggestion is for you to spend your time in article space and stop policing other editors' behavior whether that is in noticeboard space or appealing to admins on their talk pages to get other editors sanctioned. Accusing accounts of being socks or tracking possible topic ban violations is problematic and disruptive when it is done as frequently as you do it (which, at times, is on a daily basis).

Admins/editors (including me) know you are a productive, prolific editor who makes great contributions. But they want your focus to be on article improvement and development and not on the conduct of your fellow editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disruptive to address 10 different issues since all of them are having factual basis. You are counting the quantity, and ignoring their quality. How can we come to such frivolous conclusion when there is no policy based rationale for it?

Yeah they must be aware of everything about me. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I have intermittently watched the drama of the past few weeks and thought I would drop by because I see this leading to something bad.

@Worm That Turned: and to any other admin involved, I think it would be only fair that it is made explicitly clear to OZ and everyone else, exactly what OZ may and may not do once the block is lifted. I'm afraid OZ is going to push the envelope. So if doing something that's almost violating the terms of any offer or condition of his unblock is going to get him blocked anyway, then that should be explained to him very clearly before he's unblocked. We shouldn't narrow a path for OZ to follow and not inform him of the traps and land mines that lie just off center of it. Same goes for any offer or probationary period OZ may agree to after his unblock, and also after that probation has expired. I see the possibility of OZ, at 3 months, 0 days, 0 hours, 0 minutes, and 1 second after his unblock, lodging multiple SPI's, topic ban violations, ANI complaints that he has compiled and loaded up in those three months. If you want OZ to wait 3 months + 2 seconds before taking just one such action, then tell him that. If you want him to wait 3 months + 2 weeks before taking more than one such action, then make that part of the agreement. I don't know if it will help much, but I think it would be fair to OZ if we consider these things, rather than setting a trap or giving OZ rope.

OccultZone. I don't know if you are aware of it, but I sense that you are (and will be for a while) extremely close to getting indefinitely blocked (and not only by WTT). If I were you, I would only edit under the assumption that several admins you have variously pissed-off, aggravated and annoyed are caressing and tapping hair-triggers while looking at every one of your edits through a microscope. To play it safe, I would silently, self-impose any future sanction or restriction X 2. In other words, as a show of good faith, you should take another, self-imposed, 72 hour break after your current block expires. If they tell you to stay away from certain namespaces for 3 months, wait six months before even visiting ANI. And then, even after then, I would be extremely careful and tread very lightly in the future. I would re-read every warning given to you to in the past month and try to capture and understand the overall spirit or what so many people are telling you instead of trying to strictly interpret a literal loophole from them. Good luck to you and "take care" (literally). --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 12:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having spoken to a number of people on this case, I can tell you the main reason OccultZone is in this mess is his habit of "admin-shopping". Asking multiple admins for their opinions, basically ignoring their opinions and advice until he gets an answer that he wants. Combine that with being a little lax with the truth (especially by picking and choosing what he wants to present) and he's lead to aggravating a large number of administrators. I can name a dozen he's contacted, but the true extent is not clear - as he's done so largely off wiki.
OccultZone, RacerX's suggestion for you is good. As is Liz's. I really do recommend you follow them. Worm^TT(talk) 12:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until he gets the answer he wants? So he gets the answer due to its obvious possibility? Do me a favor, cite all "dozen" with the diffs, must prove that issues were same. Even my conversation with 2 CUs were totally different that somebody had treated as adminshopping, and finally brought action. Also remember that this [102], [103] is not adminshopping, there 2 highly different issues. I count 10,000+ edits from last 19 days, all are major and non-automated, consider leaving out these 2 days because of this block. Still don't see any justification for wheel warring. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OccultZone - it was not wheelwarring. I'm telling you that as a former arbitrator who has dealt with wheel-warring. You were unblocked on a condition, and violated that condition, therefore you were reblocked. Whether you question the violation or not does not make it wheel-warring - circumstances had changed.

