Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone_and_others/Proposed_decision References

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

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

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

Enough back-and-forth. Any more discussion will be hatted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

@ 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) reply

@ 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Go ahead. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

If you think there is a sockpuppetry issue, SPI is the best place to go. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply

@ 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) reply

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

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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

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

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) reply

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) reply

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

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) reply

I will not be restoring the SPI for you to take the allegations to another venue. I strongly suggest that in the future, you take socking allegations pertaining to parties of this case directly to the arbs via a single email to our mailing list. Per your temporary injunction, please do not ask for an individual admin, who isn't Reaper Eternal, to review this deletion. If you wish to appeal this deletion further you may go to Deletion review or email the arbs a single time about this issue via our mailing list. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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) reply
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) reply

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

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

...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) reply

Not all links include involvement from SPI, it also include one from a user talkpage. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Previously, Zeke Essiestudy had apparently applauded Reaper Eternal. [80] Those interactions alone clears up a lot, that why Reaper went to delete a page concerning a WP:DUCK case, that falls under no deletion criteria, even though the suspect was already like "why you are asking for CU", "where sockpuppetry was violated", just like many other cases where suspect find himself caught. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC) reply

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

@ Guerillero: From where I can ask a copy of the SPI? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Can you provide a compelling reason for it to be undeleted? -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Guerillero: I had asked for a copy(to sandbox) because a writing styles from that conversation seems to be replicating other conversations that I have just read. Deletion was out of process, page met no deletion criteria, it necessary to meet one for deletion. That's why even the very frivolous ones [81] [82] are kept, although this one has strong evidence of sock puppetry, massive amount of similarities and the suspect was already reacting like he has been caught. Along with that, both have 100% same timings. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply

(reposting my message on User talk:Reaper Eternal) The fact that my "alleged sockpuppet" and I had a "second sandbox", used the COI template, used

{{
cot}}

, had user-created warnings that are not even similar, used

{{
ping}}

, casted a WP:ADMASQ AfD !vote while my "sockpuppet" casted a G11 vote, cited the same incident archive, avoided the sea of blue, used semicolons, capitalized "f" in Fix, used "oops", and were interested in ANI, had quotes on both user's userpage, used the word "loop" (I used "template loop" and Zeke used "redirect loop"), forgets to sign (can't get more ludicrous), knew about WP:FOOLS, used italicization, and the most frivolous of all: both participated in the Wikipedia Adventure, were the main premise of the vexatious SPI. Also see this, where OccultZone requested a "e-mail" of the deleted SPI, for failing to adhere to WP:LISTEN. Esquivalience ^t 02:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply

When you said "driving away editors" in the sense said that you are being drove away, such statement would make sense only if you saying that every allegation is correct. Yes every of those similarities are way too much especially when we are talking about very new accounts no one knows, except Reaper Eternal, who deleted the SPI in violation of deletion policy. If you are not a sock, then you don't even have to bother copypasting same message on multiple namespaces. I never said that you both used

{{
ping}}

, that's another similarity that you have revealed now. I had said you both pinged

{{
U|Salvidrim!}}

(same template). Why you both have interest in same badge collection, [83] [84] "RPM according to K6ka", [85] [86] file-related edits to templates, [87] [88] etc.? That's too much for new accounts having same interest everywhere else. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply

It's called a template. "Oh look, I am therefore accusing most admins of sockpuppetry because they use

{{
User admin}}

! I am going to report every contributor that has added a citation, because they're all using CS1 templates, and that's a WP:DUCK case of sockpuppetry!" No. If you really cite file-related template edits as sockpuppetry, then you should report every file contributor because they have modified an image. Also, the Wikipedia Adventure places those badges for you! So are you going to report everyone who participated in the Wikipedia Adventure? And are you going to report everyone who has pinged Salvidrim! before, even in different contexts? Esquivalience ^t 03:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Context was same, and it was to notify him and make him argue. If all other similarities are met, then of course, although here we are talking about only you and Zeke Essiestudy who hasn't contributed since you got back to your account after a couple of days. I have told you before too if you are not a sock, then just relax and ignore, if you continue repeating unhelpful lines over and over, you are only raising more suspicion. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I will not succumb to a chilling effect. I must point out the bad faith, and the absolutely frivolous and disruptive conduct in your SPI against me. Don't try to prevent legitimate conveying of evidence. Esquivalience ^t 03:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Proposed decision

In what sense you think that this is edit warring? There are a few reversion of some edits that were not reasonable. We've already reviewed every edit. This may occur on any page that is being actively edited, especially by socks of Nangbarpat, Sonic2030, Zhanzhao, etc. Can you please think of the circumstances? I was not alone to revert them, there were 4 editors or more, that means I was on going per the consensus.

