Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Case opened on 16:59, 30 April 2015

Case closed on 11:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 16:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]

• OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Swarm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Bgwhite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Nakon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

• Numerous discussions have been linked below in statement by filing party.

Statement by OccultZone[edit]

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

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

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

UTP before the block.[3]

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

UTP prior to the block.[12]

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

UTP prior to the block.[13]

• Nakon reinstated an overturned block without making any discussion anywhere, thus engaging in wheel warring, which is itself a serious issue. Block was made[14] for making this edit, though it was never discussed or pointed ever before, I could be blocked for such a productive edit only if it had to do anything with any prior blocks, or if I was topic banned from WP:AN.

UTP before.[15]

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

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

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

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

• I had stated in my replies, now stating here that Nakon has made attempts to put me under unauthorized topic ban. Conclusion is "stop contributing to 'wikipedia:' namespaces or I will indef you".[19][20] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

All replies from 09:10, 23 April 2015 - 13:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC) can be read from here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Indeffing the users and IP while being engaged in edit war with them, protecting pages while involved, misuse of roll back, making one-sided blocks, imposing unauthorized topic bans, etc. All that needs to be addressed since it has happened and it contravenes the policy. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: And you had seen my reply?[21] WP:RFC/UA has been disabled since December 2014. There are no requirements for trying other dispute resolution for cases such as this one. Still a number of queries had been raised on talk pages, noticeboards, regarding their past as well as recent misjudgments. However, such measures have been proven to be non-effective, and the misconduct continues. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have to just look at what Bgwhite has written below. Apart from the clear incivility, failure to justify the long-term misuse of admin tools, he goes on to claim that a CU has made malformed block, and further suggested that "Resaltador was never verified to be a sock", contrary to the blocking summary.[22] The verifiability of such a surprising claim needs to be addressed, if Bgwhite can really prove that Resaltador was not a sock of anyone, and there were two different people, then it would lead us to question the checkuser and administrator powers of Elockid (talk · contribs). That is probably not going to be happen, but these accusations, including some others such as frequently claiming that I have sent harassing/threatening emails to Swarm,[23][24][25] although Swarm has rejected them.[26] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin tool misuse: Bgwhite[edit]

For full post, check this. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm[edit]

Full post can be found here. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swarm[edit]

My block of OZ was in response to an ANEW report which revealed a slow moving, long term edit war at Rape in India involving multiple users and spanning several, several months, and regarding the same issue (of reporting specific incidents of rape in the article). The edit warring had somewhat escalated as of the time of the report. Obviously I'm aware that blocking a group of editors is a more severe action than page protection but I made a judgment call based on the fact that this dispute had been going on for so long and neither side was making an effort to stop it. Based on my review of the long-term dispute, OZ was the worst individual offender, so he got a longer block. If I was not clear enough in my block rationale, I substantially explained and defended the block on his talk page in regards to policy, and yet he continued to accuse me of administrative abuse, to the point where I simply had to stop playing into it as OZ was not responding to my comments rationally. Since this incident and the following ones, his behavior seems to have deteriorated to a surprising degree. I'm a pretty lenient admin when it comes to ANEW. I've seen and taken in all the feedback about the block, but this was what I felt was an appropriate action at the time, given the circumstances. Others have weighed in with varying opinions, but no one has agreed with the accusation that it was an abuse of the tools. No comment on anything else, but I continue to stand behind the block as completely in accordance with blocking policy. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 18:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @AmritasyaPutra: - Agreed that the first block could have been handled better—if the unblocking administrator had discussed it with me, I could have explained to him that I had reviewed the situation for a substantial amount of time and that OZ had been edit warring over the same content since at least the summer of last year (diffs were been provided on his talk page), and that if he felt the block was too harsh, perhaps we could decrease the block length rather than letting him off scot-free. Perhaps if he were not unblocked so hastily, his penchant for throwing temper tantrums until he gets what he wants wouldn't have been validated and maybe he'd be forced to conduct himself like a mature adult like the rest of us around here do. Although maybe a firsthand rejection from Arbcom is what he needed to finally give it up. I hope to god this will be the end of his nonsense. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 03:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to accusations[edit]

