Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others

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.

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.

Statements by Other Editors

Statement by Nick

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

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

There has been absolutely no misuse of any administrative tools through any of the process. OccultZone has been disruptive, engaged in unsuitable and inappropriate behaviour, made unsubstantiated and frankly preposterous claims alleging abuses of administrative tools and accordingly has been blocked absolutely in accordance with the rules. I'd contend he has been given very lenient blocks in relation to the behaviour shown and disruption caused. The relevant evidence can conveniently be found from [1] onwards (individual diffs would approach three figures).

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

It appears that OccultZone is under the misapprehension that I now harbour some malice towards him. Nothing could be further from the truth, I have nothing but the greatest respect for the time and dedication he continues to invest in Wikipedia, and for the record, I can confirm I do not want to see OccultZone lost from the project permanently. My sole objective in all of this is to try and prevent OccultZone from being subject to either an indefinite block or a community ban, which would be bad for the project, and it is for this reason and this reason alone, I feel an enforced break would be of great benefit to OccultZone and to the community, who are definitely tiring of his behaviour.

I consider the loss of any user who produces good content a really sad event for the project and as he mentions Kumioko/Reguyla, that should demonstrate to OccultZone the lengths I'm prepared to go to keep editors, resolve disputes and solve issues arising. I would be prepared to undertake exactly the same course of action if (and I sincerely hope this doesn't come to pass) he finds himself in the same situation.

Additionally, I consider the talk page of OccultZone as the primary source of evidence in this case, I don't know if OccultZone is disputing the fact that disruption, unfounded allegations of administrator abuse and general inappropriate behaviour can be found there, but it most definitely can. I'm unsure at this point, if OccultZone's definition of disruption, wheel warring and edit warring differs quite markedly from that used by my fellow administrators and I, if so maybe all that is needed in this case is someone from the Arbitration Committee to explain in detail what we consider disruptive, what we consider wheel warring and what we consider edit warring, ensuring that OccultZone is brought up to speed on each of those points. Nick (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional statement

It is worthwhile to mention that Nick's attitutde towards me has been clearly changed only since I had requested to increase the block length of Kumiuko,diff because he is still evading his block. is blatantly false. My attitude to OccultZone changed when I removed his AutoWikiBrowser tool access in July 2014, some 10 months prior to his most recent complaint. I find it concerning that he failed to disclose our prior involvement or that I took what was, for OccultZone, a deeply unpopular course of action. The ANI thread can be found [2]. I'm afraid, with OccultZone's selective memory, blatant mistruths above and significant deterioration of behaviour, if the case was to be accepted, OccultZone's own behaviour should form the bulk of the investigative work. His subsequent diffs still show no administrative actions which fall outwith policy and the grounds of acceptable behaviour for administrators, but his own behaviour does, and his continual administrator shopping, pestering and general shouting to have this case accepted is nothing short of disgusting. Nick (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To make this clearer, one can see that the report of OccultZone's AWB misuse was, on that occasion, filed by Bgwhite. There was a prior report of AWB misuse which was dealt with and Bgwhite's report was accurate and correctly filed. Nick (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to [3] OccultZone yet again is incorrect and mistaken. I can confirm we interacted prior to July 2014, having first spoken to OccultZone in late May 2014 and then helping him throughout June 2014 both on and off the project (initially through the IRC help system). To confirm this on-wiki, here's an action I have taken to assist OccultZone [4] so OZ could edit Talk:Just_Dance_2015 following a request. There are fellow channel operators with logs (some of whom are current or former arbitrators) and can confirm the accuracy of this statement, should it be necessary. More generally, the logs show the tendency to shop around and find someone prepared to undertake OccultZone's desired course of action. Nick (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies I can't say with great certainty (for the reason Worm That Turned details - it's difficult to locate diffs with so many edits going on) but I recall being asked several times after I removed his AWB permission about restoring it in September and October 2014. There's an AN discussion (I refused to restore the permission without one, given it was the second time it had been removed) [5] (which raises another complaint of OccultZone's misinformation) and my talk page [6]. There's a definite ramping up of OccultZone asking for administrators to look at ANI discussions around the time of his first block though; he did ask me to deal with the Rape in India edit war, but I declined to get involved, and as result, can't say whether he was looking for preferential treatment or not. Nick (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Non-party: AmritasyaPutra

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

Statement by uninvolved Hammersoft

There's been a great deal of actions over the last month regarding this incident. It may be revealing to look at the catalyst of the avalanche that has occurred. This appears to be the block that happened 23 March 2015. Subsequent actions and reactions are usually directly descendant of that catalyst and are dramatically influenced by it. An editor on Wikipedia who has a spotless block log has a reasonable chance of being upset when that log is besmirched, most especially when the block is unwarranted.

I note the following timeline, beginning 5 March 2015:

08:10 5 March 2015: User:OccultZone reverted addition by User:Zhanzhao of commentary sourced to a blog. Edit summary correctly said "Opinion piece". Likely appropriate per WP:ELNO, as this blog does not necessarily have editorial oversight. [7]
17:52 5 March 2015: User:OccultZone reverted addition by User:DanS76 of almost the same commentary sourced to the same blog as in 08:10. Edit summary said "You don't get to add this all until you gain consensus.", and likely correct per WP:ELNO. [8]
18:07, 5 March 2015 User:OccultZone initiates an SPI against User:Zhanzhao, naming User:DanS76 as a possible sock. See [9]. The SPI ultimately concludes they are not the same person, but meatpuppetry is possibly at play. Subsequently on 18 April 2015, per [10], User:DanS76 is blocked for abusing multiple accounts.
18:11 5 March 2015: User:OccultZone reverted additions by User:Zhanzhao, which pointed to more sources. User:OccultZone refers to the just created SPI in edit summary. [11]
00:04 14 March 2015: User:OccultZone reverted ordering changes and addition of a paragraph (beginning with "Rape cases against internationals", for reference) by User:Zhanzhao. Edit summary states "needs some consensus". [12]
01:11 14 March 2015: User:OccultZone reverted same changes by User:Zhanzhao as 00:04. Edit summary states "rv, requires some consensus" [13]
03:20 18 March 2015: User:OccultZone reverted properly sourced edit by User:Zhanzhao. User:OccultZone's edit summary was "CRYSTALBALL", referencing WP:CRYSTALBALL. This event seems to pass that standard, as a properly sourced event that would happen 2.5 weeks into the future from the date of the sourced article ([14]). [15]
08:15 21 March 2015: User:OccultZone reverted properly sourced content added by User:Malaiya [16]. Stated in edit summary "BLP crime". No persons were named in the content added by Malaiya, nor are the alleged perpetrators named in the article, nor even the victims. WP:BLP does not apply. [17]
12:47 21 March 2015: User:OccultZone reverts same content as 08:15 reversion, which this time had been added by an IP. Edit summary this time stated "Non-notable event". [18]
16:57 21 March 2015: User:OccultZone initiates a discussion on the talk page of the Rape in India article (see archived discussed) regarding perceived non-notable allegations.
22:49 22 March 2015: User:Padenton files an WP:AN/EW reported involving User:OccultZone though does not specifically list User:OccultZone, and notifies him of same.
23:38 22 March 2015: User:OccultZone deleted substantial portions of article regarding allegations, and also changed wikilink 2015 Kandhamal gang rape case to Alleged Ranaghat gang-rape, the latter of which did not and has never existed. Edit summary states "list of allegations, removed non notable view". [19]
00:29 23 March 2015 User:Swarm blocks User:OccultZone, and at 00:30 modifies the block, for "protracted and ongoing edit warring at Rape in India". This is in response to the WP:AN/EW submission two hours earlier by User:Padenton. Swarm indicates here that he has blocked for User:OccultZone "for a period of 72 hours for more severe and protracted edit warring"
01:37 23 March 2015 User:OccultZone places an unblock request stated "I had made only two reverts in 34 hours,[7], [8] because they concerned WP:BLPCRIME." [20]
06:51 23 March 2015 User:Bgwhite unblocks User:OccultZone, in responding to the unblock request. Indicated the block was not warranted. [21]

From reviewing this catalyst, I voice my opinion as follows (for what it's worth):

User:Swarm's block was unwarranted. While User:OccultZone's actions may have at times been tendentious and may have violated WP:OWN to some extent, they did not constitute edit warring. I have too often seen administrators fall into the trap of carpet bombing everyone involved in a WP:AN/EW report. It is possible that Swarm unwittingly fell into this trap. The claim that User:OccultZone's actions constituted "more severe and protracted edit warring" seems highly unwarranted. A more appropriate action would have been to issue a stern warning to those involved to engage in productive discussion and refrain from further edits until the discussion had concluded. A full protection would have helped that, as Worm noted above. Calming a situation down is more likely to happen with protection than with blocks all around. Regardless, Swarm's actions do not rise to the standard of "abuse" in any respect.
User:OccultZone's claims of WP:BLPCRIME violations in various edits and comments are baseless, as the additions made to the article and the news article cited to support it do not reference any person by name.
User:OccultZone should have backed away from editing the article after #3 and #10 above. While it can be irritating as hell that an article contains content one finds objectionable, continuing to edit it while reports and/or discussion are underway is usually highly problematic.User:OccultZone is the #2 editor on the Rape in India article ([22]). He is understandably close to the subject. All the more reason he needs to learn when to detach and allow other processes to move forward.

I haven't reviewed in detail any subsequent actions over the last month. I think all parties probably need to be trouted, with admonitions to not repeat such behavior. Future outbreaks can be dealt more severely. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

I tend to agree with Worm's comments above. Having said that, distasteful as I find it, it seems that AmritasyaPutra may have a point in saying that OZ by his high edit count is someone respected in some areas. I know I have a high edit count too, and possibly for at least some of the same reasons, so I know edit count isn't everything. But there does seem to be some sort of perception of wrongdoing concerns by some editors of some admins here, and it might be in the best interests of the community as a whole to have a review of the matter one way or another. Even though I have no particular reservations about most of the admin actions documented, and those few which I do have questions about at least in my eyes are unlikely to necessarily warrant any sort of independent overview on their own. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved-editor Padenton

I have no particular viewpoint on how this should be resolved. My goal in weighing in here is only to provide and reinforce background knowledge in this case, and provide an additional perspective and clarification on some of these events where I was involved.

My connection with this case is I was involved in the edit war on Rape in India. I filed the WP:3RR complaint at the EW noticeboard, (here) resulting in the blocks by Swarm for myself and OccultZone as well as other parties(TCKTKtool, 72.196.235.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Human3015, Vtk1987). I was unblocked by Bgwhite shortly after following OccultZone's appeal. In the following days, Bgwhite helped us reach consensus on the section we had been edit warring over. I do disagree w/ Swarm's initial block of me and OccultZone, but I felt it was objectively applied and within admin discretion per WP:3RR which does not explicitly require 3RR to be violated to be considered edit warring. No comment regarding the extra time on OccultZone's block.

Following the unblock, I didn't closely follow the discussion facilitated by Bgwhite, but his changes to the section satisfied my initial concerns on the section leading to the edit war, and from what I saw he was doing an excellent job mediating the discussion between all parties. He was professional and objective during this phase. (not intended as an implied characterization of his behavior in the rest of this incident) I am aware that Bgwhite later recused himself from the Rape in India discussion, asking Worm That Turned to take over, but little more than that.

I later found out that OccultZone filed an SPI involving some of the other editors involved in the dispute, and I weighed into it when it became heated, hoping I might be able to help calm things down. (here) It was not without merit, though I felt that there was not enough evidence to suggest the involvement of Zhanzhao. An IP in the SPI complaint was almost certainly one of the user accounts (he/she created the account during the edit war), he/she was warned not to use the IP and their account in future disputes (the IPs connection to a particular account was not confirmed by the checkuser per SPI policy), and both TCKTKtool and Resaltador were both later blocked for being confirmed sockpuppets of Sonic2030 here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sonic2030. Only Zhanzhao is not confirmed as a sockpuppet.

