Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. 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 unnecessarily 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 or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

OccultZone restricted

1) OccultZone is prohibited from personally approaching any user in relation to any matter raised in this case via Wikipedia email or on their user talk pages without obtaining the express permission of the Committee on-wiki. This restriction will expire after a final decision has been posted in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm minded to enact this, with the understanding that it does not prejudge the case. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Ncmvocalist Do you know that there are provisions for a ARC ban if you continued to misrepresent my conversations, especially where you are not involved? I don't see how anyone can maintain good faith in your misrepresentation below, when you omits the full story[1] in order to request a temporary injunction and misrepresents rather an advice as 'approach'.[2] Anyone is allowed to ask for an advice about actions that have taken place. How come you even requested for a ban on email when there is no evidence of use of email? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Sorry, but would you tell how it is wrong to ask for an advice related to the policy/provision that could be related to any of these events? Especially when such discussions took only some minutes to resolve. One has to be assured before making an statement, correct? It is likely that making a one liner misstatement is going to cause trouble than making a correct statement. In fact, I am not alone to make discussion before submitting, we have people related with this case who are doing the same.[3][4] If you still believe that I did it wrong, then I must say that I wasn't aware, and it won't happen again. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed, as I don't see how the community can maintain the belief in good faith that this case will bring about the final resolution expected from this step in dispute resolution (which arbitrators have properly indicated), when the very conduct complained of in relation to OccultZone persists without any action for yet another fortnight or longer. More administrators are being approached about the same dispute being arbitrated through continued inappropriate notification [5] (administrator JzG) [6] (administrator EdJohnston), and as he is not receptive to earlier feedback, a temporary injunction is needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

To add, I don't have any issue if @JzG: and @EdJohnston: reviewed the case evidence or the comments here and felt my proposal is unnecessary or inappropriate; this notification will give them an opportunity to comment on it. It would be beneficial if we had some arbitrators commenting on this page too; I'm certainly not interested in being consumed in the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory that other parties or users have needed to endure during the case so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Worm That Turned

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Consensus

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

Administrators

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Automation tools

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

• It can be proposed only when there is problem with the edits. There has been no complaints about any of my edit since the removal of AWB, and after that I had realized that I should only make those edits that have global consensus and I stopped using semi-automated programs for major edits. All of the edits that I have made are impossible to make through any bot or script, they require homework and manual care. You have said that "it's very difficult to look into"[7] my contribution history. I agree that mass editing makes it harder for an admin to find a reason to block, but there is no procedure for easing it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

@Nick: 'would cover'? No it is not going to cover anything except "bot" and "automated" scripts/tasks. I have no semi-automated[8] scripts enabled either. I am now naming Ohconfucius, Hugo999, and many other editors who have got high speed too, thus it shouldn't be so unbelievable. These [9][10][11] are 3 very different edits made under 1 minute and 2 others[12][13] from the same minute. It is impossible for a bot or script to decide that person is actually living or not and appropriately tagging this quickly. Automation can only repeat the same thing. If this matter is investigated, I would show the video to Arbcom, they would know that it requires a great deal of homework and it is 100% manual. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Comment by others:

The first line of the bot policy states, quite clearly Bot policy covers the operation of all bots and automated scripts used to provide automation of Wikipedia edits, whether completely automated, higher speed, or simply assisting human editors in their own work. which would cover almost all, if not all of the high speed, repetitive tasks OccultZone is currently engaged in. It goes on to say Note that high-speed semi-automated processes may effectively be considered bots in some cases, even if performed by an account used by a human editor. If in doubt, check. and Tools not considered to be bots do not require a separate account, but some users do choose to make separate accounts for non-bot but high-speed editing is also relevant depending in the edits in question. These sorts of edits, made at upto 2 second intervals, don't appear to have any sort of human input at the point they're saved, they appear to essentially an unauthorised bot task, and contrary to OccultZone's assertions, the majority of these edits can easily be performed by an automated bot or script. [14][15][16]. This morning alone (5 May) I can see 43 edits in 16 minutes averaging around 3 edits per minute. I see no evidence OccultZone has consulted with the Bot Approvals Group directly concerning his editing activities [17] but he may have asked a BAG member elsewhere, and if so, it would be helpful if he could provide diffs of this before I possibly write up some additional remedies here. Nick (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Users of automation tools