OccultZone's above diatribe about perceived inappropriate actions by me is patently ridiculous. He's gone digging through my edit history and pulled up random incidents for which he completely lacks contextual knowledge of, and has completely twisted them to make me look bad. Frankly, I'm stunned. I've never had my integrity as an administrator credibly questioned by anyone. Any feedback given to me I've listened to. Any mistakes I've made, I've learned from them and rectified them. Now I'm supposed to play defense against an editor who's pissed off that I blocked him? Not to mention the fact that if anyone ever has a problem with any administrative actions, the first step is usually to approach the administrator on their talk page where they can talk it out. This is a bold-faced, bad faith, malicious, personal vendetta he's trying to pursue against me because he's still pissed about a block over an edit war no one disputes was going on. No one has even agreed that the block was an inappropriate use of the block function. OZ, every one of those situations you brought up is perfectly reasonably justifiable, contrary to your blatant accusations of bad faith. You even brought up a perfectly honest mistake that I apologized for and that was rectified immediately, as if it were a malicious abuse of the tools!! This is absolutely outrageous! I sincerely hope the arbs don't humor this ridiculous sideshow. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bgwhite[edit]

I agree with Worm's observation that OccultZone is in full meltdown. Hammersoft's timeline of the beginning of the meltdown is pretty good.

The discussion where OccultZone fails to understand what he has done is wrong is not new, the lashing out behavour is. OccultZone had his AWB bit removed for a second time following a discussion at ANI. Repeated tries on his talk page to have him understand what he was doing wrong were fruitless. Among the accusations made at ANI were edits made in error and the high rate of editing (upwards of 17 edits a minutes). In removing the AWB bit, Nick stated, "My overriding feeling at the moment is that much of OccultZone's comments, above, have been made in an attempt not to lose AWB access, rather than to understand and respond appropriately to concerns and issues raised." The failure to "understand and respond appropriately to concerns" has been in full mode by OccultZone this past month.

Since the beginning of the meltdown, OccultZone has failed to understand that he has done wrong. He is unable to let go, whether in the Zhanzhao SPI case, Bargolus SPI case, AN request for Iban or ANI request to ban Kumioko. The last time OccultZone was unblocked, before Nick blocked him the last time, OccultZone said he would drop things. During the time unblocked, OccultZone filed an SPI cases against Sonic2030. This SPI case was the fourth time he accused Resaltador of being a sockpuppet that I'm aware of. (see StillStanding, Bargolus and Zhanzhao). He continued his practice of admin shopping at JamesBWatson's page and asked for talk page access revoked at Future Perfect at Sunrise's talk page. This doesn't include the action that got OccultZone reblocked.

By undoing Swarm's block, I obviously felt the block wasn't necessary. On OccultZone's talk page I said Swarm did a judgement call and shouldn't go any further. I don't see where Swarm misused their tools. The reason why I blocked OccultZone is listed on his user page. Ironically, OccultZone was edit warring over an edit war notice. When I blocked OccultZone, I am aware of him trying to have me blocked via IRC, gTalk and email (I can tell the committee those people who told me if the case is accepted.). Have mistakes been made by me and others? Yes. Are the mistakes needing an ArbCom case? No. OccultZone has repeatedly failed to understand concerns raised about his behavior and actions. Instead he has turned to anger and if people aren't with him, they must be against him. OccultZone needs to go on a vacation, voluntarily or forced. He also needs to understand that he is not blameless and some of his actions are wrong. Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that OccultZone has started a discussion on Rape in India's talk page. It is to undo the compromise reached earlier and remove the section he has wanted gone since the beginning. It is the same section that started this whole mess. Bgwhite (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Occultzone. Stop your lies. Here is your SPI case against the Homeland Security people. It has not been acting upon. No IPs have been blocked. Resaltador was blocked two weeks previous to homeland case being filed.