I will not be providing you with diffs of the 12 admins you've contacted, because so many have been off wiki, I cannot do that. I also never stated that those edits were linked, I stated that they all "carrying on crusades". Worm^TT(talk) 13:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Grabs shovel from OZ's hands* Quit digging! Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How I will shovel my garden? But at the same time, it is right thing. Was not solving any problems either way. Carry on Magog :=) OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: Hey! What gives? I need that shovel to dig for ancient articles! Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American politics 2 workshop phrase

Hello OccultZone, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that were deleted by this blocked editor

I was reviewing new articles a while back and was glad to see the valuable content that this editor had produced and which now has disappeared. I would like to resubmit these now deleted articles that I patrolled because they bring value and content to the encyclopedia. Is it possible for me to do that? I also propose that I 'beef' them up a bit with more refences, wikify, deorphan and apply categories before I would submit them as new articles. If this is possible and valuable, would a responsible editor simply add them to my user space/page as drafts? Is this allowed? Or do we sacrifice the content for the sake of disciplinary action. (I don't know this editor, we've never communicated, I am totally unfamiliar with the reasons for the blocking.)

Bfpage |leave a message 19:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:REFUND if you want a specific article undeleted. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Thank you for helping out 50.0.136.194. CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. Which "deleted articles" you are talking about? Out of 547,[104] only one was really deleted, other 4 were mistytled and or they were recreated soon. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archamia fucata Bfpage |leave a message 21:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...just found them all, they are all about some fish with nice photos. They are now in my sandbox(es). They need to be 'wikified' and beefed up with a few more references and then they will be ready to go. I can't 'get in trouble' for this, can I? WOW, you've created a lot of content.

Bfpage |leave a message 22:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case Request

Sorry about that brief confusion over the question - as you can see I reverted when I realised you'd answered the previous one. Wanted to add that there's no obligation on you to suggest a case outcome, it just seemed helpful to clarify in order to focus on the core issues. Either way, asked and answered. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for acknowledging. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: there is some kind of catastrophe that I want to discuss, not anymore than just 2 sentences, and it is related with this case. It is not just a question, but a clarification of a unnecessary and non-existing topic ban that seems to be in effect. Would you help? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, send me an email if you like. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is like, in last 3 days, 3 of the admins who I have named as parties[105][106], [107][108] have protested whenever I target any editor for their apparent and obvious violation of some of the serious policies. Since all 3 of them have either blocked me, or put under severe sanction, I want to know that how we can actually consider "stop editor based drama or I will block you indefinitely" as legible, there is clearly no existing topic ban for such. I want to report an obvious sock, who is socking for over 8 years. Evidence is very strong. I am posting a little bit of that evidence below for clarity.

Extended content
Created own userpage and usertalk page in just 1 minute, and both are alike,[109][110] just like previous socks.[111][112],[113][114] Wikihounding Human2013.[115][116](created malformed AFD for his article) [117] Same interest, not only in Rape in India,[118][119] but also in 2015 Kandhamal gang rape case.[120][121]

Should I post this all to the relevant SPI?[122] Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need for that - it's been taken care of. —DoRD (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Based on this comment you seem to misunderstand what happened a couple of days ago. A topic ban can only be applied in the following circumstances

by community consensus, often at a noticeboard such as AN
by an uninvolved administrator under discretionary sanctions
by voluntary agreement, often as part of unblock conditions.
by Arbcom decision
by Jimbo Wales
by "the Office"

