User talk:Okteriel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No Sphynx am I, nor have ever yet incarnated as any; rather materialize as one. Okteriel (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC) For total righteousness, the keypunching entity hereby manifests humanity, for Community improvement. Okteriel (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also unblock request history.

Welcome to my user talk! It's hard to improve Wikipedia from one page only, but let's see how well it works. Okteriel (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure 2[edit]

See User:Okteriel/Five figures. However, this is rather academic now. I was getting ready to add the following sentence to that page anyway. No, I'm not that guy with that five-figure contract, the five figures disappeared down the memory hold anyway. Okteriel (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archive[edit]

Archive
==Disclosure==

Look here. Okteriel (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

A cup of warm tea to welcome you!

Hello, Okteriel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! We're so glad you're here! Jim1138 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banc De Binary

Please discuss large removals of sourced content on talk:Banc De Binary. See wp:BRD Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia

hello world Okteriel (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, great, hi, everyone, call me J, I guess I can go ahead and comment now. Okteriel (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, we figured that there are so many sapient animals, inanimate objects, hopeful monsters, and assorted demigods editing Wikipedia that you wouldn't mind a visitation from a well-managed possessee. Other than that minor detail we should be able to comply with policy, if some of you were wondering. There are no wheel wars here, but if he takes over again there's no telling what he'll say. I don't question him, I thought it was fine for us to set up the account, because there's only been one human editing it all along so that I wouldn't be accused of being a meatpuppet, but I can understand if the Community wants to discuss whether the rules should be extended to "spiritually influenced" editors too. Okteriel (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, some people will believe anything, so, just in case someone believes I'm not possessed, I hope anyone who thinks that will not look on me askance for it. Okteriel (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-creation of Oren Laurent

Hey, just thought I'd come and give some further information about things. The article for Oren Laurent was created by a sockpuppet of User:Morning277/User:MooshiePorkFace. You're a new user and given that these two editors created a great, great many number of sockpuppets, I do have to warn you that this will be very likely to make people wonder if you are these editors trying to evade a block again. I do apologize for writing that, but you've got to understand that the Morning277/MooshiePorkFace sockpuppetry was over an extremely long period of time (about two years, I think?) and is a fairly sore spot for a lot of editors. I really, really, REALLY recommend that you get a more experienced editor to request the page's recreation in any form or fashion. I'd also recommend that you not get anyone affiliated with the company Banc De Binary to do it either, as something along this lines should be done by a non-COI editor. (On a side note, if you are affiliated with BDB or Oren Laurent please say so up front- you won't be blocked/banned or anything, but it will benefit you in the long run.) You can talk to User:DGG about it, but I need to very much stress again that you should get a more established and experienced editor to be the frontrunner in asking for this. Because of the page's association with sockpuppetry, any recreation or discussion of the page should follow guidelines to the utmost. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Information icon Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Banc De Binary. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. As an admitted paid editor you should not be refactoring comments of other editors who comment on the behavior of Banc De Binary officers or employees. If there is a "BLP issue" let others make that determination. I think that also you need to stay off the article talk page and let non-conflicted, non-paid editors have a chance to contribute. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request to User talk:Atama

Thank you for visiting my request, user. If it's not too disruptive to ask, please create a section on User talk:Atama titled "Talkback" with the content "{{talkback|User talk:Okteriel#Questions for Atama}} Posted for [[User:Okteriel]] by ~~~~". Thank you. Okteriel (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The WP:PER system is not for requesting proxy edits. If Atama is watching this page, no action is needed; if they are not, all you need to do is put a link to their user page in the same post as your signature, and the WP:NOTIFICATIONS system will draw their attention. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Atama

