Case clerk: Lankiveil ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Case opened on 16:59, 30 April 2015
Case closed on 11:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 16:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
I think I have done a mistake by not addressing the problems when they started to appear. I thought of letting it go and concentrate elsewhere, but now it has become necessary to address each incident where the abuse of admin tools has been involved.
We can know the background. One minute before my first block on 23 March 2015, I had over 186,000 edits, there was no prior warning or notice for edit warring, incivility, copyvio, and other offenses since the day I had joined en.wiki.
After Nakon's block, Worm That Turned started to discuss his proposal, to topic ban me from all administrator boards and requesting admin actions. [16] I asked WTT to supply diffs of the behaviour that would be applicable for a topic ban, and he never provided any. [17] Furthermore WTT has told that "needful is to up your block to "indefinite" for escalating the situation again. I'm very tempted to". [18]
Not only I have remembered, but I have also found that such objectionable actions, undertaken by the named parties are not limited with what I have mentioned above. More can be found elsewhere, and they vary from wikihounding, incivility, false accusations, misrepresentation of diffs, blocks, protections, etc.
Yes I have always adhered to the WP:FIVE pillars of en.wiki. I can be convinced otherwise if I hadn't. Had someone asked me only once? I would do what they wanted and especially after having such a history, it was obvious that I was always capable of handling any of the matters. Question arises, why they never tried any alternative measures? Or they didn't tried because there was no justifiable reason for their admin actions at first? We will see. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
All replies from 09:10, 23 April 2015 - 13:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC) can be read from here. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
For full post, check this. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Full post can be found here. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
My block of OZ was in response to an ANEW report which revealed a slow moving, long term edit war at Rape in India involving multiple users and spanning several, several months, and regarding the same issue (of reporting specific incidents of rape in the article). The edit warring had somewhat escalated as of the time of the report. Obviously I'm aware that blocking a group of editors is a more severe action than page protection but I made a judgment call based on the fact that this dispute had been going on for so long and neither side was making an effort to stop it. Based on my review of the long-term dispute, OZ was the worst individual offender, so he got a longer block. If I was not clear enough in my block rationale, I substantially explained and defended the block on his talk page in regards to policy, and yet he continued to accuse me of administrative abuse, to the point where I simply had to stop playing into it as OZ was not responding to my comments rationally. Since this incident and the following ones, his behavior seems to have deteriorated to a surprising degree. I'm a pretty lenient admin when it comes to ANEW. I've seen and taken in all the feedback about the block, but this was what I felt was an appropriate action at the time, given the circumstances. Others have weighed in with varying opinions, but no one has agreed with the accusation that it was an abuse of the tools. No comment on anything else, but I continue to stand behind the block as completely in accordance with blocking policy. Swarm we ♥ our hive 18:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone's above diatribe about perceived inappropriate actions by me is patently ridiculous. He's gone digging through my edit history and pulled up random incidents for which he completely lacks contextual knowledge of, and has completely twisted them to make me look bad. Frankly, I'm stunned. I've never had my integrity as an administrator credibly questioned by anyone. Any feedback given to me I've listened to. Any mistakes I've made, I've learned from them and rectified them. Now I'm supposed to play defense against an editor who's pissed off that I blocked him? Not to mention the fact that if anyone ever has a problem with any administrative actions, the first step is usually to approach the administrator on their talk page where they can talk it out. This is a bold-faced, bad faith, malicious, personal vendetta he's trying to pursue against me because he's still pissed about a block over an edit war no one disputes was going on. No one has even agreed that the block was an inappropriate use of the block function. OZ, every one of those situations you brought up is perfectly reasonably justifiable, contrary to your blatant accusations of bad faith. You even brought up a perfectly honest mistake that I apologized for and that was rectified immediately, as if it were a malicious abuse of the tools!! This is absolutely outrageous! I sincerely hope the arbs don't humor this ridiculous sideshow. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Worm's observation that OccultZone is in full meltdown. Hammersoft's timeline of the beginning of the meltdown is pretty good.
The discussion where OccultZone fails to understand what he has done is wrong is not new, the lashing out behavour is. OccultZone had his AWB bit removed for a second time following a discussion at ANI. Repeated tries on his talk page to have him understand what he was doing wrong were fruitless. Among the accusations made at ANI were edits made in error and the high rate of editing (upwards of 17 edits a minutes). In removing the AWB bit, Nick stated, "My overriding feeling at the moment is that much of OccultZone's comments, above, have been made in an attempt not to lose AWB access, rather than to understand and respond appropriately to concerns and issues raised." The failure to "understand and respond appropriately to concerns" has been in full mode by OccultZone this past month.