OccultZone was edit warring with the IP on John Coleman (news weathercaster). You reverted the IP with no reason given. The IP even left an article talk message, which you ignored. I left a message on your talk page saying that is not how we do it. What did you do? leave a condescending article talk message and filed an SPI. An IP that had nothing in common with all your other SPI cases. You then start accusing me of wikihounding and edit warring with you.

How can we tell what you do with socks because you ask on email, IRC, gTalk and admin pages to have people blocked. No cases at SPI have been filed against Sonic2030 since March 2013. No proof given that verifies Resaltador as a sock of Sonic2030. You've filed four cases in which you have mentioned Resaltador as a sock. (StillStanding, Bargolus and Zhanzhao) None of those four cases resulted in blocks. Some were blocked afterwards for other reasons. Resaltador was never verified to be a sock.

How did Resaltador get blocked as a sock of Sonic2030? Via an email, after your previous three SPI cases were turned down.

1. Sonic2030 was originally blocked mostly for edit warring on Salvation Army. Only non-open proxies IP's listed in the case were 96.54.183.x All from Calgary Canada.
2. 72.196.235.154 was blocked as a sock of Resaltador after your email. The IP is from Cox communications out of Atlanta. This IP you were edit warring with in Rape in India. Resaltador was blocked as a sock of Sonic2030 after your email.
3. 216.81.94.x in the homeland case was editing John Coleman (news weathercaster). These IPs were listed in the Sonic2030 case previously, but were never blocked and never acted upon. Homeland IPs are not proxies. So, you were edit warring, did a search of the IPs in SPI's and came up with Sonic2030. You never read the case to know Sonic2030 never used these IP before, but THEY MUST BE A SOCK!!!!!!!!!

OccultZone is still accusing people of sockpuppets after being declined... the offense? Recreating an article that was done by a sockpuppet five years ago. And Occultzone bugged a clerk to look into after they already declined. Who knows how many emails, IRC or other ways you have communicated. How can we tell how good/bad your socks suspicious are when off-wiki communications is being used?

@OccultZone: "Yes they had been strongly reminded about their actions in the past, they were also reminded about these actions.," Only you have brought up false accusations of misdeeds. You have provided no diffs. You have not shown anywhere where any admin involved were admonished by in past actions and were reminded again by these actions. I'm not talking about one admin criticizing another or where people agree and disagree in the same issue. I'm talking about a strong rebuke of something clearly wrong. Bgwhite (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Occultzone.

1. I'm getting irate at more of your lies. "To claim that a CU has made malformed block, ". WHERE DID I SAY THAT!!! I never said anything above against Elockid. Show the diffs.
2. You claimed "These IPs from 'U.S. Department of Homeland Security' are abused by the same master, and they were also used as proof, when I was discussing this case, and 2 out of 2 sock accounts were blocked as a result, " 1) I showed where you lied about this. 2) I showed the timeline of what happened to prove you lied. 3) In the timeline, I showed where all your SPI cases (on-wiki proof) against Resalator didn't result in blocks. 4) " Resaltador was never verified to be a sock." was said in the paragraph about SPI cases, not about email. No SPI cases verified Resaltador to be a sock. 5) I showed only when you went off-wiki, after all your failed attempts, did you get a block. 6) I only said the block was done via email. I didn't accuse anyone of a bad block. I didn't say Resalator was or wasn't a sock. I only said the block was done via email. How is that accusing Elockid of anything? 7) We don't have any of the proof you brought via email for Resaltador being a sock because it was done off wiki... thus we can't see to prove or disprove anything. There may be absolute proof, but we can't see it. The point being, it is off-Wiki and yet another case of you going off-wiki for dealings. Answer Worm's question below, "I'll ask you directly OccultZone - How many admins have you consulted privately regarding any of the allegations above? How many have you contacted directly on Wiki?"
3. "such as frequently claiming that I have sent harassing/threatening emails" You already mentioned this previously. Instead of deflecting allegations against you by bring up already made claims. Instead of putting words in my mouth about Elockid making a malformed block. Instead of putting words in my mouth saying I didn't think Resalator was a sock... Answer people's questions and accusations against you. Bring the two diffs I requested above. Answer Worm's question. I Responded to the "Homeland Security" case... something you said Magioladitis needs to bring diffs to prove. I did provided the diffs and did prove. Yet another example of OccultZone not answering questions, never at fault and everybody else is wrong. Bgwhite (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm "He's made 5000 edits in the past 2 weeks and regularly surpassed 8 edits per minute, effectively an unapproved bot running contrary to WP:Bot Policy..." OccultZone has gone upwards of 16 edits per minute in the past week. OccultZone does have alternative account, Occults. It appears its sole purpose is to maintain User:Occults/bio.js, which is linked into User:OccultZone/common.js. The script is for adding tags to talk pages and is based on User:Kephir/gadgets/rater. OccultZone has made changes to the original Kephir script, including making changes this month. I don't know javascript, so I can't say what the changes were for. I believe, but not sure, this is the same script OccultZone was also using at the time his AWB privileges were removed and is currently using to make changes to talk pages. Bgwhite (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to accusations[edit]

