Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

The Workshop phase for this case is closed. Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go to the talk page and create an edit request.

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Magioladitis is banned from participating on this ARC. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Prohibiting someone from participating in a request for arbitration is a rarely taken action for someone who is not a sockpuppet, vandal or ibanned, and I'm not seeing the level of disruption necessary to do anything here. We will of course weigh the relevance of his evidence and behaviour, and that may if necessary lead to sanctions in the proposed decision. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your allegations that Magioladitis has been economical with the truth, but I do not think that the allegations rise to the level of removing them from the case at this time. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In the light of this prediction that he made only for disparaging me, I have to propose this. He is not listed as a party, but due to his support for Bgwhite,(RFA nomination) and habit of checking my contribution history. Check his editor interactions with Bgwhite and me.(see minutes, seconds) He is clearly disrupting this ARC and its outcome since its beginning. I cannot find any single productive edit. His edits:-

Accusations with no evidence,[7] they include wholly incorrect claims. Example: "1 admin tbanned him temporarily" everyone knows that the T-ban was indefinite.[8]

Referring AC/DS notification[9] as "disruptive behavior"[10] after violating BLP.[11]

Trying to protect a long term blocked sock[12] just because the sock happened to be my opponent.[13]

Off-topic discussions,[14] because we were discussing wheel warring, not unblocking conditions.

Inventing new ideas.[15] "Email ban" never took place on en.wiki, ever.

Since he is only attempting to defame me with incorrect information, and to prevent further disruption and maintain decorum, I find it to be a good idea to ask a ban on him from this ARC. Finally this case is not going to effect him. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf wasn't really aware of that, but thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

OZ proposes ban for "Off-topic discussion" (which are not off-topic" and my proposal was already discussed by ArbCom members) and for "Inventing new ideas". Seriously now? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why OccultZone asked for me to be restricted and later tried to involve me in this case by adding things about me in the evidence page. And the text was added after the expiration of the time limit to present evidence in the case. Moreover, nothing seems to be related in the case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) It's very difficult right now to deal with OccultZone when discussing the same article. I recently filed an AN request to have page protection lifted from John Coleman (news weathercaster). At the request page, OccultZone went on about socks and accused me of wikihounding, supporting a sock and waging an edit war. Yesterday, OccultZone even put a discretionary sanctions notice on my talk page and nobody else that has been discussing at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#John Coleman (news weathercaster). For the most part, people are ignoring OccultZone on the noticeboard discussion. I've talked about the John Coleman article experience on the evidence page. Note: I have an BS and MS in meteorology and worked 20 years at a University's Department of meteorology. Can there be a temporary injunction that forces OccultZone to just talk about the merits? Is there any other advice? Bgwhite (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Given the long term sock puppetry on this article, and your favorable stance to the sock as seen here, I found it very necessary to describe every merit, that why protection was warranted and it should remain semi-protected. What was wrong with that?

Now you also know that WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against you, and some are also questioning the notability of the subject. Why do I have to notify those about WP:ARBCC(WP:AC/DS) who are either notified before or haven't been disrupting this article with fringe information and sources, that way you are doing? Especially when every single editor[16][17] has opposed your edits including JzG.[18][19]

Since you have already posted about this issue at WP:AN, outcome would be decided there, whether your request has any merit or not. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome is against your request. I am sure that if there was no ARC, I would had been blocked either by you or one who favors you, during the AN incident in question, and probably without being told to cease editing on WP:AN, correct? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - standard Worm^TT(talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are usually considered when there is some kind of conduct, related with handling the content disputes. It cannot be found in this case. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yep. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion involving the wider community, if necessary, and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Dispute resolution should generally be handled in a single forum where possible. Raising the same or similar issues with multiple administrators, in the hope of finding the answer you want, hampers the development of consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - combined standard consensus building with WP:ADMINSHOP Worm^TT(talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not quite sure about the way this is framed and if it's quite right, though I appreciate the thinking behind why it was proposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All that said, it is apparent the more detailed (and perhaps standard) principle under this heading will be needed given the rather unusual justification given on this page for "global consensus". Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) Administrators are trusted members of the community, and are expected to perform their duties to the best of their abilities; to behave in a respectful and civil manner in their interactions with others; to follow Wikipedia policies; to lead by example; and to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough Worm^TT(talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about it OccultZone? Worm^TT(talk) 11:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The committee is quite happy to admonish admins, strip them of the user-right or even ban them - there's lots of examples too, even in the past couple of years. Oddly, your argument that people don't criticise admins is exactly why I got involved in this case in the first place. I looked into everything in depth and made comments as to things that could be improved with admins, where I saw it. The case isn't black and white and could have been avoided by nipping things in the bud early on. Worm^TT(talk) 12:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned you still remember everything about this case? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About one year ago I had read it. Here or there I have found it interesting that administrators are favored or never even warned. A person saves a possible chance of getting blocked if he/she is friendly with some active admin of the area where problems are likely going to show up. Fram had overturned 3 months block of Kiefer, and also warned Ironholds. He is so far the only one I know, frequent with that approach. The case that you have cited above was mostly because of him as well. Because of the rarity of these needful actions we continue to see problems with the administrative actions. Agree? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WTT: That's correct. Another thing is that this is by far the only incident where I needed to adminshop because concern was with admin actions and such adminshopping had a comfortable rise when I mentioned the t-ban that you had imposed, and they felt like they would be doing something against you if they helped me, even after knowing that it was pretty easy to. Such factors are often ignored, but they have a major impact. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yep. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: I'm not seeing evidence of poor judgement by Swarm, Bgwhite, Worm That Turned (or any other admin) in this case. I see, at the absolute worst, sensible administrative decisions that, with hindsight, haven't had the intended effect, but I see administrative actions daily that don't have quite the intended effect, so this case is far from unique. In this case, there's no evidence of poor judgement from any of the administrators accused here, the blocks, unblocks, page protections and topic bans, at the time they were imposed, were valid, sensible, acceptable courses of action supported by policy, that each administrator has, to my mind, satisfactorily accounted for in the pre-case submissions. Nick (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Common automation tools include bots (independently running processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion), scripts (software components utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing), and various other technologies.

The use of automation tools on Wikipedia is subject to numerous restrictions, and certain tools require approval from the Bot Approvals Group before an editor may use them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'll leave it to the arbitrators to decide whether it's worth pursuing the automation slant on OccultZone. There's not been many complaints about his automation since he lost access to AWB, but it has hampered any investigation. OccultZone has only been editing about a year and a half and has 200k edits under his belt, but 2 AN threads regarding AWB access - there is a very real possibility that this will come back to cause issues in the future if some structure is not put in place. At any rate, I've taken these from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough Worm^TT(talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, there is a problem with those edits, the sheer volume of them means that your edits avoid scrutiny. You say there has been no complaints since the removal of AWB, but the community were not happy to return the tool just 6 months ago. I'm surprised that you say you are not using any scripts - the amount of edits for sustained periods makes that seem highly improbable and per previous Arbcom cases, it is reasonable to infer that they are scripted. Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've no expanded my evidence regarding the high speed editing. OccultZone, this issue is at the heart of this is that work at this speed cannot be properly managed. You are regularly making a dozen of edits per minute for a sustained period - you simply cannot be giving each edit sufficient attention. Look at your reviewed articles, in my evidence. Look at the string of edits which you had to fix. Even if you are not using a script, you are acting as a bot. Worm^TT(talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It can be proposed only when there is problem with the edits. There has been no complaints about any of my edit since the removal of AWB, and after that I had realized that I should only make those edits that have global consensus and I stopped using semi-automated programs for major edits. All of the edits that I have made are impossible to make through any bot or script, they require homework and manual care. You have said that "it's very difficult to look into"[20] my contribution history. I agree that mass editing makes it harder for an admin to find a reason to block, but there is no procedure for easing it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No there is no problem with those edits, they are beneficial to en.wiki. It is not my fault if I am the major contributor of many wikiprojects. It was *3 months, June - September, not 6. About 7 months ago since last weeks of September - April. Majority had voted for reinstatement, about 8 support compared to 3 oppose. I didn't objected to the closure, I just thought of dropping the idea and try someday later. What I am currently doing, it cannot be done through any semi-automated programs or scripts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)re-edited 02:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore where did you found bot policy saying that one requires approval at WP:BAG for using script and making semi-automated edits? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: 'would cover'? No it is not going to cover anything except "bot" and "automated" scripts/tasks. I have no semi-automated[21] scripts enabled either. I am now naming Ohconfucius, Hugo999, and many other editors who have got high speed too, thus it shouldn't be so unbelievable. These [22][23][24] are 3 very different edits made under 1 minute and 2 others[25][26] from the same minute. It is impossible for a bot or script to decide that person is actually living or not and appropriately tagging this quickly. Automation can only repeat the same thing. If this matter is investigated, I would show the video to Arbcom, they would know that it requires a great deal of homework and it is 100% manual. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is contradictory to mention that I had to fix my 18 edits by myself since no one had asked, and at the same time, suggesting that I put bot. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

Comment by others:

The first line of the bot policy states, quite clearly Bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts used to provide automation of Wikipedia edits, whether completely automated, higher speed, or simply assisting human editors in their own work. which would cover almost all, if not all of the high speed, repetitive tasks OccultZone is currently engaged in. It goes on to say Note that high-speed semi-automated processes may effectively be considered bots in some cases, even if performed by an account used by a human editor. If in doubt, check. and Tools not considered to be bots do not require a separate account, but some users do choose to make separate accounts for non-bot but high-speed editing is also relevant depending in the edits in question. These sorts of edits, made at upto 2 second intervals, don't appear to have any sort of human input at the point they're saved, they appear to essentially an unauthorised bot task, and contrary to OccultZone's assertions, the majority of these edits can easily be performed by an automated bot or script. [27][28][29]. This morning alone (5 May) I can see 43 edits in 16 minutes averaging around 3 edits per minute. I see no evidence OccultZone has consulted with the Bot Approvals Group directly concerning his editing activities [30] but he may have asked a BAG member elsewhere, and if so, it would be helpful if he could provide diffs of this before I possibly write up some additional remedies here. Nick (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5) Like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, users of automation tools have a heightened responsibility to the community, and are expected to comply with applicable policies and restrictions; to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about their use of such tools; and to respect the community's wishes regarding the use of automation.

An editor who misuses automation tools—whether deliberately or in good faith—or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per Principle 4 Worm^TT(talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No longer convinced about this one, as there is no clear tool OccultZone is using, and he states he is doing it manually. Something new may need to be written. Worm^TT(talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to this case. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm not convinced by this principle, particularly because of the first part, but from when it talks about expectations and what happens in the case of misuse, I agree. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6) It is often impossible to definitively determine whether a particular edit was made using an automation tool, as such tools typically run on computers under the control of individual users rather than on the servers that host Wikipedia, and even automation tools that normally report their use may be modified to run silently.

In examining edits where the use of automation tools is suspected, the community and the Arbitration Committee may make reasonable inferences regarding the probable use of such tools on the basis of several factors, including the speed, number, timing, and consistency of the edits and the performing editor's past use of and familiarity with such tools. (See also: WP:MEATBOT.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per Principle 4 Worm^TT(talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have - see my evidence. Worm^TT(talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That policy(WP:MEATBOT) concerns the quick but bad quality(such as breaking things) edits. Have you found any? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not evidence, I never "reviewed" many of those articles and it has been proven with the logs that I have provided. Unless I had removed something more than just {{new unreviewed article}} or any other text that comes along with the userspace draft, then I would consider. Have you found like, even 10 errors in last 10k edits of mine? WP:MEATBOT applies only on frequent errors. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yep. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the evidence I think this should be included. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) On 23 March 2015, User:OccultZone was blocked alongside other editors for 72 hours by User:Swarm for a slow motion edit war at Rape in India.[31] OccultZone has contacted a large number of administrators regarding the block and related matters and has subsequently been blocked and unblocked twice more based on his subsequent behaviour.[32]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree. Every time there was a new reason to block and both of the times I was unblocked because the block was incorrect. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no " slow motion edit war" if 4 editors have reverted an obvious sock puppet. Nor there is any need to block when it is 100% obvious that no more disruption is going to take place, per WP:BLOCK. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was an obvious sock puppet, when multiple accounts have used same edit summaries all time, they are WP:DUCK. It is sock puppetry to evade 3RR by registering an account, such account is often indeffed. There was mass copyvio involved on that article and also afterwards. Bgwhite was involved and he could not block for a conflict that was already stale. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that they are all related - largely through your contacting of such a high number of administrators. I've given my evidence on the appropriateness of the blocks, it might be worth Arbcom making a statement that the blocks were not incorrect or within administrator discretion, so that OccultZone can have a ruling on the matter. Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it wasn't an obvious sockpuppet - it required 3-4 SPIs and a number of checkusers to root out the sockpuppets. Nor was it a clear copyvio (mentioned elsewhere) as it was not mentioned until later. Nor a clear-cut case BLPCRIME as no living persons were named. There was an edit war and it needed to be stopped. Similarly with Bgwhite's block - 7 reverts and some admins will block no matter what, even after reversions have stopped - to encourage better behaviour in the future. That is preventative, not punitive. Worm^TT(talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

There has not been any evidence provided that the blocks were procedurally incorrect. They represented one possible course of action that administrators have the discretion to take. There are essentially two options to deal with edit wars once dispute resolution is exhausted - block all those involved, or fully protect the article page. Administrators have their own preferences and it varies from case to case, if the administrator thinks the edit war will move to another article, then blocking all those involved is usually the most sensible option. If it is likely that the edit war is restricted to one page, then blocking otherwise productive editors is not always necessary.

It is not necessary that an edit war be happening at the point an administrator blocks a participant, if there is reasonable grounds to suspect the issue is not resolved and that edit warring may resume, then blocks still fulfil their preventative purpose. Nick (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subsequent unblock/block needs to be put in more detail. I also don't agree with the heading of this proposal (though I understand what is intended, it won't be considered in the same way by anyone else really). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) OccultZone has contacted at least 28 administrators (13 through off-wiki methods) directly with respect to this dispute. Many have told him to drop the issue and move on.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In my view, this is where the biggest problem in this case lies. The initial blockw as for 72 hours, and was quickly overturned (rightly or wrongly). If OccultZone had accepted the judgement there and the advice from a number of admins at that time, we would not be in this position. Worm^TT(talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone - you denied contacting 18 administrators at the case request, I've now done a full tally and come up with 28 which I have found. I've no idea how many more were contacted through email direct, gchat or IRC. Feel free to use the analysis of evidence section to debunk my findings, but as it stands I have defined the dispute as "administrative actions related to Rape in India" and it appears you've contacted 28 admins in 6 weeks. Without a doubt, that is adminshopping. Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The context of the Chillum contact was editing an archive to refactor a sockpuppet's contributions. This was within a day of the allowed SPI failing. It appeared the question was linked. You appear to be scoping the cases oddly, we're not looking "from 20 April", we're reviewing all parties behaviour. I'm focussing from 23 March, which is where I started looking into the matter. Worm^TT(talk) 10:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have started or reopened 4 SPIs directly related to individuals at Rape in India - 1,2,3,4, it appeared to be one of them. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to strike that one. Again, if you want to rebutt my evidence, why not use the Analysis of Evidence section below? Finally, what is "my definition of adminshopping" - because I was unaware I had defined it, especially a definition which would not include your emails around 15 April, or later pings. Worm^TT(talk) 11:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed out the evidence I've found of asking lots of admins about similar issues - and that's just the evidence I've found. There's little more I can do. I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong about some, I specifically mentioned that communication may be on other matters - but the fact is, there is clear admin shopping here. Worm^TT(talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were different issues. When an editor is still contributing after having blocks and a T-ban, he has to be assured whether he is doing it right or wrong. I could not make many of the requests due to the topic ban that you had imposed, despite I never made a disruptive edit. After you had removed T-Ban on 16 April,[33] I have not done anything that can be even remotely considered as adminshopping. But after I had another block, I assumed that I would pass through the same trouble again. Now for ending that whole problem, I decided to address each of these issues to Arbcom. Story ends there. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

28? Do you know any after 16 April or 20 April to be specific? Yes you even counted Chillum[34] as adminshopping, though I was talking to him about the provision to edit archives. This is how you have misrepresented vast amount. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name me the sock puppet then, whoever I was referring to according to you. And no, if adminshopping by your own definition had been already stopped then the matter is outdated. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

I never mentioned even a single SPI to Chillum, so how come you even thought that I was pointing to any of these SPIs? If you have to think of SPIs, then at the same time I was also contributing on other SPIs.[35][36][37] How come you never thought of these? I mean, you are saying that posting a message on any admin's UTP is adminshopping, that means I had to just edit the archives and ask no one about it, I would had and I would've seen that you have blocked me. I am now thinking that I have saved more chances of getting blocked by this kind of "adminshopping". Just because I saved more chances of getting blocked, I did it wrong? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WTT, here's the proof, no such adminshopping took place after 16 April, the day you had removed the topic ban.[38] You had yourself said that it is better to have transparency,[39] while I know that it is, I just couldn't discuss the matters that would touch the topic ban, and you had allowed such type of conversations yourself.[40] Still I always left notification on their talk pages. Hope you are not saying that I did it wrong by heeding your advice or kept anything secret. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In this instance, the evidence is clear, but I think the proposed findings should be more direct - that it was disruptive - and then perhaps point to examples like admin-shopping, inappropriate notification (which I suppose should have a principle on canvassing too), and so forth. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence here is clear. Ncmvocalist check also the evidence I provided. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) OccultZone has been active since 23 August 2013. He has made over 200k edits, primarily through scripts and AutoWikiBrowser (AWB). His AWB access has been revoked on two occasions[41][42] and restoration has since been refused[43] Despite the removal of AWB, OccultZone maintains a high velocity of edits, regularly averaging speeds of up to 13 edits per minute.[44]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per principle 4 Worm^TT(talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits are impossible to make through any bot or script, they require homework and manual care. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yep. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone maintains that he is not using any automation tools, and that the edits are "impossible to make through any bot or script", but I have a hard time believing that OZ's sustained, high-rate editing is all done by hand. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite has used administrator tools whilst moderating the Rape in India article. He fully protected the article, then facilitated discussion at the talk page,[45] before creating a draft compromise through the full protection. Every participant at the talk page agreed the draft was good.[46] Bgwhite went on to block OccultZone for violating 3RR at an IP talk page.[47] He also reverted an editor who edited against the consensus achieved before fully protecting the article.[48]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm not sure how best to write this - in my opinion Bgwhite's actions did not meet the threshold of "WP:INVOLVED" - indeed his work at Rape in India deserves praise, not condemnation. However, there is definitely a grey area there and it would have been better for him to draw clearer lines with regards to moderation and administrator intervention. Worm^TT(talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between "working as an editor" and "drafting a consensus", especially when all parties agree to it. Even if Bgwhite was considered involved, WP:INVOLVED makes it clear that obvious administrator actions can be taken - you know, like blocking for violating 3RR or protecting an article against vandalism. Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't seen that Bgwhite was "in dispute" with you. He wrote a draft based on comments at an article he had barely edited. You and all other participants unanimously agreed it was good, forming consensus for the draft. That's not a dispute. Worm^TT(talk) 10:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you didn't raise it when he unblocked you, nor when he found consensus at the talk page of Rape in India. Worm^TT(talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is contrary to the established principles.[49] An admin cannot work as an editor on any article where he has performed administrative tasks, simple as that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He cannot block any editor who he is in dispute with per the policy. Any block, except under special circumstances(like high level of vandalism) would influence the position of the admin who is WP:INVOLVED in the dispute. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did disagreed with him at some things and disagreement can be still found over there, we have been in a number of content dispute, including a discussion about spam link where consensus is in my favor.[50] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't wanted to remember all that, like I have mentioned on the evidence, I really had doubts over the consequences. I strongly believed that it would've been better if someone else had unblocked me, Bgwhite could in fact try asking any other admin too. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) OccultZone is instructed to create an alternative account for his automated editing. Any large scale (over 100 edits) automation should be treated as "bot" editing and be approved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per principle 4 Worm^TT(talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that there are some massive benefits to forcing a bot flag - the addition oversight over the work, the quick "shut off" methods and the flag that allows people to hide the edits from their watchlist. Worm^TT(talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First there has to be automated editing, currently and in fact since day no.1 there hasn't been any. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD Read this message,[51] sums up everything. Bot cannot decide whether a person is alive or dead nor it can make different edits the way I do in a single minute,[52][53] it can only repeat same text. These proposals by WTT only shows his misrepresentation of bot policy, editing modes, or his struggle to find a single disruptive edit since he has been challenged countless times. We have to see that his plan is to block me for making even 2 edits in 3 minutes in the future. You or Arbcom can ask me anytime, I can show a very short 2 minutes video. One can understand that how manual my editing is, it just requires some experience and we have editors like Hugo999, Ohconfucius, and more who got high speed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which bot did it? Thinking of making a bot is unnecessary, because bot cannot make these edits[54][55][56][57] with different summaries and content in a minute, it can only repeat. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes, though I really do not see why he can't, shouldn't, or won't do this right away. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and in fact most of the tagging could be done by an approved bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a number of current bots that could be making these edits, but if OZ insists on making them, they should be done through an approved bot account. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bots tag with |living= yes/no based on categories in article page. Bots can do most of the job OccultZone does manually. i strongly suggest that in most tasks OccultZone recently performs, a bot should be operated first to reduce human amount of work. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned I suggest that we extend this to semi-automated editing such use of scripts etc. Moreover, extend this to mass talk page tagging even if this is done manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing manually at high speed for 2 minutes is doable so a 2 minute video wouldn't tell us anything. Someone above mentioned a high sustained edit rate for 4 hours, so if that was entirely manual it would take a 4 hour video to show it. I'd be interested in seeing a video of a 4 hour session of comparable volume. I wouldn't watch it from beginning to end, but would skip around at random and see if it looked like manual editing everywhere. Occultzone, are you up for something like that, and is there a reasonable way for you to upload a video that large? A 2 minute video is of no value. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) OccultZone may only contact a maximum of two administrators directly, or one noticeboard, on any single issue. After six months, he may appeal this restriction to the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this is the best non-draconian option. The only other way I can think that this will end is a short term ban or full exoneration (both I would oppose) Worm^TT(talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he is unable to see that the situations were related - perhaps a list of X (say, 5) admins that OccultZone is restricted to contacting, along with noticeboards? That way we don't have this ridiculous situation of contacting so many? Worm^TT(talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were disrupting the article and entire topic area by making mass accusations of sockpuppets without starting an SPI. You carried on with sockpuppet accusations even after checkusers told you no. I attempted to remove you from the topic, to reduce the disruption, that's what discretionary sanctions is for. I don't regret it. Worm^TT(talk) 07:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DISRUPTSIGNS is not the be all and end all - it specifically states "such as". There are other signs "such as" accusing your opponents of sockpuppetry without backing it up at an SPI (that's against our civility policy - "ill-considered accusations of impropriety".) That's why the sockpuppetry policy tells you to create an SPI. I'm not denying those two were related - but they weren't the only people you were accusing when you finally did create your first or second SPIs - You conveniently forget that you accused 4 editors and multiple IP address of being the same person. You were told by a number of checkusers that they are unrelated. I know checkuser is not "magic pixie dust", I set very little store by it and that's why I gave up the right. What I do know is that our checkusers are very good at looking at patterns in editing and very good at detecting sockpuppets and I trust their judgement.
You seem to be still saying Zhanzhao and Bargolus are not good editors, the very definition of uncivil accusations. I'm done here. Worm^TT(talk) 08:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, since every matter actually required judgement of an administrator, also read see my reply above OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Actually, that is how it already went. Never contacted any more than 1 or two admin on same matter, nor I raised issue on multiple noticeboards. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)[reply]

