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.
@ Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, and Thryduulf:
While I won't oppose this PD, I would instead request to change it from "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" to "via Wikipedia email, on their user talk pages without obtaining the express permission of the Committee on-wiki".
There is no proof or even single diff where I misrepresented sources, editors, events or anything ever. I have already provided enough evidence about the mass misrepresentation and fabrication regarding both on-wiki and off-wiki matters by others related who are related with this case. In the light of it, I believe that we should consider relying only on those sorts of contacting methods that can be backed up with some "evidence" and not fabrication. Emails, IRC logs can be fabricated, similar to Windows live and Yahoo messenger chat logs. Thus keeping it limited to "wikipedia email" and "user talk pages" would be a better idea. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
/ns info o_z
returns:Information on O_Z (account O_Z): Registered : Mar 25 04:35:26 2015 (6w 4d 17h ago) Last addr : 4e9ddc1b@wikipedia/OccultZone Last seen : Apr 30 10:00:17 2015 (1w 3d 11h ago) Flags : HideMail *** End of Info ***
anyone can come and claim "OccultZone said this to me", would we believe it even if I wasn't there. Thanks. This is in my personal capacity and not a clerk note. Thanks, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I have got an issue that needs to be addressed. I have doubts and I really don't want to take risks. I somehow find the issue to be related with this case, because it concerns sock puppetry and one our arbitrator was also involved in addressing this similar issue from June 2012 [1] to January 2015. [2] I had posted on his UTP earlier, [3] and he has not responded, he might have overlooked. Account continues to edit and I have got 2 choices; i) post on arbitrator's talk page, ii) post to the correct SPI. May I know where I can ask for the permission about this? Not to clarify that it is an obvious WP:DUCK case. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Any arbitrator there? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
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.
— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_others#OccultZone_temporarily_restricted
More similarities. (re-edited at 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I will not be restoring the SPI for you to take the allegations to another venue. I strongly suggest that in the future, you take socking allegations pertaining to parties of this case directly to the arbs via a single email to our mailing list. Per your temporary injunction, please do not ask for an individual admin, who isn't Reaper Eternal, to review this deletion. If you wish to appeal this deletion further you may go to Deletion review or email the arbs a single time about this issue via our mailing list. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Previously, Zeke Essiestudy had apparently applauded Reaper Eternal. [80] Those interactions alone clears up a lot, that why Reaper went to delete a page concerning a WP:DUCK case, that falls under no deletion criteria, even though the suspect was already like "why you are asking for CU", "where sockpuppetry was violated", just like many other cases where suspect find himself caught. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Context was same, and it was to notify him and make him argue. If all other similarities are met, then of course, although here we are talking about only you and Zeke Essiestudy who hasn't contributed since you got back to your account after a couple of days. I have told you before too if you are not a sock, then just relax and ignore, if you continue repeating unhelpful lines over and over, you are only raising more suspicion. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
|
In what sense you think that this is edit warring? There are a few reversion of some edits that were not reasonable. We've already reviewed every edit. This may occur on any page that is being actively edited, especially by socks of Nangbarpat, Sonic2030, Zhanzhao, etc. Can you please think of the circumstances? I was not alone to revert them, there were 4 editors or more, that means I was on going per the consensus.
Accepting not to be wrong in trivial matters is actually a violation of some policy? [89] [90] I was not arguing against any policy or standards. Also if I had to sock, I would've clearly used accounts on ARC or the articles where I have dispute, and I have never done that.
