This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerk: Lankiveil ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I concur entirely with Worm That Turned. There are a number of administrators who have invested a great deal of time and effort trying to help OccultZone and keep him out of trouble. His behaviour has deteriorated quite significantly over the past couple of months and is now of great concern.
If I'm being honest, right now, it feels a bit like trying to stop your drunk mate from having a fight in a pub only for him to turn on you and punch you on the nose. OccultZone has been editing himself into a community ban and concerned administrators, of which I consider myself one, have tried our absolute damnedest to stop that from happening. When we have done that, my fellow administrators have been accused of misusing the tools.
There has been absolutely no misuse of any administrative tools through any of the process. OccultZone has been disruptive, engaged in unsuitable and inappropriate behaviour, made unsubstantiated and frankly preposterous claims alleging abuses of administrative tools and accordingly has been blocked absolutely in accordance with the rules. I'd contend he has been given very lenient blocks in relation to the behaviour shown and disruption caused. The relevant evidence can conveniently be found from [1] onwards (individual diffs would approach three figures).
I would recommend declining the case. I recommend a 12 week block of OccultZone if/when the decline of the case is formalised. Nick ( talk) 11:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
OZ had 180k edits with zero blocks; his statement does raise concern. It is best that they are reviewed and either concluded as bogus and the block that the other party suggest enforced. It would be bad for the community if the suggested block is made without the formal review. It is a protracted issue and if OZ is completely wrong it is all the more reason to clear the involved admins formally. It has left a bad taste for many editors and taking an action without the review would be deterrent to community spirit. I do think it escalated because of the hasty first block which hurt OZ's pride which could have been dealt with in a better manner. if Bgwhite can feel so hurt (on his talk page) and misinterpret for himself the sincere and clear comment made by WormThatTurned then how humane was it to act similarly in a much worse way to OZ? The actions were not all policy based and for some the admins do need to be cautioned in my opinion. This has reached a level that only arbcom can consider it (because of the profile of involved party; where else can admins' and bureaucrats' behavior be discussed after these lengthy fights and admins inclined to indef reporter). If it is not dealt with it will only worsen even in case of OZ being indef`ed; a lot of his friends and new editors like me will consider it an act of wasting a good editor in haste. Dealing it here can only be good for all. -- AmritasyaPutra T 12:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
There's been a great deal of actions over the last month regarding this incident. It may be revealing to look at the catalyst of the avalanche that has occurred. This appears to be the block that happened 23 March 2015. Subsequent actions and reactions are usually directly descendant of that catalyst and are dramatically influenced by it. An editor on Wikipedia who has a spotless block log has a reasonable chance of being upset when that log is besmirched, most especially when the block is unwarranted.
I note the following timeline, beginning 5 March 2015:
From reviewing this catalyst, I voice my opinion as follows (for what it's worth):
I haven't reviewed in detail any subsequent actions over the last month. I think all parties probably need to be trouted, with admonitions to not repeat such behavior. Future outbreaks can be dealt more severely. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Worm's comments above. Having said that, distasteful as I find it, it seems that AmritasyaPutra may have a point in saying that OZ by his high edit count is someone respected in some areas. I know I have a high edit count too, and possibly for at least some of the same reasons, so I know edit count isn't everything. But there does seem to be some sort of perception of wrongdoing concerns by some editors of some admins here, and it might be in the best interests of the community as a whole to have a review of the matter one way or another. Even though I have no particular reservations about most of the admin actions documented, and those few which I do have questions about at least in my eyes are unlikely to necessarily warrant any sort of independent overview on their own. John Carter ( talk) 16:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no particular viewpoint on how this should be resolved. My goal in weighing in here is only to provide and reinforce background knowledge in this case, and provide an additional perspective and clarification on some of these events where I was involved.
My connection with this case is I was involved in the edit war on Rape in India. I filed the WP:3RR complaint at the EW noticeboard, ( here) resulting in the blocks by Swarm for myself and OccultZone as well as other parties( TCKTKtool, 72.196.235.154 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), Human3015, Vtk1987). I was unblocked by Bgwhite shortly after following OccultZone's appeal. In the following days, Bgwhite helped us reach consensus on the section we had been edit warring over. I do disagree w/ Swarm's initial block of me and OccultZone, but I felt it was objectively applied and within admin discretion per WP:3RR which does not explicitly require 3RR to be violated to be considered edit warring. No comment regarding the extra time on OccultZone's block.
Following the unblock, I didn't closely follow the discussion facilitated by Bgwhite, but his changes to the section satisfied my initial concerns on the section leading to the edit war, and from what I saw he was doing an excellent job mediating the discussion between all parties. He was professional and objective during this phase. (not intended as an implied characterization of his behavior in the rest of this incident) I am aware that Bgwhite later recused himself from the Rape in India discussion, asking Worm That Turned to take over, but little more than that.
I later found out that OccultZone filed an SPI involving some of the other editors involved in the dispute, and I weighed into it when it became heated, hoping I might be able to help calm things down. ( here) It was not without merit, though I felt that there was not enough evidence to suggest the involvement of Zhanzhao. An IP in the SPI complaint was almost certainly one of the user accounts (he/she created the account during the edit war), he/she was warned not to use the IP and their account in future disputes (the IPs connection to a particular account was not confirmed by the checkuser per SPI policy), and both TCKTKtool and Resaltador were both later blocked for being confirmed sockpuppets of Sonic2030 here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sonic2030. Only Zhanzhao is not confirmed as a sockpuppet.