We have authoritative banning and AC/DS policies for a reason. Although you have violated that(ac/ds) whole facility, we know that even a minor violation of such a serious policy can lead to negative consequences, there is a reason why we have WP:ARE where a number of admins, experienced editors share their opinions. Now when there is a contradictory T-Ban, one will have to knock at the doors to get easy-to-understand problems solved. It is very hard, because most of the people would watch that the target is "banned", not the reasons or merit, and further tell the target to "move on and forget", exactly that happened here. It is clear that you were waiting for ARBIPA violation so that I could be blocked appropriately, right? Violation never took place and I could get the problems fixed without even touching the topic ban which was against what you had thought. In order to respond to that, you went to issue wider topic ban since the violation was more likely to happen after the imposition of this topic ban. It is comfortable to suggest that it would be better if you refrain from banning people for no actual reason. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't qualifies any WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I have to ask again, that you should review your definition of disruption. Allegations of socking are out of AC/DS scope, CU is not a magic pixie dust and when same accounts were making same edits, using same edit summaries[58][59][60][61][62][63] we really know who is being disruptive. Finally, I wasn't alleging any good editors anyway, but those who had to be blocked for misrepresentation of sources, edit warring, editing against consensus, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Not to mention the previous positive record. Topic ban from this subject clearly looked more like a "Topic ban from talking about Swarm's block". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about we look at your experience with WP:AC/DS[64]? And if you still wanted to T-Ban, why you didn't looked back to June 2014? Anyways, that first SPI was successful, it just had a misleading and never seen decision. Second SPI had to be looked more upon since the named IPs(72. an 96.) matched geolocations, that is how I had presented technical evidence even though I am not a CU, and all that was largely ignored. Third SPI had a massive misrepresentation, which is not even a new thing for Mike V, he had mistreated another crucial SPI before[65] and the editor was unblocked as innocent when PhilKnight questioned.[66] Looking at so many faults around, I needed to contact a CU with whom I never had a problem before, nor there was any evidence that he would favor than decide something. How come you can ignore the disruption that includes not only edit warring, but comes along with 3rr evasion, misrepresentation of sources[67][68], etc.? That's not the definition of good editors. Remember that you had discouraged me from the SPI?[69] That's why I am not even amazed after looking at your response, evidently because you want me to be banned from SPI[70] though I was very correct on still-recent SPIs.[71][72][73] You had also referred this SPI as "crusades".[74] Right now I am contributing on 2 SPIs[75][76] one of it concerns a banned editor. Let us think of that ban on WP:SPI again? How much more "adminshopping", "administrator contacting", etc. would we be seeing if your SPI ban was implemented? I would say just more than what you have inaccurately estimated until now. It is all because of your incorrect imposition of T-Ban that led to such adminshopping. My approach to stop disruption and keep en.wiki free of trouble was still alive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, being all that doesn't justify the violation of WP:AC/DS or imposition of retaliatory topic bans. Thus your misleading comment really makes no sense, yes we know that you have been favorable to a disruptive sock master, especially after watching your support for Kumioko and a rejected unblock appeal[77] that you had made for him,[78] and your hopes to topic ban me from SPIs. But how it is going to benefit en.wiki? Have you ever checked WP:DENY? Socks should not be recognized anywhere in whole en.wiki, any attempts to dismiss socks should not be discouraged as long as they don't restore some vandalism. What do you meant from "conspiracy theory"? No political agenda is being discussed, I am only showing what actually happened and with the diffs. Your don't need administrator to tell what is wrong and right. It is policies that defines what is correct and incorrect and all administrators should lead by example and follow those policies. If they are contradicting them, for an example, if they are making or applauding block for 1 revert in 5 days then that has to be addressed. Finally, did I ever said that I know more than him? I am wondering how you reached to that conclusion, we just have to compare the actions/statements with the policies and usual standards. So when it comes to who's correct or who knows more about the concerning subject, answer is obviously clear. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

It's definitely better than a plain admonishment suggesting sanctions may happen in the future. I am concerned that this may be wikilawyered though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: you say My approach to stop disruption and keep en.wiki free of trouble was still alive. but the grim reality of the situation is your attempts to stop disruption are several orders of magnitude more disruptive than any sockpuppet you've reported. You yourself are filling en.wiki up with trouble you have created, when called out on it, you proceed to blame the world and its wife through increasingly erratic, sensational and utterly ridiculous claims of conspiracy theories (such as the one targeting Worm That Turned right now), yet not once have I seen you accept any wrongdoing or take any personal responsibility for your actions. How many administrators need to tell you that you are wrong before you will accept it ? Do you genuinely believe you know better than longstanding administrators, retired arbitrators and numerous functionaries ? Nick (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: there's a problem with those diffs. [79] shows an unblock proposal Tiptoety was working on, I'm not even mentioned in the discussion at that point (I made some comments later), and [80] is a concern about Floquenbeam's interaction with Tiptoety and not their response to the unblock discussion. I've only ever discussed unblocking of Kumioko in general terms, what might be needed, editing restrictions etc. I have never written up a specific unblock proposal, indeed, quite the opposite, I've also blocked an IP he was using to evade his current block. I've previously demonstrated how this is entirely consistent and in-line with the sockpuppetry and blocking policies. What I am seeing more and more of is this insistence that only your opinion is correct, you don't seem to recognise alternative approaches are equally valid and that there's not necessarily a right and wrong way to handle incidents. Nick (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed an enforcement to this by blocking his Wikipedia email for 6 months. This will reduce off-wiki disruption and admin shopping. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) Bgwhite is reminded that the perception of whether an administrator is WP:INVOLVED is important and to ensure there is a clear delineation between acting as an administrator and as a moderator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nothing more than a reminder is really necessary here - if that, I spoke to Bgwhite at the time and although his response was not as positive as I'd hoped, I'm sure it had the right effect. As I mentioned above - Bgwhite's work at the Rape in India article should be praised, he made major inroads to a difficult debate. Worm^TT(talk) 17:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to provide evidence on that OccultZone. Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to present actual evidence at the evidence page. Worm^TT(talk) 10:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: Apologies for not responding sooner. I'm satisfied that you were not involved wrt OccultZone through the Rape in India article (I'd not looked at previous interactions, as OccultZone never mentioned them until this case). However, on the surface, your actions did look involved, protecting an article, editing through the protection and blocking one of the participants. I expect this can be better written - and I would like to emphasise that after I raised the concerns with you, you made no further actions that I had any issue with. Had you reacted differently on your talk page when I raised the matter - I wouldn't have mentioned this at all. Worm^TT(talk) 07:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair comment Bgwhite, (hadn't realised how hypocritical that looked!) I'll certainly keep it in mind for the future. Worm^TT(talk) 08:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking only one article into account, we do have many other articles where WP:INVOLVED has been violated. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can check this. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What part of INVOLVED did I cross? Where did I cross it? What is it on Rape in India or was it the block? Why am I being reminded about INVOLVED when only OccultZone says I was involved? Worm didn't say I was involved in Worm's Case Request response and on my talk page. I should be praised for my work on Rape in India but rebuked for working on Rape of India?

If I'm not involved why does Worm want this when he said I wasn't involved? Bgwhite (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned No problem in not responding earlier. I was upset that you didn't ask me what was going on before you left your message, including looking at my talk page, while rebuking me for not asking what was going on. Irregardless, you were correct in your first message that I should have asked Swarm before unblocking. Bgwhite (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No reason to do that. Bgwhite was never involved. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) There have been several instances where users have approached administrators on IRC (whether in a Wikipedia IRC channel specifically or in private discussions) for the purpose of urging that administrative action be taken, even though no emergency or other circumstances are present that would prevent the issue from being raised in the appropriate manner on-wiki. At times, these requests involve parties with whom a user is engaged in a content or editing dispute, but the user being discussed has no opportunity to respond to the allegation being made. Making frequent requests for blocks of users you are in dispute with and/or for actions concerning articles you are involved in may lead to sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thank you Nick. I knew there had been a case of someone admin shopping before, but couldn't remember who it was. Arbs, I do think that this course of action is essential Worm^TT(talk) 07:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Taken largely 'as-is' from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong. Nick (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) There have been many instances where users have approached administrators via e-mail for the purpose of urging that administrative action be taken, even though no emergency or other circumstances, such as the need for privacy, are present that would prevent the issue from being raised in the appropriate manner on-wiki. At times, these requests involve parties with whom a user is engaged in a content or editing dispute, but the user being discussed has no opportunity to respond to the allegation being made. Making frequent requests for blocks of users you are in dispute with and/or for actions concerning articles you are involved in may lead to sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken largely 'as-is' from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong and modified as necessary. Nick (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) Administrators are users trusted by the community to undertake maintenance tasks, such as blocking, page protection and deletion, in accordance with relevant policies. Administrators generally use their own experience and occasionally seek advice from others in order to make informed choices on the course of action to take. Administrators have discretion and flexibility to do what they believe to be appropriate, with the result that different administrators may take different courses of action with the intention of effecting broadly similar outcomes. There is often no right or wrong course of action for administrators to take - policy generally only determines what must be done, not how it must be accomplished. Administrators are under no obligation to follow any demands made by any other editor, indeed, they are under no requirement to use their tools if they do not wish to do so. Administrators who do use their tools are normally solely accountable for and should be able to justify any and all actions they take. Persistent poor judgement may result in removal of permissions by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Despite what Nick supports or opposes. I just checked last 3 blocks by him for disruptive editing or edit warring,[81][82][83] it is highly clear that blocks were policy based and the editor in question had been significantly warned prior to the block. If these ethics were kept in mind during time when actions were being taken against me, none of these blocks would've ever taken place. Enough said. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wording probably sucks terribly, but there needs to be some sort of principle reiterated here which makes it abundantly clear to OccultZone that he (or any other user) cannot demand administrators take one specific course of action, and if they refuse, the administrator is mysteriously doing something wrong. We do not, have not and never will attempt to take action against administrators who don't cave in to users often unrealistic demands, it's only when administrators demonstrate poor judgement does the Arbitration Committee step in, not when one user doesn't get his own way. Nick (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In support of this principle, the second paragraph of the policy says, "[Administrators] are never required to use their tools." ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like this will cause more problems in the long run than resolve them - be it the current ones or the ones which seem to be surfacing for the near future. Too much scope for this to be misapplied, misunderstood, or to otherwise act counter to what it is many decisions have and will continue to necessarily urge or encourage, particularly by the people who are likely read this decision (or other decisions concerning administrators for that matter). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) The pages associated with Arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There has been zero evidence of any misrepresentation from me. But yes there has been mass misrepresentations by others about my actions, including you.[84] If you can prove same way I did, then we will see. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't know why OccultZone has raised the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case, but this principle, from that case, is worth including. Several editors including parties to the case and those submitting evidence have expressed concerns that their evidence is being misinterpreted by OccultZone, with increasingly difficult to follow responses being made by OccultZone on the Evidence page in particular. Nick (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I have been told by others that there are some limitations around, such as, people don't remember a lot, they are not too good at examining, they don't verify the content so well, that's why sock puppetry is on increase. Obviously, reporting them is not a bad thing at all, especially when they are overtly disruptive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds. A useful reminder that OccultZone's attitude towards SPI cases and his attitude towards sockpuppets (as per [85]) is not what Wikipedia is about. In combination with WTT's Proposed Principle 1, stating "Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith." I don't doubt OccultZone's actions are made in anything other than the utmost good faith, but they are extremely detrimental. I doubt he realises just how much of a battleground mentality he is demonstrating and sadly I fear efforts to elucidate this have failed entirely. Nick (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6) Disruptive editing can occur despite an editor acting in good faith and following all relevant policies whilst making single or small numbers of edits. There may be no breaches of specific policies at the time any given edit is made, but when the editor's body of work is reviewed as a whole, that body of work may be shown to be disruptive and in breach of the disruptive editing policy. When an editor's body of work is shown to be disruptive, they leave themselves open to sanctions from any administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@DoRD: We all know that I have not violated any policy. Have you checked that "Failure or refusal to 'get the point'" must be in violation of a policy per WP:DE, it should include evident rejection of a policy, it should not be confused with the enforcement of policies even if others have opposed the policies and standards. I was not violating any norms, I was rather trying to get misleading violation of WP:SOCK#Blocking overturned, and it was overturned per the resolution by WP:AN.[86][87] There was another sock, about who I was 'cautioned', but with misleading knowledge, that's why the socks were blocked by Elockid and the issue was resolved. If others had heard and acted per the policies, nearly none of the problems would've occurred. Nick knows that there is not even a single SPI that I filed again after "24 hours", nor he can point "20 or 30" admins being asked about the same thing, where's his proof? Thus if this principle is any relevant, it is only relevant regarding others who continue to make incorrect/misleading claims without any proof and misrepresent the policies, such editing would also include promotion of WP:FRINGE,[88][89] WP:COPYVIO,[90] continued BLP violation,[91] etc. Yes, now that's the actual definition of disruptive editing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of a policy saying anything like "Regardless of their previous offenses, if a sock master insists that the reported suspect was used by somebody from their household, they should be treated as separate individuals." That's why it was a good idea to enforce the policy, otherwise I would be still seeing similar sort of implementation. Even Marlin1975 had also claimed[92] that technical match succeeded because other account belonged to his father, why no one assumed that he was being truthful? Anyways, blocking actually requires policy breach, and when overall behavior is being judged, it should still include some policy violations. I would recommend you to read a couple of reports at WP:ARE, you would see how "overall behavior" is examined, it would include series of policy violations, it is usually much bigger to judge than just one or two instances of edit warring or violation of copyvio, BLP etc. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Clarifying based around Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. In light of the expected response, it is worth repeating yet again that WP:DISRUPTSIGNS is not an exhaustive list of the behaviour administrators judge to be disruptive. That's why asking one administrator for advice is acceptable, asking 20 or 30 isn't. That's why filing 1 SPI case is fine, but filing 1 SPI case against the same user every 24 hours isn't. Nick (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS links to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Examples of disruptive editing. That section talks about "an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following". (Emphasis mine, in both cases.) Examples and such as are included to make it clear that the list is not exhaustive. The guideline then goes on to talk about "Failure or refusal to 'get the point'". OccultZone was repeatedly asked, cautioned, and told to drop the stick, and by not doing so, he was failing to get the point, thereby, causing disruption. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If others had heard and acted per the policies, nearly none of the problems would've occurred. Therein lies the problem, OccultZone. 1) Blocking is never required. Just because you deem that someone has violated a policy doesn't mean that administrators must hand down your desired sanction for the perceived violation. 2) Your linking of WP:HEAR, aka WP:IDHT, above is showing that you, in fact, are the one refusing to get the point. After several admins tell you that there is nothing actionable in a case, you can't genuinely believe that it is us who are refusing to get the point by declining to make blocks that we see as unnecessary.

It seems to me, and most everyone else who has commented here, that you are focusing too much on the letter of the law (policies) rather than the spirit of the law. Just because someone may have violated WP:SOCK doesn't mean that they must be blocked. As I've said before, it is perfectly alright to assume that someone is being truthful, but even if it is suspected that they aren't, it isn't necessary to do anything about it. On the other hand, the blocking policy doesn't require that blocks be based on something like, "You broke policy A [here], so you have been blocked". Disruptive editing blocks, for example, are almost always based on an evaluation of an editor's overall behavior rather than a single policy violation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) A number of administrators have indicated that OccultZone has been seeking administrative actions from other administrators via Wikipedia IRC channels and/or via private discussions. Requests made by OccultZone have spanned a period of approximately 1 year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Evidence is what missing. Normal discussions about the events differs from seeking 'actions'. You can at least ask "Am I wrong?" it is not same as saying "tell them that they are wrong". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6x7 = 42. This all begin from 23 March, and last evidence of IRC maybe from 3 April. Thus this is irrelevant. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Find one incident before the first block and I needed to contact multiple admin for same issue? Even those after the first block would differ from each. I didn't asked for any actions here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is in my section. I count 28, of which 13 were off wiki - and that's just in the last 6 weeks. Asking for a review of actions is the same as asking for further actions. Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, I'm confused by that comment. Are you saying you should be able to contact 1 different admin every day? I certainly reject that concept. There is a pattern of you contacting multiple admins on very similar issues, on- and off-wiki, over a sustained period. That needs to be stopped. Worm^TT(talk) 10:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong with necessary modifications. It's quite clear from evidence provided that there has been some admin shopping going on via IRC. Nick (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be combined with the finding (and my comment) below because the problem is somewhat the same. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) A number of administrators have indicated that OccultZone has been seeking administrative actions from other administrators via e-mail.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Outdated matter, it has been over 10 15 days. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)re-edited OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way it was being done, it was not a blockable offense, I would ask if they ever really complained. Second thing is that I didn't needed to email anyone even for clarification since I had addressed Arbcom on 20 April, I had an advice and I simply followed it. I just thought of describing my situation a bit to Euralyus only after he told that I can email.[93] I don't have to email if I can discuss about the things that were previously affected by a topic ban, not to mention any other reasons that I had. And why not? You were in fact discouraging me from making conversations on their talk pages.[94]. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated?!? This is the whole crux of the case Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically said you "were perpetuating drama". Moving the comments to email doesn't stop that, it just makes it less visible. I understand contacting an single administrator directly on a matter (or two for a second opinion), but that's not what you've done. Worm^TT(talk) 10:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Taken from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong with necessary modifications. It's quite clear from evidence provided that there has been also been significant admin shopping going on via email. Nick (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis I'd agree, such a proposal would complement the proposed enforcement action I made (currently 4.2.4.1). Nick (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be more specific and spell out the issues in more detail before the full scope of the problem can be appreciated. That said, private evidence would come into play. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Worm. I am also considering the idea of "e-mail ban". -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a "Wikipedia e-mail block". This does not solve the problem 100% but it's a start. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) OccultZone has shown little understanding of the problems multiple independent, uninvolved administrators have identified with their behaviour. They have, furthermore, shown no significant interest in accepting any personal responsibility for their behaviour prior to the case and during the case. A 'blame culture' has taken root with OccultZone attempting to blame every named party and several unnamed parties as responsible for the current Request for Arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Block and ban spree stopped since this ARC filing. Have you seen even a "you may be blocked"? Even though my activities across all namespaces are having a gradual rise. Speaks a lot, and better than unnecessary blocks for 1 revert in 5 days, making a productive edit to AN, etc. I hold no grudges to anyone, you can never find me saying any bad thing to them, I have only talked to them about their actions, nothing more than that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Supported by copious evidence. Nobody expects OccultZone to shoulder all the blame, but there has been no willingness to listen or accept a fair share of blame, and to move on. I don't know if this will change at the conclusion of the case, but I do hope so. Nick (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) OccultZone has accused other editors of being involved in a conspiracy to indefinitely block them and/or gaming the system for some ulterior motive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Saying that an admin wants to indef block after reading their own statement[95] is not "conspiracy". Misrepresenting the events is what WP:GAMING is. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a normal behavior to question about restoring a block just for making an edit to AN. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Esquivalience: I just thought of not ignoring the similarities, lets see how it goes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Esquivalience: I still don't know who you or Zeke Essiestudy are, I never had any interaction with any of you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Esquivalience: Still the suspicion remains. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That statement was not that I wanted to indef block you, OccultZone, if I wanted to, I would have. My point was that you were carrying on the same IDHT behaviour and again escalating the situation (complaining about wheelwarring). One very sensible option there would have been to indefinitely block you, it would have had much the same final outcome as this case - ending the disruption. It's not an option that I favour though. Worm^TT(talk) 08:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Supported by the allegations OccultZone has made against Worm That Turned and Zeke Essiestudy. Nick (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has totally been proven by the Evidence. OccultZone sees no connection to warnings he got and blocks/bans he received. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone also frivolously accused me of being a sockpuppet of Zeke Essiestudy, with frivolous evidence such as "having a second sandbox", probably for a lack of a better argument for gaming the system and severely and disruptively requesting sanctions. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Esquivalience. Esquivalience ^t 02:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: You call "having two sandboxes" a similarity? "Let's see how it goes" implies that you are using SPI for retaliation. Esquivalience ^t 02:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: But that doesn't mean that you are probably retaliating because of my workshop participation. Esquivalience ^t 02:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: Absolutely frivolous brand of suspicion, cloaked in WP:AGF. Esquivalience ^t 02:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5) OccultZone has accused several administrators (including those listed as parties to this case) of behaviour which could render them liable for desysopping or removal of advanced permissions (specifically, the checkuser permission). He has failed to raise any concerns directly with these administrators at any time in the past, has failed to use any of the more common dispute resolution processes or administrator noticeboards. The majority of allegations have been raised only after these administrators have blocked OccultZone.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What you meant from "checkuser permission"? I haven't alleged anyone of abusing that user right if that is what you are saying, show some proof? I don't think that anyone deserves to be desysopped here, except Bgwhite, and I had already described that on my talk page, still he ignored,[96] and he was previously notified by others too about his actions including John Vandenberg.[97] Everyone's actions were discussed[98][99][100][101] before I came here. Arbcom is said to be the only board where complaints about admins can be actually made. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Nick, I would had been indeffed per the promise of Worm That Turned and Nakon if I had tried anything other ARC after coming from 4th block, blocking reason would be "not dropping the stick". That's why I wonder that why this inappropriate block-ban spree has stopped? Even though I am doing those things, and they were ethical then as well. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Supported by (lack of) evidence. Nick (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6) OccultZone was repeatedly warned, prior to being blocked, that their behaviour at the Sock Puppet Investigations pages (SPI), at the various Administrators Noticeboard (AN, ANI, AN3 and similar) and on administrators talk pages would leave them liable to blocking. The warns related to repeated SPI submissions, casting aspersions on other editors, edit warring, disruptive or tedentious editing, administrator shopping and similar, which can be summed up under Disruptive Editing - Failure or refual to get the point