Has anybody actually looked at OccultZone's lies? Occultzone can't understand an article's edit history. OccultZone can't understand that a block doesn't need a warning and conveniently forgets when warnings were made. I'm not saying I did things anywhere near correctly, just giving why I did things.

1. "This is not the first or only time when Bgwhite made blocks where he was involved. Yunshui may remember this." My reasons are given and Yunshui understood where I was coming from.
2. "Bgwhite blocked[31] an editor with whom he edit warred.[32][33] No warning was given." Blocked for 3RR. I was not the only admin involved. 3RR doesn't need a warning.
3. "He reverted an editor 3 times[34][35][36], then he blocked him,[37] without any prior warning.[38]" I was not the only editor reverting them. 3RR doesn't need a warning.
4. "In 9 March, 2015, after he reverted an editor,[39] and blocked him for 3 days, just for making this edit, ..." Multiple warnings on vandalism given over many months for same article
5. "Indef block of an IP address,[41] with whom he was in content dispute. Such block is contrary to WP:IPB, IP addresses cannot be indeffed." Vandalism of multiple articles over seven months. See IP editors edit summaries too. IPs can be indefed.
6. "Reverted[44] an editor, later he blocked this editor for 48 hours.[45]" Person involved in an edit war with multiple people. Warning was given. I later unblocked them.
7. "Made 4 reverts,[46][47][48][49] then he indeffed that editor.[50]" Doesn't OccultZone know BLP violations should be removed and an editor blocked if continuing to do them per WP:BLPADMINS? It contained an unreliable website who's "experiences" are anonymously posted.
8. "Reverted an editor 4 times,[51][52][53][54], after that he blocked him.[55]" First edit summary of mine says it all, " Unexplained removal of all references and unreferenced additions [made]."
9. "His block of EEng, back in August 2014[56] violated WP:INVOLVED, ..." A long convoluted case which involved ANI's and other admins.
10. "He reverted an editor[59],[60] and indeffed him without giving any prior warning.[61] After indeffing him, he protected the page[62] though it wasn't needed." Same person had only edited the same page for previous 6 months in which all edits were reverted by multiple people for the same reason.
11. "Bgwhite blocked an editor for 48 hours in 26 December 2014,[63] who he was edit warring with.[64][65]" I was the third editor in three days to block the person. Person was indefed two days and two blocks later. Message was answered on article's talk page on why edit was wrong, plus other comments from other editors.
12. "He reverted an editor[66][67], then he blocked him[68] right after he saw the revert." [66] and [67] are a month apart, so don't know how I blocked right after a revert. They were reverted by multiple people and warning was left on talk page.
13. "Misuse of rollback.[69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80] Here he restored a vandalism." Cherry picked rollbacks over three years.... Didn't OccultZone see I made two consecutive edits to the same article [69], [76]? [70] See response to #6 above. How was [71], [75], [77] misuse? [72] and [73] relates to removing a self-published book in a case which I asked DGG to become involved with later on, How is removing two photos [74] misuse? [76], [77], and [78] See response to #5 above. [79] is Rape in India. [80] I made a mistake, but how is this abuse?