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Identifying the use of automation tools

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) On 23 March 2015, User:OccultZone was blocked alongside other editors for 72 hours by User:Swarm for a slow motion edit war at Rape in India.[18] OccultZone has contacted a large number of administrators regarding the block and related matters and has subsequently been blocked and unblocked twice more based on his subsequent behaviour.[19]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

OccultZone

Adminshopping

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

There were different issues. When an editor is still contributing after having blocks and a T-ban, he has to be assured whether he is doing it right or wrong. I could not make many of the requests due to the topic ban that you had imposed, despite I never made a disruptive edit. After you had removed T-Ban on 16 April,[20] I have not done anything that can be even remotely considered as adminshopping. But after I had another block, I assumed that I would pass through the same trouble again. Now for ending that whole problem, I decided to address each of these issues to Arbcom. Story ends there. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

28? Do you know any after 16 April or 20 April to be specific? Yes you even counted Chillum[21] as adminshopping, though I was talking to him about the provision to edit archives. This is how you have misrepresented vast amount. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I never mentioned even a single SPI to Chillum, so how come you even thought that I was pointing to any of these SPIs? If you have to think of SPIs, then at the same time I was also contributing on other SPIs.[22][23][24] How come you never thought of these? I mean, you are saying that posting a message on any admin's UTP is adminshopping, that means I had to just edit the archives and ask no one about it, I would had and I would've seen that you have blocked me. I am now thinking that I have saved more chances of getting blocked by this kind of "adminshopping". Just because I saved more chances of getting blocked, I did it wrong? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

WTT, here's the proof, no such adminshopping took place after 16 April, the day you had removed the topic ban.[25] You had yourself said that it is better to have transparency,[26] while I know that it is, I just couldn't discuss the matters that would touch the topic ban, and you had allowed such type of conversations yourself.[27] Still I always left notification on their talk pages. Hope you are not saying that I did it wrong by heeding your advice or kept anything secret. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

Bot-like editing

3) OccultZone has been active since 23 August 2013. He has made over 200k edits, primarily through scripts and AutoWikiBrowser (AWB). His AWB access has been revoked on two occasions[28][29] and restoration has since been refused[30] Despite the removal of AWB, OccultZone maintains a high velocity of edits, regularly averaging speeds of up to 13 edits per minute.[31]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Bgwhite and WP:INVOLVED

Bgwhite has used administrator tools whilst moderating the Rape in India article. He fully protected the article, then facilitated discussion at the talk page,[32] before creating a draft compromise through the full protection. Every participant at the talk page agreed the draft was good.[33] Bgwhite went on to block OccultZone for violating 3RR at an IP talk page.[34] He also reverted an editor who edited against the consensus achieved before fully protecting the article.[35]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

It is contrary to the established principles.[36] An admin cannot work as an editor on any article where he has performed administrative tasks, simple as that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I did disagreed with him at some things and disagreement can be still found over there, we have been in a number of content dispute, including a discussion about spam link where consensus is in my favor.[37] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

OccultZone

Automated editing account

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

DoRD Read this message,[38] sums up everything. Bot cannot decide whether a person is alive or dead nor it can make different edits the way I do in a single minute, it can only repeat same text. These proposals by WTT not only shows his misrepresentation of bot policy, editing modes, or his struggle to find a single disruptive edit since he has been challenged countless times. We have to see that his plan is to block me for making even 2 edits in 3 minutes in the future. You or Arbcom can ask me anytime, I can show a very short 2 minutes video. One can understand that how manual my editing is, it just requires some experience and we have editors like Hugo999, Ohconfucius, and more who got high speed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

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

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

Administrator contact

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Disagree, since every matter actually required judgement of an administrator, also read see my reply above OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that is how it already went. Never contacted any more than 1 or two admin on same matter, nor I raised issue on multiple noticeboards. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

Comment by others:

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

Bgwhite reminded

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Proposals by Nick

Proposed principles

IRC - Wikipedia channels

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

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

E-mail

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

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

Proposed findings of fact

OccultZone and IRC

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

OccultZone and e-mail

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

The way it was being done, it was not a blockable offense, I would ask if they ever really complained. Second thing is that I didn't needed to email anyone even for clarification since I had addressed Arbcom on 20 April, I had an advice and I simply followed it. I just thought of describing my situation a bit to Euralyus only after he told that I can email.[39] I don't have to email if I can discuss about the things that were previously affected by a topic ban, not to mention any other reasons that I had And why not? You were in fact discouraging me from making conversations on their talk pages.[40]. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Comment by others:

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

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

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

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

Proposed remedies

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.