Disclaimer: I have not paid attention to these events since my comment in the SPI, and therefore have no statement on Worm That Turned, HJ Mitchell, or Nakon. The end of my statement above regarding the aftermath of the SPI is stuff I learned today while preparing this statement, and included only because it confirms some of OccultZone's suspicions in that SPI, which I had commented on. I have not followed closely the events on OccultZone's talk page and so I don't feel comfortable commenting on that.

Disclaimer 2: I am a relatively new editor. My account age is 3 years, but almost all of my edits began towards the end of February 2015, and I was still fairly new to editing when my involvement in these incidents occurred. ― Padenton|✉ 18:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft: I did not include OccultZone in my WP:EWN report because he was uninvolved in that edit war at the time. I later notified him. His last edit to the page was 9 hours before any of the edit warring I noticed began. The user I reported had also edit warred with him and myself throughout the previous week. Regarding OccultZone's attention to Rape in India, none of his edits that I saw appeared to be outside of policy. Some talk comments may have been, but I think we all got heated at a few points in the talk page. ― Padenton|✉ 19:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot, one last bit I was involved in. There was another edit war on the talk page of 72.196.235.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The IP was removing a warning and later a current block from his/her talk page, allowed by WP:BLANKING. When I linked OccultZone to WP:BLANKING it ended and he apologized. I considered this an easy mistake to make, even from an experienced editor, and done in good faith. This incident was nonetheless the cause for the block here User_talk:OccultZone#March_2015_2 by Bgwhite. It was an edit war of 7 reverts in less than 2 hours however, so whether it was appropriate or not, I leave to others to decide. ― Padenton|✉ 19:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Human3015

I was also involved party, its very sad to know that this matter is not closed yet, to be sincere with myself, all this was started because of me, I was the first to remove some things from Rape in India. In initial stage I removed entire section of "Rape on Foreigners" just because I felt that it was misleading section. Actually I should have discussed it on talk first, but I'm saying truth, that time I was very new to Wikipedia, I didn't knew How to talk on "talk page", if you see initial discussions about that issue, even after mentioning my name i did not took part in discussion because was not knowing how to reply. And I got blocked by Swarm without taking part in discussion later Bgwhite unblocked me.

Again to the first point, I was the first to remove that "foreigner's" section, which was reverted by "Borgulus"(I don't remember his exact name now, he has changed many names and IPs), and I think again I reverted it. Then many people got involved in it like Padenton and OcuultZone. Later Admin Bgwhite involved in it. Other users were Zhazhoo, TCK etc. It was long discussion, but I have to confess that this is all started because of me. Thats what I wanted to say. --Human3015 18:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone:, I don't know your exact matter with Bgwhite, maybe I'm very new to understand it, but as per my experience with Bgwhite on Rape in India talk page in which both you and me were involved, Bgwhite was very supportive and he was doing things what one admin suppose to do. He unblocked all of us(for not violating 3RR), he made proper dialog with all of us before making changes in article, he rightly protected page for 72 hours. I think there should not be any issue with him regarding Rape in India article is concerned. But I don't know any earlier or parallel issue of you with him. (Actually, since Rape in India matter became so big later, so I left visiting that page and never felt later to make any change in that page, even decided to not revert vandalism from that page, so I didn't followed related discussions about that matter elsewhere, so I don't know depth of this matter but still I think that Bgwhite has not done any mistake). Thank you. --Human3015 04:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Magog the Ogre

I unblocked OZ in light of the message on HJM's talk page which states that administrators may feel free to undo his actions if they contact him and speak with him about it. I did this. I felt that the situation was a bit of a storm in a teacup, so I unblocked him with a promise to drop the stick. With all due respect to OZ, I feel that OZ was being technically truthful yet disingenuous by telling me this and yet not dropping the stick in a very closely related matter.

I do not consider the reblock to be wheel warring. Wheel warring is when one administrator reverses the decision of another; this would have been if OZ had been immediately reblocked without causing any further problems. But Nakon in good faith felt that the original unblock was no longer justified in light of new circumstances. He did attempt to contact me privately on IRC and on my talk page, but I'd already gone to bed. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

Despite my advice, and despite the unblocking admin (and many others) asserting that Nakon's re-block did not constitute wheel-warring, OccultZone's statement maintains the patently ridiculous assertion that the re-block constituted wheel-warring. He also appears to evade the clear and reasonably question posed to him on his user talk page about whether or not he will drop this crusade if the case is rejected. Accordingly, I'd suggest blocks of a timed-duration (and the number of days taken to accept/reject requests on this page) do not appear to accomplish anything useful. For admins who will deal with this problem if it persists, indefinite measures are really the only hope for improvement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by non-involved Zeke Essiestudy

Comment;

Indef block of an IP address,[23] with whom he was in content dispute.[24][25] Such block is contrary to WP:IPB, IP addresses cannot be indeffed.

I dig into things revolving around blocks out of sheer curiousity, and I know about this category. So, technically, IP addresses CAN be indeffed in rare cases.

The problem here, though, is why Bgwhite immediately jumped to apply an indef block. The address might not even be static, it's not confirmed to be a proxy, and it's not a sock IP, so... that's kinda strange. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This case outcome is not looking good for OccultZone. He might technically be violating Nakon's rule that if OZ posts in another administrator noticeboard by posting here in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. By the time this is all done, I see OccultZone facing an indefinite block. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...uh-oh. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Jusdafax

Aside from cordial relations with one of the admins some years ago, I have no involvement with anyone here. That said, I urge reconsideration by the Arbs not voting to take this case. From what I have read here, it is multi-layered and merits deeper scrutiny. Those Arbs voting in favor make an excellent case: this is the last court of appeal, and there appears to be behavior that warrants investigation. That the blocked party made errors is clear, but given their lengthy involvement in the project and 180 k edits, the process calls for a detailed look. I am intellectually and also, for what it is worth, intuitively concerned. Something feels very wrong here. Jus da fax 04:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by un-involved Jbhunley

I have no opinion on the rights or wrongs of the specific matters raised here. However, I have noticed a lot of complaints of questionable use of administrator tools. While no one instance seems egregious I think it would be worthwhile for Arbcom to look into the aggregate of borderline and questionable actions be administrators.

There seems to be a disconnect between the rules/guidelines as written and 'usual and customary practice' of how they are actually implemented. This leads to discontent among new and veteran editors alike.

While most if not all admins act in good faith cynicism and long term fatigue can lead to less than optimal responses to behavioral issues. Taking this case would give Arbcom a vehicle to address these sub-actionable issues by clarifying policies and procedures and resetting expectations. Entropy is doing very bad things to dispute resolution on Wikipedia and I urge the Arbs who voted prior to the bulk of the material was presented here to at least reconsider their positions and to take this chance to begin to turn the trend around. Jbh (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DGG:. When you put OZ's material back you accidentally removed a vote by Guerillero. I don't want to do edits down in that section so I'm just pinging. Jbh ^Talk 19:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Magioladitis

By following the situation closely in the last days, I came to the following conclusions about this request:

The original ArbCom case request changed after several revisions, replies, communication in talk pages, IRC discussions, email exchanges, gtalk chats, admin shopping. Till now, the situation was escalated and more admins were dragged in to involve mainly after OccultZone's requests "to look at the case" and his refusal to accept the opinion of any of the admins he disagreed with. The latest target of this discussion is now that OccultZone claims that several admins misused their tools in several occasions. But why he chose these 5 admins? Why he grouped them together? Why he excluded other admins that interacted with him? the answer lies to the fact that the discussion target was altered and the "wheel warring" claim was replaced by the "long term tool misuse".
OccultZone's statement is more than 3434 words (far more than the 500 words limit). In this number please add several talk page messages to ArbCom members during this request.
No evidence that the case was tried to be resolved in other places is given. This is normal since even the core of the discussion changed. What is the reason to discuss tool misuse in cases that happened time ago and no evidence is shown that OccultZone tried AN/ANI for these cases before coming here?
The original reason that things came to here was a series of blocks and topic bans to OccultZone after his refusal to take some days off from edit warring, SPIs and sockpuppet claims.
OccultZone directly accused anonymous IPs or editors' for being sockpuppets before having enough evidence. Sometimes he was proven right (citation needed) but the spirit of the blocks and bans was to direct him use the normal route. For instance, he reverted an IP that belongs to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as sockpuppet of an editor who last used that IP in 2012 before any examination. As strong as we do not want OccultZone to leave the project, we do not want OccultZone to disappoint others and force them to leave the project.

Under these facts I think the case should be declined and a different approach should be tried. We can investigate every admin for improper actions but this was not the reason this case started some days ago and this is not related to OccultZone's case that brought us here.

PS I think this is the first time I ever comment in an ArbCom case. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that the case does not follow the instructions of an arbitration case request anymore. Moreover, no additional evidence were presented for 3 out of the 5 admins. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[26] OccultZone has his AWB access revoked for misusing it. Thanks to Nick I recalled that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: I got an email at Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:01 AM by OZ asking me to issue warning to another editor. This happened between OZ's 2nd and 3rd block. A lot of admins have been contacted by OZ for various reasons by email.-- Magioladitis (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After new evidence that OccultZone will continue if we do not settle this for good, I think the case should be accepted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Softlavender

I'm simply in the peanut gallery for this, however at this point the issues seem to be so polarizing and contentious and longterm and lengthy that I believe ArbCom acceptance of the case might be the only way forward. (Although frankly I don't envy any group of people trying to untangle the relevant pile of historical facts on this, but ArbCom seems to have accomplished similar feats.) I find the number of accusations and cross accusations baffling. I find the nearly completely polarized opinions of many posters here baffling. The increasing emotions on the page are disturbing as well. I don't know. One of the primary problems I have is the lack of clarity in OccultZone's use of the English language. We're used to that, and used to decoding his communications, but when it comes to something as important as these claims and counterclaims, clarity is of the essence. I think just figuring out what he is saying for starters is good for all of us. I will add that I did see one long thread on one noticeboard in which it was concluded that OZ had made a complete and utter obsessive nuisance of himself in his accusations of sockpuppetry by Zhanzhao, but it turned out I think he was partially right (I think?) in at least one instance (or at least that was the conclusion I reached about part of it). So it's a puzzling situation. This dogged relentless determination -- is it unhealthy obsession, or is it beneficial for the project (or both)? I have no idea; I don't have all the myriad facts in this case. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from uninvolved The ed17

Seeing as I'm not forced to look into this case (you poor arbitrators), I haven't. I was, however, contacted on IRC by OccultZone in an attempt to have me block Bgwhite. Given the evidence above, this behavior is clearly not unusual. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:54, 29 April 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.

Some guidance, please

Could the arbitrators please clarify the scope of the case (I presume you need to find a drafter and they need to figure it out themselves)? If the only thing that's desired from me is an explanation of my block, then I'm not sure I have much to add beyond my preliminary statement. So, not knowing what else to say, I'll make myself available to answer any questions from arbs, other parties, or outside observers. Feel free to ping me here, on the evidence/workshop pages or on my talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as a party

Hi Robert McClenon - you left me a message on my talk page saying I've been listed as a party, but I'm not listed as a party on the Arbitration Case, my submission prior to the case being formally accepted remains here in the Comments by Others section, my workshop submission comments remain in the Comment by Others section, the only administrator involvement I have with OccultZone is removal of their AutoWikiBrowser access last July 2014 and a sternly worded request in April 2015 that he stop administrator shopping to have a block I had placed extended without consulting with me first (the block of Kumioko/Reguyla's IP address). I believe that's all explained in my statement above already, but like HJ, I'm more than happy to make myself available for any questions from anybody that's interested. Nick (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing wrong with any of your admin actions, thus there was no reason to list you as a party. But because you had commented on the case request, you are indeed welcome to contribute on the sub-pages that had been linked. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears everybody who commented was left a note saying they were listed as a party (see Special:Contributions/Robert_McClenon). I'm sure it'll all be sorted out very quickly though. Nick (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong template was used to notify editors who commented on the case but are not parties. If you are not listed as a party, you are not a party to the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case-Related Questions and Comments