My offer was to unblock with the idea that you would keep away from drama - allowing you to get back to what you were good at. You rejected the offer (or at least made it untenable) and sat out the block. As such, you are not topic banned from anything. I would heartily recommend you remove yourself from drama, but it's certainly not enforceable. Worm^TT(talk) 11:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine I have removed it. When you are imposing the sanctions, you need strong evidence. For making it easier for you, I am giving you some examples of recent topic bans,[123][124] let me know if you see any flaws in those 2 topic bans or else just compare them with yours. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my actions were correct and the evidence was strong enough. I followed discretionary sanction policy. Even if Arbcom doesn't think this is worth a case, you're always welcome to follow my recall process. As for the "keep away from drama" ban, if you do not do it, you will find yourself indefinitely blocked very soon. You've been told by a large number of people, you're just refusing to listen. Worm^TT(talk) 11:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good reading. I just want vindication from all of these charges that have been imposed on me, since I respect a single warning before blocks, I am happy if they warn and remind each of you about your duties after reviewing the actions. In short words, I am happy with these few things that I want. I hold no grudges against you, not even remotely hostile, I can be convinced otherwise if you can prove. After thinking of all that, I also think that you want me indeffed. Well, really? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want you indeffed - you're a fantastic contributor to the encyclopedia, I have no doubt it would be a far lesser place without you. If I wanted you indeffed, I would be raising ban discussions at AN, or might have imposed one myself last time you were there. What I want is for you to focus on the future and stop worrying about the past. Tell me, if Arbcom reject the case, will you please try to move on? Worm^TT(talk) 11:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We expect all admins to "lead by example" and "follow Wikipedia policies", while you are a bureaucrat you lead by example, not only for editors but also admins. If I don't raise these issues, don't you think that the preperators are going to multiply such misuse? It is the right time to get the things straight, I have made my attempt. Time will tell. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hold admins to a higher standard than most people do. I hold myself to a higher standard than I hold other admins. As I say, I believe I have followed all policies. I ask again - if Arbcom rejects this case, will you please try to move on? Worm^TT(talk) 12:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you had followed all policies, then why you topic banned me? Those 18 days were very hard, I could not contribute to even military articles because of the human rights violation during the battles. At least 3 edit wars could be saved and 3 blocks. Since you have attempted to solve some matters or misunderstandings above, should we continue that? There are more things yet to be clarified and you have major involvement. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OccultZone, apologies for not replying sooner. I topic banned you because I saw disruption to the article, editing against consensus, accusations of sockpuppetry against all your opponents and so on. Under discretionary sanctions, I'm given leeway to impose sanctions that I believe will stop the disruption. I believed that removing you from the topic was the best option. You seem to follow a rather over-strict approach to topic bans, by the way, as shown when discussing Nadirali. When topic banned, you are not permitted to discuss the topic at the article page, nor the specific section of other pages. The rest of other pages is fine. So for example, you were ok to edit military articles, just not on the subject of rape in India. The rest of the article was fine to edit.
I lifted it because you were partly right about the sockpuppetry. NB, not wholly right. I'm still concerned about what's going on at the article since you've returned. I'm still concerned that you have not dropped your crusades. Worm^TT(talk) 07:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never edited against consensus. There was obvious sock puppetry going on and I was correct about each, except that they belong to other sock master, but it is not ruiling out the fact that the had also socked in first few days of March. Yes I was following the correct definition of topic ban, if it wasn't for you, it would be someone else who would've blocked me for making edits, even if they remotely touched the subject. Correct?

Ever since the return, I have still edited only per consensus. My last reply was few days earlier, I would respond only if someone questions it. Well, that's how things goes here, whatever you represent as 'crusade' is rather discouraging, I really see no hope if I can convince you anymore. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise - but we're still left with the question, are you going to move on if Arbcom declines the case? Worm^TT(talk) 07:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to contribute here anymore after that, I made my attempt. I should be one of those lucky ones who have been forced to realize that how the things are. Even if it took a long time, it might have saved a lot of time, and it may serve as example to others. No one would want to contribute in this kind of hostile environment where an editor is wikihounded, blocked for making just any edit, gets unauthorized topic bans, and so on. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying you'll quit if the case is declined? That will be a terrible loss of the encyclopedia. Worm^TT(talk) 07:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I thought a lot about that. Apart from all that happened, I continued to help other editors with their stuff, they were thankful. But I think I have really stressed those who have acted out of rage. Why this all stress is required? Even if I promises "I won't do this", "I won't do that", more than 100 times, they would still closely observe my contribution history and try to go for another block. That's why I have found the best way to put an end to this problem. There will be a day when they would look at my contributions, once in a day, instead of 100 times in a day, then once a week instead of once in a day, then once in a month, then once in a year. Length would be reduced, happier you will feel. After all that's what I wanted, to keep everyone happy. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) You are a great Wikipedia editor OccultZone, and I would like you to stay and make great contributions! Your friend CookieMonster755 (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: Thank you for taking some time. That article in question is still visited by socks,[125] and there is no doubt. I am posting here because that case, is getting big and you may read better here.

You would say if there are socks then just "go report em", correct. However, it looks like there is some kind of unauthorized topic ban that is effectively working. I have strongly opposed by 3 of the admins that I have listed over there as the parties, not to use WP:SPI board or it would lead to blocks, and their opposition is confirmed.[126][127][128]

