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

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Worm That Turned

To the clerks; I have granted an extension to 1,500 words and 150 diffs to WTT. Courcelles (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeline and admin shopping

Swarm's block and aftermath

Since June 2014, the vast majority of OccultZone's edits at Rape in India have been reversions[1], primarily regarding the accuracy of the statistics and which incidents are "notable". These edits formed parts of regular edit wars, never going over 3RR. On 22 March 2015, there was an edit war involving multiple parties and 23 edits. At the ANEW request, all participants were blocked by Swarm, with OccultZone getting a longer block for his history of edit warring on the article. This block was OccultZone's first ever block.

6 hours later, Bgwhite unilaterally unblocked OccultZone as unwarranted. Swarm gave his reasoning but did not pursue the matter. After being unblocked, OccultZone subsequently contacted me (Worm That Turned) off-wiki to request block log redaction. He also contacted JamesBWatson and arbitrator Euryalus on wiki regarding the blocks. Finally, he created an SPI regarding everyone on the opposing side at the edit war. DoRD looked into the matter and declared the accounts unrelated. After much questioning and further circumstantial evidence, DoRD closed the case.

OccultZone was not happy with this result, so took it to ANI. He was especially unhappy with Salvadrim! for not blocking a "little brother". Whilst the ANI was on-going, OccultZone contacted Callanecc on the matter, as well as JzG. OccultZone subsequently took conversation with Callanecc off-wiki and contacted around that time Roger Davies. Over a week after DoRD had declared the accounts unrelated, OccultZone was still insisting they were sockpuppets all over the place (see ANI thread for examples). OccultZone also contacted Collect[2] and Ubikwit[3] around this time (I believe regarding Swarm's previous blocks).

Bgwhite's block and aftermath

Meanwhile, after reversing three of Swarm's five blocks, Bgwhite had protected the article and started conversation at the talk page. After a reasonable amount of discussion, Bgwhite attempted to draft a compromise - every participant at the talk page agreed it was good, including OccultZone.

When the protection expired, there were subsequent changes by an IP against the consensus at the talk page. OccultZone contacted Ponyo regarding the IP, before reverting as a sock. Bgwhite was approached at his talk page, and reverted a different IP, before semi-protecting the article. When the logged out editor logged in to make the same edit, Bgwhite rolled back[4] the edit and fully protected the page.[5]

OccultZone went after one of the IPs involved, reporting him to a number of places and putting a warning on the IPs talk page. The IP reverted the warning, and OccultZone subsequently went past 7RR.[6]. Padeton stopped the edit war with a dummy edit, which OccultZone accepted. Three hours later, Bgwhite blocked OccultZone for violating 3RR. Diannaa accepted an unblock request as the edit warring had stopped.

OccultZone again went down the path of "misuse of tools",[7] contacting John Vandenburg, Risker, The Ed17 and Magioladitis.

My (Worm That Turned) involvement

I had been contacted earlier and decided to review the situation - I posted my opinions at OccultZone's talk page. I stated at that point that neither block was inappropriate (though both could have been handled better). I suggested discretionary sanctions to reduce disruption as Callanecc had discussed regarding the area in January. After discussing the matter with OccultZone and sleeping on it, I issued a topic ban on Rape in India under discretionary sanctions - saying I would review it if upon further evidence and allowing a single further SPI.

The SPI was reviewed by both DoRD and Mike V who stated again that the accounts were unrelated. During the course of the request, OccultZone pinged EdJohnston and RegentsPark. I will mention here that OccultZone seems to hold the odd view that those who are not socks should not bother to defend themselves and asked me off-wiki to enforce this view. He also delibrately misrepresented what one of the checkusers told him off-wiki (will send evidence of this directly to ArbCom).

After the SPI failed, OccultZone contacted Ponyo[8], Chillum[9], DeltaQuad and Elockid. Elockid subsequently blocked two of the accounts (by no means all) OccultZone had been complaining about. I didn't lift the topic ban immediately and OccultZone contacted Bishonen, Thydruulf, Guerillero, Yunshui and PhilKnight. I eventually relented, as I believed that disruption would reduce now the actual sockpuppets had been removed and accusations would stop, so lifted the topic ban. Unfortunately, OccultZone didn't stop his "crusade", and picked up a few more, notably Kumioko ban[10] and Nadirali topic ban[11]. An interaction ban proposal between OccultZone and Zhanzhao was not successful, but was enough for OccultZone to check with Sandstein if that made me involved.

HJ Mitchell's block and aftermath

Throughout this period, the majority of administrators (and some non-admins) have told OccultZone to drop the matters and move on. Eventually, HJ Mitchell blocked OccultZone for 3 days for not dropping the stick. OccultZone immediately pinged Floquenbeam and Dennis Brown. Eventually, Magog the Ogre unblocked, advising OccultZone to drop his crusades. Immediately, OccultZone returned to previous cases.[12][13][14][15]. Nakon therefore reinstated the block.

At this point, I hoped that I could persuade OccultZone to move on and accept a voluntary topic ban from "drama". My last ditched attempt failed, and this case was requested, attempting to contact arbs on their talk pages - GorillaWarfare, DGG and Dougweller.

Contact methods - off wiki communication may be on other matters and may be even more pervasive.

Bot-style editing

OccultZone appears to be working hard to increase his edit count and has made ~17,500 edits in the past month.[16]. 5000 edits now goes back 1 week.[17] The very high number of edits has the effect of avoiding scrutiny of his edits. He regularly goes over 8 edits per minute for sustained periods - eg 65 edits in 5 minute on 28 April or 30 edits in 2 minutes on 16 April.

Recently OccultZone has been adding portal pages to categories of the form "<YEAR> establishments in <COUNTRY>" (about 1000 times in the past 2 days.[18]) His high speed editing means that care is not taken and errors carry forward a long way. (E.g. Had to fix 20 edits in a row because he's not checking them properly[19]) He has created over 10,000 category talk pages[20] OccultZone states his mass edits have global consensus, but my understanding is that categories are designed to categorise pages only. There is no need to access portals from the category, nor are they an area which regularly need discussion. It might be that the community thinks these edits are worthwhile, but WP:Bot policy states mass edits like this should be discussed first.

OccultZone states that he is "the major contributor of many wikiprojects"[21], which is interesting considering how little he's edited the Wikipedia talk: space (a total of 344 times). Doesn't appear to be discussing these changes with the wikiprojects.[22] Noting guidance states "WikiProject banners should not be used to duplicate the category system or portals".

Noting that other editors who have done this sort of "WikiProject tagging" in the past have set up bots to do so.(category, example)

A quantity over quality methodology can be very detrimental to Wikipedia - for example, OccultZone reviews articles quickly (eg, 8 in 1 minute[23] or 15 in 5 minutes[24]) leading to a large number of articles deleted after his review. Examples of an article after he "reviewed" it.[25] Highlighting the Speedy deletions of articles he approved in 2015 only:

• Obvious hoax (founded 2030)[26]
• Spam articles[27][28][29]
• Non-notable [30][31][32],
• Copyvio [33]
• Technical deletion (article was a copy of another article with "version 2" on the end)[34]

Evidence presented by Zeke Essiestudy

Unjustified reblocking by Nakon?

Nakon blocked OccultZone for "continuing to wield the stick" after OccultZone added a simple link to an ANI thread here. This doesn't seem plausible, considering it was a maintenance edit and not an addition to an actual ANI discussion. He engaged an unauthorized topic ban from the Wikipedia namespace here on OccultZone. OccultZone claims Nakon is implying he only edited the Wikipedia space after his unblock and before his reblock, which is not true.

Indefinite IP block by Bgwhite

OccultZone posted some evidence of Bgwhite misusing his administrative tools here, but the most peculiar one is this. Bgwhite got engaged in an edit war with 173.55.156.155 (nickname: Oneseventhree) on Olympic Hockey Nagano '98 here. It looks like Bgwhite might have a bone to pick with Oneseventhree, reverting every edit Oneseventhree attempts to make to the article. On June 15th, OST was simply tinkering with the article to display a wikitable. After about two reverts, Bgwhite immediately came down hard on Oneseventhree, applying an indefinite block for being a "vandalism only account", and protecting the page for two months. This is pretty questionable, as once the IP 173.55.156.155 is assigned to a new user, the new user is going to be like, "Hey! What is this? Why can't I edit? I'm not a vandalism only account!". It'll also be mentioned that Bgwhite was involved in the dispute with Oneseventhree. I think Bgwhite will need some scrutiny too (not sure about Swarm).

Evidence presented by OccultZone

Per this, below evidence may reach 1,500 words

Now 3,000 words per this discussion

Policy violations

Policies that have been violated during these admin actions.

Username	Policy violation
Swarm	WP:BLOCK, (including WP:BEFOREBLOCK, WP:EXPLAINBLOCK) WP:3RR#Administrator guidance
Bgwhite	WP:INVOLVED, WP:BLOCK(including WP:BEFOREBLOCK, WP:NOPUNISH) WP:PREFER, WP:ROLLBACK, WP:NOTVAND
Worm That Turned	WP:AC/DS,(check Expectations) WP:TBAN
HJ Mitchell	WP:BLOCK, (including WP:BEFOREBLOCK, WP:NOPUNISH) WP:DR.
Nakon	WP:BLOCK, WP:TBAN, & maybe WP:WHEEL

Along with that, we can also find, gaming the system, battlefield approach, incivility, wikihounding, etc. I have not violated any policies.

First block : by Swarm

I had made this this edit because I was notified.[35] I reverted per consensus. Newly listed incidents were non-notable(WP:NLIST), some sources alleged a living person of unproven crime, content violated WP:COPYVIO. Talk page was used.[36]

• Sockpuppetry was discussed on WP:ANEW,[37] an exemption from reverting per WP:3RRNO.
• Swarm blocked me for 72 hours(!) and inappropriately blocked 3 other editors.
• Article history shows that none of us(Padenton,(2 revert) Human3015(1 revert), Vtk1987(2 reverts)) had violated WP:3RR.
• I had made only 1 revert in last 5 days, and 4 edits in last 8 days.
• Swarm logged multiple entries of the block.[38]
• There was no notification/warning prior to the block.[39]

Bgwhite unblocked me.[40], but he had history[41][42] of an involved admin. Any other uninvolved admin could unblock, one had already supported unblock.[43] Bgwhite didn't came just to unblock and move on like unblocking admins generally do, he was engaging himself in arguments and he already started to oppose me the way he used to do,[44] he also told that he would block me.[45]

• Bgwhite unblocked Padenton,[46] Human3015,[47] he also imposed full protection on the concerning article[48] after reading this message and now he was working as an editor there.[49][50]

Swarm reaction was[51][52] uncivil and misleading. He rejected the policies and standards of WP:3RR, WP:ANEW, etc. and the conclusion of his statement was "Over 10 edits on an article is long term edit warring, any edit can be considered as edit war." Such notion was rejected by JamesBWatson, he explained that these edits were made over the course of several weeks and these reverts differed.[53]

Second block : by Bgwhite

• On 06:02, 29 March, Bgwhite reverted to his version[54], then he protected the article.[55] Despite there was no claimed "persistent vandalism".[56][57]

• At 5:34, I had requested protection from another admin.[58]

• At 08:27, he imposed full protection,[59] and WP:ROLLBACKed to his version.[60] Still there was no claimed "persistent vandalism".[61]
• I had an edit war on the UTP of a IP sock who was vandalizing atleast one[62] namespace and was also involved in above article that led to protection.[63] IP got blocked.[64] I had doubts if WP:DENY applies on the UTP of IPsock as well, I asked the blocking admin about this doubt(discussion) and accepted what he told. I knew that someone would be trying to find a reason to block me, for avoiding it, I left a dummy note in the edit summary that the previous edits that were opposing my reverts are correct.

• However, 4 or 3 hours later, Bgwhite blocked me for 24 hours for above conflict that was already over, he not only violated WP:INVOLVED, but also WP:NOTPUNITIVE.(also check Purpose and goals)
• None of my last 50 (or more) edits concerned the above activity either. There was no warning/notification prior to the block.[65]
• His blocking rationale is not addressing if conflict was ongoing or I attempting anymore,[66] although he told me to "walk away from Rape in India", and told to stop addressing sockpuppetry that includes this sort of IP hopping,[67][68][69] while one CU had just blocked the technical master of this IP.[70]

Since Bgwhite was already an editor on this article,[71][72] who also discussed as a disagreeing editor,[73][74][75] in whole incident he violated WP:INVOLVED and WP:PREFER.

I was unblocked[76] by Diannaa, who also referred block as "bad block".[77] Bgwhite's reaction[78] was uncivil, it also included false accusation of harassment.

He then went on a break for 10 days.[79][80] Magioladitis, nominator of Bgwhite RFA,(editor interaction) begin to unnecessarily interrupt.[81][82][83][84]

Worm That Turned

Background has been told before.[85]

WTT told on-wiki that he nominated Swarm for adminship.[86] If I had ever knew that, I would've never contacted him again, at least not about this matter.

He talked about 1RR restriction,[87] I asked him to provide even a single instance where I violated 3rr, he could not. He was thinking of a T-Ban or 1RR, or both.[88] He imposed an WP:ARBIPA(WP:AC/DS) topic ban, even though I had voluntarily retired from this article until better atmosphere.[89]

Problems with T-Ban

Per my experience with WP:ARE, I was sure that this T-Ban has no merit and it has been inappropriately imposed. Reasons:-

• WTT solely targeted me. An enforcing admin would watch the conduct of everyone and notify. We had those who edit wars, misrepresent sources,[90][91] evade 3RR, etc. why he ignored the real disruption?
• Never cited even a single diff that would constitute a single disruptive edit. Topic ban must be imposed only where there is obvious disruption,(WP:DISRUPTSIGNS) so obvious that anyone can agree.
• No prior related warning or sanction/s.
• New sanctions should have limited time duration.
• Only one article in question. WP:ABAN was only possibility and even that would require obvious disruption.
• This entry was just a reminder. WTT was pointed that this reminder cannot be taken for enforcing any sanctions[92] on individuals. He still misused that reminder for sanctioning.[93] Now he says that he only conceived it "as awareness that DS was available."[94]

His sole rationale, "accusations of sockpuppets"[95] is not only out of AC/DS scope, it is contrary to my positive SPI record concerning this article since June 2014. Anyways, from March 2015, first SPI just had misleading and never seen decision, there was no "brother" and we never took words of suspects who should be indeffed since they socked before. 2nd SPI had to be checked more, all 3 suspects are blocked. Third SPI was mishandled, and finally the account never edited after this SPI.

Socking is still on-going and I am still correct.[96][97]

Reason behind

There is an obvious reason behind this T-Ban. Swarm had said "article is under discretionary sanctions.."[98] It seems like WTT, the nominator of Swarm's RFA, just went to fulfill that wish, and stop me from talking about Swarm's block. Imposing WP:AC/DS restriction is far, WTT never even notified anyone about any sanctions.(evidence) I had checked logs since 2007, WTT cannot be found anywhere.[99] He imposed the topic ban just to make Swarm's block for 1 revert in 5 days look real.

Hard times

I didn't objected to the T-Ban, I didn't wanted to look obsessional. Sadly, because of this T-Ban I was losing recognition. I would recall how I could not believe the way Callanecc and DoRD, were treating me.[100]

Whoever I contacted for sock investigation, I referred to every conversation. No one wanted to act because of WTT and his T-Ban, they just said "move on and forget". One SPI WTT had also stated "Don't do it. Drop the matter. Move on. If you go down that route, you are liable to be blocked for harassment."[101]

Anyone would have given up by now. But I still tried. Elockid blocked about 3 socks.[102][103][104] Elockid hasn't been on since.

WTT ignored me for 3 days or until I asked again.[105] I wanted to dispute the merit and address the trouble that en.wiki was having because of this T-Ban. WTT said he don't want to listen about it,[106] and I still told.(full discussion) He refused to remove the T-Ban and significantly told me to "stop implying that" Swarm's block was incorrect.[107] I was about to appeal on WP:ARCA, and soon WTT removed the T-Ban.[108] I had contacted Bishonen in regards to the topic ban,[109] and since then WTT started to claim that I adminshops.

Afterwards

WTT's eagerness to see me under editing restrictions never stopped.

• I-Ban proposal was posted and he was the first one to support, and it was posted just 15 minutes ago.
• Nakon blocked at 7:40. WTT returned after 4 days of inactivity[110] and it took him only 22 minutes to propose a wide ranging T-Ban.[111]

He was taking benefit from my compulsion, this T-Ban would cover ban from all administrator noticeboards, and this time he made sure to prohibit me from seeking any administrator action, so that I cannot contact Bishonen.(or any admin) I disagreed with this restriction because I already had huge trouble because of his previous T-Ban.

Instead of describing that how this T-Ban would benefit en.wiki, he told that I should be indeffed.[112]

• Topic bans are not for retaliation and disparagement. WTT has misused that facility. Clearly, he has checked every of my edit just to find a reason to block or any violation of policy. What will happen when he will actually find one? Asked before, he never answered.

Third block : by HJ Mitchell

This block is even more unjustified and non-policy based compared to any previous sanctions. There was no notification/warning before the block.[113] Apparently, HJ Mitchell had one-sided approach, and had already planned to block.[114][115]

Blocking summary links to a closed ANI,[116] that I had closed before.[117] There was not even a single discussion about any issues of that ANI such as Kumioko's ban, reverting on user-talk page, rollback misuse, or anything else. Also note that discussing them was clearly not a violation of any policy. However, HJ Mitchell went to find a reason to block, and per the blocking rationale,[118][119] HJ Mitchell actually conceived that this message concerned Magioladitis, it means HJ Mitchell agreed that Magioladitis was clearly wikihounding me, and was asked not to do,[120] but how come HJ Mitchell blocked me for that?

Many disputes are going for months and years,(examples:[121][122][123]) however, no one got blocked for it, because WP:DROPTHESTICK is an essay, it cannot be used as a blocking rationale and not at least for these newly born issue. WP:DR is the policy, one is allowed to raise issues(especially when it involves misconduct of admin) until the last resort. One can be stopped from raising the issue, only if there is some authorized sanction.(I-Ban, T-Ban, etc.)

Fourth block : by Nakon

Nakon reinstated an overturned block without discussing it anywhere.(WP:WHEEL?) No warning/notification was given prior to the block. Blocking rationale[124] says that I was blocked for making this edit, that concerned a formerly banned editor. Edit had to do nothing with any of the prior blocks. Nakon attempted to impose a wide ranging topic ban from all the "wikipedia:" namespace[125][126] and notified that any edit to this namespace would lead to an indefinite block.

Imposition of a non policy based block and unauthorized topic ban for a non-offensive and rather productive edit is evident. Such actions speaks for themselves.

Adminshopping?

Despite the accusations, there were no "essentially the same issue", WTT had been asked to prove them before, and he has rejected.("I will not be providing you..")[127]

Even if we take his claims into consideration, it is simple to analyse from start.

• Started with this edit, I stated "amazed that I have to admin shop or.." (later others repeated) but that was it. Soon I was topic banned.[128]
• Ended with the removal of topic ban on 16 April.

Now I could discuss on-wiki.[129][130][131][132] I could also address the complaints and background about those who were wikihounding me. But couldn't discuss before, because the information touched T-Ban.

In short words: WTT's topic ban caused this all. If I had done anything different, even a minor violation would've lead to an extended WP:AE block. For avoiding this discomfort from happening, I never agreed to any T-Bans of WTT again.

Incivility

Swarm

• "penchant for throwing temper tantrums"..... "like a mature adult like the rest of us..."[133]
• "editor who's pissed off"[134]

Worm That Turned

• "OccultZone appears to be in full meltdown" [135]
• "upset individual" [136]

Downgrades my activities as "crusades",[137][138] "drama".[139][140][141]

Bgwhite

• "OccultZone is in full meltdown"[142]
• "Stop your lies"[143]
• "this fucking fishing expedition/witch hunt"[144]

Off-wiki contacting

Even though matters were not private, following users weren't T-Banned nor they were wikihounded.

WTT contacted "some people" he "trust".[145]

Nakon contacted Magog The Ogre off-wiki.[146][147]

Unlike me, they never notified on-wiki.

Misrepresentations

There has been huge amount of misrepresentation of edits and actions.

Swarm

• "since at least the summer of last year",[148] oldest diff[149] that he claimed, comes from 5 March 2015.[150]
• "in regards to policy".[151] We cannot see any redirection to any policy in these messages.[152][153]

Worm That Turned

• "editing against consensus"[154] - Never. Heard first time.
• "accusations of sockpuppetry against all your opponents"[155] - No, not all.

• "18 admins",[156] and 1 day ago it was "12 admins".[157]

On this page

• WTT considers these[158][159] on-wiki messages to be any related to him, though they weren't. Claims that I contacted Magioladitis, when it was him[160] who contacted first. Misrepresents this message to be related to the T-Ban, though it came nearly a day after he had removed the TBan. List goes on..

WTT is already wrong about many on-wiki messages, his speculations about off-wiki messages can be considered?

• Miscalculated 18 fixes as 20. I wasn't told to fix them, I did it myself.

• Suggests that "344 times" of edits to talk namespace of these wikiprojects decides the level of activity. I was talking about activity as by referring to those edits that he refers as "bot-editing". And still, noticeboards are for notifying about disputes, discussions are rare. WTT quotes "WikiProject banners should not be used.."[161] and provides no example.

• Misrepresents that I have "reviewed" those few articles, but log shows that I haven't reviewed a lot of these[162][163][164] [165] [166] "East Wing Airlines" or East Wing (Kazakhstan) has existence.

• Claims that I reviewed these articles, I was actually removing "{{{{New unreviewed article|}}" tag,[167][168] here's the backlog. That tag should be removed from reviewed article.

Clicking on "review" sends the article to page curation log, hotspot for those who increases their AfD/Speedydeletion count. Do WTT know that? Out of more than 15,000 patrol(patrol is often html review, not Java) since 9 March 2015, those 2 or 5 is all he got?

• Claims that I use bots. I make different edits in a minute, [169][170][171] bot can only repeat.

Bgwhite

Falsely claims that I have sent harassing emails to Swarm.[172] Swarm rejects this claim.[173]

List is large. We can just read this message.

• "TCKTKtool was later blocked for harassment", blocking summary: "Abusing multiple accounts: Sonic2030".
• Referred 2 wholly different issues[174][175] as "adminshopping":

• "...at JamesBWatson's page."
• "...at Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page. Another admin shopping trip."

• "..clerks (why I pinged DoRD) are sick of.." DoRD had himself accepted the results that these suspects were socks.

Misrepresentation on ARC [176] :

• "Nick blocked him the last time" - Nick never blocked.
• Called Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sonic2030/Archive#21_April_2015 this SPI as "fourth time he accused Resaltador", but Resaltador was blocked 12 days earlier as sock.

HJ Mitchell

• "at least seven" admins,[177] but there were just 4 including him.[178]

Misrepresentation by Mike V

See also: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others/Evidence § Mike V

Here he misleads by writing "to others" while pointing only WTT.[179] He made mass misrepresentation on this SPI, after reading "some of" the evidence, not even half or whole. Misrepresentation includes "its an article", though there were 2.[180][181] He ignored characteristics like same edits, discussions, misrepresentations, "WSJ article", etc. and considered 100% similar timings as "coincidence". He also predicted that "users will also agree", it failed since no one edited until I did after 2 weeks.[182] He ignored large amount of compelling evidence that I posted after his comment.[183] Contrary to an SPI that we handled before.[184][185]

He never addressed those concerns.(full discussion) Previously, he blocked a suspect with no convincing evidence,[186] yet he ignored this clear WP:SOCK violation. Is it because he is "trust"-ed by WTT?[187]

Still they say "file again with new evidence", they don't subjugate SPI, like Mike V unprofessionally did.[188]

Sock puppetry

There has been massive support for WP:SOCK violators that I targeted.

• First block - 4 editors blocked after reverting a sock.[189][190]
• Second block - Concerned reverting a sock[191] and addressing this[192][193][194] IP hopping.
• Third block - Favored Kumioko. That day, Nick,[195] Magioladitis,[196] Bgwhite[197] wikihounded in order to save Kumioko from looking like a ban evader that he actually is.

Floquenbeam indeffed Kumioko,[198] after reading my block. Floquenbeam also rejected unblock requests for Kumioko, including one by Nick.[199] Favionian, upon his return, condemned my block and fair treatment for Kumioko.[200]

• Fourth block - Unclear, though the edit targeted once a banned sock master.

Swarm considered vandalism by sock as non-vandalism.[201]

WTT TBANned me for pointing out socks, and to keep his T-Ban, he discouraged me from sock investigations.[202][203]. He referred this SPI as "crusades".[204] He proposed ban from WP:SPI.[205]

Bgwhite wikihounds[206][207] and misrepresents for a sock.(Special:Contributions/Resaltador Resaltador)[208][209] He even restored WP:COPYVIO for this sock.[210]

Bgwhite and Magioladitis struggled to protect an already proven sock. [211][212]

• Such a mass rejection of WP:SOCK and WP:DENY has only caused problems, it is contrary to what Courcelles,[213][214] Guerillero,[215][216] Dougweller[217] did with the socks I dealt before.

Case filing

After fourth block, I found myself conquered and I contacted Arbcom through email about this all,[218] they told me that to sit out the block then file a case, I asked if things can be done while blocked, they told no, and further use of email should be made only if the matter is private. It was the best advice. My first edit after the block was this case filing.[219] Thanks to Arbcom. Since this case, block and ban spree stopped, I have made over 17,000 edits and I am not blocked. That alone would speak if there was any possibility of blockable conduct, ever.

Evidence presented by Magioladitis

Blocking

OccultZone was blocked by 4 different admins and 1 admin tbanned him temporarily in a case that escalated step-by-step. The first block was by Swarm at 00:29, 23 March 2015 and the 2nd 6 days later by Bgwhite. I got an email from OccultZone with timestamp "Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 12:28 PM". The content was nothing special so I thought just a typical "How are you?" email. I got a second email with timestamp "Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:56 AM" By that time I was not aware of what was about. The email was a single line: "Well I believe that Bgwhite is using a already ended and clarified edit war at IP mostly for his own gain on an article where we are involved.". I got a gtalk invitation and a second email with timestamp "Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:17 AM". We had two gtalk discussions. OccultZone wrote me that "this is 2nd time, that I am having a malformed block in 7 days". I gave OZ some general instructions and my opinion. The discussion ended with me quoting "I am not going to involve further". After that I removed OccultZone from my gtalk contacts to keep me uninvolved. After that OZ removed my name from his page on April 1st [220]

More admins reverted their recent actions. He kept contacting admins.[221].

Bot-style editing

OccultZone had his AWB rights removed in the past. Several editors do mistakes using AWB and this is normal and expected but OccultZone failed to admit his mistakes. OccultZone recently uses AWB to add wikiproject banners to talk pages. There are no signs of him have contacted the wikiprojects before acting. In some cases he introduced obvious, but not fatal, mistakes. OccultZone, apart from AWB, used in large scale other scripts for removing wikilinks from pages without performing full tests. During this ArbCom case, he increased his edit rating, making it difficult for many editors to follow his contributions in other areas.

Adminshopping

The gtalk discussions failed to motivate OccultZone to let go with Zhanzhao and "Rape in India" article. The next day I got an email with timestamp " Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:01 AM" from OZ again: "Can you warn Zhanzhao not to make personal attacks like he did on the last SPI?" And also stop making false accusations of harassment? And if he attempted to disrupt the procedures again, he will be blocked." Since Bgwhite was trying to resolve the problems in "Rape in India" and since OccultZone had interaction with Zhanzhao already monitored by admins, I take the action of personal emails for that matter as WP:ADMINSHOP.

OccultZone gave a huge effort to get unblocked before blocks expire and kept dragging admins to check his blocks. All unblocks were in good faith but none doubted the reason the block was given. OccultZone realised every unblock as a sign that each block was unwarranted. OccultZone failed to realise that the blocks and the topic ban where about.

Recently OccultZone admitted the adminshopping. [222].

Assuming bad faith

In many cases OccultZone assumed bad faith. Instead of discussing with admins to resolve situations, OccultZone prefers to remove their comments. For example: [223].

Disrupting editing caused escalation

Disrupting editing caused escalation.

Anonymous IPs

The most concerning thing is that OccultZone, as he did Zhanzhao, directly accuses editors or anonymous IPs for being sock-puppets (recent example is [224]. Sonic2030 is a know puppet master but no connection to Marlin1975 was ever reported or found as far as I know). This may lead in unwanted results for Wikipedia. Sock-puppet accusations should be done in a very careful way.

Evidence presented by Mike V

Misrepresentation by OccultZone

While much of my concerns have already been raised here, I can add confirmation that OccultZone appears to be misrepresenting my discussions with him to others. On April 7 I was contacted by Worm That Turned, informing me that OccultZone has asked him to be allowed some leeway in filing an additional SPI against Zhanzhao. OccultZone mentioned that I while stated the technical evidence wasn't present, I felt the behavioral evidence was convincing. This is not correct. In my discussions with OccutZone on April 4 via IRC, I clearly informed him that I was not convinced with either the technical or behavioral evidence presented. (A copy of the IRC log will be sent to ArbCom privately.) I also reaffirmed my position on-wiki (1, 2) and encouraged OccultZone to cease creating SPI cases against Zhanzhao.

Response to OccultZone

OccultZone, I believe that you are further misconstruing my actions in your recent addendum. The Rationalobserver sockpuppetry case did have evidence. If you open the green collapse tab, you can find it there. In regards to the Bargolus/Zhanzhao SPI case, I read what you presented in full, however, I only responded to portions of it. I felt the rebuttal I provided was more than sufficient to dispute the claims of sockpuppetry. I didn't believe it was necessary to refute what you had presented line by line, diff by diff. I don't appreciate how you are insinuating that WTT and I engaged in some form of misconduct. It is unfounded and speculative. I don't believe the manner in which I have acted was unprofessional nor through subjugation. (You have not presented evidence that would support these claims, either.) The misrepresentation section you've added comes across as a tit-for-tat response to the evidence I've provided above and is not permitted per the introduction section on this page.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.