From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page ( Talk) — Evidence ( Talk) — Workshop ( Talk) — Proposed decision ( Talk)

Case clerk: Lankiveil ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Courcelles ( Talk) & Guerillero ( Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 8
1–2 7
3–4 6

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) reply
  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) reply
  3. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  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) reply
  5. Neutral on the "Wikipedia email" vs "email" wording - I'll support either way. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. Euryalus ( talk) 09:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7.   Roger Davies talk 10:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. "any other off-wiki method" catches the distinction between wikipedia email and just email-- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. Dougweller ( talk) 17:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply
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) reply

Proposed final decision Information

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:
  1. Courcelles ( talk) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. Euryalus ( talk) 02:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. L Faraone 03:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  12. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
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:
  1. Courcelles ( talk) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. Euryalus ( talk) 02:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. L Faraone 03:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  12. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
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:
  1. Courcelles ( talk) 02:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. Euryalus ( talk) 02:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. L Faraone 03:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. Support, although to be fair, I'm not sure this is entirely relevant to the findings and remedies that have been proposed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  12. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
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:
  1. Courcelles ( talk) 02:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. When unreasonably done. -- Euryalus ( talk) 02:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. L Faraone 03:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. (as Euryalus said, only when unreasonably done) DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. As per Euryalus, there may be times when moving an issue's discussion is reasonable, but repeatedly raising the same issue all over the place is disruptive. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  12. Per Euryalus and Seraphimblade. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
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:
  1. Courcelles ( talk) 02:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    Euryalus ( talk) 02:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. L Faraone 03:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. While I understand DGG's point and am willing to give some latitude due to stress, it is not unlimited. I hope it is not unrealistic to expect people to adhere to what is really a very minimal standard of decent behavior. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. Per Seraphimblade. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. As a principle I'm happy to support this, as this is the standard that should be aimed for. Where the line is drawn in terms of what specific behaviour is or is not disruptive can (and should) take into account stress and other factors. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I am prepared to tolerate a considerable degree of latitude here; we are able to deal with it better than other venues. I'm not comfortable with judging general behavior based on the behavior exhibited in particularly high-stress situations. A principle of some sort is needed, primarily to protect other parties, but I think the current version is unrealistic. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. DGG makes a fair point. Moving from support. -- Euryalus ( talk) 04:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
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:
  1. Courcelles ( talk) 02:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. Euryalus ( talk) 02:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. L Faraone 03:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. Common sense ought to prevail. It may not always, but no reason for it to not be applied. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  12. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
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 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:
  1. Courcelles ( talk) 02:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. Euryalus ( talk) 02:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. L Faraone 03:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  12. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Sockpuppetry

8) The general rule is one editor, one account, though there are 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:
  1. Last line is modified from the Privatemusings case. Courcelles ( talk) 02:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. Euryalus ( talk) 02:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. L Faraone 03:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  12. I can see a potential need for a very small number of narrow exceptions to the last sentence, and in those cases the account owner would still need to declare them to the committee. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
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:
  1. Courcelles ( talk) 02:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. Euryalus ( talk) 02:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. L Faraone 03:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  12. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
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:
  1. Courcelles ( talk) 02:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. Euryalus ( talk) 02:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. L Faraone 03:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  12. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

OccultZone: Edit warring

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

Support:
  1. Courcelles ( talk) 02:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. L Faraone 03:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. Euryalus ( talk) 01:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Was the second block due to edit warring at this article? "Diannaa" unblocked with the summary "the edit warring had already stopped three hours prior to the block," which would have been at 18:06 on 29 March 2015, but the nearest edit was the edit to Talk:Rape in India at 14:32 on that day. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
@ GorillaWarfare and Courcelles: It wasn't. I've modified to correct the error and also made ambiguous statements more consise. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks DQ for doing that. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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:
  1. Courcelles ( talk) 02:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. L Faraone 03:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. Agree enough, but there is limited exculpatory value. What follows isn't too dependent. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Here for now. Zhanzao's "brother did it" explanation has limited exculpatory value. But OZ's refusal to drop the stick is unfortunate. -- Euryalus ( talk) 11:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
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]), to 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] There were additional sockpuppets found after the proposed decision was posted, and are not listed in this decision.