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No idea which warning you are referring to because I had no warning before any blocks related to anything that you have mentioned above. Thus why you have to mislead in order to make a point? "I do expect to be told", so you already know, yet you try? Now that clearly falls under "Disruptive Editing - Failure or refusal to get the point".OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Magioladitis, I was never blocked for any of those reasons. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read my above message. Improperly suggesting that "he was warned" is not going to change the fact that I wasn't even notified, especially when you have no proof. I would rather ask for a warning that actually complied with the block, you can never find one. If I question whether both block and warning accorded with the policies, which is foremost requirement, no one would even want to give a try. Simple as that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Supported by a significant body evidence and a dozen or so administrators lining up. I do expect to be told we're all wrong, however. Nick (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone has been warned multiple times. HJ Mitchell wrote him before blocking him: "This is just friendly advice for now, but if I have to revisit this issue, it won't be with advice.", WWT wrote: If you keep spreading them around, I will be blocking you. etc.etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone was blocked for the reason he was warned. Telling that he got warning but he was blocked for something else makes no real sense. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) For contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

But where's the evidence that I ever asked for block? Also look at one of the other reply to your proposal that I have made. I know that The ed17 made a claim which is rather incorrect. He himself cast doubts when he said "context I got", "I didn't remembered", "my takeaway",[102] which is far different than what really happened. Saying "I am not asking for blocking him for copyrights, but yes many do get blocked for it," is not same as asking for an action. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nick. Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Also from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong. I believe sensible to admonish OccultZone with sanctions only necessary if behaviour continues. Nick (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that the last part of this is useful or adequate here. Either a sanction isn't needed in relation to this now or it is; I'm inclined towards the latter? The reasons are because he did not frankly disclose the number of administrators he contacted when requested to do so prior to the case being accepted, and even his comment here suggests he sees no issue at all despite the community's frustration. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would really hate to see this happen. It would be very painful to see an editor banned over what started as a fairly trivial matter. But OccultZone's self-destructive spiral has continued, even during the case. Unless he stops it of his own accord, I can't see an alternative to a long-term block or ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this (or any of the other block/ban suggestions) to happen, but OccultZone appears to be digging his heels in. I'm not sure even a standard arbitration judgement will be sufficient. OccultZone appears to want full vindication - and will likely see any findings, no matter how minor, against any other parties as full vindication. As such, I cannot see how anything less than this will stop the disruption - and since Arbcom is the final dispute resolution venue, I don't see what other options we have. If there's any other solution though - I'd much prefer it. OccultZone is basically a good editor and his behaviour is not so egregious that I'd have expected a ban. Worm^TT(talk) 08:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoided commenting on this. But I must say that this reminds me of a proverb, usually spoken in one of the country where I have lived in, it says that whenever there is some doubt about fulfilling your want, estimate should be higher than the expectation. It can be described as "When there is a doubt and you want 15 in amount, ask for 30, then you may have chances for 15." In short words, it is just another well known and an outdated strategy. Nick had previously asked for decline of this case and 84 days block,(12 week[103]) it didn't happened. He came up with this proposal so that smaller blocks can be considered, regardless of any actual reason. Well, we all know that I have never violated any policy, although others have. Ban can be implemented only if there is huge amount of disruption, not zero disruption. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I reluctantly raise this measure in light of the extraordinary behaviour exhibited at this Arbitration request, with evidence from several experienced editors directly contradicting the claims made by OccultZone. We either have the situation where OccultZone doesn't understand what they're being told and misinterpret it with unfortunate and occasional disastrous effect, or they are deliberately choosing to make malicious accusations, obfuscate the evidence and have trouble accurately recalling discussions with other editors. I believe, with heavy heart, that both explanations are incompatible with continued editing of the project. I had previously thought some form of topic ban restricting OccultZone from editing in the Wikipedia namespace, filing SPIs or similar would be suitable, but given OccultZone's involvement in editing disputes which have also been mischaracterised, I don't believe it's in the best interests of the project for him to be allowed to continue editing until such times as he can satisfy either the community or the Arbitration Committee that he understands the concerns and problems his behaviour causes and can demonstrate an ability to address such concerns. Nick (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Any particular reason for the 12/6 appeals provision? Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: It's purely gut instinct, based on what I feel is suitable in the circumstances. OccultZone is going to need a lengthy period to fully understand the concerns raised and to make satisfactory proposals to remedy them, if he doesn't succeed in remedying them after the first 12 months, I would expect suitable proposals six months later. Nick (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be enacted at this point, contacting 28 admins over... 1 user?... seems to be WAY too much. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence and behaviour (or continued behaviour) during the course of this case is for this remedy I think, but all of the proposed findings of fact in the workshop need more work. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, OZ keeps writing and re-writing the text, adding and modifying making very hard to follow him. Plus, the high edit ratio in the previous days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: Sure, I am endorsing the proposed remedy. My reservation was relating to the issue that despite the significant strength of the evidence available for this case, the workshop Fofs framed in the workshop so far understate how seriously disruptive and problematic the conduct of this editor is (and was). The seriousness needs to be more clearly reflected in the Fofs, and I think the community needs more assistance in this regard. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) Should OccultZone be found to be seeking or requesting any administrative action off-wiki (IRC, email or any other medium) against users with whom he is in dispute, he may be reported to the Arbitration Enforcement page. This would include reporting users with whom OccultZone is in dispute with to an administrator but not formally requesting specific action, instead hoping that administrative action be taken. All complaints or requests for administrator assistance regarding users with whom OccultZone is in dispute should be made on-wiki.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Querying for clarifications ("am I right or wrong", "is it possible"), or any previous case,("about 6 years ago, you had.."), or informing or any sharing private information,("last time you had told me you were having IRL trouble") all of that has to do nothing with seeking off-wiki administrator actions. I am glad that I had contacted at least 3 arbitrators over here before I would even file this. They would clarify it well that I was not seeking for any actions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nick. Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Also from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong with appropriate modification and expansion to eliminate potential ambiguity. Nick (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking, and only do so when no other alternative would prove as effective. When placed, blocks should be intended to prevent disruption to the project and not simply to punish a user for their (mis)conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Copied from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement#Blocking. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

0 evidence of disruption or misbehavior. If there was any, it had to be told before the block,(WP:BEFOREBLOCK) either by the admin or any editor and it must be coherent to the block, it should not be written after the block for the first time. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we note this, we should include the fact that "prevention includes deterring future misbehaviour and encouraging a more congenial editing style" Worm^TT(talk) 07:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2)Wikipedia administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Occasional lapses may be overlooked, but consistently poor judgement may result in desysopping. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved, such as by blocking others with whom they are in a dispute. See Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and Wikipedia:Protection policy. Long-term blocks and bans of established users are likely to be controversial, and to minimise distractions due to problems on unencyclopedic matters resulting from this, such actions, especially in complex situations, should be discussed thoroughly prior to such actions being taken. This is to achieve the most appropriate outcome possible and minimise the subsequent conflicts and upset caused by the possibility of later reversals and U-turns.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2, sums up everything. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about those wide ranging topic bans, that were direct loss to en.wiki? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how this "sums up everything". Long-term blocks haven't happened. The situations weren't complex. I agree better block messages and more discussion should have happened from all blocking and unblocking parties, but I dont' see the consistently poor judgement. Worm^TT(talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) Administrators are trusted members of the community, who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and are held to a high standard of conduct. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

4) Sustained disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator. Administrators who repeatedly and aggressively engage in inappropriate activity may be desysopped by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

5) Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify their actions where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions are acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

6) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other; see Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Unwarranted accusations and assumptions of bad faith constitute incivility.

ALT1: Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to utilise dispute resolution procedures instead of merely attacking each other.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those who observe it well, they would know what is going on around and this principle is important. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first complaint of civility I've seen in this case, I'm curious to know what's being referred to. In my opinion the situation has degraded out of civil discourse on one side more than the others, but it's also not something that needs to be addressed particularly as all parties have been reasonably civil considering the nature of accusations. Worm^TT(talk) 10:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

7) The scope of sanctions imposed as remedies in arbitration cases, such as topic-bans, should be clearly defined so as to avoid later misunderstandings and disagreements. A sanction remedy should also clearly specify the duration of the sanction and the procedure, if any, available to the sanctioned user to seek lifting or modification of the sanction in due course.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda. Looking at that topic ban, that was imposed by Worm That Turned, this one is clearly relevant. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't cited even a single diff of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We know that you didn't removed topic ban because you already knew that it had no merit, you removed it only after Bishonen asked you upon my request and after that you started this all adminshop accusations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about all that, I just know that Bishonen had told me that she had "researched", but that's all I know. I thought that it might have affected your decision. That topic ban imposition, even after knowing that it did no good, you continued to come up with more topic bans. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stable with outdated predictions,[104] and copyvio.[105] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bishonen, you have made it even more simpler. Worm That Turned knew that protest is inevitable. Anyways, we have to look into the reason that why he imposed such a serious topic ban, regardless of no disruption. What he calls as "accusing of socking" is out of WP:AC/DS scope, socking remains on going, and I am still correct about them.[106][107] Clearly, he imposed the T-Ban just for righting that block by Swarm. He had nominated Swarm for adminship. Given his experience and understanding of WP:ARE, that he even misused a remainder having multiple meanings as a source to sanction. We must also see that how he solely targeted me, how about we check his own history? Forget WP:ARBIPA, or imposition of any WP:AC/DS T-Ban, he never even notified anyone about any of the AC/DS sanctions.(evidence)

Noting that he had discouraged me from filing SPIs,[108][109] that's how he was trying to establish this T-Ban, for life. It just happened that I got some precious time of Elockid, that he looked into evidence and blocked the socks, since that day(9 April), he hasn't been online. WTT didn't responded to these events, he ignored me for 3-4 days, until I made another message.[110] I doubt if he wanted to remove the T-Ban. He might have thought that his topic ban really has no merit and he has violated WP:AC/DS by imposing it. Since he had redirected me to WP:ARCA, I was just about to post there and soon I saw that he has removed the T-Ban.

On 21 April,[111] after seeing that I have been conquered, he would come up with a wide ranging non-AE topic ban, he would make sure to suppress any sources through which I could object to this T-Ban, thus time he would also include ban from seeking any kind of administrative actions i.e. contacting you(Bishonen) or anyone ever again. Since he declared his intention to indef block,[112] making me agree to his topic ban was very simple for him, he would block me for any edit that would contain any request for administrative action or even slightly resemble one. Topic bans are not for retaliation and disparagement. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask how you believe this topic ban was not clearly defined? Worm^TT(talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that has nothing to do with the scope of the sanctions. Again, how was the scope of the topic ban not clearly defined? As for "not citing a single diff" - the relevant policy states I must properly explain my actions. I do not have to explain them in a manner of your choosing - I explained my reasoning and allowed for the possibility that you could be vindicated by an SPI. I do not believe the topic ban was disproportionate to the behaviour you were exhibiting around the the topic and to it's contributors. Worm^TT(talk) 13:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reject that absolutely and totally - Bishonen did not ask me to remove the topic ban, she asked me about one specific factor (whether you had been alerted to discretionary sanctions in the area). Bishonen, I apologise for dragging you over to an Arbitration case, would you mind commenting on this? Worm^TT(talk) 14:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did no good? The article was stable for 2 weeks between 2 April and 16 April while your topic ban was in force. I don't know about doing "no good" - with hindsight, I should have left it in force. Worm^TT(talk) 14:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@OccultZone and Worm That Turned: I'll just respond to the questions raised above. Yes, after you e-mailed me, OccultZone, I researched what had happened that led to your topic ban — not in great detail, because there was a lot of it, and it was all new to me — but I checked out the timeline of events. Then I asked Worm That Turned in e-mail if you had been warned about the discretionary sanctions, and he replied directing me to where it was clear that you were aware of the sanctions before the topic ban. That was it. No, I didn't ask him to remove the topic ban, I left it to his discretion. Incidentally, while I told WTT that you had written to me, I haven't shared what you had written whatsoever, either in summary or quotation, because I assumed (as I always do with e-mail) that you had written me with an expectation of privacy. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

8) In a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley.

Clearly there was no "emergency" like high level vandalism when Nakon reinstated a previous block, for making a productive edit that had to do nothing with any of the previous blocks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell blocked for a non-offense that had to do nothing with what was happening on a closed ANI section that I had closed myself a few hours ago, WP:DR is the policy that encourages you to raise your issues and complaints, there can be no action against raising the complaints unless there is an authorized sanction. There was nothing disruptive about this edit for which Nakon blocked. Yes it is wheel warring to reinstate an overturned block without gaining the consensus. Nakon never made even a single discussion anywhere, and this edit had to do nothing with any of the previous block. The various diffs, filled with productive edits that you have cited, they could be considered as blockable offense only: (1) If I was topic banned from those noticeboards. (2) If I was banned from interacting any of the users mentioned/participated on those sections. None of these policy based criteria met.

I have made many similar edits since then, but since the filing of this case, I am not seeing such non-policy based and inappropriate blocks as well as wheel-warring. I still haven't stopped posting on AN/I, SPI, etc. because I have been told that posting on those noticeboards is appropriate as long as there is no authorized topic ban.

Consider reading this case(Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement) for even 5 minutes, it was much more contentious but you would better know about the standards and also consider reading the WP:WHEEL. If a number of admins have been told to tell a user that he is disruptive and only those admins who have taken objectionable actions before, then the editor must has to go to the appropriate board for raising concerns over such misrepresentation of policies and that is what I have clearly done. Nick since you haven't cited even a single policy for backing your dispute, this principle is going to stand. If not, then tell us how this edit had any "mistake" or "behavioral problem" from which somebody can learn and improve. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to provide some diffs for those "several occasions"? Which warning your are talking about? There were no warnings before any blocks or this unauthorized topic ban. Edits have to be in violation of a policy, then only they can be dealt. Have you read above "Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all)"? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked for a "diff" prior to the block in question, or people telling in "several occasions" that I should not post on ANI/SPI, etc. I didn't asked for any of these[113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123] irrelevant and randomly picked replies that you have well misrepresented below. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

To anyone familiar with policy, it is obvious that there was no wheel warring, and therefore, this proposal is irrelevant to the case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to the case. All admins actions in this case had the same purpose. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could change the wording of this that admins should not unblock editors blocked by other admins expect very special occasions. Extensions of blocks still can be applied. In some occasions of the OccultZone case, the blocking period should have reset to complete the 72-hours block since the editor kept doing via their talk page and off-wiki routes the things that they have been doing and lead to their block. Unblocking an editor, even in good faith, while they keep actively violating a block should be discouraged. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not go so far as to say that unblocking an editor blocked by another admin requires "very special circumstances." We do offer blocked editors the right to request an unblock review by a new administrator who was not a party to the block. Obviously unblocks should not be granted casually, and the views of the blocking admin should be solicited absent an obvious mistake, but there are still times when an unblock is properly granted even though the blocking admin disagrees. (This is a general observation, not relative to the facts of this or any specific case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I have no complaints about Magog's unblock. He did solicit my opinion (by email) and I gave my rationale for the block, but even had he not done that, I wouldn't have begrudged an unblock by an uninvolved admin following a promise not to repeat the conduct that led to the block. I never would, because I think it's important that the reviewing admin be able to make an independent decision, and procedure is of secondary importance to the best interests of the encyclopaedia, which are not served by keeping a block that is no longer necessary just because the blocking admin is (for example) asleep. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

9) Accounts and anonymous ips which mirror the behavior of another user may be treated as though they are that user.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven#Sockpuppets. It is something that has been largely ignored in this whole incident. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10 edits, all on same subject, same edits, same POV, same misrepresentation of sources, same timings and just for 2-4 days. Such habits indeed violates WP:SOCK. There are many ways to recruit meat puppets, as well as defeat CU just like Risker[154][155] had also defined. I am amazed how none of those SPIs ever thought about that. It was assumption of some WP:GREATFAITH(page exists?) towards the violators of multiple accounts policy that also caused many problems. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editor was talking about both sock and meat puppetry, for a reason I mentioned meat puppetry above along with that sentence. Starting with "some of" the evidence, "its an article", though there were 2 articles, "nearly 40k views"(overestimation, it was 37k) when article had 78k views before but no socking. One of the most serious factor of any SPI, that we know as timings was a "coincidence", no doubt there was mass misrepresentation on that Bargolus's SPI and it came along with a failed prediction "some of these users will also agree on the same". Then because the suspect said "it was my brother", should we take those words and let it go? Show a policy or any other SPI that would support such kind of decision. What you will call to this kind of support[156][157] towards sock? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see nothing wrong in being against accepting such an explanation, when it was revealed only after the SPI and it even if such idea had to be believed, the offender was aware[158], and finally it is impossible to have a brother who would sign in after 58 days in order to support his brother in an edit war and then retire. Yes my last question is clear, in place of totally accepting years old fact that this 216.81 extension is abused by a particular puppet master on specific articles, I would see more opposition. Apart from those 2 oppositions that I have linked there are more. Worm That Turned, who had previously discouraged me from filing SPIs,[159] would refer Sonic2030's SPI as "crusades",[160] and wanted to ban me from noticeboards including WP:SPI.[161] Swarm considered edits like this as non-vandalism. HJ Mitchell, who had some positive interactions with Kumioko would block me for him. Nakon, although not very clear, but evidently blocked me for this edit that concerned once a banned and long term socking editor. In order to support something that should be against me, we have seen massive support towards WP:SOCK violators in this whole incident. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick you had yourself included this diff and considered it as warning for "pursuing a ban against Kumioko/Reguyla". Best is to block the offender, the way Guerillo[162], Dougweller[163], Courcelles[164], etc. had done in my cases. Since the failure to appropriately deal with the sock puppetry is highly evident, I find it to be relevant. These issues were usually escalated because socks would receive extensive support. Starting from the first block, IP reverted 3 times, and for evading the 3rr, he made an account. IP is temporary blocked while account is indeffed in such situation, or no one is blocked but warned to stick to one account. None of these essential policy based measures took place. Then there was proposal of WP:SPI ban,[165] though I was correct on still-recent SPIs.[166][167][168] and currently contributing on at least 3 SPIs[169][170][171] one of them involves a banned editor. Let us think of that ban on WP:SPI again? It would've been proven to be harmful it it was implemented. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes, of course, and that's how administrators carry out their duties. This finding is too vague in the circumstances, given OccultZone's overzealous pursuit of what he believes to be sockpuppets. This finding, in this case, would effectively give OccultZone carte blanche to continue his extreme and damaging pursuit of sockpuppets. It needs to be realised by OccultZone that tens of thousands of people edit Wikipedia at any one time and controversial topics currently in the news attract many additional editors only interested in a narrow range of topics, or single articles. That doesn't make them sockpuppets or meatpuppets, though administrators may find it necessary to deal with users if they're disruptive single purpose accounts not here to contribute to the project in a constructive fashion. It's also important to think about what administrators would call "mirroring the behaviour of another user" before such a finding is passed. Mirroring the behaviour of another user means a little more than the evidence OccultZone routinely presents when accusing someone of being a sockpuppet and choosing to revert their edits. Administrators look through any publicly available IP or technical evidence present, review linguistic traits in edits made, review times and dates of the edits made, looking closely at those edits to see if specific sources or types of content are being used by the suspected sockpuppets. We either choose to block based on our experience or if unsure, we then pass on our evidence, either at SPI or in private to the checkusers and ask if they're able to confirm our suspicions. It's often only when a positive confirmation is received that we would block the sockpuppet and revert their edits if necessary and/or desirable, but not reverting edits which restore vandalism, copyright violations or which damage pages, for example. Nick (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: are you alleging that Kumioko sought an administrator to block you ? I have difficult telling if that's what you're saying as your explanations are increasingly unclear bordering on the incoherent and unintelligible with increasingly vague and incredible accusations backed up by little or no evidence. What I do understand (I think) from your last comment is that you feel "we have seen massive support towards WP:SOCK violators in this whole incident." which is irrelevant as this case is about you and your behaviour. It's also untrue, what you call "massive support" is simply administrators using their discretion to best maintain the project, and again I'd say it tends to show that you expect administrators to do what you demand of them, rather than allowing administrators to use their own experience and discretion, as they're trusted by the community to do. Nick (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: from the sockpuppetry policy page The main account may be blocked at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. IP addresses used for sock puppetry may be blocked, but are subject to certain restrictions for indefinite blocks.. That's inconsistent with your submission above. There's no requirement to block either the IP address indefinitely (that would be an extremely rare but not completely unusual block as Bgwhite has shown above) nor is there any requirement to reset, change or extend the block on the main account, or even block it if it's not currently blocked, and it was well within my discretion as an administrator not to extend the block (just as it was within Floquenbeam's discretion to indefinitely block the Reguyla account). This seems to be another demonstration of you being upset when a specific course of action you demand of an administrator is refused. Nick (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is too vague in this case, and therefore inapplicable. I point out the Zhanzhao SPI, where after being told that CheckUser evidence explicitly ruled out sockpuppetry, OccultZone continued for some time to press the case that certain accounts and IPs were sockpuppets of Zhanzhao. The principle is sound, of course, but it should not be used as authority for OccultZone to treat any account or IP as a sockpuppet based on their own judgement. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, Risker's comments are in relation to paid editing by multiple editors, not sockpuppetry by one person, so they are inapplicable here. Yes, CU can be circumvented, but in the case I mentioned, the evidence against sockpuppetry was clear. You cannot just assume that experienced CUs are being fooled when they tell you that accounts/IPs are unrelated. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the discussion Risker was involved in, but once again, her comments there have no bearing on the case at hand. The idea that allows us to accept Zhanzhao's explanation is WP:AGF, something you repeatedly fail to apply, particularly in relation to this arbitration case. As for your last question[172], I have no answer because the question doesn't make sense. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as it has become abundantly clear that you are still, to this day, arguing the same SPI, I have no more to say here. I trust the committee to determine whether this principle should be included or not. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10) Administrators may not use their administrative tools in any situation unless they are uninvolved. An administrator will be involved, for the purposes of user-specific tools such as blocking, if they have a prior history of conflict with the affected user(s). An administrator will be involved, for the purposes of article-specific tools such as page protection, if they have previously substantively edited the content of the affected article(s).

Administrators should also refrain from action if there is doubt as to whether they are involved, or if they could reasonably be perceived as being involved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From this case. Given Bgwhite's prior involvements,[173] he was involved before he had unblocked me. He was even more involved before he would block me.[174][175] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is more clearer that discussion went ahead, from my talk page. Bgwhite had a content dispute with the link, he wanted to keep the spam link which is clearly a content dispute. There was nothing wrong in removing it. Consensus is to remove that link on sight. Thus Bgwhite's point of view didn't worked. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, looking at the Findagrave discussion - I wouldn't say that interaction constitutes involvement. That's two comments by Bgwhite, both pointing out policy. That's barely an interaction, certainly not a dispute. That said, I note that again it was an issue with you and high speed editing. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

11) Administrators may not use their administrative tools to further their own position in a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG.