Since the beginning of the meltdown, OccultZone has failed to understand that he has done wrong. He is unable to let go, whether in the Zhanzhao SPI case, Bargolus SPI case, AN request for Iban or ANI request to ban Kumioko. The last time OccultZone was unblocked, before Nick blocked him the last time, OccultZone said he would drop things. During the time unblocked, OccultZone filed an SPI cases against Sonic2030. This SPI case was the fourth time he accused Resaltador of being a sockpuppet that I'm aware of. (see StillStanding, Bargolus and Zhanzhao). He continued his practice of admin shopping at JamesBWatson's page and asked for talk page access revoked at Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page. This doesn't include the action that got OccultZone reblocked.
By undoing Swarm's block, I obviously felt the block wasn't necessary. On OccultZone's talk page I said Swarm did a judgement call and shouldn't go any further. I don't see where Swarm misused their tools. The reason why I blocked OccultZone is listed on his user page. Ironically, OccultZone was edit warring over an edit war notice. When I blocked OccultZone, I am aware of him trying to have me blocked via IRC, gTalk and email (I can tell the committee those people who told me if the case is accepted.). Have mistakes been made by me and others? Yes. Are the mistakes needing an ArbCom case? No. OccultZone has repeatedly failed to understand concerns raised about his behavior and actions. Instead he has turned to anger and if people aren't with him, they must be against him. OccultZone needs to go on a vacation, voluntarily or forced. He also needs to understand that he is not blameless and some of his actions are wrong. Bgwhite ( talk) 22:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Worm "He's made 5000 edits in the past 2 weeks and regularly surpassed 8 edits per minute, effectively an unapproved bot running contrary to WP:Bot Policy..." OccultZone has gone upwards of 16 edits per minute in the past week. OccultZone does have alternative account, Occults. It appears its sole purpose is to maintain User:Occults/bio.js, which is linked into User:OccultZone/common.js. The script is for adding tags to talk pages and is based on User:Kephir/gadgets/rater. OccultZone has made changes to the original Kephir script, including making changes this month. I don't know javascript, so I can't say what the changes were for. I believe, but not sure, this is the same script OccultZone was also using at the time his AWB privileges were removed and is currently using to make changes to talk pages. Bgwhite ( talk) 22:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Has anybody actually looked at OccultZone's lies? Occultzone can't understand an article's edit history. OccultZone can't understand that a block doesn't need a warning and conveniently forgets when warnings were made. I'm not saying I did things anywhere near correctly, just giving why I did things.
How much more does this fucking fishing expedition/witch hunt have to go on? How many more emails, IRC and talk messages does OZ have to do before he gets his way. How many more suspect edits from the last 10 years is going to be brought up? Worm just asked OccultZone if he will drop it if Arb declines. Here is OccultZone's response. Yet another not answering the question, I'm never at fault, but everybody else has wronged me response. OccultZone is incapable of being wrong, no matter how many times people says he is. OccultZone is incapable of understanding policy, because only he knows what is right or wrong. You are either with him or should be blocked. Do admins make mistakes? YES. Have I made mistakes? Oh hell yes. This is has turned into an outrageous bumbling circus. Bgwhite ( talk) 09:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone appears to be in full meltdown and has been for a month or so. I honestly believe the best thing for him would be to take a break from the encyclopedia until such time that he can return to his standard gnoming work. I've suggested a three month break from drama, but unfortunately he's chosen this path. I would recommend a declining this case.
For the record - OccultZone has spent a lot of time off-wiki adminshopping over the period - there are 18 admins/checkusers that I am aware of at the moment who have been brought in, largely contacted off-wiki. I myself was contacted by OccultZone with a request to oversight his first block.