Please do not post case-related questions or comments to the talk pages of individual clerks or individual arbitrators. Please use case talk pages for the purpose. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Word length

Head note reads "However, lengthy statements may be truncated" and I just found that Bgwhite's comment goes above 2200 words.[27] Kindly check. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrators and clerks are aware that the word limit was exceeded. At this point, trimming the post would not be useful. (Besides, the statement is now on a page that only arbitrators and clerks may edit.) Parties and other editors are reminded that word limits (1000 words and 100 diffs for parties, 500 words and 50 diffs for others) for evidence still apply. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: OccultZone and others (April 2017)

Original discussion

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.

Initiated by OccultZone at 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: OccultZone and others arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others#OccultZone: banned

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others#OccultZone: banned

Unban

Statement by OccultZone

I would like to thank ARBCOM for giving me a chance to appeal the ban.

I was banned on 3 June 2015, following the arbitration case.

During this time I realized that I had been banned for correct reasons, that I had used sock puppets and continuously made sockpuppetry allegations against other users even when I had been told not to.

I have acknowledged that they were all bad ideas and I should've rather simply concentrated on building encyclopedia and drop the stick whenever I had been told to and avoid forumshopping/adminshopping.

Since I got banned I have never evaded the ban or asked anybody to make edits for me. The number of accounts that were blocked as socks and declared alternative accounts of mine has not increased since the ban.

And for what it's worth, I am not obsessed with Wikipedia anymore the way I unfortunately was, thus I am sure that I have no plans to cause disruption to this project.

If the ban appeal has been accepted, I would rather concentrate on building encyclopedia than doing any of the things that contributed to the ban or past blocks. I apologize for the inconveniences I had caused and I confident that none of my actions will remind of past mistakes. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD: Absolutely, I will abide by the decision of patrolling clerk, admin and checkuser on SPIs instead of challenging it. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93: Keeping it short that since there was no block evasion in these years or any recent edit conflicts prior the ban I would say that there's lack of possibility that we would see anything like that again, furthermore my internet is also secured. And yes, Amritasyaputra was totally an unrelated account. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inlinetext Well, it has happened before that one would remove sock puppetry tag if the user hasn't been socking for ages, right now I can remember one example[28] of the few that I followed.[29] I had still notified the admin who had imposed the final block,[30] and that was the end of that. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller and Vanamonde93: Thanks a lot for supporting unban. Since you both said that I should demonstrate constructive contributions on other areas, I should remind you that my most edits, GAs and all DYKs were non-South Asian. But I still get your concerns.

Now without making this too long, we should note there are 3 different proposals.

Topic ban "from all articles and discussions relating to South Asia for at least six months",[31]
"topic ban from Ayurveda/Indian traditional medicine"[32]
"1RR restriction"[33]

I would accept any of them because I am no longer worried about those subjects or even Wikipedia, but still want to see the account unbanned so that I can mainly complete the lists and years articles whenever I have enough time. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Worm That Turned

I'm no longer nearly as active as I used to be, but I did notice this request. I've looked back at the past case and refreshed my memory - and on the whole, I would like to see OccultZone unbanned. He was a highly prolific editor who added significantly to Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, he didn't know where to let things go and move on - the term "obsession" used by OccultZone above does indeed summarise my view of his behaviour. He's had a significant period to break that obsession, and if indeed he has been off-wiki for that period - I absolutely support a return to editing.

My only suggestion would be to put some sort of prohibition about adminshopping, and maybe a couple of other restrictions against some of the other areas highlighted in the arbcom case. These should be time limited, to help OccultZone ease back into editing. That said, I would support his return with or without restriction. Worm^TT(talk) 10:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

I quite agree with WormTT. There are already restrictions in place from the case that would still apply should OccultZone return, and if it can be crafted, a "shopping" prohibition might not be a bad idea either. But I think OccultZone is not irredeemable, but is a good person who made some very bad decisions. Since to all indications OccultZone has ceased socking and respected the ban, I certainly hope that's a positive sign that better decisions will be coming in the future. I think it's worth a try. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yunshui

Not much to add, save that I endorse the comments by Worm That Turned and Seraphimblade. I'm hopeful that OZ's behaviour in the summer of 2015 was an anomaly that won't be repeated and so I'd support an unban (with the other two restrictions remaining in place). Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 78.26

As per Worm and Seraphimblade, I would like to see OZ's ban lifted. There is no evidence presented that he has attempted to circumvent his ban, and has thereby demonstrated his ability to abide by the ARBCOM decision. The appeal shows CLUE regarding what went haywire, and how this editor will deal with it going forward. OZ is a productive editor who lost the way, time to welcome them back to the "straight and narrow". The restrictions proposed by Worm make sense. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DoRD

I agree with the statements above, but I would like to see a commitment from OZ regarding SPI. If he files a sockpuppetry case, he will need to abide by the decisions of the clerks, CUs, and/or patrolling administrators. Considering his statement, I don't expect that this would crop up again, but an acknowledgement would alleviate some concerns. —DoRD (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Inlinetext: If there was a connection between OZ and any other sockfarm, we would have discovered it, so your concerns are unfounded. —DoRD (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Inlinetext: You strongly disagree with what, and what does your anti-paid editing crusade have to do with OZ's unban request? —DoRD (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Inlinetext: I'm sorry that you dislike the term I used, but the fact remains that you are mistaken. You are seeing a connection that does not exist. I'm not going to rehash OZ's SPI here, but IPs from Singapore had nothing to do with it. In addition, there was no indication of paid editing raised in the ArbCom case, and apart from your accusations, I am unaware of any suspicions being raised elsewhere. —DoRD (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93

I had very little direct interaction with OZ whom I always saw as a prolific contributor who was sometimes unable to drop the stick. However, I had substantial interactions with BladesMulti, an account blocked as a sock of OZ that had substantial behavioral issues, including edit-warring, and NPOV related issues. I can provide further evidence if needed. Since it has been three years, I don't think this precludes a lifting of the ban, but I think this is something Arbcom should look into, and possibly leave certain restrictions in place with respect to these issues. I'd suggest a 1RR restriction.