Disclaimer: I have not paid attention to these events since my comment in the SPI, and therefore have no statement on Worm That Turned, HJ Mitchell, or Nakon. The end of my statement above regarding the aftermath of the SPI is stuff I learned today while preparing this statement, and included only because it confirms some of OccultZone's suspicions in that SPI, which I had commented on. I have not followed closely the events on OccultZone's talk page and so I don't feel comfortable commenting on that.
Disclaimer 2: I am a relatively new editor. My account age is 3 years, but almost all of my edits began towards the end of February 2015, and I was still fairly new to editing when my involvement in these incidents occurred. ― Padenton| ✉ 18:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I unblocked OZ in light of the message on HJM's talk page which states that administrators may feel free to undo his actions if they contact him and speak with him about it. I did this. I felt that the situation was a bit of a storm in a teacup, so I unblocked him with a promise to drop the stick. With all due respect to OZ, I feel that OZ was being technically truthful yet disingenuous by telling me this and yet not dropping the stick in a very closely related matter.
I do not consider the reblock to be wheel warring. Wheel warring is when one administrator reverses the decision of another; this would have been if OZ had been immediately reblocked without causing any further problems. But Nakon in good faith felt that the original unblock was no longer justified in light of new circumstances. He did attempt to contact me privately on IRC and on my talk page, but I'd already gone to bed. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite my advice, and despite the unblocking admin (and many others) asserting that Nakon's re-block did not constitute wheel-warring, OccultZone's statement maintains the patently ridiculous assertion that the re-block constituted wheel-warring. He also appears to evade the clear and reasonably question posed to him on his user talk page about whether or not he will drop this crusade if the case is rejected. Accordingly, I'd suggest blocks of a timed-duration (and the number of days taken to accept/reject requests on this page) do not appear to accomplish anything useful. For admins who will deal with this problem if it persists, indefinite measures are really the only hope for improvement. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 21:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment;
I dig into things revolving around blocks out of sheer curiousity, and I know about this category. So, technically, IP addresses CAN be indeffed in rare cases.
The problem here, though, is why Bgwhite immediately jumped to apply an indef block. The address might not even be static, it's not confirmed to be a proxy, and it's not a sock IP, so... that's kinda strange. Zeke Essiestudy ( talk) 21:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This case outcome is not looking good for OccultZone. He might technically be violating Nakon's rule that if OZ posts in another administrator noticeboard by posting here in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. By the time this is all done, I see OccultZone facing an indefinite block. Zeke Essiestudy ( talk) 22:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Aside from cordial relations with one of the admins some years ago, I have no involvement with anyone here. That said, I urge reconsideration by the Arbs not voting to take this case. From what I have read here, it is multi-layered and merits deeper scrutiny. Those Arbs voting in favor make an excellent case: this is the last court of appeal, and there appears to be behavior that warrants investigation. That the blocked party made errors is clear, but given their lengthy involvement in the project and 180 k edits, the process calls for a detailed look. I am intellectually and also, for what it is worth, intuitively concerned. Something feels very wrong here. Jus da fax 04:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a disconnect between the rules/guidelines as written and 'usual and customary practice' of how they are actually implemented. This leads to discontent among new and veteran editors alike.
While most if not all admins act in good faith cynicism and long term fatigue can lead to less than optimal responses to behavioral issues. Taking this case would give Arbcom a vehicle to address these sub-actionable issues by clarifying policies and procedures and resetting expectations. Entropy is doing very bad things to dispute resolution on Wikipedia and I urge the Arbs who voted prior to the bulk of the material was presented here to at least reconsider their positions and to take this chance to begin to turn the trend around. Jbh ( talk) 15:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
By following the situation closely in the last days, I came to the following conclusions about this request:
Under these facts I think the case should be declined and a different approach should be tried. We can investigate every admin for improper actions but this was not the reason this case started some days ago and this is not related to OccultZone's case that brought us here.
