User talk:Worm That Turned

User	Talk	Articles	To Do	Toolbox	Subpages	DYK	Awards

Welcome to my talk page. Leave me a message!

I'm moving into a period of low activity. Do not expect a rapid response from me.

This user is stalked by friendly talk page staplers.

This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.

OccultZone/Zhanzhao

Hi Worm That Turned,

This morning (my time), I see that OccultZone has started editing on Lee Kuan Yew, both the main and talk page, an article I just started helping out at. Other than the ANI and SPI related posts, you can see that its something I have spent most of my effort on: Before today, 27 out of the last 33 non SPI/ANI related posts were on the topic Lee Kuan Yew(4), [Lee Kuan Yew talk page](13),DRN about Lee Kuan Yew(2), Sgpedian noticeboard discussion about Lee Kuan Yew(6), Request for Mediation on Lee Kuan Yew(2), Lee Hsien Loong(1), Amos Yee(4), Integrated Resort(1).

I know that OccultZone edits on a wide range of pages. But the timing, plus taking offense at the exact same single sentence I was discussing with the other editors especially on DRN and Mediation, and taking the dissenting view from me, I find it hard to AFG and believe that this is a coincidence. I seriously don't want to engage him anymore and made it very clear in my posts, but I am fairly sure this counts as harrassment or something similar if he actively targets pages I am involved in. All the editors on that page are already working hard to improve the article, I don't want my conflict with OZ to affect them and the article. When he files another SPI, I will engage him again. But what he is doing now is not helpful. I really don't want the conflict to spill over unnecessarily, nor do I want to file any action against him as I just don't want to be sucked in again, so hope you can counsel him on this. Thanks for your time. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User_talk:Zhanzhao#Notice. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

See what happened at the Lee Kuan Yew talk page. This was the sort of thing I was worried about. UPDATE: OZ has disengaged for now. Zhanzhao (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts? Both of you would do better to ignore the other, but if you want an interaction ban you'll need to go over here - I can't do that on my own. There's very little I can do here unilaterally and the best thing for you two to do is disengage. Worm^TT(talk) 13:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Worm That Turned, I'd like nothing better to never see his name again, so I was shocked to see his name turn up on an article I was helping, that he never worked on before. Sorry to post this on your page, I did consider posting on OZ's page and pinging you, but he's deleted my posts on his page before quoting WP:OWNTALK. I don't even want to get near him with the proverbial 10-foot pole, and just hope he'd extend the same courtesy to me. But as he's disengaged for now (albeit after reverting a still-under-discussion topic and annoying the other editor there) I'll leave it for now and hope to not have to take up your advice. But still, thanks for your reply and advice. Zhanzhao (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: Case has been closed. Though you got dragged in by OZ's request, thanks for being fair to Swarm, Bgwhite and me. And thanks for reinforcing and explaining nicely to Bgwhite that he was not involved, as I feel really bad about all that happened from what I though was an innocent request. You're a good and fair admin, and I wish I had encountered you under better circumstances. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to add that OccultZone was inconvenienced yesterday [1] partially my fault, so I have taken precaution to prevent it from happening again and apologized to him. Zhanzhao (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Changing offensive usernames locally

Hi,

I saw that you recently used your global renamer right to change a username that you deemed offensive on :slwiki. Now, I'm not questioning your judgment whether that particular username was offensive or not, but I do find it slightly unsettling that you invoked a global administrative privilege without being asked in a situation that is, basically, local (the user doesn't have a global account), thus subject to local consensus. Could you please point me to a meta guideline that legitimizes this action? Because the way I understand the Global rename policy, we global renamers are only supposed to rename users on request. Presonally, I think this is sensible, as the free-for-all principle that you used could lead to many problems. Your thoughts on this would be welcome. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yerpo. That's a very good point. I'll have a mull on it. Worm^TT(talk) 09:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, you might not be aware, but there's a process in place for dealing with such issues - oversight which enables suppression of improper content including usernames. It's in the hands of oversighters, stewards and staff, but they have quite strict guidelines for their work and this particular issue would still have to be brought to them by the community, I think. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is that I've been thinking in a local way for years and really haven't got my head around the fact that we're getting to be a more global project with SUL. There was a request at the local Bureaucrat board and in the old world I'd have done that without a second thought (I'm a local oversighter too). I'll certainly be more careful with such matters in future. Worm^TT(talk) 09:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you support my proposal to amend the current global renamer guideline accordingly? Right now it's rather vague in this respect, only specifying in what case can a user make a request to change their own username. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I certainly think the issue should be raised and would support that :) Worm^TT(talk) 10:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll let you know when I have the time to put the argument together. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, how did you come across that username anyway? — Yerpo ^Eh? 18:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