Bgwhite was WP:INVOLVED, thus he could not take any admin action in the incident. Other than protecting that article and moving on, as well as unblocking other 2 editors that he had done. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Irrelevant to this case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

12) Administrators are accountable to their actions involving administrative tools. As such, they are expected to respond appropriately to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them where needed. Criticism of the merits of administrative actions is acceptable within the bounds of avoiding personal attacks and civility.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explained is not same as justify. None have justified their actions. Now if someone has made 3 reverts and got blocked after warning, just one message like "Check WP:3RR" is enough, here we haven't seen any justification, even for topic banning from the subject where you couldn't find even a single disruptive edit. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with this but I don't believe it's needed as all administrators in this case have responded "appropriately" to queries. All actions have been explained, that's not where the issue lies. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

13) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Good proposal from Rschen7754 below. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

14) The purpose of blocking accounts and banning editors is to address the disruptive or otherwise inappropriate behaviour of the specific editor, not to silence a perspective.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD I would point the rather obvious, WTT has recently said that he stated his intent to indef block so that I can stop talking about these incidents, per [176] "you need to be blocked until you are willing to let these incidents go". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of editors around disrupting en.wiki but they don't get blocked and I should be indeffed for questioning a block that had been made just for making an edit to WP:AN? That is why, in every sense some of these administrative action have been taken only for silencing a perspective. There's no WP:DISRUPTSIGNS that would tell us not to talk about blocks/bans that are contravening the authoritative policies, that whole guideline talks only about the breach of policies, none of which I have done, saying that "it is disruptive" is inaccurate, saying "it is disruptive because it has violated (policy name)" is how it should be done. None of which I have ever seen. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This principle is perfectly sound, of course, but there was clearly no attempt to silence anyone's perspective in this case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, that would have been to prevent further disruption, not to silence a perspective. There's a world of difference between the two. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) The case request revolved around OccultZone and the admins who took actions in relation to OccultZone. The case was accepted to review the overall conduct of the named parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Pretty much. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like this, but I think it needs a bit more detail. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) OccultZone (talk · contribs) has been editing since 23 August 2013 and has made about 217,000 edits. From 23 March 2015 - 21 April 2015, OccultZone has been subjected to 4 blocks, and a indefinite topic ban. When he had filed the ARC, he was under unauthorized topic ban from the wikipedia namespace.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Added "from wikipedia namespace" at 17:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[177]

I don't agree with one that was proposed by WTT above. Anyone can propose this one. Some examples: 1, 2, 3. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WTT, I was under unauthorized topic ban of Nakon and apparently yours too. After ARC, you had made a clarification that your topic ban is not in force, although you assured that anyone else would block me for any breach of your proposed T-ban.[178] While Nakon had nothing to say.[179] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with a "OccultZone is a good editor" style finding. I disagree strongly with the last sentence though. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The number of edits is not related to this case. What can be related is the edit ratio, edits per minute. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) On 23 March 2015, Swarm (talk · contribs) inappropriately blocked OccultZone and 3 other editors for reverting an individual that later came out to be a confirmed sock. Sock puppetry was already being discussed on WP:ANEW. [180] OccultZone had made only 1 revert in last 5 days and wasn't warned before the block. (evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Lengthy and essential at both times, I will think more. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that Swarm's block was dealing with an actual incident, was one solution to solve the disagreement and was within the bounds of administrator discretion. Whether it was the best solution is a matter for debate - it's not what I'd have done, but I have the benefit of hindsight and a lot of experience dealing with aggrieved users. A different decision then could have saved a lot of hassle. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

OccultZone claimed JamesBWatson agreed with him that edit warring did not happen. JamesBWatson made it very explicit, per the link provided by OccultZone in his original post, that it was just a surface appraisal based on a brief glance of the situation. JamesBWatson would later clarify in a later post[181] to OccultZone that OccultZone was mistaken in assuming the reply to mean JamesBWatson was certain that no edit warring taking place. JamesBWatson also highlighted to OccultZone that “making so much fuss about blocks that are now over and finished, rather than moving on, is itself disruptive.” Zhanzhao (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) Swarm (talk · contribs) has been incivil in his communication about the case,[182][183] and his actions.[184][185] (evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking raised such concerns too. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Making up inflammatory commentaries about someone's state of mind/health is uncivil. Actually you have been uncivil too, and having same opponent, maybe that's why you don't see any issues. None of them were "accusations" but they demonstrated the summary of Swarm's violation of blocking policy. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the accusations being made by OccultZone and the unilateral unblock in March, I don't believe that the level of incivility demonstrated by Swarm in the above diffs is worthy of a finding. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Cancelled. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Swarm participation in discussing his actions _) Swarm has not significantly participated in this case to defend his actions, despite being a named party to the case. Furthermore, Swarm did not provide a full rationale for the blocks that he had made for edit warring, even though there was no violation. Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Somehow similar to this remedy. It is necessary to explain actions per WP:ADMINACCT, and you haven't understood what the remedy is about, he had to prove how he was correct and he hasn't. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] If you insist I have changed it to edit warring. Only a sock was edit warring and was being reverted by everyone. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] Cancelled per this message on his talk page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:ADMINACCT, he never provided full rationale to justify his block, since it was impossible to, he never admitted that mistake but he misrepresented the events. Simple as that. I didn't argued about WP:3RR or edit warring anywhere. But you clearly don't see difference between proposed findings or proposed decision, when you say "it is upto the Arbs". These are only proposed findings. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] No party needs to participate in any part. Swarm made his statement on the main case page. This case is only about the actions related to the four admins action towards you and your behaviour. The 3RR is not related to this case. Swarm doesn't need to justify actions not related to this case. Bgwhite (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] Swarm never placed a 3RR in this case. Swarm blocked OccultZone and others for edit warring. From OccultZone's talk page, You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Rape in India. (emphisis mine). Edit warring and 3RR are different. For the case you describe, Thumperward was admonished for not significantly participating and not providing why he did his actions. Swarm did say why he blocked OccultZone for edit warring on OccultZone's talk page and on the case page. As no 3RR block happened, I can only assume OccultZone is talking about another block. Per Courcelles statement, The scope of the case is the conduct of OccultZone, with special emphasis on admin actions taken in relation to OccultZone.[186] Bgwhite (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] That OccultZone doesn't know the difference between a 3RR and edit warring block isn't good. It is very hard to respond when OccultZone keeps adding to previous statements. OccultZone added to a previous statement, he had to prove how he was correct and he hasn't. Again, he has stated why he blocked you and the others multiple times. It is upto the Arbs to decide if Swarm has provided the necessary info to say if the block was invalid in any way, not OccultZone. Bgwhite (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment by others:

5) Bgwhite (talk · contribs), while being an involved admin, blocked OccultZone after the incident that had been resolved. (evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Now it is. Yes the issue was resolved and Bgwhite was involved. All he could do was ask other admin to block for a resolved issue. Basically anyone can confirm that no one would've blocked for it, and not even warned. But Bgwhite didn't wanted to miss the chance. He responded only when he saw that I am unblocked, still he couldn't make a policy based reason for block. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From latest discussion of that time,[187][188][189] to months old discussion,[190] he was involved. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to be convinced that Bgwhite is involved wrt OccultZone. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The incident was a WP:3RR violation. 3RR is an English Wikipedia policy. No evidence that it has been resolved has been brought in the Evidence page. 50 edits after the last reversion for a person that does hundreds per day is no that much and we did not know what would happen if an admin did not try to resolve the edit war. 3RR says nothing for a final warning because any other action after 3RR would be a 4RR. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6) Bgwhite (talk · contribs) has used administrative tools in the dispute where he was involved.[191][192][193][194][195][196] Actions include, imposition of semi-protection[197], full protection,[198] after reverting to his preferred version.[199][200] Protecting rationale reads "Persistent vandalism", although none of the edits[201][202] constituted vandalism. During the reverts, Bgwhite has also abused rollback.[203] (evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Finding expanded/re-written at 02:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[204]

Writing own content[205][206][207], arguing as a disagreeing editor for them,[208][209][210] and then protecting page after reverting to own version by abusing WP:ROLLBACK, speaks a lot about using admin tools on the article while involved.

Bgwhite still continues to discuss as a disagreeing editor there,[211] he approached Worm That Turned to do the same,[212] however, WTT didn't, he knows that doing that would make him involved.[213] None of those edits[214][215] were vandalism or BLP violation where an involved admin was allowed to protect page. Thus explanations of his actions are not convincing, they only show your misrepresentation of policies. Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes. I don't have to post on Bgwhite's talk page when he already read them on my talk page.[216] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: Only that conversation related to WTT is something new, rest can be found at evidence. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: Given your massive history of abusing admin tools in dispute and prior notifications.[217][218] In every sense you were aware of WP:INVOLVED. We cannot say that you stopped using tools afterwards or didn't blocked me. It has to do nothing with "complain" only when you "blocked" me. There was a reason why I had asked another admin to protect page, because you were violating WP:INVOLVED in these procedures. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned "Mediator"? Now that is another synonym for WP:INVOLVED. Especially when he was arguing as a disagreeing editor[219][220][221] for the content that he wanted to add. He's not qualifying that either, can you tell if he had discussed each edit, or even the section heading that he had changed? Had he proposed the 100% actual draft? We are talking about role of a admin. Since he had protected the page, now he had to move on. Content had to be decided by others, and they could be implemented only after it was officially requested by placing {{Edit protected}}, and those edits had to be implemented by other admin. Now it is another issue that you are unaware of these policies and usual standards. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is synonyms for WP:INVOLVED, because it involves writing the content, other than just removing vandalism, BLP violation and copyvio. Sure I agreed, but not with the whole, when I later checked, it was violating WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NOTNEWS, few other editors agreed too with that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not supported by evidence and clearly untrue in several cases.

1. "...however, WTT didn't, he knows that doing that would make him involved." OccultZone, Worm did not say that. The exact quote to the diff you gave says, "I'm afraid not, I am now not around for a few days and moderation of content is not my strong point." Also note how I asked somebody else to take over.
2. Writing own content and disagreeing with editors. OccultZone didn't give context or the talk pages. The 2nd and 3 diffs (writing own content) and all diffs OccultZone gave (disagreeing with editors) happened on March 23rd. I edited the page a total of 10 times that day. They are related to the corresponding talk page edit which says, "I've written up a first draft and it is in the article. I've put the material in a stand-alone section called, "Tourist advisories". I've tried to limit it to "tourist only" information. I've tried to account for many of the concerns that have been expressed. Please suggest any changes".[222] All changes made that day were agreed upon by 5 editors including OccultZone.
3. Writing own content The first diff you gave happened on March 28th. In response to a major change by an IP, my edit summary says, Any major changes like this needs to be discussed first.... OccultZone reverted an IP twice, hours before my revert.
4. protecting page after reverting to own version by abusing WP:ROLLBACK. That day, March 28, IPs were reverted by 4 editors involved in the discussion a total of 6 times. This includes OccultZone reverting an IP twice. This is also related to item above about reverting an IP. A talk discussion started in which I was pinged and was contacted on my talk page about. OccultZone participated in the discussion. Two editors asked for page protection.
5. OccultZone didn't mention that I said Worm was taking over, Due to complaints filed by OccultZone, I can no longer respond to any requests on this talk page or even leave a message here. Worm That Turned will now be the admin who is moderating the page.[223] and as OccultZone mentioned above, asked him again ("he approached Worm That Turned to do the same"), but turned me down.
6. Not once did OccultZone complain about any of my actions until I blocked him. Bgwhite (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The content written by Bgwhite appears to be as a mediator, attempting to find a compromise between the parties. Bgwhite had never significantly contributed to the article prior to those edits and discussed the "draft" on the talk page prior to writing it. I agree with Bgwhite's comment above - my refusal to help at Rape in India was nothing to do with INVOLVEment, it was due to time constraints. The amount of reading I felt I'd need to do was not something I could commit to. @Nick: was there anything else you specifically wanted me to clarify? Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Mediator is certainly not a synonym for involved. A mediator is a neutral party who tries to find a compromise that both sides can agree to. Part of that role is to disagree with both sides, to find something both can agree on. I note that the diffs you give show him doing exactly that, disagreeing with both sides of the argument. I've never seen anything that said "admins must move on after performing an action", indeed I'm sure the community would reject such a suggestion. The edits he made did reflect consensus - everyone including you agreed with them Worm^TT(talk) 08:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not actively supported by the evidence. Bgwhite has never made a substantive content edit to Rape in India prior to has administrative involvement in March 2015. He has made a total of two (or three, including bots) edits prior to the protecting the page on 23 March 2015 [224]. These are all AWB edits [225][226][227]. Bgwhite's page protection (full protection) and subsequent edits [228] were made in good faith to resolve the editing dispute, and were based around discussions with editors on the article's talk page (see Talk:Rape in India/Archive 1 and Talk:Rape_in_India/Archive_2). There was no complaint about being involved when those edits were made, to the relative satisfaction of all participants. Page protect then expired on 26 March 2015 automatically.

New edits were made by a series of anonymous editors (IP addresses) on 28 March 2015 resulting in an edit war breaking out [229]. This was correctly resolved by semi protecting the page [230]. The subsequent decision to increase the protection to full when the IP address switched to an autoconfirmed account is again correct [231]. I can't envisage any other administrator acting differently in the circumstances, and I agree with Worm That Turned [232] that Bgwhite wasn't involved. What I do see happening is something highly commendable - Bgwhite removed the second page protection he applied on 29 March 2015 [233] two days later, on 31 March 2015, when the first concerns about involvement were raised [234] even though later discussion agreed he wasn't technically involved. I would also like to raise at this point, OccultZone never directly contacted Bgwhite to complain about any administrative decisions [235] (as you can see, no messages left for Bgwhite on his talk page by OccultZone prior to OccultZone contacting Worm That Turned) but he was actively adminshopping at the time.[236]. Nick (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be useful for @Worm That Turned: to clarify here, as there appears to be several diffs where your claims regarding his behaviour do not match the diffs provided. Nick (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: Many thanks, that's perfect and precisely what I hoped you could clarify. Nick (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that all diffs were presented by OccultZone as evidence the week before. Workshop should not be used as a page to present new evidence -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its worth highlighting that the "Bgwhite's preferred version" that OccultZone keeps referring to (which, as mentioned, was a result of discussion and agreement at the article's Talk page), the last person to "sign off" on it was OccultZone himself[237]. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7) Bgwhite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has:

• claimed that OccultZone sent harassing emails to Swarm,[238][239] although this claim was rejected by Swarm.[240]
• engaged in battleground conduct by wikihounding,[241] only for favoring a sock,[242] even during the case.[243][244] (evidence)
• has been incivil in his communication about the case.[245][246][247] (evidence)
• misrepresented multiple events. (evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Pretty much like this and this. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I never did and Swarm, even though he was not my fan, he has rejected that claim. And what do you actually meant from "they are not supported"? They are well supported by every needful evidence, I wouldn't know unless you point out the problem with them. Yes Bgwhite has been incivil, he has wikihounded just to favor a sock, and when other admin imposed semi-protection, he went to protest such a productive move,[248] then he has made mass misrepresentation that has been provided below as well. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: That is one thing that does still concern me. I'm aware of the level of off-wiki communication that OccultZone has made - I'm also aware of the volume of messages you get if you do communicate with him. However, this does still remain unresolved, did OccultZone ever send you emails with threatening subject lines? The one's I've seen just had "Wikipedia email" as the subject. I disagree with all other bullet points - they are not supported by the evidence provided. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on my talk page, I never read them, I just deleted the emails. As I have no proof, I have not brought them up on this case. OccultZone knows my email address since just after he started. I don't recall OccultZone ever asking for admin action from me nor did he contact me to unblock him. Also in the same discussion, I told Magioladitis I was going offwiki for awhile and insinuated he knew why. Magioladitis knew I'd just gotten out of the hospital for being unable to stop bleeding and high blood pressure was the cause. I went offwiki for ~10 days and did not get fully back for two weeks. Bgwhite (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

8) Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA):

• had imposed an indefinite WP:ARBIPA (WP:AC/DS) topic ban on OccultZone, regardless of any required amount of disruption.[249] After having discussion with OccultZone,[250] he had subsequently removed the topic ban.[251]
• proposed topic ban on OccultZone from administrative noticeboards and seeking administrative actions for 3 months,[252] regardless of any benefit to the project. This topic ban was proposed when OccultZone was blocked for making an edit to WP:AN. (evidence)
• stated his intent to block OccultZone for period of indefinite, regardless of any policy based reasoning.[253]
• has misrepresented multiple events.(evidence)
• has been incivil, intimidating. (evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is one of the standard to include all points at once, just like it was done on one of the previous case. Or state individually like it is done below. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

9) On 11:06 1 April 2015,[254] Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) had imposed an indefinite topic ban on OccultZone from "Rape in India" under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions, regardless of any prior sanctions or warning related to this topic ban. There was no disruption by OccultZone that discretionary sanctions could be applied. (evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sounds fair. Given how we are handling things at WP:ARE, then there was was only one article in question,(WP:ABAN) list of objections is just huge. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntarily agreements are still rid of the disparagement that I was having from your topic ban, and I had told you about it. ABAN was only choice, even that requires disruption. SPIs are out of WP:AC/DS scope, especially when the record is overall positive since last year, just like we had discussed above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't put stock in Article bans - they are far too easily gamed. A topic ban, on such a limited topic, seemed like the most appropriate level of ban for an individual causing so much disruption - primarily accusing many people on the topic of being socks at multiple venues (not SPI). I specifically allowed an exit for the topic ban if his allegations were correct - which the were, but only partially. Noting that OccultZone also agreed to "not edit the article for an indefinite period"[255] prior to me making it official. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Cancelled. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Worm That Turned had removed topic ban 10) On 16 April 2015, Worm That Turned had removed the WP:ARBIPA topic ban.[256] Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: No doubt. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] No issue, but not worth a finding. WormTT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment by others:

10) On 21 April 2015, Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) had proposed a topic ban on OccultZone, that covered ban from any administrator boards, ranging from WP:AN to WP:SPI, as well as any other administrative actions for a duration of 3 months. (evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"I don't regret doing so, and would do it again in a heartbeat", so you want en.wiki to be attacked by those many socks and non-socks that are either silent or non-disruptive due to my presence? Kindly rethink. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no disruption, if there was anything, there were efforts from me, to end disruption. If you couldn't support, you never had to oppose either. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is standard operating practise, and something I have a lot of history with - I've proposed restrictions in exchange for an unblock for a large number of users in the past and it's worked for almost all of them. If OccultZone was under a longer block, it may have worked for him too and saved us an arbitration case. I made an offer to him that I'd unblock if he stayed away from drama for 3 months - I wish he'd taken it, I don't regret doing so, and would do it again in a heartbeat. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted the disruption to end. I still do. Finally, for all the good you do, no one is irreplaceable. Wikipedia managed just fine before you and would manage just fine without you - just as it would without me. Worm^TT(talk) 12:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

11) On 21 April 2015, Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said at User talk:OccultZone#An offer that:

"OccultZone, the needful is to up your block to "indefinite" for escalating the situation again. I'm very tempted to."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Pretty much like this one

It had a chilling effect. Upon reading it, I was sorrowful. I was amazed that I contributed here, without violating any of the WP:FIVE, and I was having this day. Since WTT had already said it, others had no doubt that I will be indeffed anytime soon.[257][258] I thought that WTT didn't indeffed on sight because there was a controversy after his indefinite block on Eric Corbett,[259] and this time he had a different plan for indef block. It was to indef after seeing any edit on any admin board. It can be also confirmed after reading this message, that came after ARC, he was still sure about the possibility of an indefinite block after any edits to the namespace. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you provide no evidence, I expect that you said that whole without looking into my last 5,000 or last 50 contributions. Still I might have understood, that you said it because you are sure that I have never violated a policy and proposing indef or ban shall create chances for smaller blocks and bans. All that reminds me of a proverb, frequent in one of the country where I have lived, it tells you to ask in higher amount, it says "When there is a doubt, and you want 15 in amount, ask for 30, then you may have chances for 15." Don't you think that you are using some of the well known and outdated strategies? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

You are saying that one should either agree or forced to agree with the inappropriate blocks/bans? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were (and still are) spiralling into indefinite block territory. You will not move on - and that means you are unable to collaborate, distracting users and harming the editing environment for everyone. Why you're bringing up Eric Corbett, I've no idea, he is not relevant to this case. For the record, I do not regret my actions there and given the controversial subject I don't believe I was actually subject to much criticism at all. I've stated above that I think a ban may be required in this case. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite is not the same as infinite. It means "until something changes". I'm not suggesting you need a long block, I'm saying you need to be blocked until you are willing to let these incidents go. I find it ironic that above you are complaining that you haven't been warned, but when you are given a direct warning that you are likely to be indefinitely blocked, it has a "chilling effect" and is poor behaviour. Worm^TT(talk) 08:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

12) HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) had blocked OccultZone for a issue that had been already resolved and there was no violation of policy involved in this whole incident. Prior to block, OccultZone hadn't been warned, and after the block, HJ Mitchell hadn't guided to a policy that could justify the block. (evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That's how it seems. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a blockable offense, nor the block had to do anything with the ill-considered notification. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

OccultZone has sufficiently been warned as it is shown in the Evidence page. HJ Mitchell blocked for ongoing issues and for editor's behaviour after final warning to stop. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13) On 21 April 2015, Nakon (talk · contribs) had restored an overturned block on OccultZone for making an edit to WP:AN,[260] although the edit was not violating any policies nor it had any relation with the previous blocks. OccultZone hadn't been told prior to the block, neither the restoration of this block was discussed. (evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Seems as clear as it was.[261] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Making a productive edit(did many since then) to WP:AN is not a blockable offense. You need to cite policies for proving your position and you haven't provided any. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Block was in-line with policy and appropriate in the circumstances. OccultZone's behaviour at the time was disruptive and tendentious, a finding only disputed by OccultZone. There can be no forward progress made until OccultZone accepts culpability for his own behaviour. Nick (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

14) On 21 April 2015, after restoring the previous block, Nakon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) stated:

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..