PS I think this is the first time I ever comment in an ArbCom case. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 02:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It's clear that the case does not follow the instructions of an arbitration case request anymore. Moreover, no additional evidence were presented for 3 out of the 5 admins. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
[26] OccultZone has his AWB access revoked for misusing it. Thanks to Nick I recalled that. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Roger Davies: I got an email at Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:01 AM by OZ asking me to issue warning to another editor. This happened between OZ's 2nd and 3rd block. A lot of admins have been contacted by OZ for various reasons by email.-- Magioladitis ( talk) 13:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
After new evidence that OccultZone will continue if we do not settle this for good, I think the case should be accepted. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm simply in the peanut gallery for this, however at this point the issues seem to be so polarizing and contentious and longterm and lengthy that I believe ArbCom acceptance of the case might be the only way forward. (Although frankly I don't envy any group of people trying to untangle the relevant pile of historical facts on this, but ArbCom seems to have accomplished similar feats.) I find the number of accusations and cross accusations baffling. I find the nearly completely polarized opinions of many posters here baffling. The increasing emotions on the page are disturbing as well. I don't know. One of the primary problems I have is the lack of clarity in OccultZone's use of the English language. We're used to that, and used to decoding his communications, but when it comes to something as important as these claims and counterclaims, clarity is of the essence. I think just figuring out what he is saying for starters is good for all of us. I will add that I did see one long thread on one noticeboard in which it was concluded that OZ had made a complete and utter obsessive nuisance of himself in his accusations of sockpuppetry by Zhanzhao, but it turned out I think he was partially right (I think?) in at least one instance (or at least that was the conclusion I reached about part of it). So it's a puzzling situation. This dogged relentless determination -- is it unhealthy obsession, or is it beneficial for the project (or both)? I have no idea; I don't have all the myriad facts in this case. Softlavender ( talk) 04:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as I'm not forced to look into this case (you poor arbitrators), I haven't. I was, however, contacted on IRC by OccultZone in an attempt to have me block Bgwhite. Given the evidence above, this behavior is clearly not unusual. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Could the arbitrators please clarify the scope of the case (I presume you need to find a drafter and they need to figure it out themselves)? If the only thing that's desired from me is an explanation of my block, then I'm not sure I have much to add beyond my preliminary statement. So, not knowing what else to say, I'll make myself available to answer any questions from arbs, other parties, or outside observers. Feel free to ping me here, on the evidence/workshop pages or on my talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Robert McClenon - you left me a message on my talk page saying I've been listed as a party, but I'm not listed as a party on the Arbitration Case, my submission prior to the case being formally accepted remains here in the Comments by Others section, my workshop submission comments remain in the Comment by Others section, the only administrator involvement I have with OccultZone is removal of their AutoWikiBrowser access last July 2014 and a sternly worded request in April 2015 that he stop administrator shopping to have a block I had placed extended without consulting with me first (the block of Kumioko/Reguyla's IP address). I believe that's all explained in my statement above already, but like HJ, I'm more than happy to make myself available for any questions from anybody that's interested. Nick ( talk) 11:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Please do not post case-related questions or comments to the talk pages of individual clerks or individual arbitrators. Please use case talk pages for the purpose. For the committee, Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Head note reads "However, lengthy statements may be truncated" and I just found that Bgwhite's comment goes above 2200 words. [27] Kindly check. Thanks. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by OccultZone at 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I would like to thank ARBCOM for giving me a chance to appeal the ban.
I was banned on 3 June 2015, following the arbitration case.
During this time I realized that I had been banned for correct reasons, that I had used sock puppets and continuously made sockpuppetry allegations against other users even when I had been told not to.
I have acknowledged that they were all bad ideas and I should've rather simply concentrated on building encyclopedia and drop the stick whenever I had been told to and avoid forumshopping/adminshopping.
Since I got banned I have never evaded the ban or asked anybody to make edits for me. The number of accounts that were blocked as socks and declared alternative accounts of mine has not increased since the ban.
And for what it's worth, I am not obsessed with Wikipedia anymore the way I unfortunately was, thus I am sure that I have no plans to cause disruption to this project.
If the ban appeal has been accepted, I would rather concentrate on building encyclopedia than doing any of the things that contributed to the ban or past blocks. I apologize for the inconveniences I had caused and I confident that none of my actions will remind of past mistakes. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
DoRD: Absolutely, I will abide by the decision of patrolling clerk, admin and checkuser on SPIs instead of challenging it. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde93: Keeping it short that since there was no block evasion in these years or any recent edit conflicts prior the ban I would say that there's lack of possibility that we would see anything like that again, furthermore my internet is also secured. And yes, Amritasyaputra was totally an unrelated account. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm no longer nearly as active as I used to be, but I did notice this request. I've looked back at the past case and refreshed my memory - and on the whole, I would like to see OccultZone unbanned. He was a highly prolific editor who added significantly to Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, he didn't know where to let things go and move on - the term "obsession" used by OccultZone above does indeed summarise my view of his behaviour. He's had a significant period to break that obsession, and if indeed he has been off-wiki for that period - I absolutely support a return to editing.
My only suggestion would be to put some sort of prohibition about adminshopping, and maybe a couple of other restrictions against some of the other areas highlighted in the arbcom case. These should be time limited, to help OccultZone ease back into editing. That said, I would support his return with or without restriction. WormTT( talk) 10:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I quite agree with WormTT. There are already restrictions in place from the case that would still apply should OccultZone return, and if it can be crafted, a "shopping" prohibition might not be a bad idea either. But I think OccultZone is not irredeemable, but is a good person who made some very bad decisions. Since to all indications OccultZone has ceased socking and respected the ban, I certainly hope that's a positive sign that better decisions will be coming in the future. I think it's worth a try. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Not much to add, save that I endorse the comments by Worm That Turned and Seraphimblade. I'm hopeful that OZ's behaviour in the summer of 2015 was an anomaly that won't be repeated and so I'd support an unban (with the other two restrictions remaining in place). Yunshui 雲 水 12:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
As per Worm and Seraphimblade, I would like to see OZ's ban lifted. There is no evidence presented that he has attempted to circumvent his ban, and has thereby demonstrated his ability to abide by the ARBCOM decision. The appeal shows CLUE regarding what went haywire, and how this editor will deal with it going forward. OZ is a productive editor who lost the way, time to welcome them back to the "straight and narrow". The restrictions proposed by Worm make sense. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the statements above, but I would like to see a commitment from OZ regarding SPI. If he files a sockpuppetry case, he will need to abide by the decisions of the clerks, CUs, and/or patrolling administrators. Considering his statement, I don't expect that this would crop up again, but an acknowledgement would alleviate some concerns. — DoRD ( talk) 17:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
strongly disagreewith what, and what does your anti-paid editing crusade have to do with OZ's unban request? — DoRD ( talk) 19:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I had very little direct interaction with OZ whom I always saw as a prolific contributor who was sometimes unable to drop the stick. However, I had substantial interactions with BladesMulti, an account blocked as a sock of OZ that had substantial behavioral issues, including edit-warring, and NPOV related issues. I can provide further evidence if needed. Since it has been three years, I don't think this precludes a lifting of the ban, but I think this is something Arbcom should look into, and possibly leave certain restrictions in place with respect to these issues. I'd suggest a 1RR restriction.