Furthermore, there are some unresolved issues with respect to another account, namely AmritasyaPutra, who was initially blocked as an OZ sock, later (as I understand it) unblocked after a BASC appeal, and then blocked again for socking on his own account. Now if the first block was, in fact, a false positive, then this is no barrier to OZ being unblocked. But (and I realize some of this information probably is private, and cannot be shared outside the committee) some clarity about this might be nice: because the last AP sock was in fact blocked three months ago, and the previous one not too long before that. Vanamonde (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: If arbcom believes that the balance of probability is that AmritasyaPutra and OZ are different people, it seems to me that a little book-keeping to clarify that would be appropriate. For instance, could we separate the two SPIs? That seems to be the crux of the issue here for several people. I understand that arbcom cannot share any non-public evidence they have, but they could at least explain whether they are acting on evidence, or on an assumption of good faith. Vanamonde (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: You say down below that you don't know enough to comment on any possible separation between AmritasyaPutra and OccultZone. Yet the entirety of OZ's case for an unban (which I am not necessarily opposed to, for the record) rests on the claim that he is completely different from AP, who was blocked for socking less than six months ago. How can arbcom be willing to support an unban request, without addressing the question of separation? Vanamonde (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Since you mentioned it, I went back to look at some of my own notes/conversations from the period in question, and I think I didn't cover everything above. The issue of Bladesmulti is a difficult one. That account was most remarkably disruptive, and I think Joshua Jonathan, Kautilya3 and myself dealt with the bulk of its issues. However, Blades's edits had a number of characteristics, including remarkably poor English, that are not generally present in OZ's edits (though once again, I have had limited interactions with the main account). So either OZ was putting on a remarkable act, or there were multiple people involved in operating this sockfarm, which is a very worrying possibility. But this is not a hypothesis we can test; so if OZ has really turned over a new leaf, I'm willing to AGF. However, the passage of time had helped me forget the true extent to which Blades had been disruptive. I don't want to produce vast numbers of links here, but even just this is indicative; Blades was saved from a siteban only through an offer of mentoring. Given this history, and given the disruption of AmritasyaPutra (whose position vis-a-vis this whole mess has yet to be clarified...) I'd agree that a topic ban from South Asian topics is needed until and unless OZ demonstrates an ability to edit constructively elsewhere. Alternatively, a 1RR restriction, as I suggested above. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Inlinetext

Editor indef-blocked; commentary irrelevant. Drmies (talk)

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

It is not clear to me why this edit was made by the user with that edit summary and what their connection with User:Natalinasmpf is. Their next edit was cryptic. Hence I oppose the unbanning of this editor who appears to be a component of the very long term abusive 'Natalinasmpf' sock /paid-editing team who are unredeemable and still hugely active on Wikipedia. Inlinetext (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone Well, in that case it is doubly disruptive to have 2 sets of paid-editing/sockpuppeting teams on Wikipedia disrupting Singapore and India related articles with their internal fighting when it causes massive harassment of non-involved editors. Inlinetext (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD I strongly disagree. However, until this local community alters its stand on Outing in the context of sockpuppetry and paid-editing, I am not going to post about it on this project. Inlinetext (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D4iNa4 I don't have to repeat that I have been editing WMF projects with an account since 2004, have over 5,000 edits, have never been blocked, and I stopped editing after extensive harassment by Arbcom sanctioned editors. Your own sockpuppetry is something I would not have ordinarily commented on elsewhere, but it is relevant here. Inlinetext (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD I disagreed with If there was a connection between OZ and any other sockfarm, we would have discovered it. My concern with paid editing is directly connected to the recent harassement I encountered, OZ's edit to Natalinasmpf's user page and harassment of several other users over time by this ring in furtherance of their paid editing. IMO, there were too many botched CU's over time involving Singapore IP's, editing in specific areas and "my brother did it" excuses. This is very long term "slow" abuse by computer experts, which I am not prepared to discuss publicly with this community until its policy on Outing is altered to allow it. I object to the term "crusade", especially since it refers to massacre of Asians by Anglos. Inlinetext (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD I don't know how you can state that the issue of sockpuppetry allegations for editors with CU'd Singapore IPs was not raised at OZ's Arbcom case. 1) OZ removes a CU badge from Natalinasmpf's User page and replaces it with the user's original content. 'Natalinasmpf' edited in the Singapore topic area, and its very unlikely that the editor has stopped editing. 2) There is some on-wiki evidence linking Natalinasmpf and Simfish, eg. link and considerable off wiki evidence about the person(s) behind the names. 3) User:Simfish is (now) a declared paid editor for User:Vipul. 4) It is unclear where User:Alamkonayun has vanished (great server crash ?) along with their edits. Natalinasmpf is indeffed and User:Bonkers The Clown continues seamlessly, it goes much further than this and connects to WP:LTA/OM, editors who rant that CU is magic pixie dust "My brother did it", and WMF finally taking over child protection from Arbcom. Inlinetext (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone How can you say that User:AmritasyaPutra is unconnected when as recently as 15 September 2016 this account was CU blocked as your sock-puppet ? At your case AP made the following statement If it is not dealt with it will only worsen even in case of OZ being indef`ed; a lot of his friends and new editors like me will consider it an act of wasting a good editor in haste. diff. Several of these "friends" (confirmed sockmasters who were similarly allowed back to edit) very recently showed up at a Rape in India related discussion to harass me and votestack where a current sock of 'Natalinasmpf' also participated. In my mind there is no difference between sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, especially when you act on behalf of a former sockmaster admin like 'Natalinasmpf' whose mop was recalled. Inlinetext (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf I have not claimed that OZ was AP or Ekvastra. I have claimed that AP is connected and was admittedly a meat-puppet of OZ (diff provided earlier) and OZ friendly editors eg. User:D4iNa4, User:Capitals00, User:Marvellous_Spider-Man have continued to edit colllusively and abusively as meatpuppets to harass me along with sock(s) of 'Natalinasmpf' in the same Rape in India topic area as recently as Feb 2017. The first 2 sockmasters were similarly unblocked but have not reformed (and it is doubtful if OZ will either considering his problematic behaviour as 'BladesMulti' and penchant for rapid bot-like editing to cover his spoor). CU is not sufficiently capable of stopping such off-wiki coordinated meatpuppetry where the players have a common COI and include former admins. Inlinetext (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Inlinetext (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked for continued disruptive editing, harassment and personal attacks. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Having refreshed my memory of this case, I think the time has come to allow OZ a conditional to return to editing. The conditions being the topic ban and one account restrictions remaining in place, and a restriction on forum shopping being added. For the latter, perhaps something like:

OccultZone may not:

Raise any issue at more than one venue, whatever that venue is.
Raise any issue at a venue other than where it is being discussed.

OccultZone is not restricted from:

Moving a discussion from one venue to another, if (a) there is consensus among those discussing it to do so; or (b) uninvolved users indicate it has been raised at the wrong venue.
Commenting in multiple venues if an issue is moved (by himself or others).
Commenting in multiple venues if a single issue has been raised in multiple places by other users.
Notifying users or pages of discussions in other venues.

As usual with things I suggest it is probably possible to simplify this! Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Inlinetext: CU is not magic pixie dust, nor it is infallible - the CU tool provides technical data that must be interpreted in conjunction with behavioural and other evidence. For example if two people edit from the same institution or from the same ISP then there will almost always be a degree of technical overlap - more so if they use a common operating system and browser (CU can show the user agent).

What happened in September 2016 was that user:Ekvastra was found to be the same person as AmritasyaPutra. Because AmritasyaPutra had previously been regarded as a sock of OZ this was placed under OZ's case page at SPI but there was no evidence presented or presumably found at that time that AmritasyaPutra and OZ were the same person - indeed based on non-public evidence submitted to arbcom AmritasyaPutra was previously unblocked as the balance of probability was that they were different people. At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OccultZone/Archive#10 December 2016 there is argument presented that they are different people based on behaviour evidence. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Inlinetext: Well OZ will remain topic banned from rape in India and similar topics, if he violates this topic ban he will be swiftly reblocked at WP:AE. If other users are harassing you in that (or any other) topic area you need to seek dispute resolution against them, not against OZ. Iff dispute resolution has been tried already but has not worked (I've not investigated) then filing a request for arbitration to look at the topic area and/or the specific users may be appropriate, continuing to rant at OZ for the actions of other people is not. Thryduulf (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I agree that would be a good idea. Doug Weller seems to have been the arb who has most recently looked at this, so hopefully they will comment on whether the OZ and AmritasyaPutra SPIs should be separated or not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: In the bullet point "Raising any issue at more than one venue, whatever that venue is (with the exception of bring a case or clarification/amendment request to ArbCom)." the word "bring" should be "bringing". Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Roxy the dog

Blades is responsible for the besmirching of my otherwise virgin block log, and at the request of an arbiter ~~who hasn't signed their comment~~ below, I thought I might note that these socks have coloured my editing behaviour since that time. Blades went from being incompetent in English overnight to having reasonable ability when I started challenging him at Ayurveda, and we received a minor block at the same time, after the events described in the link to BladesTalk where I am involved below. I never expected to see Blades or the editor known as blades back at his tricks again. I am no longer optimistic. Roxy the dog. bark 13:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SAMSNUGGET

Sock of Inlinetext. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Vanamonde93: The missing link for this discussion is that this is a secret digital meatpuppet army of RSS workers on Wikipedia who are networked through fronts like the Ramakrishna Mission, seminaries like Vivekananda Institute of Human Excellence (admin check delete log), and edits and ivotes are coordinated through facebook messenger, whatsapp. Here is the reliable link. Many of its members are with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the account passwords are shared so you get non-Indian IPs mixed with IPs from India, and situations where accounts use broken English in one edit, switch to decent English and then revert to form. They have figured out Wikipedia so they maintain multiple good hand / bad hand accounts which argue both sides of the debate to rig it. But I'm not telling you anything new am I ? Smasnugget (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

I have seen that main account's conduct is generally taken into consideration while socks are ignored because a user's attitude can be different on every sock account they use. Best response to socking and its consequences was the site ban that he is still abiding.

Of the diffs you provided @Doug Weller: one diff was from January 2014, 2nd diff is not working and last one came after violating 0RR on a article that is already rid of 0RR rule, here Bladesmulti was blocked and unblocked along with some other editors.[34][35] It also seems that he made no edits on any article with this sock during final 2 months,[36] except one which involved removal of unsupported attributions and a spam link.

Few articles where I have been interested since first day were also edited OZ and his edits of any accounts remains there to this day because they were useful. He has not evaded site ban and it should cease any possibility of further topic ban, see WP:PUNITIVE. I further agree with Opabinia regalis, that entire case emerged from rape in India subject, it is sensible to maintain topic ban over it.

Like others told, OZ is a good contributor and also to the South Asian articles area which is regularly disrupted by spammers, harassment socks and edit warriors and they return anytime they see inactivity of other contributors, and that's the thing usually forces me to keep checking the articles, having OZ's presence would be advantageous. D4iNa4 (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joshua Jonathan

I was the editor who mentored Bladesmulti (see User talk:Bladesmulti/Mentorship, and Amritasha Putra; this "discussion", which presents a nice overview of sockpuppets, may serve as a reminder that the mentoring was not exactly succesfull, and the efforts on my part were not met with an equally repricocal attitude by Bladesmulti. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

Just saw I was pinged here by now indeffed editor. Nonetheless it's good, I support unban.

