User talk:OccultZone/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about User:OccultZone. 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.

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).

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).

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)

Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

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)

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)

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)

Before I chimed in,[1]: It is not necessary to have all suspects on one or multiple articles. [2] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why you selectively removed the comments of at least 2 editors[3] 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

	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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

@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)

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:-)).

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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

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

@CookieMonster755: I have seen what you had written on the UTP of HJ Mitchell, and pinged me[4], 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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

• 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)

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)

@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,[5] when I went to notify Magioladitis I had already seen him on ANI. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

@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)

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)

@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.[6] 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.[7] Now he posted on the talk page of Nick, where he was not notified, nor he was involved, he never even posted there before,[8] 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)

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

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

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

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[9] 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)

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)

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[10][11] discussions are stale since I had viewed them, much before the block. I was focusing elsewhere and I was clearly editing other namespaces.[12][13][14][15][16][17] I really cannot find any policy breach, or why this block was needed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

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)

• @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,[18] and Floquenbeam has already indeffed Kumioko, so there are no chances anymore either. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Says it all  :) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

		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 meStalk me 21:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

• 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)
• Have one from me too! Delibzr (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

@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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Incorrect. That once-a banned editor has to do nothing with this all![19] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"..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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

• 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)

• Better behavior? Let me know that how this edit could be better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  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)

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

• 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)

  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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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 [20], [21] 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)

  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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

• Thank you for the kind words. Which "deleted articles" you are talking about? Out of 547,[22] 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)

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

...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)

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)

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

@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)

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

It is like, in last 3 days, 3 of the admins who I have named as parties[23][24], [25][26] 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.

Should I post this all to the relevant SPI?[40] Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

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,[41][42] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• (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)

@Hammersoft: Thank you for taking some time. That article in question is still visited by socks,[43] 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.[44][45][46]

It is just beginning. We must note that due to my presence, a lot of long term abusers such as [47][48] 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)

• 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)

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

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)

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 WormTT(talk) 08:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@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)

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

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

• @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 [49] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Keep up the good work mate. RahulText me 18:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Editor is indeffed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I - Already he has three block logs.

II - Abusing others :

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

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)

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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

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)

@CosmicEmperor: Most of these diffs comes after 16 April, the day he was reminded about the D/S.[50] 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)

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)

He will revive soon. Environment of these articles is very hostile, you can also check his page move of British Bangladeshi[51], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vin09 (talk • contribs)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

@Ravensfire and CosmicEmperor: He is now unblocked.[52] I guess it was a better idea to AGF. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Now even 115ash is blocked again. AHLM13 needs topic ban on Pakistan, Bangladesh, Middle East related subjects.--C E (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes and like I had said before, I will surely do something about it. You just keep following WP:FIVE pillars. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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

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 Category:Politics of Andhra Pradesh, as the constituency may be in politics page, where some other pages may be kept.--Vin09 (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for adding all those WP film templates to the talk pages. Kaayay (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Just a reminder, the Film project does not cover biography articles. Therefore, please do not add the {{WikiProject Film}} banner to articles about actors, directors and filmmakers. Those articles are covered by adding |filmbio-work-group=yes to {{WikiProject Biography}} instead. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Fortdj33. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you help me in adding the swing in the Tenali_(Assembly_constituency)#Assembly_elections_2014.--Vin09 (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You can keep it as it is. Check these[53][54][55][56], they all look same. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The pages which you showed are all unreferenced, all added by Dinesh1673. I tried to provide references for them. He added most of them in all pages from somewhere without any ref.--Vin09 (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi OccultZone. I'm very new at this (being a Wikipedian) and I was hoping you could help me with something. I am registered with Wikipedia including giving them an email address; and under my preferences I have checked "Email me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed." I have several entries in my watchlist (both articles and users) and I'm sure there have been at least one or two changes involving them. But I have received no emails about it. (And yes, I *have* checked in the junk email directory and they're not there either.) I must be doing something incorrectly. Can you help me? Thanks.

Richard27182 (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Your email is enabled. Ask other person to enable their email from Special:Preferences, then only they can email you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw a message on the WPMED talk page, nice to see you back in action.

  Bfpage |leave a message  09:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The template you add seems to be redundant to the navbox at the bottom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Different templates, and since you agree that we've got two here. I just edited 1892 in France[57] you can compare it with 1892 in Denmark, 1892 in Ireland, 1892 in Portugal, 1892 in Norway and more. It is usual standard. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: May I know if your concerns have been answered? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I see a huge duplication of links in the all the pages you provided me. I try to figure out a solution. Perhaps send all navboxes for deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal looks very huge, have you got any plans? If yes, then which template you would be nominating for deletion? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi OccultZone, now I understood why you are helping me. You remember this. Isn't it? -- AHLM13 talk 16:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and that was a misunderstanding. I just thought that you got WP:LITTLEBROTHER. For now you should revert only when it is necessary. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. If you are talking about the hacker, I have no idea who was that, but it is not my little brother, who is not a child. -- AHLM13 talk 17:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

CU disagrees with that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

How does CU know that I have a brother? My brother does not use too much Internet. I think that CU must not tell private things about wikipedians. This is one of the reason that people do not like wikipedia. My brother currently is not living with me. He is in another country. It was someone else. -- AHLM13 talk 17:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

They don't reveal any private matters unless under special circumstances, none of them exists here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this edit correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vin09 (talk • contribs)

Nope. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has enacted a temporary injunction at the above link.

For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me understand: you tell me "I just said that you must be knowing better about it, than you did previously.", and my answer is: no. I still believe and say the same things as in 2013, - only now they seem to be more acceptable. Did you know what I said about restrictions in 2012? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't even a member then. Editing just anything without consensus is often criticized a lot even if you are correct. Indeed, consensus can change. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus regarding infobox opera changed. The case should have been about that, but wasn't, it was about (much) previous behaviour. I just took it so far (here's a good essay about why, look for "gnaw their own limbs off"), but don't like the increasing conclusions that I must have done something wrong because I was restricted. What's wrong is that logic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm well, thanks - how are you?

My answer is the same as I gave to you earlier on the subject; the only difference is that this time I'm mirroring the category Category:Women historians. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I am fine and hope it goes well with you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well as can be expected for a Monday... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi OZ, please check User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao#Gender categorisation as well as related discussion on my talk page. If you can nominate Category:Male writers and all its subcategories for CfD, I will join in. I didn't have the energy to do it myself. di Nicolao's AWB usage might also need to be questioned. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)