Furthermore, there are some unresolved issues with respect to another account, namely AmritasyaPutra, who was initially blocked as an OZ sock, later (as I understand it) unblocked after a BASC appeal, and then blocked again for socking on his own account. Now if the first block was, in fact, a false positive, then this is no barrier to OZ being unblocked. But (and I realize some of this information probably is private, and cannot be shared outside the committee) some clarity about this might be nice: because the last AP sock was in fact blocked three months ago, and the previous one not too long before that. Vanamonde ( talk) 18:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Editor indef-blocked; commentary irrelevant. Drmies ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It is not clear to me why this edit was made by the user with that edit summary and what their connection with User:Natalinasmpf is. Their next edit was cryptic. Hence I oppose the unbanning of this editor who appears to be a component of the very long term abusive 'Natalinasmpf' sock /paid-editing team who are unredeemable and still hugely active on Wikipedia. Inlinetext ( talk) 16:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
|
Having refreshed my memory of this case, I think the time has come to allow OZ a conditional to return to editing. The conditions being the topic ban and one account restrictions remaining in place, and a restriction on forum shopping being added. For the latter, perhaps something like:
OccultZone may not:
OccultZone is not restricted from:
As usual with things I suggest it is probably possible to simplify this! Thryduulf ( talk) 15:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Vanamonde93: I agree that would be a good idea. Doug Weller seems to have been the arb who has most recently looked at this, so hopefully they will comment on whether the OZ and AmritasyaPutra SPIs should be separated or not. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Blades is responsible for the besmirching of my otherwise virgin block log, and at the request of an arbiter who hasn't signed their comment below, I thought I might note that these socks have coloured my editing behaviour since that time. Blades went from being incompetent in English overnight to having reasonable ability when I started challenging him at
Ayurveda, and we received a minor block at the same time, after the events described in the link to BladesTalk where I am involved below. I never expected to see Blades or the editor known as blades back at his tricks again. I am no longer optimistic.
Roxy the dog.
bark 13:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Sock of Inlinetext. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ Vanamonde93: The missing link for this discussion is that this is a secret digital meatpuppet army of RSS workers on Wikipedia who are networked through fronts like the Ramakrishna Mission, seminaries like Vivekananda Institute of Human Excellence (admin check delete log), and edits and ivotes are coordinated through facebook messenger, whatsapp. Here is the reliable link. Many of its members are with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the account passwords are shared so you get non-Indian IPs mixed with IPs from India, and situations where accounts use broken English in one edit, switch to decent English and then revert to form. They have figured out Wikipedia so they maintain multiple good hand / bad hand accounts which argue both sides of the debate to rig it. But I'm not telling you anything new am I ? Smasnugget ( talk) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC) |
I have seen that main account's conduct is generally taken into consideration while socks are ignored because a user's attitude can be different on every sock account they use. Best response to socking and its consequences was the site ban that he is still abiding.
Of the diffs you provided @ Doug Weller: one diff was from January 2014, 2nd diff is not working and last one came after violating 0RR on a article that is already rid of 0RR rule, here Bladesmulti was blocked and unblocked along with some other editors. [34] [35] It also seems that he made no edits on any article with this sock during final 2 months, [36] except one which involved removal of unsupported attributions and a spam link.
Few articles where I have been interested since first day were also edited OZ and his edits of any accounts remains there to this day because they were useful. He has not evaded site ban and it should cease any possibility of further topic ban, see WP:PUNITIVE. I further agree with Opabinia regalis, that entire case emerged from rape in India subject, it is sensible to maintain topic ban over it.
Like others told, OZ is a good contributor and also to the South Asian articles area which is regularly disrupted by spammers, harassment socks and edit warriors and they return anytime they see inactivity of other contributors, and that's the thing usually forces me to keep checking the articles, having OZ's presence would be advantageous. D4iNa4 ( talk) 03:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I was the editor who mentored Bladesmulti (see User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship, and Amritasha Putra; this "discussion", which presents a nice overview of sockpuppets, may serve as a reminder that the mentoring was not exactly succesfull, and the efforts on my part were not met with an equally repricocal attitude by Bladesmulti. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Just saw I was pinged here by now indeffed editor. Nonetheless it's good, I support unban.
I agree with Doug Weller's suggestion to put 6 months topic ban from South Asia, there should be a time limit since he never had a topic ban before.
Noting the broadness of 6 months ban from South Asia, this topic ban should supersede the active topic ban on crimes in South Asia (often known as Indian subcontinent). I don't find any sense in current topic ban because OccultZone used no socks on Rape in India and present version of the article is same as his preferred version. I should note that Indian subcontinent is bigger than just India. On all of his accounts, he had only one block more than 3 years ago for violating WP:3RR [37] on all his accounts, rest of the blocks were overturned, sometimes as unwarranted, and none of his accounts ever had a block unrelated to India that's why 1RR restriction is not an option as well. Capitals00 ( talk) 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Taking the pedantry even further...
@
Callanecc and
Thryduulf: Suggest: "Raising any issue at more than one venue, whatever those venues are (with the exception of bringing a case or clarification/amendment request to ArbCom)." -
Ryk72
'c.s.n.s.' 00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
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.
