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

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.

What is the scope of the case?

Zeke Essiestudy is already bringing up edits that were done over a year ago that supposedly supports long-term editing abuse. The IP mentioned has had every edit reverted in past ~18 months. How far back are we gong? Is this only since when OccultZone received their first block? 18 months? Since editing began? Is the case about "long-term" admin abuse? Is this case about admin abuse and OccultZone since the first block on OccultZone? What can or can't be said about past things that may support current things?... A closing admin findings at an ANI case? What one editor said at an ANI case? A block done two or five years ago? Bgwhite (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply presenting something peculiar OccultZone has uncovered. IP addresses are usually not blocked indefinitely unless they are proxies/static sock IPs. I am not trying to steer remedies towards you, I just want to support OccultZone's side, I want things revolving around him to go back to the way they were before this mess. But I unfortunately see {{Banned user}} getting placed on his page in the near future. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were directed towards how the scope of the original case changed. Guerillero quoted Worm on how the scope of the original case had changed when Guerillero declined. Many other people commented about the changing scope. Essiestudy's comment was a light bulb moment. Case started out as various Admin's and OccultZone's conduct from around the time OccultZone was blocked. It changed into long-term misconduct by all admins involved. I've never edited at an arb case before. I've never read an evidence or workshop section before. I'm seeking clarity. Which of the two cases do we present evidence to? What are some guidelines as to not change scope or whatever may or may not happen? Bgwhite (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the case is the conduct of OccultZone, with special emphasis on admin actions taken in relation to OccultZone. Courcelles (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for more diffs and words

Per my discussion with Callanecc,[1] I have been told to request here. Indeed, sometimes it takes more than 140 diffs to prove an editor to be a sock.[2] Although this case is a far bigger scope, it took more over 106 diffs just to get this case accepted.[3] I would request for about 300 diffs and 3000 words. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: Your request for more than 1000 words and 100 diffs has been denied by the committee. Please remember that the scope of this case pertains to you and the actions of the named parties in relation to you. Evidence about the other parties conduct outside of this extent should only be submitted if it provides a small amount of useful background information to their interactions with you. If you exhaust your word limit and still have a narrowly focused portion of evidence that you would like to add, you may ask the committee for an extension. If you choose to make such a request, the committee will take into consideration the evidence you have presented up to that point. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and I will try. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As drafting arbitrator, if you hit the limits (they are not strictly enforced, i.e. 110 diffs or 1,100 words are not a problem) and still have specific points that are highly relevant to present, I'll be willing to extend your allotment of space to something reasonable (3x the standard is a bit much, though). Courcelles (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: I tried a lot, still trying, I think that I should get 3000 words and 100 more diffs. There are some obvious issues: (1) It is basically 1 vs 5. (2) It is more than just pointing a diff, it is about how I consider the actions to be incorrect. I have drafted most of the points already, they can be found at User:OccultZone/ARC. Mostly it is me and WTT, arguing for nearly 40 days now. Thus I see no hope that the evidence as whole would be big or even half of this ancient one. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I make your evidence already submitted at ~800 words (I'm not investing the time sorting out what the word count tool should and should not count, it spat out a number of 890 or so). Can you get your salient points across in 1,500? If you still need more, we can talk. Courcelles (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I would complete 1,500 first then. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles:, since you are active, and after a long time, I really wanted to tell you one day that you were one of the admins who I heavily admire. It is evident that you were a big help to me,[4] same with Guerillo.[5] After thinking all that, I realize how you both had helped me against the disruptive sock puppeteers, while these people have only blocked me in favor of these disruptive sock puppeteers and true policy violators. Clearly it is evident. There's no doubt that I really had many plans, but only since these events... I have to emphasize not only the last 2 blocks, but also that how much I have been misrepresented and a few other events that circulated around. Can I get 1,500 more words and 75 more diffs? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3,000 words is an unusually large extension, lets see what @Guerillero: thinks about the idea. Courcelles (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. 3,000 is final, although I expect that the evidence won't be more than 2,700. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to extend your evidence limit to 3000. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, go ahead, OccultZone and use up to 3,000 words in your evidence. Courcelles (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Courcelles, the more I look, the more concerned I become about OccultZone's not editing. I've hit my word limit as I believed the scope of the case was the incidents over the past month, but would you entertain a couple hundred words more? I'll keep it brief and diff focussed. Worm^TT(talk) 07:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned:, I'll allow another 500 words and 50 diffs. Based on your comment, I think this should be enough. Courcelles (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up Courcelles, I have understood that, and also taken the comment of Guerillero into account. I have just passed 970 words, I will be writing about WTT, and 2 others, I am just editing my sandbox for now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Can I remove some part from my section that may seem to be redundant? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. The evidence submissions aren't final until this phase of the case closes. Rework, shrink, etc. as you see fit. Courcelles (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles, can I join in the party? I'm around 1,300 words, but under 100 diff right now. I need to add one more thing. 1) Is there a counting tool to see how many words I've written? 2) Can I have an increase in words. I definitely won't go over 1,500, but I'm not sure where I'll end up because I'm not sure where I am. Bgwhite (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: I'll extend you to 1,750 just so you have enough room. I usually just google "word counter" and use whatever the top result is, but a) they're inaccurate given bare diffs are not words, and b) I'm not particularly minded to care about word limits unless they're abused egregiously (as in, I couldn't care less if someone posted 1,300 words, but 2,000 without asking would be pushing it.) Courcelles (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles Well, in that case, could I have 9,000. :) Thank you. Bgwhite (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles And what about me? Especially when we are having more events and statements around. As usual, the size of case still remains small compared to others, and even recent ones.[6][7] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OccultZone wrote more than 3,000 words. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles said above, if 1000 is limit, it is still fair to hit 1,100. I did about 3075 words. (including the headings) 02:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Temporary Injunction

