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]

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]

Replies

@Worm: It is a requirement to ask an oversighter first, if they cannot, then one can go for Arbcom, I had contacted them for oversighting the block right away and they said no because summary was not truly libelous and they said that they see how and why you were blocked, they disregard "unwarranted" blocks. Nonetheless, I knew that this block is going to make sound.

Furthermore, you talk about "18 admins/checkusers" without diffs? Hardly a day ago, weren't they "12"[19] according to you and you had refused to prove it? That's the point. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lower than what you have estimated. Issues were different, they were not resembling each other. Given the circumstances, such as wikihounding, diff misrepresentation, etc. that is still going on to this day, sometimes it was essential to use the email feature. As long as they handled it well, the matter was closed. Emailing has to do nothing with you topic banning me across wide amount of namespaces without even citing a single diff that would explicit disruption, and having any formal procedures. Since you had nominated Swarm for adminship, it is looks easier to conceive that you are the only one to regard his block for 1 revert in 5 days as legitimate. Furthermore, for proving that block to be any appropriate you would regard every other as the same, including the topic ban that you had imposed for giving "time away". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: Not only Swarm and Bgwhite has. But everyone else who I have mentioned as the party.

I think it could've been easier if I had mentioned the name of every admin along with their action, I have now mentioned all of that in my above original post. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. He was recently indeffed by Floquenbeam, Nick had requested unblock for Kumioko.(discussion) I hope he would present diffs for his claims. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammersoft. Thanks for assessment. By BLPCRIME, I was not talking about only mentioning names on the article. Same way we cannot include any sources that have violated copyvio per linkvio, which is not really a violation but heavily considered for providing better quality, it is also assumed that we should not add those sources that have alleged a living person of some crime yet to be proven. Indeed I am an expert in this subject, got a few DYKs[20][21][22] for this subject. Swarm has not recognized such a regrettable incident where he had inappropriately blocked 4 editors. Like I said, this is just a highlight, there is just more to show. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite, I don't bother about that, we are talking about what happened since 23 March. According to you, Nick had blocked me, and this and this is admin-shopping. First of all Nick hadn't blocked me, and these diffs shows 2 clearly different issues, they are about 2 different people who live in 2 different continents, in what sense you would consider them as adminshopping? What Resaltador (talk · contribs) has to do with being accused of sock anymore now? He was blocked as sock right after my report. Not only your admin actions, but also this sort misrepresentation is what we have to address. You are an admin, you should know what these simple things are about.

