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 arbitrator's 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)

@GorillaWarfare: Thank you very much, I had filed the SPI, and it had been resolved.[4]

Now, I suspect sock puppetry on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_others/Workshop. Obviously I have got some evidence. What really stopped me from SPI, it is that I have been told here, not to approach towards any matter raised in this case, and even posting a link to this case outside this namespace is likely going to be a violation. What can I do? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been monitoring the workshop page and haven't seen any evidence of socking there. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's see, once I am allowed to post anything here or outside this namespace in relation to socking, I would definitely invite you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Are the contributions you rely on as "evidence" only made after the evidence page was closed? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm.. I was saying that I suspect sock puppetry at workshop. It means one person is operating multiple accounts over there in violation of multiple accounts policy. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I caution you to not say "sock puppetry is on-going at the workshop" while there is no evidence for that assessment. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I formally note that OccultZone refactored his above reply following the warning; I make this note to ensure it will not later look like DoRD's warning misrepresented what was actually said at 17:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC) by OccultZone. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I had to mention that evidence is yet to be provided. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Any arbitrator there? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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.
— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_others#OccultZone_temporarily_restricted

OccultZone, your restriction doesn't apply to the presentation of evidence of sockpuppetry here or at SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hope that is true. I think I should simply post here.

I believe that Zeke Essiestudy (talk · contribs) and Esquivalience (talk · contribs) are same person. I never interacted them, how they are on this ARC? Even though we have got a few like you, Bgwhite, and some others who have suggested that this ARC was their first arbitration case participation. Their proposals are same, no one said that I am gaming the system, but he said it,[5] maybe because I said that to Zeke.[6] Last edit of Zeke is from 18 May,[7] to ARC, and the first edit of Esquivalience after like 2 days was [8] made on ARC.

More similarities. re-edited at 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Similar proposals on OccultZone and others/Workshop, such as their relation with SPIs/socks [9][10], [11][12] or related to admin contacting,[13][14] or long term block proposals.[15][16] None of which could be found on other's proposals at that time.[17] Same AfD and vote.[18] "Part of wikipedia adventure" feature on userpage. [19][20] Collection of warnings on a separate userpage.[21][22][23] Same block template collection.[24][25] Goes back to italicize particular word/s[26][27] "Oops"[28][29][30][31][32] Their common.js includes multiple scripts and one script from writ keeper.[33][34] Quotes on userpage with sections.[35][36] Odd warning templates.[37][38] Both aware of Vamsiraj SPI,[39][40] even though Essiestudy had no actual involvement. "Sandbox2".[41][42] Use of word "loop" in summaries.[43][44][45] Interest in adoption activities.[46][47] forgets to sign,[48][49][50][51][52] ...(ellipsis),[53][54][55][56] "fix" often start with capital f,[57][58] similar tagging,[59][60][61][62] COI warnings,[63][64] translation request.[65][66] Uncommon use of semicolon and bracket.[67][68] "TWA/Earth/2".[69][70] "TWA/Earth".[71][72] Humor AfD.[73][74][75]

OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus:, @Salvio giuliano:, can we get this resolved? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

From a very cursory look, I don't really see anything proving the two accounts are operated by the same person, but, again, I didn't look at the evidence thoroughly. That said, in my opinion, opening an SPI would not be a violation of your restriction. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is an uncommon request, but I think the SPI case (against two commenters of the ArbCom case and created by the main party) should probably be evaluted by an ArbCom member (who all have CU tools), both for the claims of sockpuppetry and for the counter-claims of misconduct per OZ, because it might directly impact the proceedings here. Of the current ArbCom members, a few were already CUs experienced with processing SPIs (and a few have continued after their election), so I'm hoping this request is not too extraordinary. Thanks in advance! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  Reaper Eternal has deleted the SPI as "ridiculous", so I will leave y'all to determine whether you want to read it anyways to see if there's anything relevant for the case. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not getting what Reaper Eternal actually meant from that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I just had a discussion with Reaper Eternal, and he don't seem to be suggesting any actual reason behind the deletion except his own view that he view them to be different and that he is "rogue admin".[76] Doesn't rule out the vast amount of similarities that are found between these 2 accounts that never had any prior interaction with me, before this case. One account is 6 months old, while other is not even 2 months old. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

So, your judgement regarding sockpuppetry is superior to that of a very experienced former SPI clerk and current checkuser? This seems to be a recurring theme. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

We have seen similar incidents before as well and you know it. Especially when I was investigating Resaltador. Like I said, there are just too many similarities to ignore, now I just found. Not to mention the similar writing style (italic & bold at same time), pinging Salvidrim! while discussing same ANI, and much more that had been also mentioned on the SPI. It is of course possible that Reaper Eternal must have missed something. What actually made these 2 new accounts to come over at the workshop and post similar proposals, a namespace where you, Magioladitis and Bgwhite participated for the first time? Then which non-admin user would collect similar warning templates on a separate userpage? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think, at this stage, we should just make OccultZone a checkuser, an oversighter, a steward, might as well throw in the founder right too and co-opt him onto the Arbitration Committee and the WMF Board, because he's got a Papal level of infallibility. I don't honestly know how the project survived before the arrival of the man who is never wrong. Nick (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

While none of these accounts had any prior interaction with probably any of us, they had prior interaction with Reaper Eternal.[77][78][79] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 20:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

...which is totally normal for a checkuser to have interaction with editors involved in SPI... PS This marks a terrible record: OccultZone tried to restrict me from participating in the ArbCom and accused two other uninvolved parties as sockpuppets. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Salvidrim!. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)