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BLOCK. WP:INDEF cannot be even imagined. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Warning in line with policy, justified by OccultZone's behaviour (as above). Nick (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15) On 21 April 2015, Nakon (talk · contribs) imposed an unauthorized topic on OccultZone, by telling OccultZone not to contribute on the wikipedia namespace or else any edits to this namespace would lead to an indefinite block. (evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Finding expanded.[262] There's no doubt that it was an unauthorized topic ban, no single admin can stop any editor from contributing to 'wikipedia' a very vast namespace. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly.[263][264] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, This was not a sensible guidance, but rather a objectionable way of taking retaliatory admin action that contravene the policies. You cannot even cite a single policy for defending "others" or your actions. None of the policies support imposition of unauthorized topic ban, that eventually lost its effect after filing of this ARC. There was no disruption and these kinds of topic bans cannot be imposed by a single admin, can you find a policy for supporting that? Well, you have even misrepresented the awareness of discretionary sanctions multiple times,[265] even when you were told to read them.[266] Thus issue is only with your misrepresentation of the policies, not my correct understanding of these policies. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned I always knew that it was an unauthorized topic ban, that's why my first edit after expiration of block was made to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case,[267] I knew that whether it is you or Nakon, you both know that imposition of unauthorized topic bans are violation of banning policies, and making them work is only going to increase the amount of your policy violations. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick. This has to do nothing with the submission of RFA, you prove your interpretation about the policies with your actions and your dialogues. I am not mistaken anywhere in my analysis of every single party as well as other ones who have participated here. Since you mention their RfA, I believe that their RfAs do look promising, and at the same time it is easy to say that WTT must have never thought of the day that Swarm has shown, when he was nominating him, same can be said for Magioladitis nominating Bgwhite, and so on. Do you think that I wasn't aware of the circumstances? I had emails, showing support for them, I am hopeful that they will be redirected to blocking and banning policies. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I was talking about the experience, not that I was comparing anything. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakon: There was no disruption with this edit. What you meant from "editing constructively", was there some massive breach of policies? When you tell somebody to "take a few weeks off from editing the Wikipedia namespace" or else you would block indefinitely, you are clearly imposing an unauthorized topic ban which is out of your scope. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: This is probably my fault - I pointed out to OccultZone that he was never under a topic ban (besides the one I implemented under DS). I explained that topic bans could only be implemented by community consensus, by voluntary agreement or by Arbcom. Since then, he's been using the phrase "unauthorised topic ban". Worm^TT(talk) 13:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this could have been construed as a topic ban. The comments I made were to inform you that if additional disruption occurred, the next block by any administrator would likely be an indefinite one. This was an attempt to get you to start editing constructively, not a formal topic ban. Nakon 21:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This was sensible guidance by an administrator, it was not a formal topic ban. These sort of misunderstandings by OccultZone are responsible for a great deal of the trouble with this case. It's quite clear he doesn't understand many of the policies on Wikipedia, he doesn't really understand appropriate behaviour and boundaries, and a direct result of that is he thinks his behaviour is acceptable, that only he is right and that everybody else is wrong. He's actively disputing policy with a number of experienced editors and administrators who have been involved in writing and shaping policy over the past number of years. I don't care why OccultZone misunderstands almost every policy he reads, whether it's a comprehension or language problem, or deliberately being done to explain away atrocious behaviour, but such a blatant inability to understand, let alone follow policy, is, unfortunately, incompatible with OccultZone being allowed to continue editing. Nick (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must ask (though I'm sure I'll regret it). OccultZone. Why do you think your interpretations of policy are correct ? You've never submitted an RfA, so the community has never scrutinised your editing and your understanding of policy. Do you not therefore recognise that you could be mistaken and the five parties to this case who have sanctioned you could be correct in their actions and understanding of policy ? Do you not find it strange that the community voted to give those five parties advanced permissions, and in one case, to vote them onto the Arbitration Committee ? Do you not think it's possible you're really very badly wrong in almost everything you say and do here ? Nick (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the Arbitration Committee Discretionary Sanctions as it applies to the case appears to match with that of Worm That Turns, a former arbitrator who was in part responsible for the implementation of the discretionary sanctions system. [268]. I look forward to you explaining how you know more about the Arbitration Committee Discretionary Sanctions than one of the people responsible for designing the system. Nick (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this was advice, not a topic ban.

OccultZone, I keep seeing you use the word "unauthorized" with respect to topic bans. What do you mean? Are you suggesting that there is some authority that admins must go to before being allowed to impose topic bans? For the record, there is no such authority. Administrators are trusted to use their own judgement in these matters. I expect, though, that that is not your meaning. I suspect that you're saying "unauthorized" because you are under the impression that policy doesn't support said topic ban. That, my friend, is simply a difference of opinion that doesn't justify the "unauthorized" label. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Swarm (talk · contribs) is admonished for conduct unbecoming an administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Pretty much like this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OccultZone (talk • contribs) 07:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: What about incivility? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's there above and also on evidence page. He hadn't been provoked for saying all that. I don't see such incivility from HJ Mitchell, from who I had asked similar questions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you were commenting on the editor with no connection to en.wiki., and it looks negative. How would you know that I was upset or joyful at that moment when the case was being accepted? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Furthermore, we should not be forgetting that 3 more editors were inappropriately blocked by Swarm. To counter your statement, I would also mention that when Swarm could react like this to the unblock or case request, how these editors had to react when they were blocked inappropriately? Think about it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct unbecoming? No. Perhaps reminded to act with care when blocking - but that's about it. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which bits were you referring to as uncivil exactly? Given that he had been provoked, I'm struggling to see that his comments were excessive. Worm^TT(talk) 10:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you seem to think me calling you an "upset individual" is incivility, I'm not sure where your yardstick lies. Could you please point out which sentences you find uncivil and why? Worm^TT(talk) 12:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) For his violations of the standards of conduct expected of administrators, Bgwhite (talk · contribs) is strongly admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No you have to see that below at this section any non-admin editor would've been indeffed if they had done same things as Bgwhite. Claiming at least 3 times that I have sent harassing emails to Swarm, even after telling him not to say that? Now that's over the limit. There are many other reasons. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it means that he apologized for it or retracted? Given amount of incidents where he made up things, he just continued to make false accusations about anything else. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: check this, I have told you before too, that my email was not actually about Swarm's block, the way Bgwhite was believing,[269] it was nothing more than a information of his block, that it has been overturned and what he thinks about revision deletion feature on block logs. Bgwhite made same accusation again, though a bit wider,[270] I asked him again to back this up,[271] and he repeated that claim again.[272] I had forwarded every of those emails to you. List of misconduct is huge, I would mention that he has made mass misrepresentation in his complaint about me,[273] has favored and wikihounded for a sock[274], be it promotion of WP:FRINGE[275] or restoration of WP:COPYVIO,[276] still trying to get that protection removed from the article,[277] that had been protected from socks. If there was any non-admin editor doing this all, I think indef block would've been already applied. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Already provided at least 2 prior notifications, that he was told about the email, still he continued with the accusation. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see it. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to any diff where Bgwhite has made an accusation regarding emails after I asked him about it? I haven't seen him mention it for a while. For reference, my comment was on 1 April. Worm^TT(talk) 12:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen an apology, nor a retraction. I asked Bgwhite about that above. However, you specifically said above that Bgwhite made the comments "even after telling him not to say that". I'm asking you to back that up. You see, OccultZone, I don't think Bgwhite has made any comments about harassing email since I to him about it - It's another reason I'm happy with his behaviour, he does change his behaviour based on feedback. And the fact that you say he has is an actual misrepresentation - not just a difference of opinion (which seems to be what most of the misrepresentations mentioned in the case actually are) Worm^TT(talk) 13:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to avoid the question - if you cannot find any evidence of Bgwhite making accusations after it was raised, please strike the representative statement. Worm^TT(talk) 08:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not needed. Bgwhite did fine. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) For his violations of the standards of conduct expected of administrators, Bgwhite (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nick would you consider trying something better than ignoring the evidence, then asserting your non-policy based opinions? How one can be fit for adminship when he:

• frequently makes false accusation that one has sent harassing emails.
• claims that: you had blocked me, this sock was blocked for harassment not socking, DoRD said not to target Resaltador, [278][279] is adminshopping, and so on.
• misrepresents every nearly event.
• has a massive history of violating WP:INVOLVED, making "egregiously poor judgment" most of the times, even in this case.
• wikihounds just for favoring of sock puppets, even if it involves promoting WP:FRINGE[280] or restoring copyvios.[281]

List is really huge. Are you saying that it is necessary to first raise a lengthy complaint on his talk page? While ignore everyone else who made for years? Yes these issues were raised, a lot of above came after that. Even recently, he couldn't even understand what is a WP:RS and when WP:PROTECT is needed, per this discussion, where he also asked same simple and a easy question at least 4 times. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: It is fair to bring some outdated and irrelevant year old incident about me, and at the same time talk about the "scope"? Above section, within the scope provides enough reasons. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: That has to do nothing with wikihounding in favor of a long term proven sock, even though it included the promotion of WP:FRINGE, WP:COPYVIO. Any other editor would've been indeffed for doing that, as well as misrepresenting actions, false claims of harassment emails, etc. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you focus on actions - Bgwhite attempted to solve a long standing dispute at Rape in India - with apparent success I might add. He then stepped away from the article the moment WP:INVOLVED was raised by me. I see an admin who tries to do the right thing and learns from mistakes. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Not supported by the evidence. There might be very limited evidence of one or two less than perfect outcomes, but that's absolutely normal for any administrator. I would remind OccultZone of Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability, which says Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.. I've seen no evidence presented of any sustained or serious disruption, nor consistent or egregiously poor judgement. OccultZone is yet to raise any complaint about Bgwhite's administrator conduct with Bgwhite directly on their talk page. There's similarly no significant concerns about Bgwhite's administrator conduct at the ANI thread OccultZone started which directly preceded this Arbitration case (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#Kumioko_ban_proposal). Nick (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: If Bgwhite has been making "egregiously poor judgment" most of the times why did you not raise these concerns with Bgwhite before he blocked you ? In any case, I'm confident you'll be able to demonstrate a number of other users raising these concerns in matters not involving you, prior to you being blocked by Bgwhite (though I've looked and can't see any significant concerns being raised). I'm sure you'll agree, in the absence of any evidence not involving you, this looks like a simple case of revenge against an administrator who blocked you. Also, I note an absence of any findings of fact and proposed remedies reflecting your atrocious behaviour in the past few months, please remedy that at the earliest possibly convenience. Nick (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. The core discussion behind this is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#Kumioko_ban_proposal as Nick mentioned. Everybody was satisfied by how Bgwhite handled things apart from OccultZone. And OccultZone started complaining after Bgwhite blocked him and not earlier. Moreover, desysoping for trying to help resolving a situation is far too much. Other admins may have tried different approaches but as we already noticed different approaches in problems raised by OccultZone only led to more accusations for wheel waring etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone are you trying to change the scope of this ArbCom again? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4) Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) is admonished for imposing an highly inappropriate arbitration enforcement topic ban. (check)

or

4) Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) is admonished for taking administrative actions, regardless of any policy based criteria. These actions include the imposition an arbitration enforcement topic ban, proposing a wide ranging topic ban and stated intent to block indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Second one was proposed at 04:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[282]

It is clear that he ever even notified anyone of WP:AC/DS,[283] nor he found even a single disruptive edit that was made by me, or any other requirements for discretionary sanctions. Apart from trouble in reporting socks, many articles [284][285] of my watchlist were having unnecessary edit wars where I could surely mediate the situation. Thus in every sense, this T-Ban was net-negative for en.wiki. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick your misunderstanding of WP:AC/DS speaks even better now. I was never made aware by Callanecc, your are misrepresenting him there. Do you have evidence if he ever posted that template on my talk page? I was aware of these sanctions much before,[286] none of that "behavior" has to do anything with this inappropriate topic ban or anything else related to this issue. The way you forcefully connect A and B to make a D is unhelpful. How about we see one of the recent example of my mediation? Have a look at this case, that "editnotices" was my idea that has been officially implemented, thus "suggesting" is not equivalent to "administer". You had any similar experience or WTT? I don't see that you had any experience in AC/DS.[287] Next time, kindly don't misrepresent these serious issues, especially when you are wrong about even discretionary sanctions awareness. This is not even the first time, you have misrepresented WP:AC/DS earlier too,[288] you were criticized by Sandstein and was told to "read WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts", and now I have to repeat that. Now back to WTT, how we can say that he was aware about these serious procedures when he never even discussed/logged one in his whole en.wiki or even notified? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already proven that I was aware of these sanctions much earlier, did I ever said that I wasn't? It is about the highly inappropriate topic ban that violates the WP:AC/DS, even if I was reminded 100 times. I guess you are still reading what WTT said and not the policies or what I said. We don't need any special investigation for checking awareness, because anyone can read the 3 requirements of discretionary sanctions awareness then check themselves, I even got a few editors topic banned in relation to this WP:ARBIPA. This reminder serves no purpose for any arbitration enforcement per Callanecc's own statement "not a warning so it doesn't need to be taken as seriously in future AE",[289] it has many meanings, articles can be also put under 1RR, it is not like "edit war again and user will be under 1rr". WTT was also clearly reminded of that, still he misconceived it,[290] and recently changed his interpretation, "as awareness" only.[291] Since he goes to topic ban me from administrator noticeboards for fair edits,[292] here it becomes serious issue when he takes actions about the things that he misconceived and even after being told about them. Wonder what could be clearer. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, I was one of the arbitrators who approved the current DS system.[293] In other words, I believe I have significant experience and decent knowledge regarding them. You say you have participated in Arbitration Enforcement in the topic area. You were warned about DS in the topic area.[294] You freely admit you were aware that the area was under discretionary sanctions. This clearly meets the awareness criteria of discretionary sanctions. That leaves the argument as to whether the topic ban was excessive - I believe I've made my case, I'll leave it to Arbs to decide. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No. The Arbitration Enforcement Topic Ban was entirely appropriate given OccultZone's behaviour. What's more, it was made in the utmost good faith in an attempt to protect OccultZone from his own destructive actions. The other remedies against Worm That Turned are unsupported by any evidence submitted and appear purely to be vindictive. Nick (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally contradicted by the evidence available. OccultZone was made aware of the Discretionary Sanctions in January 2015 by Callanecc [295], also noticeable in that discussion is the fact that OccultZone was warned about his behaviour in January and cautioned that such behaviour could result in a block [296] with confirmation that was seen and acknowledged by OccultZone [297]. OccultZone's comments about mediating the situation do help our understanding of the situation - despite being an involved party, he has also tried to administer that particular issue [298][299]. Nick (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: Sorry, but your name appears on the Arbitration Committee Discretionary Sanctions 2015 log [300] so if you don't believe you were correctly informed about this, this will need to be reviewed, something probably best done by the committee (either by an appeal or as part of this case). Nick (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5) Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) is reminded to research more effectively in future arbitration enforcement actions.

or

5) Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) is reminded of blocking and banning policies and the standards of conduct expected of administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Little bit like this one.

Even if we are going to judge only what he imposed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2nd one was proposed at 04:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[301]

Comment by others:

6) Worm That Turned (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from taking any administrative action with respect to OccultZone.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Pretty much like this one.

It is good to point that every admin, except WTT, stopped taking any administrative action in relation to me, after objections were made.

• WTT inappropriately topic banned me from the subject where the article was disrupted by socks and had outdated predictions,[302] contained WP:COPYVIO,[303] etc. until I removed them after T-Ban was removed.
• after that he wanted to topic ban from all administrative boards and admin actions, even though there was no disruption, but helpful contributions,[304][305] and now as well.[306][307][308][309]
• he then stated his intent to indef, although I never qualified for WP:INDEF. I have made over 18k edits since that day and never reached anywhere near to a block.

Thus each of these actions of WTT were highly inappropriate and they could never any benefit en.wiki. Time has also proved it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC) (re-written at 15:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC))[310][reply]

In fact that temporary injunction has some ethics, it further encourages to take permission of the committee if the action is appropriate, I already did once.[311] Yes I don't hear even a "you will be blocked" since this case, just like I never heard it before 23 March 2015, though my activities across many namespaces had a significant rise. BTW, you forgot to point another temporary restriction, currently I am not making many edits because WTT asked not to and he "would be a lot happier".[312] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: You are not understanding the scope. I am only talking about this case, where he has not taken contradictory actions against others, though it is clear that each of his administrative action that he had made in relation to me contravened the policies and standards. That's why it is proposed as appropriate. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: I disagree with this and it has to be cleared. You asked me not to make many edits during the case, and I ceased it.[313] It is because I look for the reasons, I thought that I should just let it go for a while and also because you had asked it nicely. It was not harmful or a loss like any of the 3 examples that I have named above. As for this proposal, if the problem persists, we can come back here. Knowing that how much we have agreed with each other even after having so many unnecessary conflicts, I think that it would've been better if we never had any. Also note that I never said anything bad about you. What you think? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you see that's difficult. I have no intention of taking future actions with respect to OccultZone - I understand that there would be no positive effects of me doing so, he would just ignore the issues and suggest that I had ulterior motives. But the very fact that OccultZone seems to think this is the way to handle things, that he assumes that it's a personal vendetta, that it's 1 v 5 - that everyone is against him... well, that's where the problem lies. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to keep arguing here OccultZone - I've put my point of view across. I will mention though that you may misunderstand Wikipedia's arbitration - it's meant as an absolutely final place for disputes, with the understanding that the community cannot sort the dispute and that we need someone uninvolved to just find a solution. That's why there's so many harsh remedies that come out from Arbcom - final means final. If we have to come back here, the committee has not done their job properly - they're not meant to try "suck it and see" solutions. Worm^TT(talk) 08:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As per my above comment. I'm also astonished that OccultZone claims that because he hasn't been blocked since the incident, his behaviour must have been acceptable during the incidents which ultimately resulted in this Request for Arbitration. That's not supported by the evidence and in any case, OccultZone has been subject to a Temporary Injunction as a result of continued unacceptable behaviour, as judged by the Arbitration Committee. Administrators do tend to be more reluctant to block or otherwise sanction a user who is listed as a party in a Request for Arbitration, instead the convention is for users to seek a Temporary Injunction rather than administrative actions such as blocking, unless the issue is entirely unconnected with the Arbitration Request. Nick (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is really problematic. It means OccultZone trusts WTT to take administrative actions against other editors but not against him. This is not a personal vendetta and proposals like this again assume bad faith for unclear personal motives. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7) HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) is reminded to abide by the blocking policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Borrowed a bit from the last one on this section.

I believe that HJ Mitchell is a productive admin, maybe the most active admin of these all. One of the post, that he made here, he stated that there is no need of a specific policy to be violated, although it is necessary before block. I appreciate how he represented his views and also said that he had no problem with the unblock.[314] Blocking is clearly a serious issue, and block must accord with the blocking policy, reminder is likely enough. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Magioladitis: WP:DR is the policy. None of the blocking issues had to do anything with the previous warning which was about the edits that never violated any policy. None of them could even raise any possibility of even a warning. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't said anything on your talk page like that. Although I had asked you to stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING, yet you continued it. I wasn't warned for not writing on Nick's talk page, or Sandstein's talk page. HJ Mitchell had himself re-closed the ANI that I had closed. I was commenting on a block about which Nick was not even aware, I was being discussed over there, so? It just happened that HJ Mitchell had planned to block earlier, and only wanted to block. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't seemed to be aware of the block for 1 revert in 5 days, that you were treating like some legitimate block, after my comment, you didn't argued about the block, but only said that you don't want any bad such as community ban. I have your talk page on my watchlist since September 2014. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well.. You can read [315] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: You were wikihounding, you never posted on Nick's talk page ever before,[316] neither anything concerned you and you were spreading wrong information. These real events are not coherent with your misrepresentation below. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

HJ Mitchell's block on OccultZone was by far the most uncontroversial. He warned hours prior to the block and OccultZone has refused to drop the stick. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone, so you just ignored the final warning given by HJ Mitchel because you considered them unjustified. Withing 6 hours (between the warning and the block): You wrote at my talk page multiple times after I told you I do not have enough time to look at your complains further, you closed an ANI you opened in the way you wanted, you contacted Sandstein about the T-ban, you contacted Nick about a block. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: - could you clarify what you mean by I was commenting on a block about which Nick was not even aware. Thanks. Nick (talk) 14:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused. HJ Mitchell's block says refusal to drop the stick, exhausting the community's patience (linking to [317]) and not for edit warring. What relevance is the 1 revert in 5 days to a block which states the above ? Nick (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If HJ Mitchell wanted OccultZone blocked at first place, he would have done it without giving him a final warning. OccultZone seems to keep not understanding what he did that led into a block. Why would an uninvolved admin wait till then to have a plan to block him? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone: I made clear you 've been putting pressure on me [318]. You kept commenting at my talk page and ignored my advice [319]. I even had to take a wikibreak to avoid the pressure you 've been putting on me to help you in your case [320]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8) Nakon (talk · contribs) is admonished for conduct unbecoming an administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Actions include: a) inappropriate block. b) unauthorized topic ban. c) threatening to indef block. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is irrelevant and misleading per our policies and you know it. If not, then I had to be blocked many more times because I still continue making edits to WP:AN/I. "Threatening"[321] is a fair word, and the "warning" had no base. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zero violation of any policy, thus those proposals mean nothing. All that "strong evidence" has been already provided on the evidence page. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CBAN is limited to WP:AN and WP:ANI, it has to do nothing with Arbcom. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing to do with CBAN that you had pointed. Be it Arbcom or community ban, implementation of a ban requires massive disruption, not zero disruption. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC) (Note: This comment was made in response to the comment of Magioladitis from 18:27, 20 May 2015. Comment was removed a few hours ago.)[reply]

@Nick: Along with the diffs and policies, what really constituted the disruption, I can accept even if an uninvolved editor would tell. It should read like "This edit violated [[WP:(policy)]]." I haven't seen that, never even once. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Block was appropriate. Admin warnings are not threats. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed some restrictions for you below that will help you stay in the community. I think we we work out we can find a solution. You rejected my offer to take some days off. I hope that you ll accept my offer for wikipedia email block and for temporary ban. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if you continue to attack admins for favoring anonymous IPs without proving strong evidence there might be actions for that independently of this ArbCom. -- Magioladitis (talk)

An editor may be banned by consensus per WP:CBAN. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: how many administrators need to tell you that your editing is disruptive before you accept it ? Will you accept the outcome of the Arbitration Committee if they agree your editing is disruptive ? Nick (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

9) Upon the examination of the blocks and bans that were made on OccultZone from 23 March 2015 - 21 April 2015, and their contradictions with the blocking and banning policies, it is affirmed that these sanctions won't be considered in the future.

or

9) The blocks and bans that were made on OccultZone from 23 March 2015 - 21 April 2015, were hasty, ill-considered, they contradicts the blocking and banning policies. These sanctions won't be considered in the future.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That would restore the collaborative environment. When there was no breach of any policy, there was no need of a sanction, especially when it was made without any prior warning and had no relation with any prior sanction. Policies are made for resolving the issues, any contradiction would cause negative consequences and that is what we have seen here. That's why policies are for abiding. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick:, I believe OccultZone means "will not be taken into consideration in the future" - i.e. that they will not affect future blocks/bans - I don't believe he's suggesting he should become unblockable. Worm^TT(talk) 10:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

No. We're through the looking glass now. Is a user who is listed as the primary party in an Arbitration request seriously requesting that they can never be blocked or banned ? That shows such utter contempt for the community. The community retain the option of discussing and imposing a community ban on any editor at any time and nobody, not even the Arbitration Committee can remove that right. The Arbitration Committee themselves retain the authority to ban editors and that's something they cannot give up, nor should you expect them to. Blocks, including indefinite blocks, remain at the discretion of administrators, who are elected to serve on behalf of the community at the RFA process, with the express remit to maintain the project. That includes, by default, being permitted to block users for any length of time for any violation of policy.