  1. Thank you for visiting, Atama. I wanted to ask you on ANI but didn't get a chance. I was really mystified that you defended the reinsertion of charges of criminality in talk. It was my view that, even if the editor intended the corporation rather than the individual, a small corporation is protected not only by WP:BLPGROUP but by "innocent until proven guilty". That is, charging a small corporation with being criminal means that either the principals are criminal, or they're innocent and they're throwing their corporate shield and employees under the bus, and so in either case it's a BLP vio, and it's obviously also a violation of making verifiable statements about crime. Charging other editors, such as Laurent, who edited by IP, with criminality, also seems to me like personal attack, and, if we throw around enough criminality charges, there will eventually be an effect in real life (IRL), because people might actually believe the rumors. Also, whoever restores or defends, sorry, the inserted charges, is equally guilty of BLP vio. I know you didn't mean to affirm all that, when you made your statement, but what did you mean? Is Wikipedia no longer the place it was in 2011 when people agreed on what BLP meant? Or 2012-2013 during the Wiki-PR episode? (Of course I watched the Wiki-PR episode in realtime, it was better than "24".) Okteriel (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Also, exactly what did I do wrong? I am doing my best to be apologetic in my unblock request below, but I appear to be suffering for the violations of Notsosoros instead of for anything I've done. I remind you that there is no policy preventing autoconfirmed users from entering into any dispute and speaking freely about their views and best opinions about improving any article, no matter how socky it's been previously. But, to be frank, it's hard to believe that Wikipedia would actually block a person for doing exactly that. Can you understand why I wanted to protect myself and my privacy when I decided to go that route in the first place? It was, because, in what I've seen happen to, how many others on Wikipedia, the initial rush to judgment is something a seasoned editor ought to anticipate on entering a new Wikipedia. Anyway, this request, just what sin have I committed, is, of course, independent from my unblock request. Okteriel (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Redrose64, I am pinging User:Atama. I don't know how long this process is supposed to take. Okteriel (talk, disclosure) 22:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, our policy states, "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies." It further goes on to state that it may apply to smaller organizations, but that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. While it can be argued whether or not BLP applies in this case, you don't have a blanket right to remove others' comments in violation of WP:TPO. You could have asked the other editor to alter their charges, you could have argued on ANI or some other place that the comments were unfair. But you took the step of changing another editor's comments in violation of policy, which is what I chastised you for on ANI.
I believe that you are Notsosoros. You fit the pattern of the previous socks to an eerie degree. So the violations of Notsosoros are yours, and the policy that you are blocked under is WP:SOCK. Nothing you have said here has convinced me otherwise. -- Atama頭 23:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, out of courtesy and because I believe there is no harm in doing so, I changed this page per your request below. Redrose64's response to you was entirely appropriate, and you shouldn't be asking for proxy edits, but I thought I'd do that for you to show that I have no animosity toward you personally. -- Atama頭 16:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request to User:Okteriel/Five figures

Thank you for visiting my request, user. If it's not too disruptive to ask, please add a paragraph to User:Okteriel/Five figures, immediately under the lead paragraph "Short answer: Declined for now", with the following text: ":''Short answer: No, I'm not that guy with that five-figure contract, the five figures disappeared down the [[1984 (novel)|memory hold]] anyway.''". Thank you for your attention. Okteriel (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The WP:PER system is not for requesting proxy edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To do[edit]

You can help!

(a) More spelling corrections. The following list of articles is temporary and can be used by anyone to make corrections.

(b) Random articles. I intend to continue improving random articles. You can too. Simply copy the text of any random article from below to its mainspace location, and delete extra colons and equalses.

(c)-(e) I am also interested in editing in the topic areas of cryptozoology, Dali, and enthusiasm.

(f) It occurs to me, since this all started with edit requests, that I could also assist (interfere) with that backlog. You can too. Okteriel (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More questions[edit]

User:Atama, please clear up a contradiction, between your block statement, and James B. Watson's unblock refusal statement. Mr Watson basically says, maybe I'm not Notsosoros, but I'm probably a sock, and maybe I'm not even a sock, but I'm sufficiently disruptive, arguing in the alternatives. If, as he implies, it's possible to contemplate that I'm not the one I'm accused of being, then the block should be amended, to say blocked because sufficiently disruptive; and, if it's not possible to contemplate that, the then unblock refusal should be amended, to say what it says plus Atama still believes me to be Notsosoros. You do not get it both ways, afaik, where I'm blocked for being Notsosoros, and then I'm refused by someone who recognizes I might not be, but argues in the alternatives. So, can you please change one or the other of the contradictory statements?