Enacted - Mini apolis 16:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerk: Lankiveil ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I concur entirely with Worm That Turned. There are a number of administrators who have invested a great deal of time and effort trying to help OccultZone and keep him out of trouble. His behaviour has deteriorated quite significantly over the past couple of months and is now of great concern.
If I'm being honest, right now, it feels a bit like trying to stop your drunk mate from having a fight in a pub only for him to turn on you and punch you on the nose. OccultZone has been editing himself into a community ban and concerned administrators, of which I consider myself one, have tried our absolute damnedest to stop that from happening. When we have done that, my fellow administrators have been accused of misusing the tools.
There has been absolutely no misuse of any administrative tools through any of the process. OccultZone has been disruptive, engaged in unsuitable and inappropriate behaviour, made unsubstantiated and frankly preposterous claims alleging abuses of administrative tools and accordingly has been blocked absolutely in accordance with the rules. I'd contend he has been given very lenient blocks in relation to the behaviour shown and disruption caused. The relevant evidence can conveniently be found from [1] onwards (individual diffs would approach three figures).
I would recommend declining the case. I recommend a 12 week block of OccultZone if/when the decline of the case is formalised. Nick ( talk) 11:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
OZ had 180k edits with zero blocks; his statement does raise concern. It is best that they are reviewed and either concluded as bogus and the block that the other party suggest enforced. It would be bad for the community if the suggested block is made without the formal review. It is a protracted issue and if OZ is completely wrong it is all the more reason to clear the involved admins formally. It has left a bad taste for many editors and taking an action without the review would be deterrent to community spirit. I do think it escalated because of the hasty first block which hurt OZ's pride which could have been dealt with in a better manner. if Bgwhite can feel so hurt (on his talk page) and misinterpret for himself the sincere and clear comment made by WormThatTurned then how humane was it to act similarly in a much worse way to OZ? The actions were not all policy based and for some the admins do need to be cautioned in my opinion. This has reached a level that only arbcom can consider it (because of the profile of involved party; where else can admins' and bureaucrats' behavior be discussed after these lengthy fights and admins inclined to indef reporter). If it is not dealt with it will only worsen even in case of OZ being indef`ed; a lot of his friends and new editors like me will consider it an act of wasting a good editor in haste. Dealing it here can only be good for all. -- AmritasyaPutra T 12:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
There's been a great deal of actions over the last month regarding this incident. It may be revealing to look at the catalyst of the avalanche that has occurred. This appears to be the block that happened 23 March 2015. Subsequent actions and reactions are usually directly descendant of that catalyst and are dramatically influenced by it. An editor on Wikipedia who has a spotless block log has a reasonable chance of being upset when that log is besmirched, most especially when the block is unwarranted.
I note the following timeline, beginning 5 March 2015:
From reviewing this catalyst, I voice my opinion as follows (for what it's worth):
I haven't reviewed in detail any subsequent actions over the last month. I think all parties probably need to be trouted, with admonitions to not repeat such behavior. Future outbreaks can be dealt more severely. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Worm's comments above. Having said that, distasteful as I find it, it seems that AmritasyaPutra may have a point in saying that OZ by his high edit count is someone respected in some areas. I know I have a high edit count too, and possibly for at least some of the same reasons, so I know edit count isn't everything. But there does seem to be some sort of perception of wrongdoing concerns by some editors of some admins here, and it might be in the best interests of the community as a whole to have a review of the matter one way or another. Even though I have no particular reservations about most of the admin actions documented, and those few which I do have questions about at least in my eyes are unlikely to necessarily warrant any sort of independent overview on their own. John Carter ( talk) 16:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no particular viewpoint on how this should be resolved. My goal in weighing in here is only to provide and reinforce background knowledge in this case, and provide an additional perspective and clarification on some of these events where I was involved.
My connection with this case is I was involved in the edit war on Rape in India. I filed the WP:3RR complaint at the EW noticeboard, ( here) resulting in the blocks by Swarm for myself and OccultZone as well as other parties( TCKTKtool, 72.196.235.154 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), Human3015, Vtk1987). I was unblocked by Bgwhite shortly after following OccultZone's appeal. In the following days, Bgwhite helped us reach consensus on the section we had been edit warring over. I do disagree w/ Swarm's initial block of me and OccultZone, but I felt it was objectively applied and within admin discretion per WP:3RR which does not explicitly require 3RR to be violated to be considered edit warring. No comment regarding the extra time on OccultZone's block.
Following the unblock, I didn't closely follow the discussion facilitated by Bgwhite, but his changes to the section satisfied my initial concerns on the section leading to the edit war, and from what I saw he was doing an excellent job mediating the discussion between all parties. He was professional and objective during this phase. (not intended as an implied characterization of his behavior in the rest of this incident) I am aware that Bgwhite later recused himself from the Rape in India discussion, asking Worm That Turned to take over, but little more than that.
I later found out that OccultZone filed an SPI involving some of the other editors involved in the dispute, and I weighed into it when it became heated, hoping I might be able to help calm things down. ( here) It was not without merit, though I felt that there was not enough evidence to suggest the involvement of Zhanzhao. An IP in the SPI complaint was almost certainly one of the user accounts (he/she created the account during the edit war), he/she was warned not to use the IP and their account in future disputes (the IPs connection to a particular account was not confirmed by the checkuser per SPI policy), and both TCKTKtool and Resaltador were both later blocked for being confirmed sockpuppets of Sonic2030 here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sonic2030. Only Zhanzhao is not confirmed as a sockpuppet.