Support:
  1. Courcelles ( talk) 02:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. Euryalus ( talk) 02:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. L Faraone 03:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. The sockpuppetry has been egregious and extensive, even beyond what exists in this remedy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  12. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Note that the checkuser evidence is available for review on the arbwiki. Courcelles ( talk) 02:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I CU confirmed another account. Username and other details are in the "‎Sockpuppetry by OZ" section on the talk page. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Courcelles: Would it not be prudent to note (not list) that there were also additional socks (quite a list of them actually), and just list Delibzr here? As I see it, Delibzr account actions help build up the case, but Hajme doesn't. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
After a brief discussion with Courcelles, I see that the perspective is to show the extent of the sockpuppetry here, not to just show that it's been done. I've also added a note about additional accounts, play with the wording as you wish. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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:
  1. Courcelles ( talk) 02:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. L Faraone 03:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. Euryalus ( talk) 04:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  12. This seems as good a place as any to thank Worm That Turned for the quality of his evidence. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
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:
  1. Just to enter into the record. It has not been violated, as far as I am aware. Courcelles ( talk) 02:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. L Faraone 03:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Doug Weller ( talk) 10:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. Valid as a notification. Also not aware of any breaches. -- Euryalus ( talk) 11:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. Worth noting that this had to happen, although agreed with Courcelles and Euryalus that (to my knowledge) this has not been violated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. Yup. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  12. I'm also not aware of any breaches of the restriction as passed, but I believe there was one occasion where the spirit of the restriction was put under strain. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
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:
  1. I think this is the only thing that will work, especially given the extensive socking to influence consensus inappropriately. Courcelles ( talk) 02:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. The remedies that would be needed to tackle this problem would be so complex — the things below and some — that a ban is the only option -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. L Faraone 03:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. The sockpuppetry was so beyond the realm of what is acceptable behavior that this is completely necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. If our sockpuppettry policy is to be meaningful, this is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. Sockpuppet finding alone is sufficient. -- Euryalus ( talk) 03:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. Yes, that was the final straw. Doug Weller ( talk) 11:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. Sadly ironic given the insistence of socking by others. OZ's own socking is well past the point of a site ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. The level of sockpuppetry alone puts me here. Otherwise I may see different. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. Unfortunately socking pushes me to this. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  12. Without the sockpuppetry I probably wouldn't be supporting this. With, I have no choice. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
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:
  1. Note that Remedies 2, 3, and 4 are explicitly not alternates, and they would continue when and if the ban was lifted (if it passes). Courcelles ( talk) 02:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. As an after the ban is lifted restriction -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. L Faraone 03:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Support, including with Courcelles' clarification. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. as explained by Courcelles DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. Concurrently with 1, to be implemented should OZ return from the site ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. Weak support as I think a revert/comment restriction would be more effective here for a return. But then again, this can be looked at upon successful appeal. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Mild oppose per my comments on Remedy 3) below. Issues with these topics are a symptom of wider disruptive conduct, so a restriction here seems too specific. There also wasn't much on these articles in /Evidence or /Workshop phases, except as a backdrop to other allegations like stick-holding and general disruptive conduct. So, mild oppose as I'm not convinced of any specific inability to neutrally edit these articles compared to any others. As below I would revisit this oppose if the site ban doesn't pass. -- Euryalus ( talk) 04:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. Per Euryalus, I don't see OZ's behaviour as stemming from an inability to think rationally about any given topic area; rather his behaviour in this topic area is a symptom of more general issues, making a restriction like this rather pointless. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
Comments:

OccultZone: Sockpuppetry allegations

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

Support:
  1. Per above. Courcelles ( talk) 02:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. As an after the ban is lifted restriction -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. Noting that this (quite reasonably) allows no exceptions. L Faraone 03:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose:
  1. Mildly against this. The issue is disruptive conduct, of which the sockpuppet allegations are only a symptom. A post-ban remedy requiring no more disruptive conduct would be more directly related to the conduct in question in this case. But it is also a given in any successful ban appeal. Worth also noting that while some of OZ's recent sockpuppet allegations were unwise, they have not always been without foundation; and preventing someone from lodging future valid SPI's because they've lodged past invalid ones as part of a pattern of wider disruption, seems unnecessary. So oppose for now, but will revisit if the site ban does not pass. -- Euryalus ( talk) 03:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. Too narrow, and I think this might serve to seem to legitimize OZ's admin and forum shopping for other issues. Any such restriction would need to be a lot broader to cover those issues. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. Per Euryalus, both because some of them have been genuine, and because it is too narrow to meet the possibilities. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. I don't like fully restricting anyone from filing SPIs or making sockpuppet allegations. I get where this comes from though. I could support some sort of restriction that limits the number of words in an SPI, sticking to the point, etc. I also disagree with Euryalus et. al. that this is too narrow. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. I'm with DQ on this. 'Doug Weller 10:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  6. Per Seraphim. I'm not that bothered by this specific restriciton (although its application ought be rare if we do adopt it.) Probably unintended consequences of applying it here, and it doesn't address the other forum shopping tendencies. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. I agree that this would lead to the forum-shopping issues others are concerned about. What might would would be a limitation inspired by decision review systems in sports like cricket, whereby OZ was limited to exactly one concurrent allegation of sockpuppetry across all venues, up to a maximum of 2 allegations in any calendar month, and a maximum of one incorrect allegation against any one editor. Details would need to be worked out, but I'd want to consider something like this for any future return to editing. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Abstain:
  1. I'm on the fence here. I feel like this would only encourage OccultZone to contact others offwiki or to make innuendos onwiki. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments:
Are my fellow Arbs open to hearing an alternative form of this? If so I could draft it up, but if there is no want for it, might as well just leave it for the ban appeal. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Eh, the 2016 Arbcom can debate this when it comes up. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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:
  1. Courcelles ( talk) 02:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. Euryalus ( talk) 02:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. As an after the ban is lifted restriction -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. L Faraone 03:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. Completely necessary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. Doug Weller 11:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  9. Again to be implemented upon any return to editing, provided the site ban passes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  10. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  11. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  12. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
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:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

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 Courcelles ( talk) 16:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 12:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC) by WOSlinkerBot. reply

Proposals with voting still underway (no majority)
None
Proposals which have passed
Principles: All
Findings: All
Remedies: 1, 2, 4
{Passing enforcement provisions}
Proposals which cannot pass
Remedies: 3

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
  1. In every substantive way, we're done. Courcelles ( talk) 23:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  2. L Faraone 04:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    Closing time, but when there's a free moment can a clerk please add the implementation notes for the record. -- Euryalus ( talk) 06:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)As pointed out on the talkpage, remedy 3 is still up for debate. Paging Roger Davies, Thryduulf or AGK, if you have views on this one remaining option. -- Euryalus ( talk) 06:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  4. NativeForeigner Talk 07:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  5. Doug Weller ( talk) 11:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  6. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  7. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  8. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  9. As I've opposed remedy 3, I believe it cannot now pass and so this can be closed. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_others/Proposed_decision&oldid=1087269655"