Accepting not to be wrong in trivial matters is actually a violation of some policy? [89] [90] I was not arguing against any policy or standards. Also if I had to sock, I would've clearly used accounts on ARC or the articles where I have dispute, and I have never done that.

Do you actually consider this [91] as a repetitive SPI? Later on, the article in question was protected from socks, [92] and one of the sock was blocked for block evasion by a CU. [93] If I had heard them and ignored the striking similarities, would we be having 3 socks blocked? [94] Also all suspects(excluding the master) of this SPI are indeffed. I agree that it can be vexatious, but so much was caused after the mishandling of the SPIs that should've never taken place. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

" The first two blocks stemmed from OccultZone's edit warring on Rape in India." 2nd block was not because of edit warring on Rape in India, it was because of edit warring on IP's talk page. [95] OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I also disagree with the proposed topic ban. There is clearly not even a single disruptive edit from me, on this whole subject. Although I had many DYKs related to the subject. [96] [97] [98] There is only one article in question, where my edits as well as majority of other editors were supporting the consensus, it was only because of the sock evasion that the environment seemed troubling and it was temporary, unseen for nearly 2 months now. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Sockpuppetry by OZ

In my opinion as an admin and SPI clerk, this diff would be sufficient to block the accounts for violations of our sockpuppetry policy. However, since this is an arbitration matter that is heading towards closure, I will not block any of the accounts right now so as to avoid short-circuiting any arbitration action the committee decides upon. If OZ is not banned by a committee decision, could he still be blocked as an administrative (not arbitration) decision for violations unearthed during the arbitration case that precede said case (such as the socking in FoF#5)? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

let's cross that bridge when we get there. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Guerillero, at an ANI discussion to review Occult Zone's block, four fairly new accounts joined in. You already identified Delibzr and Hajme as socks. There other two were SamuelDay1 and Trout71. It appears DoRD already blocked Trout71 as a sock of somebody that doesn't appear to be OccultZone (not entirely sure). Was SamuelDay1 checked for being a sock? Bgwhite ( talk) 04:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Trout is

Unrelated and Samuel is

Likely -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

And that's all. Have you checked those two? Esquivalience and Zeke Essiestudy. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

No. their interaction matrix and behavioral patterns do not line up. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 07:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Behavioral evidence is by far very strong enough for a checkuser. Not to mention the same timings, userpages, notifications, comments, interests, pattern of reporting about my 'restriction violation', of course there are separate boards for every type of report. What I am missing here? Other than I am the one who is reporting about it. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) No it isn't. The diffs that you posted above and at the SPI show nothing interesting because each account's editing topics and activities show that they have very different interests. Any more drilling then that feels creepy and, quite frankly, I would rather not explain to you how to sock after I CU confirmed three accounts to yours. The similarities that you are trying to show are so general that several arbs, including myself, fall into your net. The fact that they both have a different viewpoint than you on your ability to be a constructive member of this project does not make them socks. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 07:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

But many diffs such as [99] [100], [101] [102] shows that they have similar interests. There's much more than the SPI that you have seen regarding these new accounts. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

That shows nothing; those show a pastime that is enjoyed by many Wikipedians and an an automated program to help new users learn our policies. Please stop making these allegations. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

So you are trying to prove that they can be different? ( Personal attack removed) OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Personal attack removed, see this diff Esquivalience ^t 03:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Honestly? OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

After that, I honestly don't think that it is worth using any more of my spoons talking to you. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Only warning to OccultZone: I will revert any further disruption here. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 09:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Please leave that to the clerks and arbs -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm stunned that OccultZone should have been socking himself whilst reporting other users for abusing multiple accounts, and I'm absolutely shocked that when this evidence has been presented, he hasn't uttered a single word of an apology for his behaviour, but instead has continued, yet again, to pursue the SPI case against Esquivalience and Zeke Essiestudy. Nick ( talk) 10:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually you are correct. Before it is too late and I am no more able to post here, I must apologize for all that. Whether I return or not, that's not fixed, but yes, I can say that I accepted what I was responsible for. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