I agree with Doug Weller's suggestion to put 6 months topic ban from South Asia, there should be a time limit since he never had a topic ban before.

Noting the broadness of 6 months ban from South Asia, this topic ban should supersede the active topic ban on crimes in South Asia (often known as Indian subcontinent). I don't find any sense in current topic ban because OccultZone used no socks on Rape in India and present version of the article is same as his preferred version. I should note that Indian subcontinent is bigger than just India. On all of his accounts, he had only one block more than 3 years ago for violating WP:3RR [37] on all his accounts, rest of the blocks were overturned, sometimes as unwarranted, and none of his accounts ever had a block unrelated to India that's why 1RR restriction is not an option as well. Capitals00 (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ryk72

Taking the pedantry even further...
@Callanecc and Thryduulf: Suggest: "Raising any issue at more than one venue, whatever those venues are (with the exception of bringing a case or clarification/amendment request to ArbCom)." - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

OccultZone and others: Clerk notes

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

OccultZone and others: Arbitrator views and discussion

I'm amenable to an unban, probably with a forum/admin shopping restriction in addition to those already in place from the case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open-minded, but waiting a couple of days for any additional statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I would support an unban with a strict prohibition on ADMINSHOP as identified in FOF#4 from the case. I don't think a 1RR restriction is required given the topic ban remains in place. Mkdw ^talk 04:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Sorry, I don't think I know enough to be sure about the issue. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support unban accompanied by an initial topic ban from SPI (appealable in due course), and perhaps a restriction on forum-shopping. Views welcome on how to word this last one. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced about the sock issue. As Bladesmulti he denied being related to OZ:User talk:Bladesmulti#Unblock request "Am I related to OccultZone, AmritasyaPutra and others that are noted at [1]? You can compare contributions and subject interests with these accounts,[2]-[3]-[4] I am not interested in animals, celebrities, sports, crime and politics like any of these users. According to the tool, there are no articles where I contributed with OccultZone, except one talk page which was RFC.[5] I never contributed on any good article, AmritasyaPutra continuously did. I had conversation with AmritasyaPutra by email, I was asked by him to vote at [6]". Although I still might be persuaded to unblock hoping that he's changed, I think the topic ban is far too narrow. I'd like to see him banned from all articles and discussions relating to South Asia for at least six months. Let him show that he can contribute usefully somewhere else first. So conditional support but only with such a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Doug, your edit summary says "topic ban from all South Asian topics, not just Rape in India", but the remedy reads " a) sexual assault or b) crime on the Indian Subcontinent, both broadly construed" - I read that as a topic ban from either of those things, not just from the intersection of the two. Is that not what was meant in the original decision? As far as I can tell, the events that led to the original case began when OZ got blocked for edit-warring at the rape in India article, and escalated as OZ made various accusations against the admins involved and the others in the edit war. I don't see much evidence that he was specifically disruptive on other South Asian topics. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Yeah. Sure. I'm on the record as wanting editors to be unbanned, so I can't really say no here--but with a topic ban (sharpened up per Obabinia) and OMG THE FORUMSHOPPING THE SPIS THE ACCUSATIONS none of that please. I barely remember last night's dinner, but I remember that very well. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Opabinia regalis: aren't we going to include his socks in his editing behavior now? As Bladesmulti he was a disruptive editor, blocked several times. See his talk pages at [38] [39] [40] I'd like the opinions of some of the editors who engaged with that account. We already have Vanamonde's. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 5 April 2017‎ (UTC) @Roxy the dog: apologies for forgetting to sign. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, I'd mixed up Blades and AP. Blades' past edits suggest a topic ban from Ayurveda/Indian traditional medicine is a good idea. All of South Asia seems too broad. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Opabinia regalis: OccultZone states that most of his edits were non-South Asian and that he will accept any (and I presume all) of the topic ban and 1RR proposals to complete the lists and years articles.[41] I think we can now move forward with an unban. Doug Weller talk 08:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone and others: Motion

The indefinite siteban of OccultZone (talk · contribs) imposed in remedy 1 of the "OccultZone and others" arbitration case is rescinded with the following restrictions:

OccultZone's topic ban from remedy 2 and one account restriction from remedy 3 in the "OccultZone and others" case remain in effect.
OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from filing, commenting in or discussing sockpuppet investigations. If OccultZone has a reasonable suspicion that a user may be engaging in sockpuppetry, they should raise the issue with the functionaries, an admin, or a sockpuppet investigations clerk, who can then file a sockpuppet investigation if, in their opinion, one is warranted.
OccultZone is indefinitely topic banned from making any edits related to, or editing any page about South Asian topics, broadly construed.
OccultZone is indefinitely subject to a 1RR editing restriction.
OccultZone is indefinitely restricted from:

Raising any issue at more than one venue, whatever that venue is (with the exception of bringing a case or clarification/amendment request to ArbCom).
Raising any issue at a venue other than where it is being discussed.

For clarity, OccultZone is not restricted from:

Commenting in multiple venues if an issue is moved (by himself or others).
Commenting in multiple venues if a single issue has been raised in multiple places by other users.
Notifying users or pages of discussions in other venues.

These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee in no less than six months.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Miniapolis 16:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Time to get moving on this, thanks for the suggested wording Thryduulf‬. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller talk 16:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mkdw ^talk 18:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If OZ is OK with the South Asia topic ban, then it works for me. Otherwise I still think what I previously thought - this is too long, and shouldn't permit shopping around sock accusations by email either - but let's give it a try. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support to move it along, and thanks Callanecc for posting this. Idly, I think the second dot point could be shortened to just the first sentence, and there's a few conditions here that will hopefully be easily removed at the six-month ARCA, but for now let's give this a try. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain/Recuse

Discussion

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.

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5