It is just beginning. We must note that due to my presence, a lot of long term abusers such as [129][130] have literally given up. What will happen when they will know that I am under such a unauthorized topic ban? That's just a smidgen short of what is happening. I will link to this discussion when I would make any next edit on that request. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I regret I do not have the time to further embroil myself in this event. That said, I have previously been witness to people who feel they are the last line of defense of a given thing on Wikipedia. There is no such thing. Nobody is the last line of defense. If you are banned from the article, Wikipedia will go on in its imperfect self. There are things on this project that annoy me. But, you can't let it get the better of you. Sometimes you just have to walk away from something you've been involved in. See User_talk:Hammersoft#Missy_Franklin.2C_etc. where I dropped out of a debate, even though I was still quite interested. If something is getting you out of your ordinary mindset, that's a very strong clue that it's time to walk away. Best regards, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct and that's why we are here now. Best wishes to you! OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, it would be unfortunate to see you leave Wikipedia. It has been a great pleasure to work with you in the past.Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

No one wants to see you leave OccultZone - everyone I've spoken to has agreed that you are an asset to the encyclopedia and whatever has been happening that will not change. All I want (and I know a lot of people agree) is for you to get back to doing what you're great at, and worry less about what happened over the past month - forget the blocks, forget the topic ban, right now you are unblocked and without a topic ban - so enjoy these stroopwafels, remember what you love doing and do it Worm^TT(talk) 08:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: Really WTT, I am very happy to have such recognition from you. It worth a lot to me.

Since we have sorted out so many misunderstandings, may I ask you for a favor? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask, certainly. Worm^TT(talk) 05:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that we should quit opposing each other as much as we have done until now? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like nothing more. If I had confidence you were going to get back to your normal work and the drama would stop, you wouldn't hear from me again. Worm^TT(talk) 07:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: Just read what you have written. I had no problem with the no access to AWB. The mass de-linking and date change was the main reason, that I had done on about 245 pages. That incident has to do nothing with this case and I never said anything to anyone. I just thought that this is the time to contribute without any software. There are more reasons that why I had no problem, because this counter used to show 70% automated edit at that time. Since then I have made nearly 80,000 edits all by hands. Any of the 5,000 edits that you have talked about, it involved no use of script. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: May I ask you a very simple question? Before I find it more troubling, I believe that I should know that what you are actually thinking about this case. It is clear to us that what you want, but do you know what I want from this case? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly a "simple" question - you may want to re-read it. I believe I know what you want from the case, but I think you are fundamentally flawed in your interpretation of the situation. What I want is for you to understand what actually happened and be able to move on. That said, I'm more and more concerned about your other editing habits, so I'm asking for them to be looked at too. Worm^TT(talk) 08:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want me heavily restricted and every other way of seeking for help to be disabled. Correct? If you had indeffed me on 21 April, would en.wiki be having so many thousands of needful edits? Just think.. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock

Noticed we have a template problems with Template_talk:Blocked_sockpuppet#Appearence_issue which is supposed to be used for socks confirmed by behaviorial evidence, not CU, having the "checked by CU" statement in the template. I raised this at the template talk - the SeeSpot Run sock was clearly established by behviorial evidence at the SPI and in the case of this sock, and CU will be long stale... anyway, a heads up that the template that was there puts the SeeSpot Run sock into a "maybe" category that clearly is not the right one. Montanabw^(talk) 23:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I will be checking. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recategorization

To answer your questions: 1.) no, the specific recategorization I am performing has not been discussed. However, I feel it is in line with a broader trend that was begun some time ago (see categories such as Category:American male novelists, for example), the splitting of writer categories by gender. (We have Category:English women journalists, for instance.) This began some while ago, but has been stagnating for a while, and I've been trying to kick it into higher gear. As to your second point: yes, I do intend to create, at least, a category for male historians somewhere down the line. The more precise date being "when I get around to it", if it's not done before then. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: Thanks for the clarification. You seem to be having a good positive history with this sort of categorization. Best of luck with that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me from what I've seen that people are generally in favor of the recategorization; I've gotten a good deal of positive feedback, and very little negative. So it seems to be working out well. :-)

Happy editing - I'm off to bed in a moment or two. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Case Request

Your statement in support of your ArbCom case request is way over the word limit of 1000 words. MS Word counts it as 3877 words. While ArbCom's rules do not count diffs and links, it is still much too long. Please trim it, or a clerk or arbitrator may have to trim it, and you can better decide what is important. For the Arbitration Committee,

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Check now? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: @DGG: I find it amusing that you request OccultZone to trim his statement (which he does}, and then a sitting member of ArbCom pushes it all back on to the case request [131] without explanation, and wipes out a comment from OccultZone replying to Guerillero. I think the three of you need to clear this up. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mere typo: I made a mistake there, I was only trying to add a comment. I agree 100% with the removal of that material from the page. I've asked the clerks to check that everything I erroneously deleted has been restored properly. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARC

OZ, due to an edit conflict, DGG inadvertently deleted an edit you had made (see here). I believe that I have restored what was written but if you could review the section and make sure it reflects your edit, I would appreciate it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resaltador

Do you have a link to the SPI concerning Resaltador, although they have been blocked by a checkuser (Elockid), the SPI case page doesn't list that account, so it's quite difficult to tell who is correct in this matter. Thanks. Nick (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check this. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

parts_type

parts_type in the sense the smaller parts of settlement right. For example, for a mandal, the villages or hamlets?--Vin09 (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. |parts_type= : The label for the smaller subdivisions.OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Keep up the good work mate. Rahul^{Text me} 18:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AHLM13

I - Already he has three block logs.

II - Abusing others :

You can check his comments .--C E (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

using abusive language "jahil ka bachcha"

nonsensical comment with hatred

using "Munafic" in edit history

reverting user's own talk page unblock request

calling me names after i pointed out his canvassing

calling a user double agent

speculating country of origin

threatening another user

Anti-bangladeshi sentiment I didn't notice this before.

ethnic comment on a sockpuppet This may be ignored, as a sockpuppet wrote something on his talk page. But once, an administrator told me that if a vandal uses derogatory language, we can't use the same type language on him as it is uncivil. I have never seen SPI check users abusing a sockpuppet who vandalizes their Talk Page or launches personal attack on Check Users. They simply block the account.--C E (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

III - warnings he received from other editors on his talk page.

I didn't list one abuse by AHLM13, as it was against a sockpuppet who was abusing AHLM13.

I am not going to WP:AE, not sure whether it will work. --C E (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CosmicEmperor: Most of these diffs comes after 16 April, the day he was reminded about the D/S.[132] I have found a few recent edits that would meet the definition of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, however, it would be even better if you can bring some edits along with the diffs that you believe to be disruptive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is busy editing for few months only. Now he will be careful not to get blocked. I can't find anything more of him. He sometimes abuses in Non-English language. Unless he does anything else in the future, I can't help. But whatever i have typed here is enough to show his attitude. I normally don't edit topics that he edits. I met him in Bengali people talk page where voting for picture selection was going on. C E (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He will revive soon. Environment of these articles is very hostile, you can also check his page move of British Bangladeshi [133], and here is his explanation, and the article certainly happened to be a good article. I would inform you whenever I would file an AE complaint. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American politics 2 workshop phase closed

The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_Others has been opened. For the arbitration committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 15, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Population

As per 2011 census, Nellore had city and UA population. By merging 15 villages, the area as well as population was increased. Now, the page should be updated with 2011 or 2013? If it is then the info should be added in lists of cities by population pages also? Also, if the villages are merged the population should be mentioned as city or UA population?--Vin09 (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vin09: I believe that the official one should get more weight. Go for 2011. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The updated ones are not unofficial. They are as per 2011 only but by merging them. The 2011 census was summed up. Not a new census.--Vin09 (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have to put both estimates and use a particular section for that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned them in demographics section. But in infobox I've mentioned the summed up population with reference. I think I found the answer from my older conversation with a user here User_talk:Vensatry/Archive_23#Population.--Vin09 (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would be beneficial to ask him again, have you tried? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Vin09 (talk) 09:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to sign your message over there, maybe that's why he might have ignored your query. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Invitation

I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for the invitation. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny help

Hi. Thanks for reviewing the Lahore church attack article. Could you be kind enough to please review Template:Did you know nominations/High Orbit Ion Cannon if you have some free time. Any help in making the article better will also be highly appreciated even if you don't have time for a full review. Ty in advance . FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am also checking your other DYK nom. See you in about 24 hours. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did the copy edit on the surin festival. Feel free to take a look when u have free time. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

OccultZone, do you use the preview button? The multiple edits, revisions, and refactors you make to your statments, etc., make it very difficult for others to follow and/or respond to what you are saying. I would like to suggest that you use your sandbox or some other user page to work out a final version of what you want to say before posting it to a live page. —DoRD (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. Honestly saying, I had plans to leave right after posting a single message, but eventually those plans were dropped, and I thought of writing more after that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my Wikipedian friend