Do you actually consider this [91] as a repetitive SPI? Later on, the article in question was protected from socks, [92] and one of the sock was blocked for block evasion by a CU. [93] If I had heard them and ignored the striking similarities, would we be having 3 socks blocked? [94] Also all suspects(excluding the master) of this SPI are indeffed. I agree that it can be vexatious, but so much was caused after the mishandling of the SPIs that should've never taken place. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion as an admin and SPI clerk, this diff would be sufficient to block the accounts for violations of our sockpuppetry policy. However, since this is an arbitration matter that is heading towards closure, I will not block any of the accounts right now so as to avoid short-circuiting any arbitration action the committee decides upon. If OZ is not banned by a committee decision, could he still be blocked as an administrative (not arbitration) decision for violations unearthed during the arbitration case that precede said case (such as the socking in FoF#5)? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Only warning to OccultZone: I will revert any further disruption here. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm stunned that OccultZone should have been socking himself whilst reporting other users for abusing multiple accounts, and I'm absolutely shocked that when this evidence has been presented, he hasn't uttered a single word of an apology for his behaviour, but instead has continued, yet again, to pursue the SPI case against Esquivalience and Zeke Essiestudy. Nick ( talk) 10:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone: oh man, this is harsh. I have the impression your intentions were basically good, though it's not clear to me at all what you were trying to do. Assuming remedy 1 passes and if you later ask to return, I hope you'll have some discussions with other editors about what kinds of contributions you can make that are actually useful to the project, agree to a reasonably clear editing plan based on the discussions, and endeavour to stick to the plan.
Arbcom: At this point I'd support including some form of the workshop proposal against high speed editing in the PD. We know from Betacommand that bulk editing and this level of misjudgment are a bad combination.
Esquivalience: grave dancing is not helpful. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 04:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone, the scripts in User:OccultZone/monobook.js are semi-automated tools. But it is really irrelevant whether automation was involved in those edits, since what matters is the amount of thought that goes into the edits, and the volume of editing. Per WP:MEATBOT and astounding amounts of past wikilawyering over this from Betacommand and others, Arbcom should really stop caring about the distinction between automated and not.
[103] was an obvious error (removes intlink to a faulty ref without fixing the ref) and it would have been better to figure out who put the ref there, and leave the person a user talk message, or note the issue on the article talk page. I found that after looking at about 3 of your diffs. How many more errors are in your 100k's of edits? Nobody can possibly look at them all. So any edit plans of that size (whether manual or automatic) should be approved at WP:BRFA or something comparable before starting. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If One account restriction on OccultZone passes this automatically mean that User:Occults account will be blocked or there is something else to be done first? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone do you have any other accounts other than the 3 sock-puppet accounts and Occults? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand about people getting in edit wars and socking over content, since they're at least trying in their own perception to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I'd have been delighted (and not in a malicious or schadenfreude way) if Betacommand got in a red-blooded content war instead of treating the encyclopedia as soulless data to be sliced and diced by his mechanized army, since engagement with article content is vital to being a competent editor. But this stuff with project tags makes no sense as far as I can tell. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 22:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone do you have any other accounts other than the 3 sock-puppet accounts, Occults and OccultBot? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think that you are "substantively done"? Remedy two needs one vote to pass and six Arbs haven't voted on it, and Remedy 3 needs 4 votes to pass and 5 Arbs haven't voted on it. I'm not saying that I expect both to pass, but they certainly can pass, and I think that would be "substantive", wouldn't it? BMK ( talk) 08:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
If the CU's already run against OccultZone show the use of automation in the edits that he claims [105] were completely manual, could that be added to the factfindings, along with principle 4 [106] and possibly remedy 2 [107] from the Rich Farmbrough case? We may need that someday. I'm open to supporting a ban appeal from OccultZone when the time comes, but only for traditional editing. I'd want for there to be a speed restriction that stays around for a while, until OZ has made some good mainspace contributions. Thanks. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 02:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
We know what will be the outcome. It's a sign that things are changing. Talking about the site ban and after knowing that there are many more things to do in life, I really have had no problem with the site ban since it was decided only after some policy based concern. They were saying that I need a break and now I will be having it. I think that my main problem was to continuously pursue some of the issues when it was not really needed, and such approach eventually helped in creating havoc. I can say that whenever I will try in the future, I will overcome. Thanks all. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles or Guerillero, why can Remedy 3 not pass? There are currently 4 supports, 6 opposes, and 1 abstain. You went into this with one arbitrator inactive, thus 14 arbitrators instead of 15. Because one arb abstained on this remedy, that means 7 support votes is a pass. 3 arbs have not yet voted. If they all supported, it would pass. I'm tired, so maybe I'm missing something, but I think I'm right.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Because, at this point, the ban passes so everything else is moot and can be decided upon in a year iff the appeal is successful. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I assume someone has contacted the "missing" Arbs via e-mail to see if they plan on casting a vote? BMK ( talk) 20:06, 2 June 2015 (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.
@ Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, and Thryduulf:
While I won't oppose this PD, I would instead request to change it from "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" to "via Wikipedia email, on their user talk pages without obtaining the express permission of the Committee on-wiki".
There is no proof or even single diff where I misrepresented sources, editors, events or anything ever. I have already provided enough evidence about the mass misrepresentation and fabrication regarding both on-wiki and off-wiki matters by others related who are related with this case. In the light of it, I believe that we should consider relying only on those sorts of contacting methods that can be backed up with some "evidence" and not fabrication. Emails, IRC logs can be fabricated, similar to Windows live and Yahoo messenger chat logs. Thus keeping it limited to "wikipedia email" and "user talk pages" would be a better idea. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
/ns info o_z
returns:Information on O_Z (account O_Z): Registered : Mar 25 04:35:26 2015 (6w 4d 17h ago) Last addr : 4e9ddc1b@wikipedia/OccultZone Last seen : Apr 30 10:00:17 2015 (1w 3d 11h ago) Flags : HideMail *** End of Info ***
anyone can come and claim "OccultZone said this to me", would we believe it even if I wasn't there. Thanks. This is in my personal capacity and not a clerk note. Thanks, -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I have got an issue that needs to be addressed. I have doubts and I really don't want to take risks. I somehow find the issue to be related with this case, because it concerns sock puppetry and one our arbitrator was also involved in addressing this similar issue from June 2012 [1] to January 2015. [2] I had posted on his UTP earlier, [3] and he has not responded, he might have overlooked. Account continues to edit and I have got 2 choices; i) post on arbitrator's talk page, ii) post to the correct SPI. May I know where I can ask for the permission about this? Not to clarify that it is an obvious WP:DUCK case. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Any arbitrator there? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
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.
— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_others#OccultZone_temporarily_restricted
More similarities. (re-edited at 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I will not be restoring the SPI for you to take the allegations to another venue. I strongly suggest that in the future, you take socking allegations pertaining to parties of this case directly to the arbs via a single email to our mailing list. Per your temporary injunction, please do not ask for an individual admin, who isn't Reaper Eternal, to review this deletion. If you wish to appeal this deletion further you may go to Deletion review or email the arbs a single time about this issue via our mailing list. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Previously, Zeke Essiestudy had apparently applauded Reaper Eternal. [80] Those interactions alone clears up a lot, that why Reaper went to delete a page concerning a WP:DUCK case, that falls under no deletion criteria, even though the suspect was already like "why you are asking for CU", "where sockpuppetry was violated", just like many other cases where suspect find himself caught. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Context was same, and it was to notify him and make him argue. If all other similarities are met, then of course, although here we are talking about only you and Zeke Essiestudy who hasn't contributed since you got back to your account after a couple of days. I have told you before too if you are not a sock, then just relax and ignore, if you continue repeating unhelpful lines over and over, you are only raising more suspicion. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
|
In what sense you think that this is edit warring? There are a few reversion of some edits that were not reasonable. We've already reviewed every edit. This may occur on any page that is being actively edited, especially by socks of Nangbarpat, Sonic2030, Zhanzhao, etc. Can you please think of the circumstances? I was not alone to revert them, there were 4 editors or more, that means I was on going per the consensus.
Accepting not to be wrong in trivial matters is actually a violation of some policy? [89] [90] I was not arguing against any policy or standards. Also if I had to sock, I would've clearly used accounts on ARC or the articles where I have dispute, and I have never done that.