[2] Worm^TT(talk) 19:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so technically you did intervene by request. I apologize then for assuming you were simply lurking around :slwiki. I just don't understand how the username appeared in both places because there is no global account. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, technically. But as you say, it was a local request about a local problem by a third party and I acted globally based upon it. I still think it's worth raising :) Worm^TT(talk) 07:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I believe that you have been tracking issues related to the editors I have been tracking at issue here. Just an FYI. Montanabw^(talk) 02:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

General reminder

I have concerns over the topic ban that you have imposed. I have also read your page notice still I am making this message in case you forget to watch over there. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Any specific reason that you ignored this above message? Given the seriousness of this issue, how would you know about these concerns until you will allow me to tell? Don't you think that it is procedural to let you know about the things you are not aware of, or you have missed? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've not ignored anything OccultZone, I'm just not as active as you. I'm aware of what's been said on your talk page, I'm aware of the multiple changes to the messages you've made. I'm considering whether changing the topic ban would be beneficial. Worm^TT(talk) 11:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that you may have had this answer, much quicker, if you might allow me to at least explain my case from start. You may doubt if this is a legible WP:TBAN. So many things I never told, and how I could then, you know the circumstances. But I think that I should, before it is too late. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've heard enough of your case, OccultZone, I don't see the benefit of rehashing it. What I'm interested is the path forward which leads to the least disruption on Wikipedia. I said I'd reconsider the topic ban if fresh evidence came to light - it did, there were 2 sockpuppets at the article. However, you claimed a lot more than that. Are you going to drop further accusations of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry? Worm^TT(talk) 11:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that I ever told. If I had at that time, you might have dropped the decision of topic ban. Since you are interested in avoiding the disruption, how about we find at least 1 disruptive edit that I had made? We can discuss my edits, some of them you referred as "minor edit war", however it is not ruling out the fact that we cannot accept the clear disruptive edits, even if they are being added into the namespace by any multiple accounts abuser, if it is not a sock who is being reverted by at least 4 users, still how we can rule out any of the respect to WP:CON, WP:V and WP:BRD? By 'clear disruptive', it means anyone would agree that they are disruptive.

We can rule out the violation of multiple accounts policy and see if these edits were correct or disruptive without that.

[3] What was wrong with this edit? Yes it is not a notable incident neither it is proven. Editor had told to me that he now considers his edit to be wrong.

What was wrong with this [4] revert? I went for another reverts[5][6] only after establishing the clear-cut WP:DUCK case,[7] though there was no violation of 3rr by me, in such situation these reverts(even 10 reverts) are exempted from 3rr and they are not counted by any admin. Still I had asked for page protection regardless of wrong version.[8]

This source has no mention of India. [9] is also unreliable and written by a journalist who also represents the views of his friends on very different subjects.

This source is completely unreliable since the author is a primary source, not an academic and misrepresents the UN report like there is a law of the country, India, that's why it "registers only 1.8", while other registers "27" and more, and then cites an unreliable primary source for doubting the stats.

But any expert would know that UN reports were not based on the official stats nor they described them as "rape" per standard definition, a number of countries count even minor molestation as "rape", while many wouldn't even recognize rape if 4 witnesses are available. That's why it is highly misleading to compare rape of one country with other, especially when the law of two countries differ and the law of the US and India have great differences in this regard. We have mentioned them here, but we have also made it clear that "entry is based on that country's definition of rape, which varies widely throughout the world".