I know OccultZone is going to claim he hasn't violated any policy, and the Arbitration Committee may agree with him, but it's plausible he could violate a policy going forward - he may make an edit which contravenes the BLP policy, he may edit war or breach 3RR, he may violate some other unspecified policy, in which case it may be appropriate for any administrator to block OccultZone. It's therefore impossible to say blocking and banning sanctions won't be considered in future.

TL;DR - OccultZone agrees to be bound by the same policies and potential sanctions every other editor to this site abides by, or he doesn't use the site at all. Nick (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned - that would certainly make more sense, but could only seriously considered if the Arbitration Committee confirms each and every block should not have been placed, that they were placed out of process and outwith policy, and most importantly going forward, that they do not accurately reflect OccultZone's behaviour at the time. Nick (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone - if you want people to have a good impression of you once again, you need to understand and publicly agree that your behaviour has been and continues to be disruptive, that the blocks placed against your account were valid and permissible, and that you need to modify your behaviour. A good start would be to apologise to people like Worm That Turned for the accusations you've made against them, to speak to the administrators involved here, and to uninvolved administrators, to learn why we find your behaviour disruptive, what you would need to change so we don't find your behaviour disruptive, and agree to some concrete proposals about what you will do, what edits you'll make and how you'll conduct yourself in future. Nick (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC) (Addendum: This reply was in response to a comment OccultZone has since removed [322]) Nick (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Till now OccultZone admitted no mistake in his actions. the only time he admitted something he reverted it [323]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10) Administrators are reminded that blocks should be applied only when no other solution would prove to be effective, or when previous attempts to resolve a situation (such as discussion, warnings, topic bans, or other restrictions) have proven to be ineffective.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Same as this. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) OccultZone is banned from making high-rate, large volume, and/or bulk edits from their main account (User:OccultZone), broadly construed. Examples of such edits are, but are not limited to, adding categories to articles, creating pages with WikiProject tags or adding them to existing pages, and adding portal tags to categories. For these purposes, high-rate is defined as more than 4 edits per minute, and large volume is defined as more than 20 similar edits per hour or 10 consecutive similar edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That remedy is applicable only when their is use of an unauthorized bot account. Those linked edits are impossible with/for a bot. What "quality and accuracy" you are talking about? Until now, no one has found even a single disruptive edit per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. I don't see any benefit in checking my contribution history just for finding a reason to block, and even more when it was always impossible to find one reason to impose such a block that would not contravene the blocking policy. Time speaks for itself, and it has been well established that I have made over 15,000 edits since the filing of this ARC, and significantly contributed on many namespaces, including SPI, ANI, ARE, DYKs, AfDs etc. and there has been no blocks, unauthorized topic bans, or anything. I ask why?

Reading the comments here, I would point to the fact that there has been no provision for easing someone's quest to find a reason to block, ever. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Per finding of fact 4.1.2.2.2, OccultZone makes such a high number of similar "bot-like" edits daily that it is extremely difficult, nearing impossible, to scrutinize their edits for quality and accuracy. Preventing those edits from being made with their main account would go a long way in improving the situation. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect some type of editing restriction(s) to be placed on OccultZone at the conclusion of this case, ensuring compliance with any editing restriction(s) will be challenging if there's a large number of automated/semi-automated edits to review. This or the similar proposal below will be necessary to more easily allow administrators to scrutinize OccultZone's edits. They will, given OccultZone's propensity for becoming involved with editing disputes, also allow administrators to swiftly and easily ensure any spurious reports against OccultZone can be dismissed and he's not unfairly sanctioned. Nick (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: The Arbitration Committee has a lengthy history of restricting editors with sanctions to one account disclosed at all times to the Arbitration Committee. That's specifically so compliance with sanctions can be determined. If you don't intend to violate any sanctions placed against your account, you have nothing at all to fear from any measures put in place to allow administrators to more easily determine compliance. In any case, when sanctioned, the responsibility for compliance and for blocking becomes largely your own responsibility. Nick (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I think I may have misread these when I first looked, but I think the remedy works well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but fix the wording Wanting to keep some distance from this case, I won't weigh in on whether a restriction like this is needed or not in the specific case at hand. What I'll say is based on knowledge of past high-speed editing disputes (Betacommand, Rich Farmbrough, Kumioko, etc)., the wording given is set up for failure because of the room for disagreement on whether two edits are "similar", and also the possibility of multiple sets of mass edits going on concurrently (it allows OccultZone to run 50 simultaneous bots doing 20 edits/hour each, as long as they're doing non-similar things). So I think if there is a restriction, any stated limit should give a firm upper bound on the amount of editing allowed (# of edits or # of pages), without regard to "similarity" or the lack of it. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) OccultZone is instructed to create an alternate account for large-scale edits. Any and all edits proscribed by remedy 4.4.1.1 must be made using this alternate account. No other type of editing may be done through this account. If any type of bot, script, or other automation method is used for these edits, the account must have an approved bot flag.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am getting increasingly concerned regarding this, and a restriction regarding high-speed editing will likely appear in the PD. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: It is irrelevant whether the edits are automated or not, it is the speed and volume that are the issues not the method so I see no need for you to send us anything regarding this. The committee can choose to pass a restriction on any behaviour that is causing disruption, regardless of why. In this case your editing is too fast and voluminous for other editors to verify that you are making no mistakes which is as equally important as there being no mistakes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

En.wiki has never labelled a manual editor as a bot. Anyone can edit like me, only if they spend some time in collecting the articles list, usually from Special:NewPages and create files for each subject on system. Remember that categories are usually added to the article by its creator, it is also helpful to revisit both popular and unpopular categories in order to get idea about new and months old articles. Sometimes many similar articles would miss some important elements, it is also good to check each that are falling under the same category. I have created many files for different purposes and preserved 2 of those files on here as well, check User:OccultZone/Yrs, User talk:OccultZone/Yrs, all of them are related to years. They all redirect to pages that are editable. Since their title is concise, it is also clear that what should be presented, on talk pages, {{WikiProject Years}} and sometimes {{WikiProject History}} would be added. You can simply copy and paste same thing after opening many windows and then click on 'save page', but make sure to read the title of the category first if it requires anything more. If it says "1958 in Lebanon", then {{WikiProject Lebanon}} is largely essential along with any other that I have mentioned. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is global consensus to add those categories, wikiprojects, portals, templates, sentences, etc. thus each of these edits are major, they are changing the face of the specific page and further standardizing. That's why you don't see any complaint on my UTP or anywhere about them. Since it is guaranteed that there are no errors, it really saves more time when it is done quicker, and you contribute more to the encyclopedia. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to WTT. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WTT you can check any other related page that is not edited by me, and they would look same. There's a reason why no one reverts/complains, they rather appreciates. If you have some real objection then go to those noticeboards and ask "Is it fine to add this wikiproject on related pages?", "Is it ok to add these portals", "Is it... add templates?", and so on. Yes there is global consensus, they are being used for what they were made. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] Worm That Turned I think I answered it already, there would be a violation of those policies only if you can prove that an unauthorized bot has been used for making those edits. I can make it more easier for you, 9 different edits in 1 minute cannot be made by any bot.[324][325][326][327][328][329][330][331][332] Would you recall any other bot doing it? It involved a great amount of practice and other editors, including Fram had also contributed in making it better.[333][334] That's why I don't get what you find so wrong in them, other than easing your mission to find a reason to block, you can still focus on bytes added and open 5,000 edits in place of 50 edits, right? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] Then go write a script and consider making those edits? You can also ask Rich Farmbrough, who you know very well. May I know how long it will take you? Like I said, we need evidence if those edits are possible to make with any script or bot, which is different from speculating. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply] Well I just remember a statement that you had made. I find it worth it to mention him since he have those skills that will ease your quest in finding or making a relevant bot or script. I don't see any actual concern, I edit more because the more days have been passed without blocks and bans, and I find it encouraging. My files include over 700,000 pages that require major edits, they have to be completed as quickly as possible. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Can I mail something to Arbcom regarding this matter or simply prove here that none of these edits are automated with a 2 mins video? BTW, there can be restriction on "high speed" only if the editing is introducing many errors, have I introduced any? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No policy talks about the speed. It is clearly not my fault if they cannot find reason to block, we would be only avoiding the contributions if we are going to focus on these non-policy based and never-seen-before proposals. It is better to tell them to go and clear the backlogs of WP:AIV, WP:UAA, WP:RFPP, WP:3RR etc. in place of searching my contribution history where you can never find a single disruptive edit.

Finally, that is why I had came here, because they continue to check my contribution history to make up a reason to sanction so any other prior mistake can be justified, and still their rationale contradict both banning and blocking policies. Hope I have clarified it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Since Worm That Turned and DoRD insists, I can cease mass editing until 28 May. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis, there is no need of specific permission as long as it is live and clearly managed that way. I am amazed that you don't know that. I have removed the semi-active status,[335] it is actively managed by many editors and had thousands of new pages in last months. There has been a number of active discussion in last few months, if there is zero activity in last 3 months, then maybe, still there has to be some specific announcement, stating that it doesn't require any tagging. Are you going to say that everyone needs specific permission on every board before making any related edit? If you are actually serious about it, then you should really consider raising these questions over there. But I am sure you won't since you know that your questions are misleading and there is no actuality.

I have only assessed those where I am very concerned. In that one[336] parameter was useless, but still redirected as appropriate. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, can you please link to some discussions that lead to this global consensus? I find it surprising as there are so many differences between projects. Worm^TT(talk) 08:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High speed or high volume editing should have explicit consensus, that much is clear. "Other people do it" is not explicit consensus. The onus is also not on me to prove that there is consensus - I've shown which policies and guidelines I believe you are violating - a simple link to a discussion that gave you the idea it was ok to do would be helpful. Worm^TT(talk) 09:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per my proposed principle 4.1.1.6 (and previous cases) inferences can be made based on speed, number, timing and consistency of edits. In my opinion, those edits look scripted, because I do not believe I could manually make those edits in that timescale, but I could write a script to do it. It is trivial to write a script to scrape a year from the page title and update a category, or in the case of the one above to replace [[Category:X by country|Canada]] with [[Category:X by country|Canada]][[Category:X in North America]] as X is the same in both. But, bot or not, this is a good solution to the problem - your high speed editing should be kept separate from your non high speed editing. Worm^TT(talk) 07:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know Rich Farmbrough very well? Been having more discussions off-wiki? I've spent a bit of time with Rich at Wikimania, and met him once before - but all my contact with him has been related to the Rich Farmbrough case during my time as an arbitrator. I wouldn't say I know him well, let alone very well. But that's beside the point - I can name two arbitrators who I am absolutely certain could write a simple bot which had the ability to make those edits and I'm sure there are others who could, but if the arbs would like me to write something up, I'd be happy to.
OccultZone, as you're asking me all these questions, can I ask you one? A number of editors here have raised concerns about your high speed editing. Rather than stopping for a couple of weeks whilst the case is on-going, or even reducing your speed, you appear to have actually increased the speed you are editing at. 5000 edits now goes back 5 days, at the beginning of the case it went back 2 weeks. Can I ask why? Worm^TT(talk) 08:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, could I suggest that, as a sign of good faith, you stop your high speed editing until the case is closed? I ask because in the past 4 hours you've made over 1200 edits - in other words sustaining over 5 edits per minute for 4 hours. There's no deadline, the editing can wait for a couple of weeks. I, for one, would be a lot happier to know you are taking criticism on board and I expect the committee would be too. Worm^TT(talk) 11:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you OccultZone. Worm^TT(talk) 11:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Alternative to remedy 4.1.3.1.1. As OccultZone continues to maintain that they are not using any scripts or other automation tools, this proposal broadens the scope to include any high-rate, bot-like editing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, I don't see how your response addresses this (or even the previous) proposal. I'm concerned not so much with what you're editing, but with the rate, quantity, and quality of edits you're making. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, you say, "My files include over 700,000 pages that require major edits, they have to be completed as quickly as possible." Why the rush? Why can't these edits wait until after the conclusion of this case? The project won't cease to function if those edits aren't made, and even if the edits are necessary, there is no deadline. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 11:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this remedy was imposed in addition to the above, I'd suggest it more clearly note the alternate account can be used for large-scale edits only (to signal that the same issues cannot to arise in respect of the alternate account). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have updated my proposal to include this restriction. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone recently adds banners of WikiProject Years. This WikiProject is semi-active. there is no discussion I can find that the WikiPrject really needs the banners added by OccultZone. The project had 3 new members in the last years and 1 new member in 2014. It is not clear to me that the projects wants mass tagging of pages. The questions is not whether OcultZone has permission to add banners, since every editor can add banners for a project, but whether OccultZone knows in which pages wants the Wikiproject to add banners or which class/importance settings the projects wants. For example [337]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I know I'm in a minority but I've never liked the mass addition of wikiproject banners to talk pages. I preferred the earlier system where the talk tab at the top of most articles was a redlink, and if you saw a blue link, that meant someone had actually written something on the talk page so you'd click it and possibly learn about some actual issue with or proposed improvement to the article. Now all those talk links are blue and we've lost a useful signal. Therefore even if I don't call the mass tagging misconduct, it's never going to be something I feel thankful for. That means I'm unsympathetic towards arguments that Occultzone is doing something useful by posting them. I won't feel any loss if he stops doing those particular operations. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) Wikipedia is not a forum for the creation or furtherance of grudges and personal disputes. A history of bad blood, poor interactions, and heated altercations between users can complicate attempts to reach consensus. Inflammatory accusations often perpetuate disputes, poison the well of existing discussions, and disrupt the editing atmosphere. Discussions should be held with a view toward reaching a solution that can gain a genuine consensus. Attempting to exhaust or drive off editors who disagree through hostile conduct, rather than through legitimate dispute-resolution methods pursued only when legitimately necessary, is destructive to the consensus process and is not acceptable. See also Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I was searching for this, and I found a few, such as this one. Although they largely concerned some content dispute. The one you have proposed is coherent. Apart from misrepresentations, false accusations, retaliatory topic bans, blocks, another example of battle ground mentality would be that Worm That Turned,[338][339] and others[340] who refer my non-offensive editing as "crusades". Use of that word in wrong context is so unacceptable that even Vladimir Putin was criticized for using it.[341][342] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. --Rschen7754 05:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The battleground conduct is even on display in these case pages. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The battleground conduct is evident, but since there are more 'combatants' on one side of the battlefield with bigger guns (tools) the outcome may be predictable. I say we 'fire' the 'current combatants' and bring in fresh, new administrators with no prior history or involvement in this battle.  Bfpage |leave a message  12:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TOOLMISUSE
• WP:RAAA

This principle is not a guideline or policy I can find with a "WP:" prefix, but after doing a search I see that it has come up numerous times in other arbcom cases and so I feel it is appropriate to list it here.

Firstly, please assume in good faith that I am doing my best to follow the guidelines posted on this page that describe my participation in this process. I have not submitted comments in a case like this before and only found out that 'this' was happening because I sometimes visit OZ's talk page.

Again, please allow me to comment and I will try and edit to conform to the guidelines posted on this page. I have not been contacted by OZ to become involved with this case. I have been following some of his edits for the purpose of learning from someone who has much more experience than I do and have learned much about building the encyclopedia from him and his edits. I admire his work and was completely confused by all the discussions taking place on his talk page with blocks and bans and 'patient' instruction from administrators. I was struck by OZ's patient replies. I don't know if this is the right place to make this comment, but I believe this is a valid case and should be opened, I support that an investigation continue according to what OZ has written about his treatment and bans.

I have a novel solution/suggestion to really determine 'who' is the problem in this case. I propose a ban on all the adminstrators from interacting with OZ for a period of a month or six weeks. I would then ask the arbcom committee to invite other uninvolved administrators, with a history of NOT being accused of misusing their 'tools' to evaluate the editing of OZ while he/she continues to build the encyclopedia during the ban. If OZ is the problem, the new, uninvolved administrators will pick up on that and OZ's habitual misconduct will either be confirmed or discounted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I honestly liked this proposal, but I believe that remainder/admonishments would certainly do that. If any of those accusation had no sound, I would've been blocked for that much earlier. But that's the point and serious problem is that there is not even a single policy based block.

What is more amazing that the time has also provided some better understanding, that the block and ban spree wholly stopped after this ARC filing. I don't even hear "you will be blocked", even though my activities across all those namespaces had a great rise. Blocking people uselessly, is actually harmful for en.wiki. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would further promote the violation of blocking and banning policy. I mean this sort of disruption was far more blockworthy than anything I ever did. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: only Bgwhite was involved, rest were not. WTT was the nominator of Swarm's RFA.(read) Then we also have to see that why the block-ban spree eventually stopped after the filing of this case, that I don't even hear a "you may be blocked", even though my editing amount had a gradual rise. It is because there was no "specific violation" of a policy? But there was none before either, per your own proposal that speaks about your actions.[343] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Magioladitis, if a site ban passes, the other remedies should not be considered moot. A significant number of banned editors do return - and the other remedies should be recorded in the event of a return. Worm^TT(talk) 12:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This proposal is obviously made in good faith, but is absurd. All the admins were uninvolved at one point or another, and most of us are still uninvolved outwith the confines of this case—I have no history of dispute with OccultZone; nor does Worm That Turned; nor Nakon; I doubt Swarm does; Bgwhite is arguable. Nor are the admins in each other's pockets—we all know each other, sure, but Wikipedia's a big project and we all specialise in different areas. Frankly, the logic behind this proposal is that if you don't like the answer you got from the first >20 admins, keep asking until you find an admin who gives you the answer you want. One or two admins can make a mistake, even three or four, but when so many admins are seeing a problem with one editor's conduct, it becomes less and less plausible that they're all mistaken. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I wonder which problem is this going to solve. We have 4 involved admins here that they all blocked OccultZone but we have other 10 or more that interacted with OccultZone. This proposal would mean that every editor that accuses an admin of misusing their tools can ask for a non-interaction and get away without a block. This is very dangerous especially for editors with history in blocks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is the administrators who are being accused of misconduct in this case, perhaps one first step is to see if they have been confronted by editors or other administrators about misusing their tools. Is there a history of misconduct with the administrators? (I would expect the answer to be 'no') And are you also saying that 14 administrators(!) are following him around, checking up on him, timing him between edits, recording the seconds between his reverts? There are four pretty-much-involved editors here that all have blocked OZ; probably lacking a NPOV in this case against him. As an un-involved observer of the discussions on OZs talk page, the blocking and banning was making my head spin! Finding un-involved administrators would

• de-escalate the situation
• give the involved administrators a break
• clear the battlefield
• let OZ get back to editing WP:HERE
• bring in new, neutral, uninvolved administrators to see if OZ is really doing all the things the four-really-involved editors say he habitually does.  Bfpage |leave a message  12:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the proposal for site ban passes all other actions will be moot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC) I agree with Worm That Turned. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that OccultZone tries to divert the case from him.[344] This comment was not even answering to the initial proposal. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour that is a cause for concern has continued during this case, resulting in OccultZone being placed under a Temporary Injunction by the Arbitration Committee. The Arbitration Committee meet your definition of new, neutral, uninvolved administrators. The case should proceed normally in these circumstances and the stated goals, to examine the behaviour of OccultZone and all other parties should be met. Nick (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bfpage The case is titled "OccultZone and others" which means that the behaviour of all the named parties is being investigated. This would be ongoing, I expect, but you would need to ask the Arbitration Committee. Nick (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the conduct of the administrators is not being investigated? Have these new, neutral, uninvolved administrators found no problems with abuse of administrator tools? That was pretty quick.
  Bfpage |leave a message  21:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and its internal administrative and dispute-resolution processes are not a legal system. Although in most cases disruptive conduct will be in violation of one or more policies, it is not necessary for a specific policy to be violated in order for an editor's conduct to be disruptive or unconducive to the encyclopaedia. Policy is intended to be a description of practice rather than an exhaustive list of rules and as such there cannot (and in some cases should not) be a policy against every form of disruptive editing. Administrators must use a combination of policy and common sense in order to effectively discharge their duties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree that policy is descriptive not perscriptive --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I don't intend to make any further proposals for the time being but I'll monitor progress on this page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liked how you have attempted to explain the proposal. Still, blocking is a serious issue. Well, some even think that there should be a block for POV and civil POV pushing, but that is not clearly supported by policy, it has to be backed up with other reasons. You have handled many of the cases around, including those of WP:ARE, thus I had never expected such a block from you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• They do pass the definition of WP:DE, and there is no doubt. Block should be made only when there is some violation of a policy, it must accord with the blocking policy, we know many 100s of issues that are on going for months and years,[345][346][347](just look at WP:ANI?) but no one gets blocked just for raising the issues. WP:DR is the policy. ANI issue was already resolved, and anything that you had said a few hours ago was already irrelevant. It was also irrelevant when you mentioned Zhanzhao because that whole day I didn't talked about him, you can provide some proof if I did. None of those edits that you had mentioned had anything to do with your block, did they violated any policy? I am also amazed that you didn't warned Magioladitis, Bgwhite for the actual violation of policy that they had been doing, even when you had been told, thus your approach was one-sided. We also know that indefinite block would've raised more tensions for you, that's why you better avoided it. Even after that I have been to numerous issues, involving Bgwhite(see WP:AN) but I don't see myself getting blocked, I think I would have been if there was no ARC. Correct? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You see, that's exactly my point. The link you give is to a section called "examples of disruptive editing" (emphasis mine, obviously); it's not a comprehensive list of possible forms of disruption. When an experienced administrator—especially one who hasn't been involved in the matter at hand—comes to your talk page to express concern about your editing, and counsels you that continuing on the same course is likely to result in a block, a reasonable, competent editor would take note. If they disagreed, they might request clarification, they might argue with the admin, they might request more input at a noticeboard, but a reasonable, competent editor would not dismiss the concerns and carry on regardless. If they did, they could hardly be surprised when they got blocked. Now compare that to your actions and mine: At 10:20 on 19 April, I came to your talk page to express my concern, because I cold see that you were still rushing headlong into things that multiple admins had told you to stop doing. I signed off with 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 [a] lengthy block. I had no desire to block you—if I had, I would have done it then instead of offering advice. Your reply indicated that you thought I was referring solely to the edit war on my talk page, so I clarified You need to walk away from the whole issue, and from the Zhanzhao issue, and find something else to do. Almost every edit you made to the project space and user talk namespace over the next eight hours was related to Zanzhao, Kumioko, or meta-issues with your conduct that had arisen during those incidents, so at 19:01 I blocked you for three days. I probably should have made it indefinite, as a unilateral indefinite block is a lot easier to lift once the problem is resolved than an ArbCom ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) For raising bad-faith accusations and drama about Zhanzhao to at least 28 administrators, refusal to accept the outcome, and refusal to get over a resolved SPI that had no action taken, OccultZone is blocked for a period of 6 months by the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

ArbCom can only ban editors and time limited bans have fallen out of style. A more modern writing of this would be ...OccultZone is banned for a period of no less than 6 months.... YMMV in regards to the ban. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In that case, we just have to enforce the WP:SOCK policy and refrain from sympathizing. @Zeke Essiestudy: It is not a bad faith accusation or drama when you have proven 6 years of on-going sock puppetry, nor it is incorrect to challenge the never seen and misleading outcome about someone who has socked since their first day and also had been blocked before. I would of course reject such conflicting outcomes and such SPIs are not resolved until there is some proper policy based restriction. If there is contradiction with WP:SOCK#Blocking policy, then we are going to have a lot of problems. I didn't contacted 28 admins for that.