OccultZone admonished

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

But where's the evidence that I ever asked for block? Also look at one of the other reply to your proposal that I have made. I know that The ed17 made a claim which is rather incorrect. He himself cast doubts when he said "context I got", "I didn't remembered", "my takeaway",[41] which is far different than what really happened. Saying "I am not asking for blocking him for copyrights, but yes many do get blocked for it," is not same as asking for an action. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Comment by others:

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

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

Proposed enforcement

OccultZone and off-wiki administrative action requests

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Proposals by User:OccultZone

Proposed principles

Blocks

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Administrator

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Administrator standards

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Disruption by administrators

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Accountability

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Comment by others:

Civility

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

Comment by others:

Courtesy

7) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Either this, or above one would be relevant. This one is from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Arbitration sanctions

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

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

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

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

Stable with outdated predictions,[42] and copyvio.[43] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bishonen, you have made it even more simpler. Worm That Turned knew that protest is inevitable. Anyways, we have to look into the reason that why he imposed such a serious topic ban, regardless of no disruption. What he calls as "accusing of socking" is out of WP:AC/DS scope, socking remains on going, and I am still correct about them.[44][45] Clearly, he imposed the T-Ban just for righting that block by Swarm. He had nominated Swarm for adminship. Given his experience and understanding of WP:ARE, that he even misused a remainder having multiple meanings as a source to sanction. We must also see that how he solely targeted me, how about we check his own history? Forget WP:ARBIPA, or imposition of any WP:AC/DS T-Ban, he never even notified anyone about any of the AC/DS sanctions.(evidence) On 21 April,[46] when he came up with a wide ranging non-AE topic ban, he would make sure to suppress any sources through which I could object to this T-Ban, thus time he would also include ban from seeking any kind of administrative actions i.e. contacting you(Bishonen) or anyone ever again. Since he declared his intention to indef block,[47] making me agree to his topic ban was very simple for him, he would block me for any edit that would contain any request for administrative action or even slightly resemble one. Topic bans are not for retaliation and disparagement. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Comment by others:

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

Wheel warring

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley. Clearly there was no "emergency" like high level vandalism when Nakon reinstated a previous block, for making a productive edit that had to do nothing with any of the previous blocks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I had asked for a "diff" prior to the block in question, or people telling in "several occasions" that I should not post on ANI/SPI, etc. I didn't asked for any of these[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] irrelevant and randomly picked replies that you have well misrepresented below. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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.