Since you misrepresent so much on-wiki, how much you would do about those purported off-wiki events that you claim? There is no need to doubt about that, it is also well confirmed. You claimed a few times that I have sent threatening emails to Swarm,[23][24] though Swarm has rejected such frivolous claim.[25] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Nakon hadn't contacted anyone[26] before reinstating an overturned block for the reason that was not even a blockable offense. You need to show diffs if Nakon ever did. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvio giuliano: There are: Non-policy based blocks and 0 warning/notice or 0 reports were made in any relation to the block. Protecting the page, not just once but two times in 2 hours where the same admin was involved. Unauthorized topic bans, topic banning from any namespace without following the formal procedures, I am currently under a non-existing topic ban which includes any complaints against any editors, though it is in effect. Reinstatement of an overturned block for making this edit, which was clearly not a blockable offense, clearly wheel warring. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: What really allows one to block for 72 hours for making 1 revert in 5 days? Or protecting the page two times by incorrectly labeling the edits as vandalism, despite being involved? Or imposing unauthorized topic bans, "stop editor-based drama or you will be indefinitely blocked", even though there are no flaws in any reports. Such is clearly abuse of admin tools and duties. Should admins take action against those who have been reported, or block those who have reported obvious violation? And without even finding or making a single notification prior to the block. Such has been always a huge part in my case. Who gets blocked for making this edit? Furthermore there are clear evidences of incivility, wikihounding,(in its right definition) false accusations, etc. False accusations are actually serious, such as claiming that I have sent harassing emails to other admin (Swarm),[27][28] while Swarm has clearly denied it.[29] I think that there's so much, and it shouldn't be ignored. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I think we can come to a conclusion, since you say that they weren't perfect and they don't rise to the level of arbitration, I would ask only one question. Do you agree that none of these block-related admin actions were warranted and my actions rise to the level where block was required? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui, thanks for recognizing the ill-considerations. I can see some chances, we shall agree that these weren't blockable offenses at all, and remind the named parties about WP:ADMIN. Case might be solved. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Those blocks are the real problems. I am definitely not here to present whole case for proving that there has been long term abuse of admin tools in few 100s of words. I would do that only when the case is accepted. Like I've said, these instances are only for indicated the poor judgement. Contrary to what Thryduulf has said, first block was not even the worst one, worst one would be the last one for making this edit, now recently, I had to use my talk page for reporting a sock who was recently blocked by a CU who has my talk page on his watchlist. Why? Because if I would post into any administrator noticeboard, I would be blocked indefinitely per Nakon. In short words, after this case is rejected the only outcome would be that this kind of misuse of blocking feature would be multiplied and so would the wikihounding, etc. Finally there is no reason for me to contribute here anymore. If I would write anything to any administrator board even after 5 months, I would be indeffed. In fact the blocking reasons can vary, they can be just anything, they would remain non-policy based just like they have been until now, they contravene the blocking policy. How come we can do nothing about them? What will happen after all that? That's all. Should we look for the alternative that I have suggested above? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: How this edit would seem any problematic? Especially when I am being told about this wholly different issue, after the block. That is what needs to be addressed as well, there are problems with all of these blocks. It is obvious that such misuse of blocking facility would be in increase if it has been overlooked. Considering that I am not the only editor around, we have to be aware of the consequences as well. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: you meant to struck the "Decline", right? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: While your statement includes no diffs, I would simply suggest you to observe more carefully, rather than just reading what Bgwhite had said. 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, a few days ago(9 April) by a checkuser. You would know only if you had checked it. This extension has also hosted proxies.[30] AN/I? It had been tried and it is not relevant here. You may want to check WP:AP, this is a kind of dispute that requires no other prior dispute resolution, still we all know that a lot discussions had been made. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis, there is about others as well, it will be done during the case. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC) @Magioladitis: you need to read the comment of Bgwhite again, he had already mentioned it a few days ago, thus there was nothing new and I have already said above that I don't bother about it, if I had, I would've mentioned it or it was mentioned anywhere else in these many days. In few words, it has no effect on this case. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: Hadn't you replied already? We never interacted before July 2014. Apart from repeating what other editor has already said, you should better find a diff if we ever interacted before, so that we would know that your attitude "changed". Finally, all of that is irrelevant to this case. Enough said. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: I had asked there about it, only because you were the one to remove the access, and I found it to be necessary to some extent. I never asked you to get involved on that article in question. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: Yes they had been strongly reminded about their actions in the past, they were also reminded about these actions., but clearly there was no resolution. Comment of DGG sums it up. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin tool misuse: Bgwhite

Since I am asked for proving multiple instances of admin tools abuse, we can have a look at other actions of Bgwhite.

This is not the first or only time when Bgwhite made blocks where he was involved. Yunshui may remember this.

Bgwhite blocked[31] an editor with whom he edit warred.[32][33] No warning was given.
He reverted an editor 3 times[34][35][36], then he blocked him,[37] without any prior warning.[38]
In 9 March, 2015, after he reverted an editor,[39] and blocked him for 3 days, just for making this edit, which he had made 28 hours before the block. He had been given no warning. Bgwhite had also protected the user-talk page of this editor.[40]
Indef block of an IP address,[41] with whom he was in content dispute.[42][43] Such block is contrary to WP:IPB, IP addresses cannot be indeffed.
Reverted[44] an editor, later he blocked this editor for 48 hours.[45]
Made 4 reverts,[46][47][48][49] then he indeffed that editor.[50]
Reverted an editor 4 times,[51][52][53][54], after that he blocked him.[55]
His block of EEng, back in August 2014[56] violated WP:INVOLVED, he was having content dispute with EEng for weeks.[57][58] His another block of EEng for 72 hours was also WP:INVOLVED.
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.
Bgwhite blocked an editor for 48 hours in 26 December 2014,[63] who he was edit warring with.[64][65]
He reverted an editor[66][67], then he blocked him[68] right after he saw the revert.

Misuse of rollback.[69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80] Here he restored a vandalism.