Hey my Wikipedian friend! How are you feeling today? I know you have been having lots of drama lately, but I see you are doing some good constructive editing. Many talk pages I have been visiting, you have visited as well! Isn't Wikipedia a small world after all? LOL, keep up the good work my friend. CookieMonster755 (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and I just think that none of these events should influence my basic editing routine. Hope you are doing good. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt

Please check this Repalle_(Assembly_constituency)#Election_results. Do we need to provide all the lists like that from 1952 onwards or the last two elections vote share is enough?--Vin09 (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and as long as you have the information since its establishment. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were right

Look at his vandalism and 115ash wrote on ravensfire talkpage that AHLM13 is like child.C E (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt even if there are chances of WP:STANDARDOFFER. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I can't trust him, I can't be too sure whether he is telling the truth or he really has a LITTLEBROTHER or may not.--C E (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More likely this is a case of WP:COMPROMISED which can be unpleasant enough to deal with. From behavior, I don't think that spree was AHLM13. The vulgarity isn't something I've seen them use before and the blind reverts of really odd stuff isn't something I've seen from them before. Using reverts, including Twinkle's revert as vandalism, in a content dispute as part of an edit-war I have, but nothing like this. I'll WP:AGF this wasn't him, but at this point the next steps are up to admin's and check-users. Ravensfire (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire and CosmicEmperor: He is now unblocked.[134] I guess it was a better idea to AGF. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox_constituency

Can we add Template:Infobox_constituency to assembly and lok sabha constituencoes?--Vin09 (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check Template:Infobox Lok Sabha Constituency. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need for Assembly constituency.--Vin09 (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no need got it.--Vin09 (talk) 06:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Electorate

What should be written on the field electorate in Machilipatnam (Assembly constituency)?--Vin09 (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The population of constituency. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guntur constituency

Guntur east and west were renamed in 2009. Before that it was north and south. In 1999 it was Guntu-I and II so all these need separate pages?--Vin09 (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends upon the kind of article, which one you are referring to? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guntur West (Assembly constituency) and Guntur East (Assembly constituency). check the references whichI have provided long back, but now I can see it is not sufficient to be true.--Vin09 (talk) 08:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning them with those former names in the tables would be a better idea. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But check these 2004, 2014 references. In 2014, they are mentioning summary. You can see that in 2014 they mentioned only 2 years i.e., 2009 and 2014 when the name was changed. there is no proper reference that state which constituency was rename to what. I've guessed based on the wards no. and added that ref long back.--Vin09 (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh

Category:Assembly constituencies of Andhra Pradesh Pages in this category be moved into subcategories?--Vin09 (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a great idea. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But by moving all will fall in the district cateogory. Even the state name also applies. So, how to do it. Can we keep both? Also, I can say the above statement which you told might be applicable on this page , as the constituency may be in politics page, where some other pages may be kept.--Vin09 (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can keep both for now. I don't see if they would be challenged anytime soon. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

Seeing you busy with cats: a request for a category came up here, the new cat could have subcats for works (example Mass in B minor discography) and artists (example Marga Schiml discography), later perhaps more. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct and Andy already seems to be doing good there. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop accusing people of being sockpuppets without proof

You accused an IP of being a sockpuppet and reverted their edits here and here. The accusation is they were puppets of Sonic2030. The SPI case you filed on Sonic2030 was closed as "I don't see any policy violation there" and "That depends on what you mean by treat them as socks. If you mean to stick IPsock tags on them, the answer is no. As for protection, RFPP is thataway". I don't see where the IP's were mentioned at SPI or on your talk page. Do not accuse people and revert their edits for being a sockpuppet when no confirmination has been given. Maybe DoRD can figure this out. If sockpuppet is found, please add it to an SPI case so we mere mortals don't have to hunt for it all over different talk pages. Please don't revert this message without DoRd atleast taking a look. Bgwhite (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite, that probably is the target of the SPI, so I've blocked the IP for a short time. (Note that I haven't used CU here, and wouldn't be able to discuss my findings if I did, so there won't be any confirmation forthcoming.) When I said, "I don't see any policy violation there", I was referring to a valid edit to a completely unrelated topic, and since these are shared IPs, there was no reason to make any blocks at the time. —DoRD (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DoRD for blocking. It has been already proven enough times that it is Sonic2030, other usernames include Reslatador, TCKTKtool, StillStanding-247, Marlin1975 (made in 2007). OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Persondata RfC

Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]