---

The proposed principle is of course correct, but completely irrelevant in this case, as there has not been one incident of wheel warring, no matter how frequently OccultZone repeats that there has been. The chain of events started when HJ Mitchell blocked OccultZone (following an enormous number of warnings from multiple uninvolved administrators [59]). The block (set for 72 hours) stood for around 33 hours and was removed by Magog the Ogre following a standard unblock request [60] (note also the admin shopping by requesting Floquenbeam, PhilKnight and Dennis Brown review the unblock request). The unblock request was accepted on the understanding that OccultZone would WP:DROPTHESTICK and Magog the Ogre specifically stated Please take the lesson from this, and avoid any future crusades, especially when people ask you to back down. He was reblocked by Nakon when it became apparent that he wasn't avoiding future crusades, and had resumed complaining about Nadirali [61], filing an SPI case about Sonic2030 [62] and involving himself in an ANI discussion about a rangeblock [63]. He was previously cautioned about such behaviour (crusading against users, refusing to back down when asked) earlier in April [64] [65]. Nakon's re-block was entirely in-line with policy and given the new disruption resulting from OccultZone's continued behaviour at that point, the block is completely acceptable. It can even legitimately stand on its own and not need to be considered a re-block for previous ongoing behavioural problems, but a new block for new continuing behavioural problems, something that would not apply to genuine wheel warring cases. I would also add that OccultZone doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a productive edit for the purposes of blocking and unblocking. That's something that the administrators are trusted by and elected on behalf of the community to decide. If we believe every disruptive user who disagreed that their behaviour was acceptable, productive etc, we wouldn't block anybody and you can imagine the chaos that would result from that. If lots of users, especially (but not limited to) administrators tell you your behaviour is disruptive, it's a good idea to believe them, understand their concerns and make improvements. Nick (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This edit was disruptive because you were told several times to stop crusading against other users and were unblocked on the understanding you would not continue your crusades against other users. That you refuse to listen to your peers, learn from your errors and modify your behaviour is in evidence here, where three uninvolved administrators in this section alone (in addition to those who commented on your talk page and who made preliminary comments prior to the case being accepted) have said there was no wheel warring. To clarify why that edit can be considered disruptive, since you're not understanding that either - edits do not need to be in violation of policy to be disruptive, which is why we have topic banned people from commenting at RfA, from posting at ANI etc and indeed why we removed your AWB access. I've linked to evidence of you being told on several occasions, that your comments, SPI reports and general interjections at places such as ANI are disruptive, unhelpful and unnecessary. That you were blocked twice for failing to heed those warnings comes as no surprise to anybody, other than yourself, it seems.

When you actually grasp that your edits before the first block were disruptive and your edits before the second block continued a pattern of disruptive behaviour you agreed to stop in return for being unblocked, then you will understand how there has been no wheel warring. Nick (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how much evidence OccultZone would like presented that shows multiple administrators warning him about his editing, admin shopping and general crusades against particular editors (not all warned that he would be blocked, I would expect any editor with more than a few dozen edits and a couple of months of experience would be fully versed in the rules which state disruption is behaviour for which you can be blocked, however). Warnings for adminshopping and SPI behaviour [66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73] Warnings from admins for pursuing a ban against Kumioko/Reguyla. [74][75][76][77][78][79][80]. Warnings from non-admins [81] Misleading closure of the Reguyla ANI thread [82]. Disruptive behaviour [83][84][85][86] (for which I warned him privately over) [87][88]. I trust that's sufficient evidence, it's certainly clear to my fellow administrators and I that there's a long standing pattern of disruption for which significant numbers of warnings have been given and significantly, enormous amounts of time and effort spent to try and improve OccultZone's behaviour without having to resort to blocking. The crux of the matter remains however, if OccultZone disputes that any of his behaviour was disruptive, we're never going to agree that blocking was acceptable and consequently, that no wheel warring occurred. Nick (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

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

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

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

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

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 4

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 5

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 6

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Analysis of OccultZone's evidence

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

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

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

Had you told that you nominated Swarm for adminship, I would've never talked with you ever again and never about this matter. I had some experience about such situation, I can recall many, but for easing this, I would recall a very recent(to that event), check [89][90][91] you can realize how these comments are overtly-positive to a single side and contrary to policy as well as what actually happened. Know why? Because editor in question was the nominator of the admin in question, just like you were for Swarm. Don't you know that CU is not a magic pixie dust and IPs can be spoofed? How could you say that I was totally wrong when same accounts were adhering to same POV and using same edit summaries[92][93][94][95][96][97] all the time. Whoever I was accusing, why you never recognized the Zhanzhao case, where multiple accounts policy violation was on-going for over 6 years? Finally, I have no CU user right still I could find IP extensions used by these multiple editors in last 7 years, which is even more than what CU could do. Although you had CU user right for a long time,[98][99] I had asked you to look at my evidence, and you never did. Just say that you only made my way harder. Sock puppetry is still on-ongoing and I am proven to be correct again and again. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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

OccultZone, I thought we had both mutually agreed to NEWSTART [100] after AN. And you had further made a promise on AN to other admins to that same effect [101]. I want to know if you still intend to pursue your vendetta against me before I say more. I really want to hold on to your request for clean start, but you are making it hard for me to do so. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: