Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For the former contest, see Wikipedia:Article rescue contest.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Review of admin actions		23 April 2015	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Review of admin actions

Initiated by OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) at 08:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• 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)
• Nakon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Swarm
• Bgwhite
• Worm That Turned
• HJ Mitchell
• Nakon

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

Statement by OccultZone

I think I have done a mistake by not addressing the problems when they started to appear. I thought of letting it go and concentrate elsewhere, but now it has become necessary to address each incident where the abuse of admin tools has been involved.

We can know the background. One minute before my first block on 23 March 2015, I had over 186,000 edits, there was no prior warning or notice for edit warring, incivility, copyvio, and other offenses since the day I had joined en.wiki.

• Let us have a quick look at the major admin actions.
  • Swarm had blocked me for 72 hours, for making 1 revert in 5 days. He had blocked 3 more editors for making 1-2 reverts in last 3 days, even after accepting that everyone was reverting an obvious sock.[1] It was so quick, that he even went back to change the block settings, systematically it counts 2 blocks.[2] 3 blocks including mine were overturned.

UTP before the block.[3]

• Bgwhite had blocked for 24 hours, for having a finally stale edit war on IP sock talk page, with 100% guarantee that no revert is going to take place.(diff) Bgwhite was WP:INVOLVED,[4][5][6] who also protected article where he was involved, not just once but twice,[7][8] after reverting to his version[9][10] and misrepresented the edits as "vandalism", though they were not.[11] All that happened in 16 hours.(discussion) Block was overturned by Diannaa.

UTP prior to the block.[12]

• Worm That Turned had topic banned me from the subject where WP:ABAN could be the choice, however, there was not even a single disruptive edit from me. Upon numerous examinations and evaluation of every edit, T-BAN was removed. (discussion)
• HJ Mitchell blocked me 72 hours for "not dropping stick". While WP:STICK is a different essay, WP:DR is the policy. Even that essay is failing to justify the reason since there was no trace that I was pursuing the previous matter at all. Neither anyone had reported. Block was overturned by Magog the Ogre.

UTP prior to the block.[13]

• Nakon reinstated previous block without any discussion, thus engaging in wheel warring. Block was made[14] for making this edit, though it was never discussed or pointed ever before, reinstatement had to do nothing with any prior blocks.

UTP before.[15]

Clearly, all of these actions contravene the policy, they are non-policy based. Not even a single discussion was made before blocking for the given rationale, none of the block bears any resemblance to previous block per their rationale. Upon close analysis, I question if I even deserved a 'warning', blocking was just far.

After Nakon's block, Worm That Turned started to discuss his proposal to topic ban me from all administrator boards and requesting admin actions.[16] I asked WTT to supply diffs of the behaviour that would be applicable for a topic ban, and he never provided any.[17] Furthermore WTT has told that "needful is to up your block to "indefinite" for escalating the situation again. I'm very tempted to".[18]

Not only I have remembered, but I have also found that such objectionable actions, undertaken by the named parties are not limited with what I have mentioned above. More can be found elsewhere, and they vary from wikihounding, incivility, false accusations, misrepresentation of diffs, blocks, protections, etc.

Yes I have always adhered to the WP:FIVE pillars of en.wiki. I can be convicenced otherwise if I hadn't. Had someone asked me only once? I would do what they wanted and especially after having such a history, it was obvious that I was always capable of handling any of the matters. Question arises, why they never tried any alternative measures? Or they didn't tried because there was no justifiable reason for their admin actions at first? We will see. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Worm: It is a requirement to ask an oversighter first, if they cannot, then one can go for Arbcom, I had contacted them for oversighting the block right away and they said no because summary was not truly libelous and they said that they see how and why you were blocked, they disregard "unwarranted" blocks. Nonetheless, I knew that this block is going to make sound.

Furthermore, you talk about "18 admins/checkusers" without diffs? Hardly a day ago, weren't they "12"[19] according to you and you had refused to prove it? That's the point. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Lower than what you have estimated. Issues were different, they were not resembling each other. Given the circumstances, such as wikihounding, diff misrepresentation, etc. that is still going on to this day, sometimes it was essential to use the email feature. As long as they handled it well, the matter was closed. Emailing has to do nothing with you topic banning me accross wide amount of namespaces without even citing a single diff that would explicit disruption, and having any formal procedures. Since you had nominated Swarm for adminship, it is looks easier to conceive that you are the only one to regard his block for 1 revert in 5 days as legitimate. Furthermore, for proving that block to be any appropriate you would regard every other as the same, including the topic ban that you had imposed for giving "time away". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Not only Swarm and Bgwhite has. But everyone else who I have mentioned as the party.

I think it could've been easier if I had mentioned the name of every admin along with their action, I have now mentioned all of that in my above original post. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• It is worthwhile to mention that Nick's attitutde towards me has been clearly changed only since I had requested to increase the block length of Kumiuko,diff because he is still evading his block. He was recently indeffed by Floquenbeam, Nick had requested unblock for Kumioko.(discussion) I hope he would present diffs for his claims. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Worm That Turned

OccultZone appears to be in full meltdown and has been for a month or so. I honestly believe the best thing for him would be to take a break from the encyclopedia until such time that he can return to his standard gnoming work. I've suggested a three month break from drama, but unfortunately he's chosen this path. I would recommend a declining this case.

For the record - OccultZone has spent a lot of time off-wiki adminshopping over the period - there are 18 admins/checkusers that I am aware of at the moment who have been brought in, largely contacted off-wiki. I myself was contacted by OccultZone with a request to oversight his first block.

Don't get me wrong, there have been failings - but none that rise to the level of an arbcom case. Worm^TT(talk) 09:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

On the accusations

• It was not wheel warring. OccultZone was blocked for "not dropping the stick". He agreed to drop the stick and Magog unblocked him, telling him to stop future crusades. OccultZone made 3 further edits relating to previous "crusades". Nakon reblocked him as Magog was unresponsive. That's not wheel warring, it was restoring a previous block as the unblock conditions were not adhered to.
• Swarm's block, whilst not the optimal solution, was not inappropriate - there was a slow motion edit war at "Rape in India", Swarm blocked all participants. I would have recommended page protection, but blocking is also an acceptable solution.
• Bgwhite's block - Bgwhite was not "involved" at this point, he was acting a neutral admin who was trying to find a solution. Note that every participant, including OccultZone, said his solution was good. Bgwhite went on to block OccultZone for going over 7RR at an IP talk page. There is a legitimate gripe with Bgwhite's subsequent actions, which I did raise with him unsuccessfully.
• My topic ban was within discretionary sanctions - I felt that OccultZone needed time away from that article, as he was accusing pretty much every opposing editor of being a sockpuppet.

Throughout, OccultZone has focussed on exact processes not being followed, for example "not being warned" despite him being well aware of policies. He's made false statements (primarily via email, which I will provide to the committee if a case is accepted) and has a definite case of selective hearing. Worm^TT(talk) 09:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll ask you directly OccultZone - How many admins have you consulted privately regarding any of the allegations above? How many have you contacted directly on Wiki? Worm^TT(talk) 10:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nick

I concur entirely with Worm That Turned. There are a number of administrators who have invested a great deal of time and effort trying to help OccultZone and keep him out of trouble. His behaviour has deteriorated quite significantly over the past couple of months and is now of great concern.

If I'm being honest, right now, it feels a bit like trying to stop your drunk mate from having a fight in a pub only for him to turn on you and punch you on the nose. OccultZone has been editing himself into a community ban and concerned administrators, of which I consider myself one, have tried our absolute damnedest to stop that from happening. When we have done that, my fellow administrators have been accused of misusing the tools.

There has been absolutely no misuse of any administrative tools through any of the process. OccultZone has been disruptive, engaged in unsuitable and inappropriate behaviour, made unsubstantiated and frankly preposterous claims alleging abuses of administrative tools and accordingly has been blocked absolutely in accordance with the rules. I'd contend he has been given very lenient blocks in relation to the behaviour shown and disruption caused. The relevant evidence can conveniently be found from [20] onwards (individual diffs would approach three figures).

I would recommend declining the case. I recommend a 12 week block of OccultZone if/when the decline of the case is formalised. Nick (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Non-party: AmritasyaPutra

OZ had 180k edits with zero blocks; his statement does raise concern. It is best that they are reviewed and either concluded as bogus and the block that the other party suggest enforced. It would be bad for the community if the suggested block is made without the formal review. It is a protracted issue and if OZ is completely wrong it is all the more reason to clear the involved admins formally. It has left a bad taste for many editors and taking an action without the review would be deterrent to community spirit. I do think it escalated because of the hasty first block which hurt OZ's pride which could have been dealt with in a better manner. if Bgwhite can feel so hurt (on his talk page) and misinterpret for himself the sincere and clear comment made by WormThatTurned then how humane was it to act similarly in a much worse way to OZ? The actions were not all policy based and for some the admins do need to be cautioned in my opinion. This has reached a level that only arbcom can consider it (because of the profile of involved party; where else can admins' and bureaucrats' behavior be discussed after these lengthy fights and admins inclined to indef reporter). If it is not dealt with it will only worsen even in case of OZ being indef`ed; a lot of his friends and new editors like me will consider it an act of wasting a good editor in haste. Dealing it here can only be good for all. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse as I consider myself somewhat a friend of OccultZone. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 12:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Review of admin actions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• I'm going to await the statements of the other involved parties before passing judgement on this, but I'm not presently leaning towards acceptance. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• @OccultZone: for clarification is the case request seeking a decision that Swarm and Bgwhite have misused admin tools? -- Euryalus (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)