Wikipedia: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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are active arbitrators. support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

OccultZone temporarily restricted

1) OccultZone is prohibited from personally approaching any user in relation to any matter raised in this case via Wikipedia email, IRC, on their user talk pages, or any other off-wiki method without obtaining the express permission of the Committee on-wiki. This restriction will expire after the case has been closed. {text of proposed orders}

Support:

1. So moved, per the workshop page. Courcelles (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Might make sense to remove "Wikipedia" from "Wikipedia email," but otherwise I think this is needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
4. But do not support removing "Wikipedia" from "Wikipedia email". The Wikipedia email system is under our jurisdiction, but the email system outside from that is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
5. Neutral on the "Wikipedia email" vs "email" wording - I'll support either way. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
6. Euryalus (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
8. "any other off-wiki method" catches the distinction between wikipedia email and just email--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
9. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Guerillero makes a fair point, which makes my point a nonissue. That said, for those of you who are concerned about jurisdiction, "any other off-wiki method" might be of more concern. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Consensus

2) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Admin shopping

4) Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is detrimental to finding and achieving consensus.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Conduct on arbitration pages

5) Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

6) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and its internal administrative and dispute-resolution processes are not a legal system. Although in most cases disruptive conduct will be in violation of one or more policies, it is not necessary for a specific policy to be violated in order for an editor's conduct to be disruptive or unconducive to the encyclopaedia. Policy is intended to be a description of practice rather than an exhaustive list of rules and as such there cannot (and in some cases should not) be a policy against every form of disruptive editing. Administrators must use a combination of policy and common sense in order to effectively discharge their duties.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Making allegations against other editors

7) An editor alleging misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of the alleged misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making it at all. A claim of misconduct should be raised directly with the other user himself or herself in the first instance, unless there are compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing such conduct, and should not generally be spread across multiple forums. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sockpuppetry

8) The general rule is one editor, one account, though there several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Background (I)

1) This case was accepted on 30 April 2015 for the purpose of investigating an string of incidents involving OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and five administrators: Swarm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Bgwhite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and Nakon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Background (II)

2) OccultZone has been blocked four times since 23 March 2015 (Blocklog):

1. On 23 March for edit warring by Swarm, removed by Bgwhite
2. On 29 March for edit warring by Bgwhite, removed by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
3. On 19 April for "refusal to drop the stick, exhausting the community's patience; see [1]" by HJ Mitchell, removed by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
4. On 21 April, restoration of HJ Mitchell's block by Nakon

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

OccultZone: Edit warring

3) The first two blocks stemmed from OccultZone's actions on Rape in India. On that article, between June 2014 and May 2015, a significant proportion of their edits have been reversions and edit warring. [2]

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

OccultZone: Accusations of sockpuppetry

4) OccultZone has filed several vexatious SPIs and has refused to stop repeating the allegations when asked to by checkusers or SPI clerks. (SPI 1, SPI 2, SPI 3, SPI 4 [3][4][5][6])

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

OccultZone: use of sockpuppets

5) Checkuser indicates that OccultZone has used at least two undisclosed alternate accounts to edit projectspace: Delibzr (talk · contribs) and Hajme (talk · contribs). Both accounts have been used in inappropriate ways. the Delibzr account has been used to: make a statement in an AE request filed by OccultZone [7], to request an AN review of one of OccultZone's blocks (while appearing to be a third party [8]), yo argue to lift another of OccultZone's blocks [9], and to oppose an AN request that asked for sanctions on OccultZone. [10] The Hajme account has extensively edited the Wikipedia namespace, [11], and both accounts opined on the same templates for discussion request. [12]

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

OccultZone: Disruption

6) OccultZone has engaged in disruptive conduct such as admin shopping (Worm That Turned's Evidence), refusing to "drop the stick" (Worm That Turned's Evidence), and refusing to see that they could be wrong ([13] [14]). These actions continued onto the arbitration pages (accusing other participants of sockpuppetry: [15]; refusing to drop the stick: [16]).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

OccultZone: Temporary injunction

7) On 10 May 2015, a temporary injunction was issued: "OccultZone is prohibited from personally approaching any user in relation to any matter raised in this case via Wikipedia email, IRC, on their user talk pages, or any other off-wiki method without obtaining the express permission of the Committee on-wiki. This restriction will expire after the case has been closed."

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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: banned

1) OccultZone is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban after twelve months, and then every six months thereafter.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

OccultZone: topic banned

2) Occultzone is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits related to, or editing any page about a) sexual assault or b) crime on the Indian Subcontinent, both broadly construed.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

OccultZone: Sockpuppetry allegations

3) Occultzone is indefinitely prohibited from making allegations that another editor is a sockpuppet of another user.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

OccultZone: One account restriction

4) OccultZone is indefinitely limited to a single account. Should OccultZone wish to change the name of the one account he is allowed to use, he must receive prior permission from the Arbitration Committee before editing under any other username.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

5)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by ***ADD SIGNATURE HERE***; the last edit to this page was on 02:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC) by Courcelles.

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)

{Undecided principles}

{Undecided findings}

{Undecided remedies}

{Undecided enforcement provisions}

Proposals which have passed

{Passing principles}

{Passing findings}

{Passing remedies}

{Passing enforcement provisions}

Proposals which cannot pass

{Failing principles}

{Failing findings}

{Failing remedies}

{Failing enforcement provisions}

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.

Support

Oppose

Comments