Don't get me wrong, there have been failings - but none that rise to the level of an arbcom case. WormTT( talk) 09:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't use terms like "exhausting the community's patience" lightly, but that is precisely what OccultZone has done and is continuing to do. I don't think he means to waste everyone's time, and I have no doubt he genuinely feels aggrieved. My involvement in this started as an observer of an AN thread where OZ refused to accept the determination of a dozen admins (including several checkusers and SPI clerks) that another editor was not a sockpuppet. Not two days later, he butted heads with an IP address that was (unbeknownst at the time to OccultZone) being used by Kumioko. I woke up the following day to find that the IP had been exposed as Kumioko and OZ had edit-warred in multiple places to remove or strike the IP's comments (including on my talk page, against three administrators who told him to leave it alone). I strongly advised OZ to move on and focus on something more productive. He sadly chose not to, so I felt—regretfully—that a block was the only way to prevent the issue from draining any more time. I deliberately kept the duration short in the hope that OZ would regain his sense of perspective and return to more productive things. Sadly, that didn't happen and OZ has set himself a course whose only destination can be a lengthy block. It is my sincere hope that OZ changes course before it's too late—I really don't want to see him blocked—but I can't see anything requiring an arbitration case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I found out about this dispute through the regular course of reviewing ANI. The editor had been unblocked by Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs) with the reason "user has promised to WP:DROPTHESTICK". OccultZone proceeded to resume editing in the manner that led to the initial block, so I decided to restore the block with the original expiration time after attempting several times to contact Magog to discuss it. As Worm That Turned described, this is not wheel warring as OccultZone's actions after the block showed that they were not adhering to the unblock terms and therefore a reinstatement of the block was warranted. Nakon 22:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
1) OccultZone is prohibited from personally approaching any user in relation to any matter raised in this case via Wikipedia email, IRC, on their user talk pages, or any other off-wiki method without obtaining the express permission of the Committee on-wiki. This restriction will expire after the case has been closed.
Enacted by 9 arbitrators on 22:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC) For the committee, Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
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.
2) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive.
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.
4) Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is detrimental to finding and achieving consensus.
5) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". 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. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.
6) 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.
7) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.
8) The general rule is one editor, one account, though there are several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.
1) This case was accepted on 30 April 2015 for the purpose of investigating an string of incidents involving OccultZone ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and five administrators: Swarm ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Bgwhite ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Worm That Turned ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), HJ Mitchell ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and Nakon ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
2) OccultZone has been blocked four times since 23 March 2015 ( Blocklog):
3) OccultZone's first block stemmed from edit warring on Rape in India. On that article, between June 2014 and May 2015, a significant proportion of OccultZone's edits have been reversions and edit warring. [28]
4) OccultZone has filed several vexatious SPIs and has refused to stop repeating the allegations when asked to by checkusers or SPI clerks. ( SPI 1, SPI 2, SPI 3, SPI 4 [29] [30] [31] [32])
5) Checkuser indicates that OccultZone has used at least two undisclosed alternate accounts to edit projectspace: Delibzr ( talk · contribs) and Hajme ( talk · contribs). Both accounts have been used in inappropriate ways. the Delibzr account has been used to: make a statement in an AE request filed by OccultZone [33], to request an AN review of one of OccultZone's blocks (while appearing to be a third party [34]), to argue to lift another of OccultZone's blocks [35], and to oppose an AN request that asked for sanctions on OccultZone. [36] The Hajme account has extensively edited the Wikipedia namespace, [37], and both accounts opined on the same templates for discussion request. [38] There were additional sockpuppets found after the proposed decision was posted, and are not listed in this decision.
6) OccultZone has engaged in disruptive conduct such as admin shopping ( Worm That Turned's Evidence), refusing to "drop the stick" ( Worm That Turned's Evidence), and refusing to see that they could be wrong ( [39] [40]). These actions continued onto the arbitration pages (accusing other participants of sockpuppetry: [41]; refusing to drop the stick: [42]).
7) On 10 May 2015, a temporary injunction was issued: "OccultZone is prohibited from personally approaching any user in relation to any matter raised in this case via Wikipedia email, IRC, on their user talk pages, or any other off-wiki method without obtaining the express permission of the Committee on-wiki. This restriction will expire after the case has been closed."
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.
Remedy rescinded, see
#April 2017.
|
---|
1) OccultZone is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban after twelve months, and then every six months thereafter. |
2) Occultzone is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits related to, or editing any page about a) sexual assault or b) crime on the Indian Subcontinent, both broadly construed.
4) OccultZone is indefinitely limited to a single account. Should OccultZone wish to change the name of the one account he is allowed to use, he must receive prior permission from the Arbitration Committee before editing under any other username.
The indefinite siteban of OccultZone ( talk · contribs) imposed in remedy 1 of the "OccultZone and others" arbitration case is rescinded with the following restrictions:
These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee in no less than six months.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.
Case clerk: Lankiveil ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Case opened on 16:59, 30 April 2015
Case closed on 11:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 16:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.
I think I have done a mistake by not addressing the problems when they started to appear. I thought of letting it go and concentrate elsewhere, but now it has become necessary to address each incident where the abuse of admin tools has been involved.
We can know the background. One minute before my first block on 23 March 2015, I had over 186,000 edits, there was no prior warning or notice for edit warring, incivility, copyvio, and other offenses since the day I had joined en.wiki.
After Nakon's block, Worm That Turned started to discuss his proposal, to topic ban me from all administrator boards and requesting admin actions. [16] I asked WTT to supply diffs of the behaviour that would be applicable for a topic ban, and he never provided any. [17] Furthermore WTT has told that "needful is to up your block to "indefinite" for escalating the situation again. I'm very tempted to". [18]
Not only I have remembered, but I have also found that such objectionable actions, undertaken by the named parties are not limited with what I have mentioned above. More can be found elsewhere, and they vary from wikihounding, incivility, false accusations, misrepresentation of diffs, blocks, protections, etc.
Yes I have always adhered to the WP:FIVE pillars of en.wiki. I can be convinced otherwise if I hadn't. Had someone asked me only once? I would do what they wanted and especially after having such a history, it was obvious that I was always capable of handling any of the matters. Question arises, why they never tried any alternative measures? Or they didn't tried because there was no justifiable reason for their admin actions at first? We will see. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
All replies from 09:10, 23 April 2015 - 13:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC) can be read from here. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
For full post, check this. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Full post can be found here. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
My block of OZ was in response to an ANEW report which revealed a slow moving, long term edit war at Rape in India involving multiple users and spanning several, several months, and regarding the same issue (of reporting specific incidents of rape in the article). The edit warring had somewhat escalated as of the time of the report. Obviously I'm aware that blocking a group of editors is a more severe action than page protection but I made a judgment call based on the fact that this dispute had been going on for so long and neither side was making an effort to stop it. Based on my review of the long-term dispute, OZ was the worst individual offender, so he got a longer block. If I was not clear enough in my block rationale, I substantially explained and defended the block on his talk page in regards to policy, and yet he continued to accuse me of administrative abuse, to the point where I simply had to stop playing into it as OZ was not responding to my comments rationally. Since this incident and the following ones, his behavior seems to have deteriorated to a surprising degree. I'm a pretty lenient admin when it comes to ANEW. I've seen and taken in all the feedback about the block, but this was what I felt was an appropriate action at the time, given the circumstances. Others have weighed in with varying opinions, but no one has agreed with the accusation that it was an abuse of the tools. No comment on anything else, but I continue to stand behind the block as completely in accordance with blocking policy. Swarm we ♥ our hive 18:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone's above diatribe about perceived inappropriate actions by me is patently ridiculous. He's gone digging through my edit history and pulled up random incidents for which he completely lacks contextual knowledge of, and has completely twisted them to make me look bad. Frankly, I'm stunned. I've never had my integrity as an administrator credibly questioned by anyone. Any feedback given to me I've listened to. Any mistakes I've made, I've learned from them and rectified them. Now I'm supposed to play defense against an editor who's pissed off that I blocked him? Not to mention the fact that if anyone ever has a problem with any administrative actions, the first step is usually to approach the administrator on their talk page where they can talk it out. This is a bold-faced, bad faith, malicious, personal vendetta he's trying to pursue against me because he's still pissed about a block over an edit war no one disputes was going on. No one has even agreed that the block was an inappropriate use of the block function. OZ, every one of those situations you brought up is perfectly reasonably justifiable, contrary to your blatant accusations of bad faith. You even brought up a perfectly honest mistake that I apologized for and that was rectified immediately, as if it were a malicious abuse of the tools!! This is absolutely outrageous! I sincerely hope the arbs don't humor this ridiculous sideshow. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Worm's observation that OccultZone is in full meltdown. Hammersoft's timeline of the beginning of the meltdown is pretty good.
The discussion where OccultZone fails to understand what he has done is wrong is not new, the lashing out behavour is. OccultZone had his AWB bit removed for a second time following a discussion at ANI. Repeated tries on his talk page to have him understand what he was doing wrong were fruitless. Among the accusations made at ANI were edits made in error and the high rate of editing (upwards of 17 edits a minutes). In removing the AWB bit, Nick stated, "My overriding feeling at the moment is that much of OccultZone's comments, above, have been made in an attempt not to lose AWB access, rather than to understand and respond appropriately to concerns and issues raised." The failure to "understand and respond appropriately to concerns" has been in full mode by OccultZone this past month.
Since the beginning of the meltdown, OccultZone has failed to understand that he has done wrong. He is unable to let go, whether in the Zhanzhao SPI case, Bargolus SPI case, AN request for Iban or ANI request to ban Kumioko. The last time OccultZone was unblocked, before Nick blocked him the last time, OccultZone said he would drop things. During the time unblocked, OccultZone filed an SPI cases against Sonic2030. This SPI case was the fourth time he accused Resaltador of being a sockpuppet that I'm aware of. (see StillStanding, Bargolus and Zhanzhao). He continued his practice of admin shopping at JamesBWatson's page and asked for talk page access revoked at Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page. This doesn't include the action that got OccultZone reblocked.
By undoing Swarm's block, I obviously felt the block wasn't necessary. On OccultZone's talk page I said Swarm did a judgement call and shouldn't go any further. I don't see where Swarm misused their tools. The reason why I blocked OccultZone is listed on his user page. Ironically, OccultZone was edit warring over an edit war notice. When I blocked OccultZone, I am aware of him trying to have me blocked via IRC, gTalk and email (I can tell the committee those people who told me if the case is accepted.). Have mistakes been made by me and others? Yes. Are the mistakes needing an ArbCom case? No. OccultZone has repeatedly failed to understand concerns raised about his behavior and actions. Instead he has turned to anger and if people aren't with him, they must be against him. OccultZone needs to go on a vacation, voluntarily or forced. He also needs to understand that he is not blameless and some of his actions are wrong. Bgwhite ( talk) 22:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Worm "He's made 5000 edits in the past 2 weeks and regularly surpassed 8 edits per minute, effectively an unapproved bot running contrary to WP:Bot Policy..." OccultZone has gone upwards of 16 edits per minute in the past week. OccultZone does have alternative account, Occults. It appears its sole purpose is to maintain User:Occults/bio.js, which is linked into User:OccultZone/common.js. The script is for adding tags to talk pages and is based on User:Kephir/gadgets/rater. OccultZone has made changes to the original Kephir script, including making changes this month. I don't know javascript, so I can't say what the changes were for. I believe, but not sure, this is the same script OccultZone was also using at the time his AWB privileges were removed and is currently using to make changes to talk pages. Bgwhite ( talk) 22:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Has anybody actually looked at OccultZone's lies? Occultzone can't understand an article's edit history. OccultZone can't understand that a block doesn't need a warning and conveniently forgets when warnings were made. I'm not saying I did things anywhere near correctly, just giving why I did things.
How much more does this fucking fishing expedition/witch hunt have to go on? How many more emails, IRC and talk messages does OZ have to do before he gets his way. How many more suspect edits from the last 10 years is going to be brought up? Worm just asked OccultZone if he will drop it if Arb declines. Here is OccultZone's response. Yet another not answering the question, I'm never at fault, but everybody else has wronged me response. OccultZone is incapable of being wrong, no matter how many times people says he is. OccultZone is incapable of understanding policy, because only he knows what is right or wrong. You are either with him or should be blocked. Do admins make mistakes? YES. Have I made mistakes? Oh hell yes. This is has turned into an outrageous bumbling circus. Bgwhite ( talk) 09:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone appears to be in full meltdown and has been for a month or so. I honestly believe the best thing for him would be to take a break from the encyclopedia until such time that he can return to his standard gnoming work. I've suggested a three month break from drama, but unfortunately he's chosen this path. I would recommend a declining this case.
For the record - OccultZone has spent a lot of time off-wiki adminshopping over the period - there are 18 admins/checkusers that I am aware of at the moment who have been brought in, largely contacted off-wiki. I myself was contacted by OccultZone with a request to oversight his first block.