Do you actually consider this [91] as a repetitive SPI? Later on, the article in question was protected from socks, [92] and one of the sock was blocked for block evasion by a CU. [93] If I had heard them and ignored the striking similarities, would we be having 3 socks blocked? [94] Also all suspects(excluding the master) of this SPI are indeffed. I agree that it can be vexatious, but so much was caused after the mishandling of the SPIs that should've never taken place. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion as an admin and SPI clerk, this diff would be sufficient to block the accounts for violations of our sockpuppetry policy. However, since this is an arbitration matter that is heading towards closure, I will not block any of the accounts right now so as to avoid short-circuiting any arbitration action the committee decides upon. If OZ is not banned by a committee decision, could he still be blocked as an administrative (not arbitration) decision for violations unearthed during the arbitration case that precede said case (such as the socking in FoF#5)? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Only warning to OccultZone: I will revert any further disruption here. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm stunned that OccultZone should have been socking himself whilst reporting other users for abusing multiple accounts, and I'm absolutely shocked that when this evidence has been presented, he hasn't uttered a single word of an apology for his behaviour, but instead has continued, yet again, to pursue the SPI case against Esquivalience and Zeke Essiestudy. Nick ( talk) 10:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone: oh man, this is harsh. I have the impression your intentions were basically good, though it's not clear to me at all what you were trying to do. Assuming remedy 1 passes and if you later ask to return, I hope you'll have some discussions with other editors about what kinds of contributions you can make that are actually useful to the project, agree to a reasonably clear editing plan based on the discussions, and endeavour to stick to the plan.
Arbcom: At this point I'd support including some form of the workshop proposal against high speed editing in the PD. We know from Betacommand that bulk editing and this level of misjudgment are a bad combination.
Esquivalience: grave dancing is not helpful. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 04:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone, the scripts in User:OccultZone/monobook.js are semi-automated tools. But it is really irrelevant whether automation was involved in those edits, since what matters is the amount of thought that goes into the edits, and the volume of editing. Per WP:MEATBOT and astounding amounts of past wikilawyering over this from Betacommand and others, Arbcom should really stop caring about the distinction between automated and not.
[103] was an obvious error (removes intlink to a faulty ref without fixing the ref) and it would have been better to figure out who put the ref there, and leave the person a user talk message, or note the issue on the article talk page. I found that after looking at about 3 of your diffs. How many more errors are in your 100k's of edits? Nobody can possibly look at them all. So any edit plans of that size (whether manual or automatic) should be approved at WP:BRFA or something comparable before starting. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If One account restriction on OccultZone passes this automatically mean that User:Occults account will be blocked or there is something else to be done first? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone do you have any other accounts other than the 3 sock-puppet accounts and Occults? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I understand about people getting in edit wars and socking over content, since they're at least trying in their own perception to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I'd have been delighted (and not in a malicious or schadenfreude way) if Betacommand got in a red-blooded content war instead of treating the encyclopedia as soulless data to be sliced and diced by his mechanized army, since engagement with article content is vital to being a competent editor. But this stuff with project tags makes no sense as far as I can tell. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 22:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
OccultZone do you have any other accounts other than the 3 sock-puppet accounts, Occults and OccultBot? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think that you are "substantively done"? Remedy two needs one vote to pass and six Arbs haven't voted on it, and Remedy 3 needs 4 votes to pass and 5 Arbs haven't voted on it. I'm not saying that I expect both to pass, but they certainly can pass, and I think that would be "substantive", wouldn't it? BMK ( talk) 08:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
If the CU's already run against OccultZone show the use of automation in the edits that he claims [105] were completely manual, could that be added to the factfindings, along with principle 4 [106] and possibly remedy 2 [107] from the Rich Farmbrough case? We may need that someday. I'm open to supporting a ban appeal from OccultZone when the time comes, but only for traditional editing. I'd want for there to be a speed restriction that stays around for a while, until OZ has made some good mainspace contributions. Thanks. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 02:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
We know what will be the outcome. It's a sign that things are changing. Talking about the site ban and after knowing that there are many more things to do in life, I really have had no problem with the site ban since it was decided only after some policy based concern. They were saying that I need a break and now I will be having it. I think that my main problem was to continuously pursue some of the issues when it was not really needed, and such approach eventually helped in creating havoc. I can say that whenever I will try in the future, I will overcome. Thanks all. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles or Guerillero, why can Remedy 3 not pass? There are currently 4 supports, 6 opposes, and 1 abstain. You went into this with one arbitrator inactive, thus 14 arbitrators instead of 15. Because one arb abstained on this remedy, that means 7 support votes is a pass. 3 arbs have not yet voted. If they all supported, it would pass. I'm tired, so maybe I'm missing something, but I think I'm right.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Because, at this point, the ban passes so everything else is moot and can be decided upon in a year iff the appeal is successful. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I assume someone has contacted the "missing" Arbs via e-mail to see if they plan on casting a vote? BMK ( talk) 20:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)