Disclaimer: I have not paid attention to these events since my comment in the SPI, and therefore have no statement on Worm That Turned, HJ Mitchell, or Nakon. The end of my statement above regarding the aftermath of the SPI is stuff I learned today while preparing this statement, and included only because it confirms some of OccultZone's suspicions in that SPI, which I had commented on. I have not followed closely the events on OccultZone's talk page and so I don't feel comfortable commenting on that.
Disclaimer 2: I am a relatively new editor. My account age is 3 years, but almost all of my edits began towards the end of February 2015, and I was still fairly new to editing when my involvement in these incidents occurred. ― Padenton| ✉ 18:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I unblocked OZ in light of the message on HJM's talk page which states that administrators may feel free to undo his actions if they contact him and speak with him about it. I did this. I felt that the situation was a bit of a storm in a teacup, so I unblocked him with a promise to drop the stick. With all due respect to OZ, I feel that OZ was being technically truthful yet disingenuous by telling me this and yet not dropping the stick in a very closely related matter.
I do not consider the reblock to be wheel warring. Wheel warring is when one administrator reverses the decision of another; this would have been if OZ had been immediately reblocked without causing any further problems. But Nakon in good faith felt that the original unblock was no longer justified in light of new circumstances. He did attempt to contact me privately on IRC and on my talk page, but I'd already gone to bed. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite my advice, and despite the unblocking admin (and many others) asserting that Nakon's re-block did not constitute wheel-warring, OccultZone's statement maintains the patently ridiculous assertion that the re-block constituted wheel-warring. He also appears to evade the clear and reasonably question posed to him on his user talk page about whether or not he will drop this crusade if the case is rejected. Accordingly, I'd suggest blocks of a timed-duration (and the number of days taken to accept/reject requests on this page) do not appear to accomplish anything useful. For admins who will deal with this problem if it persists, indefinite measures are really the only hope for improvement. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 21:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment;
I dig into things revolving around blocks out of sheer curiousity, and I know about this category. So, technically, IP addresses CAN be indeffed in rare cases.
The problem here, though, is why Bgwhite immediately jumped to apply an indef block. The address might not even be static, it's not confirmed to be a proxy, and it's not a sock IP, so... that's kinda strange. Zeke Essiestudy ( talk) 21:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This case outcome is not looking good for OccultZone. He might technically be violating Nakon's rule that if OZ posts in another administrator noticeboard by posting here in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. By the time this is all done, I see OccultZone facing an indefinite block. Zeke Essiestudy ( talk) 22:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Aside from cordial relations with one of the admins some years ago, I have no involvement with anyone here. That said, I urge reconsideration by the Arbs not voting to take this case. From what I have read here, it is multi-layered and merits deeper scrutiny. Those Arbs voting in favor make an excellent case: this is the last court of appeal, and there appears to be behavior that warrants investigation. That the blocked party made errors is clear, but given their lengthy involvement in the project and 180 k edits, the process calls for a detailed look. I am intellectually and also, for what it is worth, intuitively concerned. Something feels very wrong here. Jus da fax 04:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a disconnect between the rules/guidelines as written and 'usual and customary practice' of how they are actually implemented. This leads to discontent among new and veteran editors alike.
While most if not all admins act in good faith cynicism and long term fatigue can lead to less than optimal responses to behavioral issues. Taking this case would give Arbcom a vehicle to address these sub-actionable issues by clarifying policies and procedures and resetting expectations. Entropy is doing very bad things to dispute resolution on Wikipedia and I urge the Arbs who voted prior to the bulk of the material was presented here to at least reconsider their positions and to take this chance to begin to turn the trend around. Jbh ( talk) 15:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
By following the situation closely in the last days, I came to the following conclusions about this request:
Under these facts I think the case should be declined and a different approach should be tried. We can investigate every admin for improper actions but this was not the reason this case started some days ago and this is not related to OccultZone's case that brought us here.
PS I think this is the first time I ever comment in an ArbCom case. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 02:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
It's clear that the case does not follow the instructions of an arbitration case request anymore. Moreover, no additional evidence were presented for 3 out of the 5 admins. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
[26] OccultZone has his AWB access revoked for misusing it. Thanks to Nick I recalled that. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@ Roger Davies: I got an email at Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:01 AM by OZ asking me to issue warning to another editor. This happened between OZ's 2nd and 3rd block. A lot of admins have been contacted by OZ for various reasons by email.-- Magioladitis ( talk) 13:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
After new evidence that OccultZone will continue if we do not settle this for good, I think the case should be accepted. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm simply in the peanut gallery for this, however at this point the issues seem to be so polarizing and contentious and longterm and lengthy that I believe ArbCom acceptance of the case might be the only way forward. (Although frankly I don't envy any group of people trying to untangle the relevant pile of historical facts on this, but ArbCom seems to have accomplished similar feats.) I find the number of accusations and cross accusations baffling. I find the nearly completely polarized opinions of many posters here baffling. The increasing emotions on the page are disturbing as well. I don't know. One of the primary problems I have is the lack of clarity in OccultZone's use of the English language. We're used to that, and used to decoding his communications, but when it comes to something as important as these claims and counterclaims, clarity is of the essence. I think just figuring out what he is saying for starters is good for all of us. I will add that I did see one long thread on one noticeboard in which it was concluded that OZ had made a complete and utter obsessive nuisance of himself in his accusations of sockpuppetry by Zhanzhao, but it turned out I think he was partially right (I think?) in at least one instance (or at least that was the conclusion I reached about part of it). So it's a puzzling situation. This dogged relentless determination -- is it unhealthy obsession, or is it beneficial for the project (or both)? I have no idea; I don't have all the myriad facts in this case. Softlavender ( talk) 04:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Seeing as I'm not forced to look into this case (you poor arbitrators), I haven't. I was, however, contacted on IRC by OccultZone in an attempt to have me block Bgwhite. Given the evidence above, this behavior is clearly not unusual. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Could the arbitrators please clarify the scope of the case (I presume you need to find a drafter and they need to figure it out themselves)? If the only thing that's desired from me is an explanation of my block, then I'm not sure I have much to add beyond my preliminary statement. So, not knowing what else to say, I'll make myself available to answer any questions from arbs, other parties, or outside observers. Feel free to ping me here, on the evidence/workshop pages or on my talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Robert McClenon - you left me a message on my talk page saying I've been listed as a party, but I'm not listed as a party on the Arbitration Case, my submission prior to the case being formally accepted remains here in the Comments by Others section, my workshop submission comments remain in the Comment by Others section, the only administrator involvement I have with OccultZone is removal of their AutoWikiBrowser access last July 2014 and a sternly worded request in April 2015 that he stop administrator shopping to have a block I had placed extended without consulting with me first (the block of Kumioko/Reguyla's IP address). I believe that's all explained in my statement above already, but like HJ, I'm more than happy to make myself available for any questions from anybody that's interested. Nick ( talk) 11:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Please do not post case-related questions or comments to the talk pages of individual clerks or individual arbitrators. Please use case talk pages for the purpose. For the committee, Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Head note reads "However, lengthy statements may be truncated" and I just found that Bgwhite's comment goes above 2200 words. [27] Kindly check. Thanks. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by OccultZone at 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I would like to thank ARBCOM for giving me a chance to appeal the ban.
I was banned on 3 June 2015, following the arbitration case.
During this time I realized that I had been banned for correct reasons, that I had used sock puppets and continuously made sockpuppetry allegations against other users even when I had been told not to.
I have acknowledged that they were all bad ideas and I should've rather simply concentrated on building encyclopedia and drop the stick whenever I had been told to and avoid forumshopping/adminshopping.
Since I got banned I have never evaded the ban or asked anybody to make edits for me. The number of accounts that were blocked as socks and declared alternative accounts of mine has not increased since the ban.
And for what it's worth, I am not obsessed with Wikipedia anymore the way I unfortunately was, thus I am sure that I have no plans to cause disruption to this project.
If the ban appeal has been accepted, I would rather concentrate on building encyclopedia than doing any of the things that contributed to the ban or past blocks. I apologize for the inconveniences I had caused and I confident that none of my actions will remind of past mistakes. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
DoRD: Absolutely, I will abide by the decision of patrolling clerk, admin and checkuser on SPIs instead of challenging it. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Vanamonde93: Keeping it short that since there was no block evasion in these years or any recent edit conflicts prior the ban I would say that there's lack of possibility that we would see anything like that again, furthermore my internet is also secured. And yes, Amritasyaputra was totally an unrelated account. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm no longer nearly as active as I used to be, but I did notice this request. I've looked back at the past case and refreshed my memory - and on the whole, I would like to see OccultZone unbanned. He was a highly prolific editor who added significantly to Wikipedia.
Unfortunately, he didn't know where to let things go and move on - the term "obsession" used by OccultZone above does indeed summarise my view of his behaviour. He's had a significant period to break that obsession, and if indeed he has been off-wiki for that period - I absolutely support a return to editing.
My only suggestion would be to put some sort of prohibition about adminshopping, and maybe a couple of other restrictions against some of the other areas highlighted in the arbcom case. These should be time limited, to help OccultZone ease back into editing. That said, I would support his return with or without restriction. WormTT( talk) 10:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I quite agree with WormTT. There are already restrictions in place from the case that would still apply should OccultZone return, and if it can be crafted, a "shopping" prohibition might not be a bad idea either. But I think OccultZone is not irredeemable, but is a good person who made some very bad decisions. Since to all indications OccultZone has ceased socking and respected the ban, I certainly hope that's a positive sign that better decisions will be coming in the future. I think it's worth a try. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Not much to add, save that I endorse the comments by Worm That Turned and Seraphimblade. I'm hopeful that OZ's behaviour in the summer of 2015 was an anomaly that won't be repeated and so I'd support an unban (with the other two restrictions remaining in place). Yunshui 雲 水 12:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
As per Worm and Seraphimblade, I would like to see OZ's ban lifted. There is no evidence presented that he has attempted to circumvent his ban, and has thereby demonstrated his ability to abide by the ARBCOM decision. The appeal shows CLUE regarding what went haywire, and how this editor will deal with it going forward. OZ is a productive editor who lost the way, time to welcome them back to the "straight and narrow". The restrictions proposed by Worm make sense. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the statements above, but I would like to see a commitment from OZ regarding SPI. If he files a sockpuppetry case, he will need to abide by the decisions of the clerks, CUs, and/or patrolling administrators. Considering his statement, I don't expect that this would crop up again, but an acknowledgement would alleviate some concerns. — DoRD ( talk) 17:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
strongly disagreewith what, and what does your anti-paid editing crusade have to do with OZ's unban request? — DoRD ( talk) 19:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I had very little direct interaction with OZ whom I always saw as a prolific contributor who was sometimes unable to drop the stick. However, I had substantial interactions with BladesMulti, an account blocked as a sock of OZ that had substantial behavioral issues, including edit-warring, and NPOV related issues. I can provide further evidence if needed. Since it has been three years, I don't think this precludes a lifting of the ban, but I think this is something Arbcom should look into, and possibly leave certain restrictions in place with respect to these issues. I'd suggest a 1RR restriction.