BTW, how did you managed to make this up? Your first edit is from 1 April 2015. We had no interactions that would eventually prompt you to interfere in these matters. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning that problem, you omitted that there was a resolution,[348] and Salvidrim! was criticized for the attitude that you have mentioned below.[349] Thus it was authentic to carry it on, I didn't wanted another case where sock puppetry would be vindicated after taking the suspect's words that were contrary to the facts. This arbitration request has to do nothing with all that, it just shows my ability to resolve the matter and end all conflicts, no one complains about that AN. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that you are WP:GAMING the system by making up false stories and having no diffs/proofs for them. You even ignored the question that I recently asked, that your first edit is from 1 April 2015, though we never had any related interactions, what actually made you to take so interest in these matters when you are unrelated? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Many administrators have told you to drop the issue but you apparently kept going. See this, where Salvidrim! agreed on you being indefinitely blocked "if you didn't agree to drop the fucking stick immediately". Granted, I feel as though Nakon jumped the gun for reblocking you over adding a link to something useful, but I believe that you insisting that Zhanzhao is socking (and who knows who else you did this for) is what led to this arbitration request. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what's giving you the idea I'm gaming the system? I'm seeing disruption in your recent posts at ANI and SPI and I think something should be done about it. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found the case though regular means. I witnessed you getting reblocked by Nakon, and knew things weren't going to end well. I am also pretty sure these "false stories" are supported by Worm That Turned. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1.1) OccultZone is banned from the English Wikipedia for a period of no less than 6 months. After that, OccultZone will remain banned indefinitely, but will be allowed to appeal his ban, and then every 6 months afterwards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I prefer Nick's proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worm TT suggested an indef ban would be a better solution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal states that OccultZone will be banned for 6 months, then indefinitely, but he will be allowed to ask a reconsideration of his ban every 6 months. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) If OccultZone begins to admin shop or raise bad-faith accusations (including alleged sock puppetry or disruptive editing) against any user he is in a dispute with, he may be blocked for a period of no less than 2 weeks and an indefinite interaction ban will be activated. He may appeal any interaction bans 6 months after they are set in motion, and every 6 months after.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Any attempt to drag out a SPI after it's closed against users he's in a dispute with that are confirmed not to be socking will be reported to the Arbitration Noticeboard. Additionally, a SPI clerk may ask OccultZone to stop posting to SPI if this happens.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) OccultZone cannot revert for sockpuppetry or remove material for sockpuppetry unless the sockpuppet has been confirmed either at SPI or by a CU.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You don't need much for confirming 216.4.55.2 and 216.4.55.3 to be same people when they are having 100% same characteristics and interests, CU won't confirm that they are one person per our privacy policies unless under special circumstances. I have usually reverted accounts only when they had been confirmed, I have avoided that even in extreme WP:DUCK case sometimes,(like [350][351]) reverting only depends upon the damage they do. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"very few evidence", and it comes from you? In real that should be "strong evidence", in fact there was, all the time. I have reverted only socks and been doing that for a long time already. These areas are affected by socks. I don't see you have any experience in SPIs, major proof is that you ask CU to reveal the connection of IPs even when they have blocked it for evasion. Just like your own proposal shows. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think this is one the main problems that need to be solved. OccultZone acts without considering all the facts. --- Magioladitis (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, I insist. You seem to have reverted with very few evidence and you seem not to realise it. That's why I said that this is one of the core issues. You have not been much involved with SPI and you have little involvment in counter-vandalism so it won't affect you that much but it will save a lot of conflicts in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) OccultZone blocked from sending any Wikipedia emails for 6 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Do you even know that it requires frequent WP:EMAILABUSE? It has to do nothing with discussing issues that are impossible to discuss on-wiki due to topic ban and only until that period in relatively low amount. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom can check how many emails I have sent in last 30 days and also if they are any abusive. Anyways, so you are saying that if I make 1000 edits on articles, and 20 on SPIs, that means SPI contributions are low and not needed. Wrong, because you cannot make 1000 edits in a day on SPIs and even one edit to SPI having evidence can is largely helpful for en.wiki. even if it has been made in a month or year. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As a measure to reduce off-wiki activity that causes disruption and admin shopping. I think it's technically possible to do this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this not accepted by OccultZone I 'll move to support the indef site ban proposed above. OccultZone, you see to be rejecting both my proposals to get out of this crisis you created. Your involvement with SPIs and anti-vandalism is very low compared to other task you do. I think it will be beneficial for all of us (including you) if you disengage from contacting admins for every little matter involving more and more people in your activities. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) Sanctions, such as blocks, bans, or restrictions, are used to prevent; not to punish, nor to retaliate. They should only be used to prevent damage or disruption to the encyclopedia, be backed by evidence of the damage or disruption; editors who do participate in such behavior should be warned appropriately before sanctioning becomes an option.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Correct. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) Editors generally should not continue arguing or debating over a resolved issue. If an editor believes that an issue has not been appropriately resolved, he/she should politely raise a concern over the resolution of the issue (e.g. for deletion discussions at AfD, discussing with an administrator, or opening a deletion review), instead of continuing to argue or debate over such issue. If, after discussing the resolution of the issue, there is a consensus to retain the resolution of the issue as-is, then there should no longer be any further debate or argument over such issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) When requesting sanctions, it is important that the accused editor knows about the request, so that he/she will be able to respond to it. Not doing so violates the spirit of WP:CANVASSING: to influence the outcome of a discussion, however the same applies to requests.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) Until there is definite evidence of an illegitimate connection between suspected sockpuppet accounts, they are to be presumed unconnected, and thus, should not be subject to WP:EVASION-justified reverting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

[352] [353](same edit summaries and kind of content) are definite evidence. No wonder the page has been protected by other admin, for sock puppetry.[354] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Exactly. I totally support this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This remark has nothing to do with the single case OccultZone comments about. It is a general remark and I think it has certainly to be included in the conclusion of this discussion. Otherwise, we will again allow speculations to be presented as facts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5) Sanctions, including requests for sanctions, are never to be used as a retaliation tool. Active pursing of sanctions, by either requesting in many venues, or to many admins, is a sign that the editor requesting sanctions is requesting them for retaliation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

6) If, after requesting sanctions against an editor, there is strong opposition by the community in applying those sanctions, then the editor requesting such sanctions must accept the consensus. Failure to do so goes against WP:CONACHIEVE and WP:LISTEN, and seriously goes against the purpose of sanctions: to protect the encyclopedia from harm.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Per #OccultZone and IRC, OccultZone is warned for requesting sanctions on IRC for approximately the past year. Any uninvolved administrator, may, at their own discretion, block OccultZone for a period of up to one year, if he or she receives a request (or receives evidence of such a request) by OccultZone to sanction an editor on IRC, e-mail, or any other venue where the accused editor does not receive a chance to respond to the request.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Esquivalience First we need evidence if I ever asked for any sanction on IRC. I can say about email, that I needed it because I was topic banned, and I was myself allowed by Worm That Turned to contact any checkuser,[355] thus it was legit and was it done in front of all.[356] Anyways, which policy says that you cannot request admin actions through email or IRC? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned Wait. If Arbcom can confirm that I have sent any emails, then that is still enough to confirm that I how much I have used the system since 21 April. Do you also understand that we are talking about IRC, and also talking about the policy that tells not to ask for admin actions through email or IRC? In fact, that whole conversation with you had led to a numerous actions that you wouldn't mention, because you also preferred finding something that can lead you to action, all that was a part of a huge conversation, right? I never asked any action from The Ed17, his own statements are doubtful ("my takeaway", "context I got", "don't remember exact") (full discussion) and I even went to ask for private log from Arbcom because of that wrong statement, but they told that private logs are not kept, so did IRC themselves. Still there is a requirement of compelling evidence, that none of you have got, neither it is possible to have the non-existing. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never denied asking for those particular actions, have I? I was thinking that you would help me I had also told that he had made personal attacks on last SPI, and you never said anything about it, now things were moving to a different position, I really didn't wanted to ask anyone off, all because of the circumstances, it was the same day when I was topic banned by you. What if I had warned him, and couldn't be available to back it up? I still warned him about the things that had to do nothing with the t-ban. If there was no T-Ban, I would've never asked you to warn him at all. Had you ever asked "why?" I would have explained you and with these same words. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Now you have simply made it up, and it can be easily proved. I had requested unblock, right after I had seen the block.[357][358] I never asked for any unblock from you, how come you have to make this up nearly a month later? I had only asked on IRC that if sock IPs are allowed to revert on their talk pages, I was not blocked then, and I had asked it publicly. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are rather gaming the system there OccultZone. Arbcom cannot see emails unless you or others forward them. They can use technical means to confirm that you sent an email through the wikipedia system at a specific time, but they cannot see the content, nor the recipient. That said, you specifically asked me to warn Zhanzhao for how he was defending himself at SPI ("disrupting the process"). You also requested I "look at" a number of the incidents - that implies to me that you would like action. The Ed17 also suggests you contacted looking for a block. Overall, I support this remedy, keeping stuff on wiki should be encouraged. Worm^TT(talk) 12:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about off-wiki communication methods. That you are explicitly excluding anything but IRC and email speaks volumes. I am referring to a gchat, I'm sure there are a large number of other off-wiki discussion methods which you could use and they should be lumped together. I'm curious to know what the "numerous actions that you wouldn't mention" are, as I have no idea? I have the entire conversation logged, I'm happy to send it to Arbcom if it helps - it's fairly banal though, and evidence phase is over, so I'll hold fire unless one asks me. Again, you specifically asked for a warning for Zhanzhao. Not skirted around, not "my take away", a specific request that I warn Zhanzhao against "bludgeoning". Your further discussions with me made it very clear that you wanted action taken against parties, otherwise why would you bring it up? It's not like we had interacted before. Worm^TT(talk) 12:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser can confirm that you sent an email at a datetime, through the wikipedia email system. It does not take into account the emails that you sent outside of this. Worm^TT(talk) 12:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

OccultZone has in the past asked me to take administrative action via IRC Private Message. He asked me to unblock him when he was blocked for edit warring on the Rape in India article, I didn't involve myself with the case and I directed OccultZone to request unblocking via his talk page. He also asked for guidance (broadly speaking) on the IP talk page edit warring issue [359], and I advised him that his behaviour was shameful and that he was enormously fortunate not to be blocked. I believe he accepted, at the time, his behaviour was indeed block worthy, so I'm unsettled somewhat that this appears to have changed. Nick (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) For reverting unconfirmed sockpuppets, OccultZone is admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Find one? Whoever I have reverted was assured/confirmed to be sock and was blocked as one. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Admonishment is a start but I propose a ban for some months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse I agree since this is totally supported by the evidence presented. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3) See #Proposals by Nick#Proposed findings of fact, 3-6: For showing no understanding in his/her behavior, gaming the system, and disruptive editing by failing to "get the point", OccultZone is warned. If an uninvolved administrator finds OccultZone to have disruptively edited Wikipedia under WP:DE (specifically WP:LISTEN), then he/she may block OccultZone for a period of up to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Response to Problems with T-Ban The topic ban was solely targetted at OccultZone because I thoroughly reviewed his behaviour and found issue. I looked into the circumstances around the topic, but my focus was on the blocks and OccultZone's behaviour. It was important that the ban went further than just the article, because he was making multiple accusations of sockpuppetry which were unproven and, in multiple cases, wrong. The reminder mentioned served as awareness that DS was available in that area.

Most importantly, nominating an individual for adminship is not necessarily an indication of involvement. You can see how much we interact - almost not at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm disappointed in the bad faith shown to me, based on the hard work I put in looking into the case, at OccultZone's request. Worm^TT(talk) 08:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, you are saying that every single action I've taken, and opinion I've given, since I started looking at this case was taken in bad faith as I had nominated Swarm for adminship. Time and again you have dismissed people's opinions for frivolous inaccurate reasons and you refuse to take any personal responsibility yourself. Worm^TT(talk) 09:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply stunned, if it needs to be said - I'm not orchestrating anything. Worm^TT(talk) 13:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had you told that you nominated Swarm for adminship, I would've never talked with you ever again and never about this matter. I had some experience about such situation, I can recall many, but for easing this, I would recall a very recent(to that event), check [360][361][362] you can realize how these comments are overtly-positive to a single side and contrary to policy as well as what actually happened. Know why? Because editor in question was the nominator of the admin in question, just like you were for Swarm. Don't you know that CU is not a magic pixie dust and IPs can be spoofed? How could you say that I was totally wrong when same accounts were adhering to same POV and using same edit summaries[363][364][365][366][367][368] all the time. Whoever I was accusing, why you never recognized that I had exposed the abuse of multiple accounts policy that was on-going for over 6 years? Also that it stopped only after an SPI and these accounts were abused on same ban discussions, AfDs, just similar namespace. Finally, I have no CU user right still I could find IP extensions used by these multiple editors in last 7 years, which is even more than what CU could do. Although you had CU user right for a long time,[369][370] I had asked you to look at my evidence, and you never did. Just say that you only made my way harder. Sock puppetry is still on-ongoing and I am proven to be correct again and again. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained how each of my accusations had merit and WP:AC/DS cannot be used for suppressing sock puppetry allegations. I had positive sock investigation record since June 2014 concerning this article. I had requested you not to impose a WP:ARBIPA ban, on whoever it has been imposed, they virtually lose credibility and I lost so much of recognition because of you. Callanecc was now neglecting me, something I could never imagine of. Would you like to take responsibility for all that? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No offense to Callanecc, he was not talking to that editor who he was willing to help all time, but he was talking to an editor who is now indefinitely topic banned. Such topic ban is itself synonyms for "very bad editor". I am just pointing what a negative atmosphere was now constructed by WTT, the more you are against me, the more praise you will receive. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, you got that right, that's what I meant to say. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I want anyway? Vindication from sanctions, due to their violation of blocking/banning policies? While so many of you actually want me to be restricted to something or even site banned, I mean seriously? If I did something wrong by questioning these blocks/T-bans that even contradicted our usual standards, then I would ask if you hope that any other editor should be blocked/T-Banned same way I have been. I am sure you would say no. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree. I'm shocked and appalled at the bad faith shown to everybody who has tried their utmost to help OccultZone avoid the community ban he was walking headlong into. I say was there, because he's now running flat out into a ban, I fear. Nick (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: I'm especially troubled by the phrase "Callanecc was now neglecting me" which again shows bad faith. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, all editors have lives outwith the Wikimedia bubble and those of us with advanced permissions still enjoy other activities, such as content creation, photo editing or working on other projects within the bubble, so to speak. It's grossly unfair to expect any one editor, administrator, checkuser or arbitrator to jump when you demand it of them, and you can not and must not expect their undivided attention continually and constantly. To my mind, it shows OccultZone believes administrators to be personally subservient to him, and not the community we all agreed to serve. It's possibly the root cause of the entire case. Nick (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: I don't understand your evidence. Are you suggesting Worm That Turned is orchestrating a campaign of some sort against you, if not, what is the meaning of "the more you are against me, the more praise you will receive." ? Nick (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, I thought we had both mutually agreed to NEWSTART [371] after AN. And you had further made a promise on AN to other admins to that same effect [372]. I want to know if you still intend to pursue your vendetta against me before I say more. I really want to hold on to your request for clean start, but you are making it hard for me to do so. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep this brief. The evidence submitted by OccultZone [373] is inaccurate. OccultZone refers to Kumioko (or Reguyla) as being a banned editor, whilst he was previously the subject of a community ban, this was lifted and replaced with a 6 month block (explicitly named as such) as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:Kumioko ban review on 26 August 2014 (OccultZone did not take part in this community discussion, so may have been unaware). This block was reset as a result of talk page misuse on 23 November 2014 and was reset again on 24 February 2015 for block evasion. Kumioko was therefore two months into a six month block when OccultZone requested he again be banned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

At the right time I had changed it to "block evader", Beeblebrox still refer him as "ban-evading".[374] He wasn't banned that's why I requested that or atleast some increase in block length. Finally, going by my contribution history and unnecessarily editing the page that I have just edited is very definition of wikihounding. I have history of removing sock comments[375][376][377][378][379], Guerillero had also removed when I mailed for oversighting.[380] No one body ever made any objection because no one like WP:SOCK violators. This is the first time I saw sympathy for a long term sock puppeteer anywhere, ever. It was just unbelievable. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need for you to write on Favonian's talk page, because nothing concerned you anymore. Thanks for pointing that policy, previously I referred it as WP:EVADE, now after all this I happened to miss those good links. Anyways, but you don't present that which policy avoids you from treating socks as appropriate. You had restored the bug report[381], although it could be still accessed through history. If we keep sock edits and block those who oppose them, then we are doing it against every principle. I never saw anyone keeping sock edits ever before, unless they were reversion of vandalism. There is no harm in removing their edits, by removing them, you encourage them to file authenticated unblock request and reform. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it is still an "unblock request" when you are heavily suggesting that how we can get along with the blocked editor in question. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

Nick can you even believe posting Template:Unblock on others talk page? Statements "we stand a good chance of getting back a good editor out of all of this", "The blocks are cheap, if unblocking Kumioko doesn't work, he can be re-blocked", are clearly asking for an unblock. You don't need a template for requesting unblock on others talk page. BTW, these incidents are not isolated, where you have defended long term puppeteers and others have found it disruptive.[382] Previously, you were criticized for abusing rollback on Darkness Shines[383] and telling him that you would block him, even though you were WP:INVOLVED,[384] and you were doing it for another sockpupeeter Russavia,[385] who you favor. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

Darkness Shines was never banned. When you restore the sock contributions, other than the revert of vandalism/BLPvio, even after knowing that others have removed them, you actually encourage the sock in question, not to file authenticated unblock request and reform. Simple as that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the link that Darkness Shines was banned?[386] He had topic bans, but that's about it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed yes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'd also point out, OccultZone's evidence calls this diff [387] an unblock request I made on behalf of Kumioko, when it's Floquenbeam closing a discussion. OccultZone has been told repeatedly on the Workshop page that I have discussed unblocking Kumioko, but I have not made an unblock request on behalf of Kumioko (there was one made by Tiptoety which OccultZone may be confusing my comments with). The accusation of wikihounding is entirely unsupported by the evidence presented, and wholly unacceptable. I block an IP address that OccultZone wanted blocked (for which he thanked me immediately afterwards [388]) but when I refused to extend the block on the main account, my response to his wikishopping on Favonian's talk page is retrospectively considered wikihounding. Finally, I'm not seeing Favonian condemning OccultZone's block at [389]. Nick (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was visiting Favonian's talk page to inform him I had blocked an IP address Kumioko/Reguyla was using to evade his block, in much the same way I left Beeblebrox a note concerning the IP address he had been speaking with. When I arrived, I found OccultZone asking Favonian to increase the block length without informing Favonian that I had previously refused his request [390]. The idea this is somehow wikihounding is laughable. It is entirely normal behaviour (and best practice) for administrators to speak to the blocking administrator about our interactions with users they've blocked, especially if it concerns block evasion, sockpuppetry etc. Finally, I'd like to yet again remind OccultZone about WP:DENY. It's being thrown about like it's the most important policy on Wikipedia, but of course, it's not a policy, it's only an essay, and one which concerns vandalism, not sockpuppets and block/ban evaders. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks where it quite clearly states administrators "may" reset the block in light of evasion, but does not make resetting a block compulsory. It also states that edits made by blocked users whilst evading their block may be reverted, but it's not compulsory to do so. The Bug Report that OccultZone edit warred over (discussed below) was something that Magioladitis wanted restored as an AWB developer, and something I wanted restored as a Commons administrator, we both had entirely acceptable reasons (supported by policy) for restoring that particular group of edits by Kumioko. Nick (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone - it was not an unblock request. You can't simply go around changing policy just to suit whatever excuse you've thought up to explain away your disruptive editing today. An unblock request consists of the Template:Unblock being transcluded onto a user's talk page, an e-mail request being placed to the UTRS system, or an e-mail request to ArbCom/BASC. It has possibly escaped your attention, but as an administrator, I don't need to use an unblock request on behalf of another editor. I can simple navigate to Special:Unblock and handle the request myself. That's not my style, I have respect for each and every block my fellow administrators place, so I always discuss the block and any proposed unblocking with the responsible administrator before actioning a request (I'm sure I explained this to you when you asked me on IRC to unblock you). That's something I've done with Kumioko and it's something I've done hundreds, maybe thousands of times in the 8 years and 3 months I've been an administrator on English Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone - this is drifting a bit off-topic, as I'm not a party to the case, but anyway... You've still not really explained why, when I can unblock Kumioko myself, I should be asking for an unblock. The reality of the situation, as I've explained to you several times now, is that discussing blocks and unblocks are things administrators do, day in and day out. That's why Tiptoety was discussing unblocking Kumioko with Floquenbeam, that's why Bishonen also made a comment. We all have experience with such things which we then bring to the table and discuss with each other. I'll readily admit I restore content added by blocked and banned users when it's appropriate to do so (Kumioko's AWB report being one such example) and policy fully supports me in doing this (it seems to be about the only bit of policy you're not quoting every five minutes). Now, whilst we're discussing Darkness Shines, I'd also point out (although you surely know this already) that DS was himself evading a ban, and I was responsible for indefinitely blocking him when he admitted to that. I'm also happy he has been unbanned. Nick (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: Darkness Shines was the sockpuppet of an Arbitration Committee banned user. I blocked him for abusing multiple accounts and ban evasion. What part of that do you not understand ? Nick (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: Please refer to the block log [391]. Ban might not be the correct term, it's more properly an indefinite block under Arbitration Committee control or similar. Nick (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I had to fight over a AWB bug report [392] which was about AWB's behaviour in commons.wikipedia. Right now, AWB uses this page as a place to report AWB bugs form all projects. OccultZone rollbacked a report with no explanation [393] and later insisted after he was reverted. Btw, AWB bugs page is soon moving in phabricator. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Did he pointed to even a single policy that I have violated? While much of his misrepresentation has been already described on below section of that page, the way he speculates about the emails that he has never seen is not appreciable, unless he has suspicion there was any harm in that temporary and slow motion activity, where his topic ban was main cause.

We have to see that how he don't see the difference between the "review" action that sends article to page curation log, and removal of the {{new unreviewed article}} template,[394][395] that removes the article from this category. Now that is something, generally everyone is aware of. 9/10 articles are reviewed by others from that category. Out of over 33,400 patrolled pages since January 2015, which includes both html and java scripted "review" action, he happened to find out 2 or 5 mistakes. What would be the percent? 0.014970059880239521. Even if there were 200, it was still very low.