Just like we generally don't accept the sources that are promoting fringe/conspiracy theory on articles, we also don't accept the URLs that are violating copyrights, just like that many of us don't accept or give any undue weight to non-notable and still unproven allegations, or any of the sources that are alleging a living person. That is how you provide better quality. Even if one is going to mention as "A man did this on March 18, 2015" and the source is clearly mentioning the name, it doesn't means that the event becomes credible and evident. It is better to stick only to those events that aimed towards the convicted ones and even if the person is notable, having their own article, still there should be a limited mention on that article and no undue weight to the allegation should be provided. Fair example is Bill Cosby, we don't mention him on Rape in the United States though that case is notable. Thus even if the allegation is notable, it would depend and there are some limitations.

Best way to compare the unreported and reported statistics of any field is to show both of the researches, not just baseless estimates from someone who has no relevance in the field.

[10]: Indeed crystalball and also violating WP:NNEWS. Even after the clear indication of the guideline in my edit summary, he reverted[11] and rewrote[12]. If my approach was to edit war, can you find me reverting it again? Can you tell if this edit(that I opposed) had consensus or discussed upon using the article talk page? I didn't bothered to revert because I knew that in the end of the day I would be considered correct. The current version of article reads like we are still living in the world prior to 30 March, "courts have set 30 March 2015 as the hearing ..."

Thus, in this part, who was making disruptive and undiscussed edits?

Same edits were also made to 2014 Badaun gang rape allegations

I am amazed that why these sentences have not been updated, actually I waited and wanted to see if someone would, since I was sure that no one will, I just thought of turning such assumption into reality, and now you can see that no one has updated that thing on both of the articles.[13] In short words it wasn't even required also because of WP:NOTNEWS. From 17-30 March, this particular content has violated the WP:CRYSTAL and from 31 March - this day, both articles are misleading the readers for its factual inaccuracy and outdated statements.

What was wrong with this edit? Apart from the collection of unproven and non notable allegations, copyvio, all that I discussed before, it has enlisted the views of different politicians on a subject where they have no expertise. Check WP:SOAPBOXING.

After measuring all that, I don't see merit in this topic ban. The policy itself says that it should be applied "where their contributions have been disruptive".

It is not hard to find disruptive edits. It is possible if some editor has made a few edits on an article and even if 1 edit is controversial and made without consensus or it is misrepresenting the source, such edit would qualify the definition of "disruptive edit".

Can you find even a one disruptive edit per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, that was made by me? This topic ban is discrediting me from every single attempt that I made for the betterment of the article. Obviously all such great efforts look useless when you are rewarded with a topic ban for removing the seditious content from the article. I would ask if I was the only one to remove, what about other 4 editors who were also removing the same problematic content? That is how WP:BRD and WP:CON works. In order to avoid edit wars, I was the one to open discussions[14][15] and ask for page protection on multiple occasions.[16][17] This topic ban tells me adopt the approach of those objectionable editors who misrepresent sources, unnecessarily edit wars, make undiscussed edits, continue to violate the above guidelines(copyvio, Nnews..). Furthermore should I never address any sock abuse or admin tools abuse?

I surely know about this subject, and it can be proved with what I have done here.

Being the creator of the articles such as Rape in Sweden, Rape in Saudi Arabia, Rape in Egypt, Rape in Belgium (DYK), Rape in Germany (DYK), and few others, I have made my edits only after carefully assessing them, and my edits are something on which everyone or most can agree. Each of these articles would be DYK only if I had knew about this thing from before. None of these articles are violating any of the above guidelines that I have mentioned. You can compare Rape in Sweden with Rape in India and evaluate, you would find Rape in Sweden to be more better, realistic and it is rid of any copyvio, soapboxing, unproven allegations, etc.

This restriction is also making the block by Swarm look real when it was overturned for its inappropriacy. No admin until now except Swarm says that it was valid in any form or substance. I had contacted an active arbitrator and they told that they see unblock summary if it hopes for improvement or counts the block as invalid, and they would not count any of these blocks as appropriate for anything. Often, unblocks are also inappropriate and they are judged that way, whether there was a consensus or some obvious reason. But none of these reasons apply here, I was not released upon any promise for better conduct but rather due to the factual problem with both blocks. Topic bans are not for removing the best editors of the article but for removing the clearly disruptive editors. Again, "disruption" about which no one can doubt.