Even if the accusations were true, if I were all that, even Notsosoros would be permitted another chance on promises of good behavior, such as I have volunteered, unless there is more to this than meets the eye. Okteriel (talk, disclosure) 18:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Orangemike[edit]

User:Orangemike, I asked a question on your talk, please help. I am totally confused, because, on the day of the edit war, you first favored a short version, and, then, you became the one to start the ball rolling on the long version. It should be clear, that Historian of Recent times reverted 3 times, because he was likely to have been made bold by your edit. I don't want to be rude, and I did ask you at the time, what the best way was to prevent edit war, and you did not answer. Can you please tell me, why did you jump to the long version, when there was a lot of agreement on the short version, knowing that there was a risk you could destabilize the article? If you had not stepped in, it seems, it would have been a lot less likely that Historian would have misbehaved, and he nearly got 3RR block as a result anyway, except he got saved by Black Kite. Please, help. Okteriel (talk, disclosure) 17:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice[edit]

My reasons for drawing this conclusion were outlined at ANI; but essentially it seems painfully obvious that you are the same editor who was running these sockpuppets as well. -- Atama頭 18:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Okteriel is not Notsosoros, does not edit like Notsosoros, and has no link to Notsosoros. Okteriel has also committed no fault against Wikipedia policy. Okteriel also commits to proactive behavioral changes, see below.

Decline reason:

(1) This account has all the appearance of sockpuppetry. (2) Even if the account weren't a sockpuppet, it is sufficiently disruptive for a block to be in the best interest of the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi, folks, I appreciate your review. I became aware of Notsosoros only last week, and only marginally, noting that he was a sock in the topic area I had chosen to work on. I am not him and have no link to him. I don't know who he is and have no information about him besides what is available on Wikipedia. I can make further denials if necessary, although I don't know what you want me to say. Of course, right now I seem to be highly motivated, from outside pressure, to find out a lot more about Notsosoros, don't I!

I also think it's appropriate to consider differences between myself and him. I respect that the block alluded to similarities, although these similarities are mostly due to the difficulty of anyone engaging the topic area in this heated environment. But, first of all, I predate Notsosoros by a couple years. Second, I don't wear socks. I invite a checkuser to affirm my clean record. Naturally, I trust, if a checkuser should turn up my wife, or three kids, that their privacy would be respected. (The kids have edited only occasionally, basically for school, and my wife also has a clean record, and they have absolutely no interest in binary options. It was my wife who encouraged me to get back into Wikipedia in the first place, and why again did she do that?) So, even if my family turned up in checkuser, I do not have a ton of accounts editing binary options at the same time that were all started at the same time, I do not even have just one in that area right now, although I'm supposed to be allowed to have just one.

Third, I understand Notsosoros usually became a SPA after autoconfirming. I have tried to avoid being a SPA, as seen in #To do above. I will continue improving the encyclopedia in those areas. Even, with this page, other users can use the links I provide to make the spelling corrections themselves if they choose. However, that too may not be enough to offset the idea, in some people's minds, that my presence somehow harms the encyclopedia more than my improvements improve it. I respectfully ask those people to present their reasons I am harmful. I have already stated the free-speech chilling that is going on as illustrated by my treatment, and I don't believe Wikipedia desires to continue the path of chilling free speech by blocking anyone who starts their editing with a meaty challenge. If Wikipedia practice effectively prevents users from starting with meat if they choose, then that should appear in policy too; but what policy says is that the only topics where this kind of sanction should be common for someone with no misbehavior is when there has already been a community or Arbitration Committee proceeding, which there hasn't been.

Now, I'll also throw this in. I will go voluntarily on topic ban just to make it fair. I've had quite enough of binary options for a little while, and can stay away from mainspace in this area, although I may need to respond elsewhere if a thread applies to me. I have quite enough work to do, without needing to offend those who think, wrongly, that being innocent in a warzone, is a criminal offense. There's enough charges of criminality going around, for everyone. Let Wikipedia calm the article down first.

Oh, I just found Atama's rationale. Well, the most allegedly damning evidence is that I knew about autoconfirmation, but then so would anybody who wanted to fix that mess of an article for real. I was surprised to hear that I had stylistic similarities with Notsosoros, in relation to quotemarks, and short sentences, as I thought I use long sentences. I am disappointed to hear that the motive is "whitewash", as I thought we disposed of that rumor, when I contributed, on about the 7th, to a relatively stable article version, with a lot of other editors. I am all for putting in balanced content relating to the SEC etc., as I indicated on talk, but, I thought, there was consensus for a stub first so that the various content can be discussed and balanced on talk more neutrally than is being done now. At any rate, topic ban would apply, that's just answering new information I just found.

That's all I can think of for now to affirm my innocence. Like I said, I don't mind being blocked for the sake of Notsosoros, I'm glad people are honest now about who they thought I was. (Atama seems to have been honest all along.) If I actually did something wrong, I can talk with you about making changes. But Okteriel does not go away. The vacation is over; let's get back to work. Okteriel (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked over the Notsosoros accounts, they are very transparent. One of his autoconfirm edits, Ambernits, even changed the correct "here" to the incorrect "hear", which is interesting, because mine are the reverse, they actually do correct the spelling. It was incredible to me that so much work went on in the same 10 days, with questionable improvement, questionable utility, and certainly total ignorance that all the socks would be blocked at once. I hope my style is a little different. At any rate, anyone who wants to help me improve the encyclopedia is free to make the spelling corrections I listed above. Okteriel (talk, disclosure) 22:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 2[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Okteriel is not Notsosoros, does not edit like Notsosoros, and has no link to Notsosoros; Okteriel is not a sockpuppet, does not edit link a sockpuppet, and has no link to sockpuppetry. Okteriel has also committed no fault against Wikipedia policy. Okteriel also commits to proactive behavioral changes and will not be disruptive, see below.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. John (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you, Atama, and James B. Watson, for your assistance. But, you reduce me to arguing on multiple fronts, if the charge has changed, from my being Notsosoros, to my being some other sock. Hear me out.

"The block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption." The allegations of disruption above are large removals of sourced content (not exactly what I did in context), requesting recreation of a disputed deleted article (for userfying and research purposes), and striking through (ill?) legitimate talk comments. OK, assuming the allegations as stated, arguendo, I can commit not to perform large removals of sourced content, not to request recreation of deleted articles, and not to edit others' talk comments, at all. I also volunteered for a topic ban. So, I commit to avoid all behaviors I have been warned of. Even the alleged damage or disruption will not occur.

"The block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead." Did Notsosoros ever announce a plan to improve 100 pages rather than to add misspellings to them? Did Notsosoros ever agree to voluntary topic ban so as to have the right, which I enjoy without hindrance in another language, to edit Wikipedia? I will not sock. (Do you want me to say, "I will not sock again"? Who did I sock?)

"Your conduct (under any account or IP address) is not connected in any way with the block." This requires the demonstration, through the wires, of the fact, of which I am perfectly aware, that I am not the same person as Notsosoros. I thought that a simple demonstration of differences of behavior would be enough, but Atama seems not to be convinced. Also the burden of proving the negative is on me, which is no fun, to say the least. Also the fact that Atama quoted "BEANS" is a further problem: it implies, that one has the right to block another, based on evidence, which must remain secret, because it might give away, to others, how one decides who to block? No, it can't be that crazy, but I don't know how to restate it. And using arguments that rely on my yielding up my privacy doesn't seem to work either. But, let's try anyway.