How much more does this fucking fishing expedition/witch hunt have to go on? How many more emails, IRC and talk messages does OZ have to do before he gets his way. How many more suspect edits from the last 10 years is going to be brought up? Worm just asked OccultZone if he will drop it if Arb declines. Here is OccultZone's response. Yet another not answering the question, I'm never at fault, but everybody else has wronged me response. OccultZone is incapable of being wrong, no matter how many times people says he is. OccultZone is incapable of understanding policy, because only he knows what is right or wrong. You are either with him or should be blocked. Do admins make mistakes? YES. Have I made mistakes? Oh hell yes. This is has turned into an outrageous bumbling circus. Bgwhite (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Worm That Turned[edit]

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

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

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

On the accusations

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

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

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

• Arbs, procedurally, shouldn't "long term administrative misconduct" be raised with the administrator as a first port of call? I don't see discussions regarding this long term misconduct anywhere but here, and only after OccultZone has changed the scope of the case. At the moment, I'm seeing an upset individual dragging 5 named individuals through an ArbCom case in a "throw mud at the wall and hope it sticks" route. Worm^TT(talk) 08:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Noting that the ANI thread Nick brings up makes for interesting reading - I wasn't aware of that background and see that a number of the admins OccultZone has made accusations about were involved in the sanction last July. I also note further that it's very difficult to look into OccultZone's edit history due to the shear volume - he's made 5000 edits in the past 2 weeks and regularly surpassed 8 edits per minute, effectively an unapproved bot running contrary to WP:Bot Policy - even more concerning as he has had AWB removed. Whether or not a case is accepted, I do ask that OccultZone splits non-scripted editing into a separate account, and go through the Bot Approval Process for his scripted editing. Worm^TT(talk) 12:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HJ Mitchell[edit]

I don't use terms like "exhausting the community's patience" lightly, but that is precisely what OccultZone has done and is continuing to do. I don't think he means to waste everyone's time, and I have no doubt he genuinely feels aggrieved. My involvement in this started as an observer of an AN thread where OZ refused to accept the determination of a dozen admins (including several checkusers and SPI clerks) that another editor was not a sockpuppet. Not two days later, he butted heads with an IP address that was (unbeknownst at the time to OccultZone) being used by Kumioko. I woke up the following day to find that the IP had been exposed as Kumioko and OZ had edit-warred in multiple places to remove or strike the IP's comments (including on my talk page, against three administrators who told him to leave it alone). I strongly advised OZ to move on and focus on something more productive. He sadly chose not to, so I felt—regretfully—that a block was the only way to prevent the issue from draining any more time. I deliberately kept the duration short in the hope that OZ would regain his sense of perspective and return to more productive things. Sadly, that didn't happen and OZ has set himself a course whose only destination can be a lengthy block. It is my sincere hope that OZ changes course before it's too late—I really don't want to see him blocked—but I can't see anything requiring an arbitration case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: You misunderstand the concept of "wheel warring". Had Nakon re-blocked you simply because he disagreed with Magog's unblock or because he felt you 'deserved' a longer block, that would indeed have been wheel warring, and grounds for a stern reminder at the the very least. But the re-block was based on your actions since the unblock, and according to his log summary Nakon attempted to contact Magog (without success), so it was not wheel warring—Nakon did everything 'by the book'. Beyond that, I'm not sure what the issue is you want adjudicated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, I would have no objection to a case. I remain of the opinion that a short block was an unfortunately necessary measure to prevent further disruption, and I'm happy to defend my actions. I believe the other admins involved all did what they thought was best for the project at the time, even if other admins might have acted differently (and bearing in mind that hindsight is always 20:20). However, I do not foresee a case ending well for OccultZone, which I think would be unfortunate. I'd like to see OZ return to being a productive editor and to move past the series of unfortunate events that led us here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nakon[edit]

