Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Proposed decision

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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.

Caution

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)

I disagree with OZ and I suggest to modify to "via email, IRC, on their user talk pages, or any other off-wiki method without obtaining the express permission of the Committee on-wiki" otherwise OZ will start flooding inboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

En.wiki cannot act on those emails outside their system. Thus your overwhelming prediction was unnecessary. Now given that you have made another attempt just to defame me for something that is not even going to effect you, and this is one of your many previous attempts, I have proposed a ARC ban on you, check this and it should have no effect on the changes that I have proposed. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: We really can't do that, because our authority only extends to Wikipedia and IRC. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: OK. I understand that and I am good with the current wording. There is still a problem that needs to be solved though. After April 1 and probably earlier, OccultZone collected email addresses from various admins, editors, etc. Wikipedia e-mails will be a start but not solve the entire problem. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if users receive anything in their inboxes from OccultZone (because for example they previously responded to his earlier Wikipedia email), the effect of the words "or any other off-wiki method" will assist in factoring that situation. On that note, I must recognise the high level of care taken by arbs in this case to fully appreciate the underlying concerns which led to the initial proposal at workshop. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Question I got an urgent question to ask. Do Arbcom know about the name that I have used in IRCs? I mean, anyone can come and claim "OccultZone said this to me", would we believe it even if I wasn't there? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:50, 10 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.

@Robert McClenon: May I respond to OccultZone's question? (And definitely not as a clerk but as an editor.) Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone: It's easy enough to prove that an IRC account belongs to you, which is primarily done through a cloak. I know I've definitely seen you myself on IRC, and doing /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 ***

This statement should not be taken out of context and is only responding to the note 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)

OccultZone has a point, in that there is no way for the Arbitration Committee to determine with certainty whether logs of private messages between OccultZone and another are legitimate—Freenode does not allow others to view private messages between two other users. That said, we can use our judgment on such matters, as we sometimes need to do with offwiki evidence such as IRC logs, emails, and the like. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward

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 his 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)

If you think there is a sockpuppetry issue, SPI is the best place to go. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)