It's already too late for apologies. BMK ( talk) 01:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Your apology was made in bad faith. The rope has already been cremated: no amount of apologies can ever excuse your egregious behavior. Esquivalience ^t 02:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Now that was totally unnecessary and meaningless. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

@ OccultZone: I'm highly astonished at the egregious deception that you have bestowed at the Wikipedia community at large. You have made so many allegations of sockpuppetry, accusing uninvolved editors of sockpuppetry, however you commit sockpuppetry yourself? Until you saw the proposed decision, you have not even acknowledged that your actions had even the slightest degree of disruption. Esquivalience ^t 20:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

We all have got eyes, right? No doubt that they would try to subjugate every attempt of mine that would turn the tables around, and even misrepresent stuff, such as the reason behind 2nd block. Along with that, this is the only ARC that has used essays as equivalent to the policies. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

If you are truly sorry for your actions, then you would just accept the decision as equitable as-is. Socking is one of the most deceitful actions on Wikipedia, and serious disruption is combated with a serious sanction. Esquivalience ^t 02:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Have they checked any other involved editor, if they ever socked? They haven't and that's the point. Reason was simply created in order to subjugate every other matter, which is totally apparent. I agree with the rest, but such a approach to combat disruption with sanction is just too rare and limited now. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Pro tip: When you find yourself at the bottom of a hole, stop digging. — DoRD ( talk) 03:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

We already know that nothing can be changed about it at this moment. Still we can use our privileges as long as they are available. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Guerillero, you might also want to look at Noteswork. There was also someone theorizing on Reaper Eternal's user talk that OccultZone is a return of Betacommand, but that doesn't seem likely to me.

OccultZone: oh man, this is harsh. I have the impression your intentions were basically good, though it's not clear to me at all what you were trying to do. Assuming remedy 1 passes and if you later ask to return, I hope you'll have some discussions with other editors about what kinds of contributions you can make that are actually useful to the project, agree to a reasonably clear editing plan based on the discussions, and endeavour to stick to the plan.

Arbcom: At this point I'd support including some form of the workshop proposal against high speed editing in the PD. We know from Betacommand that bulk editing and this level of misjudgment are a bad combination.

Esquivalience: grave dancing is not helpful. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 04:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Guerillero Looking at Noteswork might be a good idea. They did participate in one of the ANI discussions OccultZone was taking part in. They were taking OccultZone's side. During that time, they left disparaging notes on Nick's talk page and also left one on OccultZone's accusing Magioladitis of wikihounding. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I had checked Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand 3. His edits were repetitive minor edits, involved the use of automated and semi-automated tools without prior permission. That is prohibited by the policies. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

And you are doing repetitive minor edits involving semi-automated tools without prior permission. Bgwhite ( talk) 05:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Like which one? All those edits are major and I don't use any semi-automated tools. Unlike you. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

OccultZone, the scripts in User:OccultZone/monobook.js are semi-automated tools. But it is really irrelevant whether automation was involved in those edits, since what matters is the amount of thought that goes into the edits, and the volume of editing. Per WP:MEATBOT and astounding amounts of past wikilawyering over this from Betacommand and others, Arbcom should really stop caring about the distinction between automated and not.

[103] was an obvious error (removes intlink to a faulty ref without fixing the ref) and it would have been better to figure out who put the ref there, and leave the person a user talk message, or note the issue on the article talk page. I found that after looking at about 3 of your diffs. How many more errors are in your 100k's of edits? Nobody can possibly look at them all. So any edit plans of that size (whether manual or automatic) should be approved at WP:BRFA or something comparable before starting. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Anything on User:OccultZone/monobook.js is unrelated to what I am doing, you can try it yourself and check. [104]'s main aim was to remove the unavailable reference that caused error. People usually have nearly all of the pages watchlisted, whenever they see any errors they would usually fix themselves, although there are only a few who would leave a message on the talk page. Only the automated editing requires approval at BRFA, or any use of bot. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't think you have any credibility at this point about whether those edits were automated. They should be treated as automated regardless of what you say about them, like here. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 02:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