This topic ban is stopping me from improving en.wiki across many namespaces. I cannot revert disruptive edits such as [18][19][20] [21] these edits because article has some minor indication of "rape", I even know who is behind that account but because of this topic ban I cannot report. I cannot even participate on great page move discussions like this. What I have mentioned is just a smidgen short of the effect, overall it is just huge.

Topic ban is disparaging and misrepresenting me as some disruptive incompetent source misrepresenting sock abusing edit warring editor, none of which can be proved with diffs. Such issues are of serious concern, they further help others to sanction without thinking as much as it was required before the first sanction. For real we know that my approach was not problematic or even cent-worth disruptive. How it is my fault if someone is abusing multiple accounts and making highly disruptive edits and obsessively edit warring on a highly sensitive article, and I am just reverting them along with the 5 other non-socking editors per WP:BRD, WP:CON? I can request for page protection I did a few times. I would clearly qualify for the most anti-disruption force on that article. Forgive me, but I really I find it better to ask that you should completely remove that entry[[22]. I know that I hadn't discussed about this all as much as I have now, would you consider the benefit of doubt?

As for your last question, re:accusations of sock/meat puppetry. I know who you are referring to but how they are any related with this topic or its content? How they had any affect on my edits after the SPI on 5 March? I had referred only the obvious IP hopping of that time as socking. None of my allegation of him being a sock had any effect over the article or this subject, I never reverted him(after 5 march) for that reason, nor I degraded his points for that. Yes I won't carry them unless there is any new account, since we've been through 3 SPIs already. There are better ways to deal with something you suspect or thinks. I actually wanted to talk with Mike V about that, because he had blocked a range that day and I have some suspicion about that range, discussion would be better if I do that on-wiki so that he may better know and other experts may chime in. He was incorrect in many ways, whether if he said "its an article", though there were 2 articles, or if he predicted "some of these users will also agree on the same", though there has been no edits to this article since that SPI. You see that it required another CU to block 2 suspected accounts and an IP. Wikipedia is a team work after all. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• I did say I had no interest in re-hashing the past, yet you proceed to make a massive statement about the past on my talk page, complete with 8 following tweaks. I've told you what I want to see - a plan for moving forward without disruption to the topic. If you want vindication, get the consensus of admins (at say, WP:AN) that the topic ban is incorrect. I'll gladly make a statement there if you go down that route. Or take it to Arbcom, as a request for clarification. Discretionary sanctions allowed me to put a sanction into place which would stop the disruption at that article, whether you see the merit or not.

  Swarm's block was appropriate. I'm telling you that now - stop implying that it was not. Bgwhite's subsequent block was also appropriate. Multiple admins have taken issue with your behaviour. So, before I lift the restriction, I want to know why I should be confident that it is the right thing to do, not you think the topic ban was incorrect in the first place. Worm^TT(talk) 12:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I made those statements in order to prove the statements that I found to be important. I really got no hope that they can be refuted. Anyways, here I am trying to keep it meaningful and without repeating what I have already said. I would echo that the issues that you are talking about, they are already outdated. I already told to Callanecc and DoRD that what happened, and they have got no problem. I knew they would come to that conclusion, I had such belief. If I had disrespected any of their command, like that one from Callanecc, who told me not to file SPI. If I had, I might have lost some respect in his eyes, that's why I didn't.

Have you ever seen me repelling any of these editors? No matter even if they were criticizing me, I never did. I knew that they will find me correct one day and if I had to embarrass them, then I would've never even signed into en.wiki ever again. When you know that the next one is unaware, you are required to tell, there are many ways to. I respect their positions and I also respect them. It has been proven that Sonic2030 operated socks on not only here but many other articles, more than just 3 socks have been blocked after my investigation. I have history working with these editors on many of these cases. I even believe that this incident might have strengthened my credibility in their view, more than ever. Since that time, there have been a few SPIs where I have participated and like before there was no problem.[23]

If you want to know that why lifting restriction would be a good idea, I would say that you have every reason to think that it is. Topic ban started from 11:06, 1 April (UTC), since then I have made over 8,000 edits.[24][25] Every of my edit was major, there were no minor edits and none of them were automated or semi-automated. There were no conflicts not even a minor one. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)