Don't get me wrong, there have been failings - but none that rise to the level of an arbcom case. WormTT( talk) 09:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't use terms like "exhausting the community's patience" lightly, but that is precisely what OccultZone has done and is continuing to do. I don't think he means to waste everyone's time, and I have no doubt he genuinely feels aggrieved. My involvement in this started as an observer of an AN thread where OZ refused to accept the determination of a dozen admins (including several checkusers and SPI clerks) that another editor was not a sockpuppet. Not two days later, he butted heads with an IP address that was (unbeknownst at the time to OccultZone) being used by Kumioko. I woke up the following day to find that the IP had been exposed as Kumioko and OZ had edit-warred in multiple places to remove or strike the IP's comments (including on my talk page, against three administrators who told him to leave it alone). I strongly advised OZ to move on and focus on something more productive. He sadly chose not to, so I felt—regretfully—that a block was the only way to prevent the issue from draining any more time. I deliberately kept the duration short in the hope that OZ would regain his sense of perspective and return to more productive things. Sadly, that didn't happen and OZ has set himself a course whose only destination can be a lengthy block. It is my sincere hope that OZ changes course before it's too late—I really don't want to see him blocked—but I can't see anything requiring an arbitration case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I found out about this dispute through the regular course of reviewing ANI. The editor had been unblocked by Magog the Ogre ( talk · contribs) with the reason "user has promised to WP:DROPTHESTICK". OccultZone proceeded to resume editing in the manner that led to the initial block, so I decided to restore the block with the original expiration time after attempting several times to contact Magog to discuss it. As Worm That Turned described, this is not wheel warring as OccultZone's actions after the block showed that they were not adhering to the unblock terms and therefore a reinstatement of the block was warranted. Nakon 22:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
1) OccultZone is prohibited from personally approaching any user in relation to any matter raised in this case via Wikipedia email, IRC, on their user talk pages, or any other off-wiki method without obtaining the express permission of the Committee on-wiki. This restriction will expire after the case has been closed.
Enacted by 9 arbitrators on 22:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC) For the committee, Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
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.
2) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive.
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.
4) Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is detrimental to finding and achieving consensus.
5) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". 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. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.
6) 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.
7) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.
8) The general rule is one editor, one account, though there are several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.
1) This case was accepted on 30 April 2015 for the purpose of investigating an string of incidents involving OccultZone ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and five administrators: Swarm ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Bgwhite ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Worm That Turned ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), HJ Mitchell ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and Nakon ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
2) OccultZone has been blocked four times since 23 March 2015 ( Blocklog):
3) OccultZone's first block stemmed from edit warring on Rape in India. On that article, between June 2014 and May 2015, a significant proportion of OccultZone's edits have been reversions and edit warring. [28]
4) OccultZone has filed several vexatious SPIs and has refused to stop repeating the allegations when asked to by checkusers or SPI clerks. ( SPI 1, SPI 2, SPI 3, SPI 4 [29] [30] [31] [32])
5) Checkuser indicates that OccultZone has used at least two undisclosed alternate accounts to edit projectspace: Delibzr ( talk · contribs) and Hajme ( talk · contribs). Both accounts have been used in inappropriate ways. the Delibzr account has been used to: make a statement in an AE request filed by OccultZone [33], to request an AN review of one of OccultZone's blocks (while appearing to be a third party [34]), to argue to lift another of OccultZone's blocks [35], and to oppose an AN request that asked for sanctions on OccultZone. [36] The Hajme account has extensively edited the Wikipedia namespace, [37], and both accounts opined on the same templates for discussion request. [38] There were additional sockpuppets found after the proposed decision was posted, and are not listed in this decision.
6) OccultZone has engaged in disruptive conduct such as admin shopping ( Worm That Turned's Evidence), refusing to "drop the stick" ( Worm That Turned's Evidence), and refusing to see that they could be wrong ( [39] [40]). These actions continued onto the arbitration pages (accusing other participants of sockpuppetry: [41]; refusing to drop the stick: [42]).
7) On 10 May 2015, a temporary injunction was issued: "OccultZone is prohibited from personally approaching any user in relation to any matter raised in this case via Wikipedia email, IRC, on their user talk pages, or any other off-wiki method without obtaining the express permission of the Committee on-wiki. This restriction will expire after the case has been closed."
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.
Remedy rescinded, see
#April 2017.
|
---|
1) OccultZone is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban after twelve months, and then every six months thereafter. |
2) Occultzone is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits related to, or editing any page about a) sexual assault or b) crime on the Indian Subcontinent, both broadly construed.
4) OccultZone is indefinitely limited to a single account. Should OccultZone wish to change the name of the one account he is allowed to use, he must receive prior permission from the Arbitration Committee before editing under any other username.
The indefinite siteban of OccultZone ( talk · contribs) imposed in remedy 1 of the "OccultZone and others" arbitration case is rescinded with the following restrictions:
These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee in no less than six months.
Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.