One account restriction and Occults

If One account restriction on OccultZone passes this automatically mean that User:Occults account will be blocked or there is something else to be done first? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 08:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I am also interested to hear about this. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, even the disclosed alts would be blocked when the case closes. (This also applies if the site ban passes, and the one-account does not.) Courcelles ( talk) 16:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

OccultZone do you have any other accounts other than the 3 sock-puppet accounts and Occults? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, OccultBot. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Unless there is also an edit speed restriction, the 1-account restriction should be modified to mention the possibility of approved and disclosed secondary accounts. If OccultZone is allowed to do high-volume editing, it should be from an alternate account. Approval of the alternate account could be through either ARCA or BRFA. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 18:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

That's a good point. I don't think, as I stated in the workshop, that OZ should be making high-rate, high-volume edits with the OccultZone account. I really don't think that he should be making those edits now, knowing that he's been caught socking, and facing a siteban. — DoRD ( talk) 21:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Can still edit for a while. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

IMHO it's better if you instead use your remaining editing time to discuss what you're trying to do with those wikiproject tags and everything else. Why do you think they're important? If you're doing something you think the project really needs and that nobody else is doing, maybe you can explain it so other editors can take up the slack in your absence. Alternatively, if it's something the project doesn't need, why not stop? I appreciate the amount of work you've put into editing even if I think the edits themselves don't reflect good judgment. So I'd hope you could lay the ground for an eventual ban appeal that leads to your contributing usefully if you return.

I understand about people getting in edit wars and socking over content, since they're at least trying in their own perception to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I'd have been delighted (and not in a malicious or schadenfreude way) if Betacommand got in a red-blooded content war instead of treating the encyclopedia as soulless data to be sliced and diced by his mechanized army, since engagement with article content is vital to being a competent editor. But this stuff with project tags makes no sense as far as I can tell. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 22:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

OccultZone do you have any other accounts other than the 3 sock-puppet accounts, Occults and OccultBot? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 15:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Question for Courcelles

Why do you think that you are "substantively done"? Remedy two needs one vote to pass and six Arbs haven't voted on it, and Remedy 3 needs 4 votes to pass and 5 Arbs haven't voted on it. I'm not saying that I expect both to pass, but they certainly can pass, and I think that would be "substantive", wouldn't it? BMK ( talk) 08:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply

In fact, unless something changes, it looks as if Remedy 2 has passed. BMK ( talk) 21:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Because at the point of a ban passing, it becomes the other remedies lose a lot of their power, as the true terms of unbanning would be decided by the 2016 committee. They still matter, and from experience, the motion to close always seems to bring in the last couple straggling votes. Courcelles ( talk) 15:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I have notriced that last point before. BMK ( talk) 18:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Request for additional checkuser finding if appropriate

If the CU's already run against OccultZone show the use of automation in the edits that he claims [105] were completely manual, could that be added to the factfindings, along with principle 4 [106] and possibly remedy 2 [107] from the Rich Farmbrough case? We may need that someday. I'm open to supporting a ban appeal from OccultZone when the time comes, but only for traditional editing. I'd want for there to be a speed restriction that stays around for a while, until OZ has made some good mainspace contributions. Thanks. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 02:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

CU evidence does not suggest automation with any known tools -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 20:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Farewell

We know what will be the outcome. It's a sign that things are changing. Talking about the site ban and after knowing that there are many more things to do in life, I really have had no problem with the site ban since it was decided only after some policy based concern. They were saying that I need a break and now I will be having it. I think that my main problem was to continuously pursue some of the issues when it was not really needed, and such approach eventually helped in creating havoc. I can say that whenever I will try in the future, I will overcome. Thanks all. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Best wishes and sorry things ended up this way. You were not going to get what you wanted about turning policy into a rule-based legal system though. We have already gone too far in that direction even though there is a policy against it ( WP:NOTSTATUTE). If you come back, just try to edit sensibly and get along with people, instead of wikilawyering over policy. 50.0.136.194 ( talk) 07:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Sums up a lot. Thanks! OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I was certainly not expecting this outcome. Had you simply calmed down and moved on after your initial unblock (or any of the subsequent unblocks), you wouldn't find yourself in this situation. Heck, the arbs had all but rejected the request for this case but you pushed it so much they actually changed their minds. This isn't a sign things are changing. It's a sign the traditional values of Wikipedia still mean something to the committee at least, even if a vested contributor is concerned. I'm sorry it led to this, I have had nothing but respect for you as an editor, but no one is to blame for this outcome but yourself. No hard feelings and all the best irl. Seriously. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 20:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Remedy 3