Temporary injunction enacted by the arbitration committee. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have proposed a temporary injunction at the workshop page and there are a couple of comments there with it. If @Courcelles: as the case drafting arb or any other available arbs could look, that would be great. I am noting it here as it might easily get lost among the earlier back-and-forth discussions which was occurring on that page, so apologies if you are getting linked to it twice. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A temporary injunction can only be issued by majority vote of the committee. I will bring it to everyone's attention on the list. Courcelles (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So moved, on the PD page. Courcelles (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it; thank you again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mike V

Mike V I believe that Worm That Turned has misrepresented my email to you. First of all, I was only continuing what happened after the SPI. I never said that you were convinced by the behavioral evidence, I only said that you could not question it, which would lean towards "ignoring" but not "agreeing". It is well evident on your own talk page as well that you couldn't question. Also that you agreed being slightly wrong in your assessment, which also evident, an example would be, when you said "it's an article"[8] although there were 2 articles in question.[9][10] You assumed the viewership as the major factor behind, despite the viewership was double in some of the previous months, there was no influence of viewership on this article since there were no new contributors.

You agreed to the fact that viewership had no influence on the participation of suspects. That is what I was pointing to, and that you were sure about the technical evidence and that nothing had been spoofed, thus you cannot do anything more about it. I was rather straightening my position about the behavioral evidence than claiming anything near to your agreement with the behavioral evidence, that you rejected. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have forwarded the IRC conversation to the committee and WTT has likely sent the emails as well, so I guess we will just have to let them be the judge of that. I've addressed your concerns about the SPI evidence in my evidence statement. I do not believe I have agreed to any of the statements you insist above. Mike V • Talk 14:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I have. My understanding of a phrase like "he could not question the evidence" was that Mike could not dispute the evidence - therefore agreeing that it was correct. I've sent the full email, to the committee, as I mentioned I would in my evidence. I don't believe I misrepresented you there - though if that was not your meaning, I'm glad that's cleared up. Worm^TT(talk) 14:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was only saying that Mike V cannot argue about it, that is far different from agreeing. If I had ever knew that he agreed with the presented behavioral evidence, he would've surely acted on the SPI, but no he did not, he further said that he cannot do anything about this all anymore. Though he could argue about technical evidence, and already because of the pro-IP hopping,[11][12][13] I never wanted any checks.[14]("consider declining the CU") BTW, Worm That Turned who were talking to when you said "if that was not your meaning"?

I think that we should really consider ending this misunderstanding right here, it is not going to benefit either way. Regardless of what happened, that SPI certainly stopped the target from editing, which would confirm the suspicion, since then, we don't see any IP-hopping edit warring or same edits. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phase

@Robert McClenon: the evidence phase is over, for giving it effect, don't you think it should be now marked? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request

@Robert McClenon: Can I add 2 diffs/links and 4 words to my evidence? Diffs are 1 month old, and important. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]