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

	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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

You know, I think you're just taking your anger out on Swarm and me just because I fortunately didn't get censured as I had stayed away from the article - and chose a bad time to edited just after you got banned by Swarm. Sorry, I don't have a habit of checking the statuses of other editors before editing. I was even asking you to move the discussion to a higher level wikitalk (tactless in hindsight, and I did not knowing that another editor had already made that call). But you're obviously taking out your anger on everyone else, even making frivolous SPI reports against everyone who's not been on your side. How frivolous? This Frivolous. You're even accusing me of plagiarising stuff I didn't originally write, which is another thing - you just keep adding new arguments like WP:ILLEGIT and WP:COPYVIO (sorry, I'm not paying attention to the order), its as if you're just running down the list of available wiki rulesets that you can use to get things written your way. You're just throwing everything you can find at others, and hoping that something, anything sticks to ease a perceived slight. Let me throw you one: WP:CIVIL, which after the SPI clears me (the only thing that bothers me is not the results but how long it would take - I'm just waiting to be vindicated), would give me more than legitimate grounds to make a complaint against you. But I hope I won't have to. Because other than this incident, you've been a fairly good contributor here. Lets keep it this way. We may have different views about certain subjects, but we're all supposed to be here to "build" Wikipedia. We've both been sucked in to this debacle far too long, and now you're sucking others in. Zhanzhao (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect has been opened. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

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]

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]