I found out about this dispute through the regular course of reviewing ANI. The editor had been unblocked by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs) with the reason "user has promised to WP:DROPTHESTICK". OccultZone proceeded to resume editing in the manner that led to the initial block, so I decided to restore the block with the original expiration time after attempting several times to contact Magog to discuss it. As Worm That Turned described, this is not wheel warring as OccultZone's actions after the block showed that they were not adhering to the unblock terms and therefore a reinstatement of the block was warranted. Nakon 22:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction[edit]

OccultZone temporarily restricted[edit]

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.

Enacted by 9 arbitrators on 22:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC) For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

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

• Recuse as I consider myself somewhat a friend of OccultZone. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 12:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse from this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The wrong template was used to provide case information to editors who commented on the case but are not parties. Editors who commented on the case but are not listed as parties are still not parties to the case, but at least they know what the timetable is for the case. Apologies for the use of the wrong template. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone and Others: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/3/1/1>[edit]

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

• I'm going to await the statements of the other involved parties before passing judgement on this, but I'm not presently leaning towards acceptance. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Like Salvio I'm not any misuse of admin tools that reaches anywhere near the level required for arbitration, and I'm not seeing any abuse at all. OccultZone needs to take onboard the advice given here (and elsewhere) by multiple people to let it go. A voluntary break from Wikipedia, and especially the rape in India article/topic, will do you significant good in the long run and will almost certainly avoid an involuntary separation. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I haven't had time to read all the additional evidence presented since my earlier decline and may not for a few days, as I have a personal project that has a deadline this week and the American Politics 2 case will get the priority of my ArbCom time. I will try and get to it though.

  @OccultZone: I'm not saying everybody's actions were perfect. I'm saying that there were no admin actions that were deliberately abusive and no mistakes were made with admin tools that were so egregiously bad that they rise to the level of arbitration action being required. Read what other people have written on this page about what they did and why, and then take the time to understand them - do not dismiss them just because you disagree. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @OccultZone: No, the first block was probably not the best course of action but it was not unwarranted and your behaviour has at times in this saga descended to the level of blockworthiness. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @OccultZone: for clarification is the case request seeking a decision that Swarm and Bgwhite have misused admin tools? -- Euryalus (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see anything here rising to the level of misuse or abuse of tools. Decline. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per Thryduulf and Salvio; there has been no evidence presented of actual tool misuse, merely some blocks which may perhaps have been ill-considered. Caveat: I am one of the administrators whom OccultZone contacted off-wiki, although our discussion was not of a nature that would prejudice my decision on this case. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Moving to recuse since OZ has now expanded the remit of this case to take in events in which I was directly involved. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per SG and Thryduulf. AGK [•] 21:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Although I see how some of the blocks may have been poorly considered, they were legitimate judgment calls, not abusive. There seem to be no serious instances of administrator abuse here, nor any longterm patterns of poor judgment. As with Yunshui, OccultZone contacted me off-wiki, but our conversations easily fall under "previous routine editor, administrator or arbitrator interactions." GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm in the middle of finals week and struggling to find time to go through all the new evidence. I'm hoping to get to it tomorrow, but I'm striking my vote in case I can't make that happen. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept to at least look at the conduct here more closely. I think it will be important to define the scope of this case relatively clearly—I don't want the goalposts to be moved once again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept , though it seems that is not going to happen. I recognize the harm in incorrectly accusing people of puppettry, but most of the accusations here turned out to be correct. Possibly unlike some others here, I place considerable importance on the fact that OZ was right about the puppetry allegations. Being right doesn't excuse misbehavior, but being right in trying to end abusive behavior and sockpupettry when it appears that others are abetting it is a significant factor. Some of the admins seem to have made misjudgements, and none of them seem to have acknowledged it. If some admins have been too fast to take action on incomplete knowledge, we are the people to address it, to decide if it is serious enough to the issue, and we should do so in a case, not here. Accepting the case does not imply an assumption that the admins have in fact merited sanctions, but just thta the matter needs investigation. And it seems pretty obvious that no other DR methods remain relevant. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at subsequent postings, I think it's advisable to give a reminder that if the case is accepted, we will, as Euryalus says "look at misconduct on all sides" DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept to look at conduct on all sides. Noting; a) that other dispute resolution methods either haven't, or are unlikely to, lead anywhere; and ) that accepting does not imply that sanctions are warranted on either side, only that there is an ongoing and painful dispute that needs resolving. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, while some of the blocks here may not have been the best thing to do in retrospect, they were far from reaching the level of abusive or totally unreasonable. I would strongly encourage OccultZone to consider that when several administrators have found blocking necessary, there is likely to be a problem in one's own behavior that needs to be addressed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept, after further events here, I don't think anything else is going to settle this, and it does need to be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline and hope that OccultZone accepts that although as others have said not all of the blocks were the best thing to do, that there was no misuse of tools calling for ArbCom action and that Seraphimblade's comments need careful consideration. Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Upon further reflection I agree with Euryalus that other methods are not likely to help with this situation, and that acceptance doe not mean that sanctions are warranted. But some sort of resolution is needed and I now think that the only way to get this is by accepting the case. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Per Seraphimblade and others. The administrative actions presented here do not not meet the bar for opening a case. LFaraone 20:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Accept to investigate conduct on all sides. LFaraone 16:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept There are issues here that need resolution.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Nick, are there significant recent instances of OZ forum-shopping prior to the first block?  Roger Davies ^talk 12:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Worth looking at and resolving, even if no strong action is taken against any parties. NativeForeigner ^Talk 21:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline nothing here rises to the level of misconduct needed for a case. Also, I am not to happy with the idea of a last minute digging operation to expand the scope of the case when it isn't going to be accepted. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @OccultZone: To quote WTT above "I don't see discussions regarding this long term misconduct anywhere but here, and only after OccultZone has changed the scope of the case. At the moment, I'm seeing an upset individual dragging 5 named individuals through an ArbCom case in a "throw mud at the wall and hope it sticks" route." --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept I don't think we need to do a whole lot here, but an inquiry into the matter would be beneficial. Courcelles (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final decision[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Administrators[edit]