(a) "Okteriel made 12 edits to articles that had nothing to do with BDB, then jumped right into it." Yes, I reviewed the case and made some discussion drafts for self-revert, and made some productive edits so as to be able to insert the discussion drafts and get discussion going. Would it have made a difference if I had made 50 edits instead? Does one not have the right to begin autoconfirmed editing with a sensitive topic? This similarity with Notsosoros is a technological false echo. By this logic, any autoconfirmed editor who goes right into a previously socked article would get blocked, and is that free speech on Wikipedia?

(b) "I also notice some linguistic similarities between the way Okteriel speaks and the way the previous socks spoke." I would appreciate knowing about coincidences between my diction, and someone I've never met. The generic ones you mention, did not appear to me to be valid, but, then, my brief statement didn't satisfy anyone. Should I read everything every sock wrote, so as to know what they said, so as to distance myself from it?

(c) "I don't want to get into it with too much detail." This says to me, that there are also secret charges against me, which is fine, but, now that I'm asking for them, please, state any secret charges.

I think, that this has something to do with Notsoros being linked to BDB, and BDB being linked to me. If you want me to publish the email, to show exactly what link I have with BDB, I think BDB's transparency department would be fine with that. Okteriel (talk, disclosure) 17:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(d) "A fondness for 'quoting' particular words." I don't recall using a lot of quotemarks. Would it help me any to become the Notsosoros expert and determine all the words he quotemarked, and all the ones I did, to demonstrate the difference?

(e) "Rapid-fire short sentences one after another." I don't believe I use short sentences, on average. I sometimes uses a series of short questions, when I'm frustrated. Did anyone want to maybe link something Notsosoros said that sounds like something I said?

(f) "The motives are the same also (whitewashing BDB)." Where of my edits is there a whitewashing motive? This would be a good one for those who believe in it to diff me on.

(g) "This account has all the appearance of sockpuppetry." Well, last I checked SPI, "you must immediately provide evidence that the suspected sock puppets are connected. The evidence will need to include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected." See, no diffs were presented, just the topic area was the same, and Atama thought there were similarities of speech, but the burden of proving the negative is on me. Now, I noticed that one of the drafts I relied on was Peluchon's, and Peluchon was later blocked as a sock, well, oops. I thought I was being high-minded, in considering the most extreme drafts in each direction, and proposing a middle ground, I had no idea I was relying on a sock's draft, but does that help me any?

(h) "Even if the account weren't a sockpuppet, it is sufficiently disruptive for a block to be in the best interest of the project." This seems like a real wax nose of a charge. I already said above, that I can ban myself from even the accepted forms of the behaviors that are sometimes problematic (large removal of sourced content, requesting recreation, and editing others' talk). Again, there is no evidence I'm disruptive. Is it disruptive to ask for evidence that one is disruptive?

Thank you, for reading through this. Is it not actually true that anyone can edit? If someone comes along who wants to edit a previously socked area, does that person automatically qualify for block, assuming you can always find a noob error to pin on him or her? It's hard for me to see how "anyone can edit" is really upheld. What do you need to hear from me, to give me a chance? I offered a checkuser, and a topic ban, and other behavior changes, mentorship would be fine too, what more can I offer? I thought this was about working together to reach consensus, namely, about what conditions I need to affirm, to return to editing. I'd like to get to those spelling corrections, now. Okteriel (talk, disclosure) 02:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also #More questions, negotiation is appreciated. Okteriel (talk, disclosure) 18:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see John's answer, which is even more confusing, but, then, maybe, it's supposed to be. It seems logical, that I could make another unblock request, so I could point out how the previous generic answer doesn't answer, but, on Freenode, I'm getting some abbreviated advice that maybe I shouldn't, so, maybe not.

What I can say is, I did figure one thing out. It was a mistake for me to return here by immediately trying to improve an area where there had been socking, which seems to be my right, under policy, but not in wikidrama world. And it was a mistake for me to email the article subject for info, and to not publish my email, which seems to be my, etc. So, when I figure out what my real rights are, according to the folks who are keeping me blocked, I'll come back. OK. Okteriel (talk, disclosure) 17:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Okteriel&oldid=688454432"