Furthermore, there are some unresolved issues with respect to another account, namely AmritasyaPutra, who was initially blocked as an OZ sock, later (as I understand it) unblocked after a BASC appeal, and then blocked again for socking on his own account. Now if the first block was, in fact, a false positive, then this is no barrier to OZ being unblocked. But (and I realize some of this information probably is private, and cannot be shared outside the committee) some clarity about this might be nice: because the last AP sock was in fact blocked three months ago, and the previous one not too long before that. Vanamonde ( talk) 18:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Editor indef-blocked; commentary irrelevant. Drmies ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It is not clear to me why this edit was made by the user with that edit summary and what their connection with User:Natalinasmpf is. Their next edit was cryptic. Hence I oppose the unbanning of this editor who appears to be a component of the very long term abusive 'Natalinasmpf' sock /paid-editing team who are unredeemable and still hugely active on Wikipedia. Inlinetext ( talk) 16:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
|
Having refreshed my memory of this case, I think the time has come to allow OZ a conditional to return to editing. The conditions being the topic ban and one account restrictions remaining in place, and a restriction on forum shopping being added. For the latter, perhaps something like:
OccultZone may not:
OccultZone is not restricted from:
As usual with things I suggest it is probably possible to simplify this! Thryduulf ( talk) 15:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Vanamonde93: I agree that would be a good idea. Doug Weller seems to have been the arb who has most recently looked at this, so hopefully they will comment on whether the OZ and AmritasyaPutra SPIs should be separated or not. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Blades is responsible for the besmirching of my otherwise virgin block log, and at the request of an arbiter who hasn't signed their comment below, I thought I might note that these socks have coloured my editing behaviour since that time. Blades went from being incompetent in English overnight to having reasonable ability when I started challenging him at
Ayurveda, and we received a minor block at the same time, after the events described in the link to BladesTalk where I am involved below. I never expected to see Blades or the editor known as blades back at his tricks again. I am no longer optimistic.
Roxy the dog.
bark 13:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Sock of Inlinetext. Ks0stm ( T• C• G• E) 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@ Vanamonde93: The missing link for this discussion is that this is a secret digital meatpuppet army of RSS workers on Wikipedia who are networked through fronts like the Ramakrishna Mission, seminaries like Vivekananda Institute of Human Excellence (admin check delete log), and edits and ivotes are coordinated through facebook messenger, whatsapp. Here is the reliable link. Many of its members are with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the account passwords are shared so you get non-Indian IPs mixed with IPs from India, and situations where accounts use broken English in one edit, switch to decent English and then revert to form. They have figured out Wikipedia so they maintain multiple good hand / bad hand accounts which argue both sides of the debate to rig it. But I'm not telling you anything new am I ? Smasnugget ( talk) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC) |
I have seen that main account's conduct is generally taken into consideration while socks are ignored because a user's attitude can be different on every sock account they use. Best response to socking and its consequences was the site ban that he is still abiding.
Of the diffs you provided @ Doug Weller: one diff was from January 2014, 2nd diff is not working and last one came after violating 0RR on a article that is already rid of 0RR rule, here Bladesmulti was blocked and unblocked along with some other editors. [34] [35] It also seems that he made no edits on any article with this sock during final 2 months, [36] except one which involved removal of unsupported attributions and a spam link.
Few articles where I have been interested since first day were also edited OZ and his edits of any accounts remains there to this day because they were useful. He has not evaded site ban and it should cease any possibility of further topic ban, see WP:PUNITIVE. I further agree with Opabinia regalis, that entire case emerged from rape in India subject, it is sensible to maintain topic ban over it.
Like others told, OZ is a good contributor and also to the South Asian articles area which is regularly disrupted by spammers, harassment socks and edit warriors and they return anytime they see inactivity of other contributors, and that's the thing usually forces me to keep checking the articles, having OZ's presence would be advantageous. D4iNa4 ( talk) 03:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I was the editor who mentored Bladesmulti (see User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship, and Amritasha Putra; this "discussion", which presents a nice overview of sockpuppets, may serve as a reminder that the mentoring was not exactly succesfull, and the efforts on my part were not met with an equally repricocal attitude by Bladesmulti. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Just saw I was pinged here by now indeffed editor. Nonetheless it's good, I support unban.
I agree with Doug Weller's suggestion to put 6 months topic ban from South Asia, there should be a time limit since he never had a topic ban before.
Noting the broadness of 6 months ban from South Asia, this topic ban should supersede the active topic ban on crimes in South Asia (often known as Indian subcontinent). I don't find any sense in current topic ban because OccultZone used no socks on Rape in India and present version of the article is same as his preferred version. I should note that Indian subcontinent is bigger than just India. On all of his accounts, he had only one block more than 3 years ago for violating WP:3RR [37] on all his accounts, rest of the blocks were overturned, sometimes as unwarranted, and none of his accounts ever had a block unrelated to India that's why 1RR restriction is not an option as well. Capitals00 ( talk) 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Taking the pedantry even further...
@
Callanecc and
Thryduulf: Suggest: "Raising any issue at more than one venue, whatever those venues are (with the exception of bringing a case or clarification/amendment request to ArbCom)." -
Ryk72
'c.s.n.s.' 00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
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.
Enacted - Mini apolis 16:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)