Since he has provided no evidence, lets say that edits are manual, and there have been no errors, not even 5 in last 10,000 edits. He was pointed above that it is because of the practice and I made mistake when I had just started.[396][397] He cannot describe that why they these edits should be opposed.

Finally, I don't see even a single sentence that could be described as a justification for:-

• the topic ban that he had imposed.
• proposing topic ban from administrative noticeboards and actions.
• his intention to block indefinitely.

I had expected some justifications that how these actions were correct or policy based, if that's not possible, then there is a need of admission that those actions were inaccurate. These actions had to do nothing with who I contacted, how much I have edited, etc. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many I had contacted? As many, where(UTP) I had left "you've got a mail", I always do it whenever I contact through mail. Although many were unrelated to these incidents. You haven't shown where I made any mistakes, miscounting 18 pages as 20 pages, and saying "had to fix" is not a mistake as long as it was fixed by me under 3 minutes, no one told me about it. Is that all you have found in so many 10,000s of edits? Anyways, many of them are indeed "autopatrol", but once your Java is expired or you have disabled it, it is marked as "patrolled", not "reviewed", that would include many. Sorry but I cannot see even a single diff of disruption. I still don't see even a single policy in any of your text below either. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:29, 21 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

• OccultZone, you've still never answered the question directly - how many administrators, checkusers, bureaucrats and/or arbitrators did you contact regarding the related incidents. I counted 28, but accept that might be higher or lower. You have been very coy about the emails, especially.
  Regarding the "removal of wikicode for reviewed articles" - the edit summary you used was "reviewed article" - they were clearly not up to scratch, and if you're attentive to your edits you would have seen that. Whether or not you are marked in the page curation log - That removal of wikitext should not be happen until the article is properly reviewed. I won't go into percentages because they are not representative - over 90% since the beginning of the year are autopatrolled.
  Manual or not, you are editting at too high a speed to properly review your edits, I've shown where you've made mistakes. Further, I've evidenced the speed and volume and requested evidence of the explicit consensus for the edits - which you have not provided. The onus is on you to provide that evidence, as you are the one making the edits.
  Finally, I believe I have adequately explained my actions - I saw your actions (primarily unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry at the article in question, but also adminshopping and not dropping the stick) as disruptive. I felt that a topic ban would stop that disruption. That is justification. As the disruption has continued, I believe an indefinite block (or now ban) is necessary - I never stated any intention that I would do it. Finally, a 3 month topic ban from administrative areas would have stopped the disruption - it was a perfectly reasonable offer to make at the time. Worm^TT(talk) 07:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

While there are a lot of irrelevancies and inaccuracies, I would point that Magioladitis is not suggesting if I have violated any policy or usual standard. What he actually meant from admin contacting is unclear, because one can obviously contact admin, and nothing was wrong with this[398] message either.

Once again he assumed that "1 admin tbanned him temporarily", although it was an indefinite topic ban.[399]

At one comment he says that "AWB rights removed", then he says "OccultZone recently uses AWB", it is impossible because I don't use AWB, nor I am on the list of its users. He claims "other editors go and fix", and points two diffs, on first, he himself said "I will do it probably. Don't bother," and it concerned only a few cosmetic edits and the second one which concerned only one page, I did it myself[400] and furthermore I created a few templates[401][402] which would mean that I did more than what I had been asked for. He mentions a nearly one year old comment of Crisco 1492, and after our few positive interactions I don't even think that he hold same view anymore.

Although if you mention anything before 23 March 2015, he would consider it as "trying to change the scope".[403]

Anyways, after that he talks about unblocks, yes there are unblocks that were made because the unblocking admin saw the problem with the block, one considered a block as "not warranted",[404] while other one considered other block as "bad block".[405]

Those comments that he has pointed, as those that I removed from my talk page, they must be the only ones that I removed, still his assessment is inaccurate. I had removed these[406] but originally I only wanted to remove the misleading comment of Bgwhite, not any other and it can still be viewed.[407] Yes I removed this comment, because it was not helpful and Magioladitis had no involvement. If I had "disengaged", we wouldn't be seeing socks blocked next day.[408][409][410] It is not like I remove all of his comments from my talk page.[411] What connection did he saw between [412] and [413] is also unclear, both were unrelated to each other and made over the course of several weeks.

On his last section, he mentions sock puppetry. He is incorrect about Marlin1975 and StillStanding-247. Yes these are socks of Sonic2030. For Marlin1975 should just check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marlin1975, it was his oldest account and for StillStanding-247, one should just read these patrolling admin comments. I had clarified it about one month ago.[414] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:29, 21 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Just like the rest, he has not stated if I have ever violated any policy. He has posted a few timelines, although he is wrong in some of his statements such as "OccultZone also sent Mike V email." I never emailed to Mike V.

It is obvious that it takes some time to overturn the admin decision,[415] and the decision of Zhanzhao SPI had been overturned through WP:AN, resolution is also logged at editor restriction.[416]

Previously the suspect was considered as a case of WP:FAMILY, thus the suspect was not blocked. Later the account was blocked when it was considered as a sock puppet after WP:AN.(This sentence was written at 04:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC))

I would mention the John Coleman (news weathercaster) & Sonic2030 section. Just like the above one, this issue has been apparently resolved through AN, no doubt that there is sock puppetry and semi-protection has been endorsed by the editors. Events also include the removal of any fringe information that was being frequently added by Bgwhite[417][418] and Sonic2030[419][420], such content has been opposed[421] and removed by every other editor,[422][423] who came after reading the FTN thread. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Zhanzhao: Overturned in the sense that Salvidrim! and some others said that there was nothing actionable, and after WP:AN, action was taken regarding your other account,[424] and you also agreed that you won't be using any IP. That's how. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing official about this, Salvidrim! himself didn't wanted to block any suspects, which is actually required whenever it is affirmed that abuse of multiple accounts policy took place.(check WP:SOCK#Blocking) There was no prior restriction, and it was imposed after WP:AN, and doing for that it was necessary to block any other account, that happened only after WP:AN. To say that you had to be blocked is not accurate, it is not necessary to block all time, one can be put under some restriction. If you violate this sort of restriction, you may lose chances of standard offer, or lose any chances of getting unblocked for a longer period.(probably years) And if you were blocked w/o restriction, you could be unblocked after 6 months without socking anyway. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Account was blocked per WP:SOCK#Policy after WP:AN, and previously it wasn't. That's enough. Problem was that people were treating you and DanS76 as different people, others happened to count it as 5 reverts from 5 March from 2 different editors, when they had to be counted as only 5 reverts by you. It couldn't be proved, unless other account was blocked. That's why it was necessary to block other account, Salvidrim! refused to do so, and such decision was overturned and you are restricted, which is alternative of block. Hope that's simpler. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2nd SPI? Yes you were not related to Sonic2030/StillStanding-247, still the SPI was poorly handled because all suspects were related to each other,(check this) if it was properly handled and they had been blocked, nearly all conflicts would've been resolved. Anyways, Zhanzhao since you want your comments to be hatted, I would ask why you even attempt to mislead that your brother was retired? When you had also claimed that your brother recently edited with your(Zhanzhao) account.[425] Nor we would ever know any brother who would come up after 58 days just to edit war for his brother, would we? It is because there was no brother, just like many uninvolved editors had also considered, that's why your other account was blocked indefinitely, and previously it seemed like an individual. Accounts per WP:FAMILY are not blocked, but socks are blocked just like your other account was and you agreed to "to abide by a restriction to a single account".[426] Simple as that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The comment about the admin decision being overturned is arguable. At the outcome of the first SPI, due to WP:BROTHER concerns, DanS76 allowed his account to be deactivated via retirement as per the SPI clerks' advice to prevent possible meatpuppetry and multiple account usage. The only thing that happened at AN was the "retirement" status being upgraded to an official "ban", which is more accurately described as a reinforcement of the previous SPI rather than an overturn: its still just restrictions imposed to prevent possible meatpuppetry and multiple-account usage. Ultimately the DanS account remains inactive (the "upgrade" was inconsequential to Wikipedia or the retired editor). There was no 180-degree over-ruling/overturning of decision of the previous admins/SPI staffers. Else there would have been other consequences. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, what was said repeatedly is that there was nothing actionable beyond what was already done: From the very first SPI, the result was the deactivation of the DanS76 account by the SPI clerk [427] since it was noted to be an issue, and then Salvidrim! informing me that my account should be the only "live" one moving forward (which obviously includes IPs as well). Like I said, it was a reinforcement of an existing decision. And as far as I can see, even after 2 SPIs, one ANI and one AN, nothing has changed much: the DanS76 account is still inactive (by admin/sPI staffer action) and I have said mine was my only account since day 1, so to say the decision was being overturned is stretching it. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I point out to you again that the restriction placed on me after AN is no different from what Salvidrim! told me from the first SPI - that I use only one account for editing. However way you twist it, to call it an "overturn" is very misleading - I know you need to make this stick to make your otehr points, but not at my expense. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the AN had been conclusive that there was socking, I would have been banned/blocked as well, which was what you were actively asking for. The admins realized this conflict between us was blown way out of proportion, so they brokered a compromise between the 2 of us by blocking the already admin-retired account and formalizing a restriction that had been imposed on me from the very first SPI. (Note that I still stand by my statement that DanS76 was operated by my brother, - but since he lost interest in the project, whatever happened to his account is a moot point.) In return, you were to back off and not raise this issue again. I am only replying now because you are revisiting it, and I don't want my silence to be taken as implicit guilt.

With regards edit-warring with me, based on your 2nd SPI which lumped all those other accounts with me (even though I was out of the picture), clearly you thought you were edit-warring with only one person (me - even though technical evidence vindicated me, and behavioral analysis from a number of uninvolved parties said the similarities were too generic).

Again, I know you have a point to prove, but mis-describing what is essentially a formalization of an SPI ruling, turning into an "overturned judgement", ahs serious implications, as it is indirectly casting aspersions on all parties who had been involved with the SPI/AN/ANI that did not result in a judgement to your liking.

*Note to ArcCom do feel free to HAT this as I realize this isn't going anywhere. Zhanzhao (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my account was used to undo one of your edits, I noticed that, apologized to you, and immediately changed my password to prevent anything like that from happening again. I suspected my brother was screwing with you from my unlogged-out PC and have tried to remedy it. If Arbs access user logs, the timing will verify what I am saying, that my password was changed shortly after the edit and my apology, and there has been no such repeat of this incident. Whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you. I can only state what happened. Zhanzhao (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To your credit, you have indeed done some good work in rooting out disruptive socks. The problem is when you started rejecting what other admins and SPI staffers (who have more experience and also access to evidence you do not have clearance to) were telling/advising you. As I recall, the "disruptive" warnings only started when you began trying to pin totally unrelated accounts on me. Even though some were eventually identified as socks, it was not via proper wikipedia procedures because you were restricted. And you were restricted because WTT had given you one more chance to vindicate yourself by identifying the actual socks, and you still chose to drag me in - which was why the Bargolus SPI naming me as a sock still failed at the end. If you had taken me out of the equation and instead used that chance to target all those other accounts, the socks would have been identified earlier, and you would have been credited for it - and much of what happened since would have been avoided. Regardless the outcome here, just an advice from one editor to another: Sometimes you need to take a step back and learn to let go. For example, I avoided the 2 ban waves on the Rape in India article because I had forced myself stay away as much as possible, and even eventually removed it from my watchlist. Not advicing you to ignore the socks, but to approach it form a different perspective - sometimes you need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture rather than fixate on only one thing. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• @OccultZone: Does it concern you that no other participant in this case seems to share your perspective, and that most have raised issues with your own conduct? If you do't think there's a problem with you conduct, why do you think so many people (including very experienced administrators) are telling you that there is? The only way this case will accomplish anything is if we can break this stalemate, which requires mutual understanding. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Most issues that come to ArbCom can't be packaged nicely in a diff or two --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Do they cite any evidence? Or policy violation? Like, "This edit violated WP:FRINGE thus it is disruptive", have you found any? I also know that they agree with others with some points, not that anyone totally agrees with everything. Finally, I don't see any 'very experienced administrators' telling me anything near "you may be blocked" since the filing of this case, while one second before the filing of this ARC, I was getting blocked for making just any edit. All we require is the enforcement of banning and blocking policy, and each of these sanctions should be discarded since they have violated these serious policies. No one would lose anything, and collaborative environment would be restored. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned, I agree with high speed editing, knowing that it was beneficial, still I have ceased it during the case after your request.[428] But I don't agree with anything else, because there is no evidence and I am hearing it for the first time. I really don't hold any grudges on any of you, I already mentioned what I really want and no one will lose anything. Simple as that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: No, time has proved it. There was no actual reason to block/ban before ARC either. It is very obvious that none of the blocks/bans comply with the policy and usual standards. I have already asked many times if there is even a single diff for proving that I ever made a disruptive edit, and such evidence remains unfounded. There have been numerous incidents where I could had been blocked if there was no ARC, but since ARC, such block/ban spree clearly seems to have been stopped, it is because you need a reason to block/ban, and there was never any. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: I have already answered it, that there is no one who agrees with anybody about everything, and given this sort of scenario, we just have to see what they have written, it is not about vote. I would recall only 3 editors for now. WTT was incorrect about bot policy,[429][430] AC/DS sanctioning.[431] Magioladitis was incorrect about banning,[432] emailing,[433] privacy,[434] bot policy,[435] etc. and even tagging guideline.[436] Nick was incorrect about bot policy,[437] AC/DS awareness[438](like before[439]), etc. I have never seen anyone here pointing that I am wrong about any policies or usual standards. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis:: Which one/s? Would you recall any, as quickly as possible? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: As long as I don't see any objection towards my understanding, I can state that. As for "those of us", it is evident and stated above, with the diffs, something that you haven't done for your claims. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: No that's wrong, because no one has said it. You better know that. It is surprising how you were criticized by Sandstein to "read WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts",[440] and you had misrepresented same element on this workshop,[441] just like you had on User talk:Josve05a. Hopefully, you can never find any misunderstanding of any policy from me. I find it very usual, how you make claims without any evidence, and try to deflect from actual issues. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Now that is even more misleading than what I had expected. "Told" is going to do anything since you are required to "prove", and nothing can be "confirmed" without evidence. I don't see how it was any relevant for you to mention the whole incident that anyone could understand with the diffs that I have mentioned, yet you still fail to see the actual issue with your misrepresentation of AC/DS awareness. You claimed that "OccultZone was made aware... in January 2015 by Callanecc",[442] but Callanecc never made me aware of something where I had been participating for ages,[443][444] that's how you still don't understand what is the awareness of discretionary sanctions, even after being told about them before and you disproportionately credits anyone for anything without having the actual understanding of the process, it is similar your non-existing policy related "author" claims that you have not substantiated with any diffs. Anyone can know that you have never added a single byte to the policy or anyone else from this case but you are still making such a misleading claim. You haven't even logged a single AC/DS notification. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: WTT said that he was one of those who "approved the current DS",[445] here it is not equivalent to writing the policy. I also remember that those[446] were the only points about AC/DS that he had correctly made when we had a discussion about the merit of his T-Ban.[447] There are many of us who participate in policy discussions and village pump. That's why the knowledge of policy is judged only after reviewing the actual practices. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 20:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Yes that is concerning, what the "group" would achieve by taking such actions or en.wiki would have any benefit? Still they pursued until ARC. I can see what sort of admission you are asking for and such a admission is going to create only negative consequences in the future. Tomorrow if I am in dispute with any editor at any board including WP:DRN, where one is required to discuss, any admin would come and say "drop it or blocked", even though that is not neither policy based action nor it is ever applied for anyone, because WP:DR is the policy. Questioning admin actions is not disruption. As long as we don't see any disruption, that can be proved, I find it uncomfortable to admit the things that have never happened, any admission is only going to increase the amount of regrettable incidents. One can always check boards such as ARE, ANEW, ANI for recalling what disruption is. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone:, statements like that concern me. You simply cannot collaborate with others if you are not willing to listen to their point of view. You are flatly refusing to listen to all the other people who have participated in this case and you are implying that the reason are refusing to listen is that the evidence is not presented in the right format - "[diff EDIT] violates POLICY".
Unfortunately, life is rarely that black and white - where it is, decisions are simple and handled in seconds. What we're looking at though, is patterns of behaviour, be it battleground attitude and associated accusations, high speed editing, misrepresentations, manipulations or attempts to subvert consensus. All of these are disruptive and most cannot be shown with a single diff, because no single diff is egregious. That doesn't mean we're all wrong. Worm^TT(talk) 07:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @OccultZone: It is very obvious that none of the blocks/bans comply with the policy and usual standards. Obvious to whom? Not to me. And not, by the looks of it, to DoRD, to Worm That Turned, or to Nick. Are you saying that the four of us have nothing better to do than to pick on some hapless editor who was causing no problems? And all that after Slavidrim!, MikeV, Ponyo, Beeblebrox, Yunshui, and dozens of other editors told you the same thing we're telling you? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @HJ Mitchell: It is obvious to everyone. If it wasn't, then you would've clearly justified with a policy, something no one did until now. BTW, you are using these names in wrong context and misrepresenting them. Beeblebrox, Yunshui, Ponyo, "and dozens of other editors" haven't ever told the same thing or even near to what you or any "we're telling" to, never even once. Why you happen to omit any evidence, when it is required? That's how you lose your case, when you tend to misrepresent the events rather than answering the actual question, that how block-ban stopped after the filing of ARC, even though the stated plan was to indef me after I would make any another edit to the 'wikipedia' namespace, of course that's not even the limit, because I always got to know after I have been blocked and reason don't comply with any policy or usual standard. No one has justification for that, including you, surely because no there was actual reason to block/ban, ever. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:52, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

OccultZone, RE: I don't see any 'very experienced administrators' telling me anything near "you may be blocked" since the filing of this case, as was pointed out somewhere else in this case - I don't have the time or energy to dig it out of the haystack - for reasons that should be very obvious, experienced admins are very reluctant to block anyone involved in an arbitration case for any issue that has been raised in that case. Continuing to claim that there aren't any issues with your behavior, because you haven't been blocked or threatened with a block, is rather disingenuous. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone, please indulge me and answer Harry's simple question: Yes or no, "Does it concern you that no other participant in this case seems to share your perspective?" If no, why not? Are you really convinced that your limited Wikipedia experiences have given you a better understanding of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and behavioral norms than everyone else here? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since you won't answer that question, OccultZone, how about this: Why do you think it is that pretty much everything here, except for your proposals and evidence, is related to your behavior and not that of others? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: - that was a comment I made [448]. Nick (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: I still don't understand how you can claim your understanding of policy is correct, and how you can possibly believe that those of us who have been involved in actually writing and refining the policies you quote can be mistaken. Nick (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: but there's a fairly large list of administrators who have told you that your understanding of policy is wrong. We've told you, in no uncertain terms, that your behaviour is disruptive and that your understanding of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS is completely wrong, yet you completely refuse to accept what you're being told. Nick (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: every time you've quoted a policy on this page, you've misunderstood it. We've told you frequently that you do not understand the disruptive editing policy and several administrators have confirmed your behaviour is disruptive. We've also said that you don't understand the discretionary sanctions policy, and this has been confirmed by one of the authors of the discretionary sanctions policy. You've still not actually explained how you can be correct and the author of that policy can be wrong, and I would like an explanation for that claim. Now, as I'm not a party to this case and my understanding of discretionary sanctions is not under scrutiny, your repeated claims are irrelevant, but because you're either inadvertently or deliberately misunderstanding my comments at [449] I will explain the full details of the situation.

The discretionary sanction disagreement between myself, Sandstein and John Vandenberg related to the concerns that John and I had that Sandstein was involved and shouldn't have been the person who was issuing the discretionary sanction alert or acting upon it, not that the discretionary sanction alert shouldn't have been issued (a case of right action, wrong admin). The problem we had with Sandstein issuing it was that it could have enabled the repeat of a previous, ordinary administrative decision he had taken, to be treated as a discretionary sanction, preventing any administrator from overturning Sandstein's original administrative action if/when the problem was resolved. It would be analogous to your concerns about Bgwhite being involved with Rape in India, if that helps. We discussed the incident, and agreed to a Request for Clarification, held by the Arbitration Committee for six weeks in November and December 2014 [450]. I wasn't listed as an involved party, and nobody found fault with my handling of the situation at the Request for Clarification. I would say, however, that the clarification discussion was beneficial though and I came out of the process with a better understanding of both the practical nature of the policy and the underlying intention, which is why I can so confidently say you're wrong in your understanding of it now, OccultZone. Nick (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: I never claimed to have been involved in writing the discretionary sanctions policy, that was something Worm That Turned was directly involved with during his tenure as an arbitrator. The rest of us have been involved in writing and shaping policy over several years to varying degrees, on and off wiki. You can go through our Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk contributions to see the edits and amendments we've made and discussed, there are mailing list contributions, IRC office hour discussions and so forth to read through too. Now, those unanswered questions up above. Any chance of straight, no nonsense answers to them ? Nick (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: why would a group of administrators want to indefinitely block you ? What would we gain by doing this ?

Now, this isn't about winning and losing a case, this is about trying to find a way forward that doesn't need you or anybody else to be sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee. That means we need to reach an outcome that is mutually acceptable to you, to the other named parties, to all the other interested people, to the Arbitration Committee and ultimately to the community. The way to start building a sensible settlement and move forward is for you to accept you've been editing disruptively in the past, that you're going to determine what you've been doing that we have found so disruptive, that you're going to work on how to avoid repeating this behaviour in future and ultimately, to demonstrate sanctions against your account really are not necessary. No arguing that you were right and we're all wrong, just accept you are where you are, and work out how to get out of the predicament you find yourself in right now. Nick (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, some of OccultZone's comments even in here may require further investigation whether they are personal attacks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Remark I see a depressing parallel between Occultzone's current editing trajectory and Kumioko's back in the day. Kumioko was a well intentioned and extremely active if sometimes over-literal editor, who got into conflicts over automation and other issues (relating mostly to the US Roads project iirc). He ended up in what seems like a permanent battle against most of the admin corps and has been in a ban/block wiki-addiction drama for at least the past year. It's therefore ironic that one facet of this saga is an apparent conflict between Occultzone and Kumioko. I'm not one of Kumioko's supporters but his situation makes me sad rather than angry.
  Occultzone, if there's one approach I can recommend toward almost anything on Wikipedia, it's "don't sweat the small stuff". My unsolicited advice is consider taking an editing break for a while, or focusing on improving one or two articles. Yeah, multiple people made mistakes here, none of them terribly serious on the scale of things. That happens all the time. It's an encyclopedia and the behind-the scenes bureaucratic machinery is secondary and if it doesn't work perfectly, so what. It only has to work well enough to keep the encyclopedia moving, and it usually does that, especially if people understand to not expect too much, and underreact rather than overreact when something goes slightly wrong. So all this drama is unnecessary and not very helpful. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]