This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your new page patrolling; it's most appreciated! Ironholds ( talk) 12:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
please explain!
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggajat ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls.?-- Vin09 ( talk) 17:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I started an ANI discussion. See HERE. VictoriaGrayson Talk 18:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@ OccultZone: Is it correct format for filing sock.-- Vin09 ( talk) 18:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
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. 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)
I can't see any harm in doing that - probably a good idea. Deb ( talk) 11:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Merge proposal is genuine? Also check this-- Vin09 ( talk) 05:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can you help in removing the categories then? Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 07:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
― Padenton| ✉ 23:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The article Journalists of The Guardian has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Better yet, we could just let this exist as it already does under Category:The Guardian journalists.
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)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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)
Accept reason:
OccultZone hi. I only came here to tell you that you need to WP:KEEPCOOL. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
... 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.
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)
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)
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)
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. WormTT( talk) 10:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
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. WormTT( talk) 11:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
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) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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)
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)
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. Spinning Spark 12:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your new page patrolling; it's most appreciated! Ironholds ( talk) 12:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC) |
please explain!
thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggajat ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls.?-- Vin09 ( talk) 17:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I started an ANI discussion. See HERE. VictoriaGrayson Talk 18:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@ OccultZone: Is it correct format for filing sock.-- Vin09 ( talk) 18:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
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. 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)
I can't see any harm in doing that - probably a good idea. Deb ( talk) 11:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Merge proposal is genuine? Also check this-- Vin09 ( talk) 05:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can you help in removing the categories then? Thanks, Magioladitis ( talk) 07:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
― Padenton| ✉ 23:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The article Journalists of The Guardian has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Better yet, we could just let this exist as it already does under Category:The Guardian journalists.
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)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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)
Accept reason:
OccultZone hi. I only came here to tell you that you need to WP:KEEPCOOL. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 23:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
... 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.
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)
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)
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)
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. WormTT( talk) 10:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
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. WormTT( talk) 11:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
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) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
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)
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)
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. Spinning Spark 12:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)