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Admin shopping[edit]

4) Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is detrimental to finding and achieving consensus.

Passed 12 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Conduct on arbitration pages[edit]

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.

Passed 10 to 2 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy[edit]

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Making allegations against other editors[edit]

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry[edit]

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Background (I)[edit]

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).

Passed 12 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Background (II)[edit]

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 [27]" 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

Passed 12 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone: Edit warring[edit]

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. [28]

Passed 11 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone: Accusations of sockpuppetry[edit]

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 [29][30][31][32])

Passed 11 to 0 with one abstention at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone: use of sockpuppets[edit]

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 [33], to request an AN review of one of OccultZone's blocks (while appearing to be a third party [34]), to argue to lift another of OccultZone's blocks [35], and to oppose an AN request that asked for sanctions on OccultZone. [36] The Hajme account has extensively edited the Wikipedia namespace, [37], and both accounts opined on the same templates for discussion request. [38] There were additional sockpuppets found after the proposed decision was posted, and are not listed in this decision.

Passed 12 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone: Disruption[edit]

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 ([39] [40]). These actions continued onto the arbitration pages (accusing other participants of sockpuppetry: [41]; refusing to drop the stick: [42]).

Passed 12 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone: Temporary injunction[edit]

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."

Passed 12 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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[edit]

Passed 12 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 17:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

OccultZone: topic banned[edit]

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.

Passed 9 to 2 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone: One account restriction[edit]

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.

Passed 12 to 0 at 11:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

Passed 8 to 0 by motion at 17:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

• OccultZone (talk · contribs) blocked indef by Lankiveil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with talk page disabled to enforce remedy 1. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Occults (talk · contribs) and OccultBot (talk · contribs) blocked indef by DoRD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to enforce remedies 1 and 4. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]