Courcelles or Guerillero, why can Remedy 3 not pass? There are currently 4 supports, 6 opposes, and 1 abstain. You went into this with one arbitrator inactive, thus 14 arbitrators instead of 15. Because one arb abstained on this remedy, that means 7 support votes is a pass. 3 arbs have not yet voted. If they all supported, it would pass. I'm tired, so maybe I'm missing something, but I think I'm right.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree with Bbb23, but with an absolute majority voting to close the case, it wouldn't pass anyways, so it's rather moot which of the "not passing" sections it belongs in. -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 17:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

If there's a successful unban request down the road, the terms can be adjusted and finalized then anyway. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I believe 8 votes are needed to pass, so at the moment, wth 11 Arbs having voted on Remedy 3 (4+6+1), it can't pass (max possible support is 7) unless someone changes their vote. BMK ( talk) 18:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Beyond My Ken: No, only 7 needed to pass, since one arb has abstained and one inactive, so 13 active, 7 majority -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 18:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, I just realized that and came back to strike my comment. Thanks. BMK ( talk) 18:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Because, at this point, the ban passes so everything else is moot and can be decided upon in a year iff the appeal is successful. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

But certainly the Committee at that time is going to take the views of this Committee into account, so this Committee should sanction as they think is appropriate, without concern for what some future iteration of ArbCom is going to do. Then, it'll be in their hands, right now, it is in yours. BMK ( talk) 01:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The remedy that isn't passing wouldn't necessarily be agreed upon by OccultZone or the future Arbitration Committee during the appeal process. What's likely to be needed will be something more bespoke to this case, I was going to suggest something along the lines of a 1RR and 1 edit per 24 hour restriction on any page with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations in the title, a restriction on discussing sockpuppetry allegations with only checkusers and SPI clerks, as a means to curb administrator shopping, and restrictions on using the Echo notification system to draw attention to comments left for other editors and administrators, probably a 1 ping in 24 hour clause there too. From my perspective, the issue (other than the abhorrent sockpuppetry, which is beyond the pale) isn't the actual SPI reports, threads at ANI etc, it's the repetitive nature, the refusal to listen to rejections of ideas, the refusal to allow others to comment, getting in the way of others performing administrative functions and dealing with incidents, so any measure would need to force OccultZone to respond in the sort of way most users do when posting at AN, when filing SPIs etc. That's going to be quite some challenge, I fear, for the Committee in 12 months time. Nick ( talk) 07:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply

OccultZone's agreement with a sanction is not a requirement, and should not be a concern of the Committee - in general sanctions are imposed not negotiated.. You're free to make your suggestions to the future interation of ArbCom that would (theoretically, since OccultZone's unbanning is hardly a foregone conclusion) consider the conditions of an unban At this moment, however, we have a proposal for a remedy in front of the standing Committee, and three Arbs who haven't voted on it who can, if they desire, vote to support it and put it over the top. The question is, why should the case be closed by the remainder of the Committee before those Arbs have had a chance to make that determination? BMK ( talk) 10:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply

There's simply not a great necessity to impose additional remedies that can and potentially will be modified, added to or removed if an appeal is successfully filed. OccultZone, like all banned users, now has the opportunity to edit productively on sister projects, behaviour and outcomes there can be used to determine whether unbanning here is sensible and to illustrate any additional remedies that would be necessary, and also whether or not the current remedies need to be retained. If Remedy 3 is needed when OccultZone is unbanned, it can be added then, or (most likely) something more suited to their behaviour and editing in 12 months time can be written up and enacted. Nick ( talk) 11:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I assume someone has contacted the "missing" Arbs via e-mail to see if they plan on casting a vote? BMK ( talk) 20:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Have pinged them. -- Euryalus ( talk) 20:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Thryduulf has opposed, it can now not pass. Kharkiv07 ( T) 21:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I believe that is correct. BMK ( talk) 01:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC) reply