There is more, and list of improper page protection is also huge. My original post was hardly 550 words, it only included a number of actions that prompted me to go for a case, if the case has been accepted, I would sure tell a lot more about everyone who I have listed as parties. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of page protection, rollback, blocks, can be found on many articles, but they can be also found within a few individual articles. On Subrata Roy, Bgwhite blocked an editor twice, [81] first for a week, then indef. Bgwhite is involved here,[82][83][84] he also edit warred with this editor by abusing rollback.[85][86] Bgwhite indeffed this editor for making 2 edits.[87][88] The blocking reason reads, "trolling, disruption or harassment", clearly incorrect.[89] Bgwhite has abused rollback a few more times on this article.[90][91][92] Both times, Bgwhite protected the page due to "vandalism", none of these edits were vandalism, they were rather WP:CENSOR and probably required some discussion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, AGK, and Salvio giuliano:, please have a look. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of the examples that I have mentioned in which, Bgwhite has edit warred and blocked the editors who didn't even knew if they were in violation of any policy, while Bgwhite was clearly aware of his violation of not only WP:INVOLVED, but also WP:3RR. I would also add that Bgwhite continues to take up edit wars on the articles where I am currently contributing, and he has not contributed there ever before. While WP:WIKIHOUNDING is essential if they are fixing some mistake, Bgwhite's wikihounding has also led him to promote spam links just because I seemed against them. I believe that we should really consider observing these actions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LFaraone: Seraphimblade's comment came before the list that I have posted in my above comment, it definitely meets the criteria for arbitration, having over 10 incidents where Bgwhite has edit warred and blocked the editors where he was involved. The abuse of rollback is also concerning. You had a look at it? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare Dougweller You both had a look too? Zeke Essiestudy is correct. After coming from the block, this request was my first edit, because I was getting blocked for just any kind of edit. 4 incidents were clearly enough. After this case is fully declined, it is rather correct that I would be indeffed for just any edit and I would get to know about it after I am blocked. Now that we have instances of "long term pattern of misuse", shouldn't we investigate these and other serious matters? In order to save an indefinite block, I would just have to quit en.wiki.

But I would ask if this is what we are going to approach. Why we cannot enforce the policy-based blocks like we have always done and stick to the Arbcom-made principles? Since I am not the only editor around, shouldn't we care about the interest of editors? I don't see anything wrong with the idea, if I get heads up, that these blocks were indeed incorrect and admins should be more careful, they should review the necessary measures before making blocks that could be justified. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm

Swarm, you responded to the block only when you saw that I have been unblocked, you were still contributing on en.wiki while I was requesting unblock, and you failed to WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. You have never provided a diff that would depict edit warring over the same content. What you meant from "since at least the summer of last year"? The oldest diff you provided actually came from 5 March 2015, anyone can tell that this is 2015, not 2016.. No has agreed that blocking for 1 revert in 5 days is any correct, yet you keep pushing such block to be correct. You had blocked 3 more editors for making 1-2 reverts. Apart from these errors in your statements, if we would be looking at your uncivil conduct, there is every reason to doubt your use of admin tools.

Why your actions are so quick that you have to make double entries of your actions?[93]

On 22 April, you blocked an editor for making a single edit[94] in last 4 days. His edit was eventually as dubious as his opponent's edit.[95] Both figures, 215,000 or 270,000 are not supported by the source.[96] Nor any of these 2 editors used talk page.[97] You had to look at both's conduct.

You blocked an IP for making 3 reverts, he wasn't even warned, yet you didn't blocked other editor who made 4 reverts and used false edit summaries.[98] Both were incorrect with their edits.

On 9 April, you fully protected a page after 23 hours and for a week, there was only 1 revert and 5 edits during the last 11 days.[99]

When you protected The Raben Group [100], you restored to a version that you liked.[101] Your revert also removed {{cn}} tag from the entry, that was added in order to avoid the BLP violation. Your edit violated BLP.

You blocked an editor after 29 hours when he had made his last edit.[102][103] He wasn't even warned correctly or guided to any policy.

There were only 2 editors having content dispute on a page that you protected, [104] since one user was an admin, you had to impose the full protection, but you protected against the IP address.

You blocked both Collect and Ubikwit for a week and left out other editors. Though they weren't actually edit warring, merely disagreeing, last edit was a self revert by Ubikwit.[105] Page protection could've worked.

You had recently misused the rev-del feature on a Log/block.[106] Even though it was not covered by any of the criteria.

How many more improper actions you would like me to remind you from this month and the last month? You've been admin for a longer period. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swarm

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

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

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.

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.
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.
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]

Response to accusations

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.

"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.
"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.
"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.
"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
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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]."
"His block of EEng, back in August 2014[56] violated WP:INVOLVED, ..." A long convoluted case which involved ANI's and other admins.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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

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

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]

Statement by Nakon

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]

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 [107] 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 [108]. 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 [109] 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 [110] 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) [111] (which raises another complaint of OccultZone's misinformation) and my talk page [112]. 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. [113]
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. [114]
18:07, 5 March 2015 User:OccultZone initiates an SPI against User:Zhanzhao, naming User:DanS76 as a possible sock. See [115]. The SPI ultimately concludes they are not the same person, but meatpuppetry is possibly at play. Subsequently on 18 April 2015, per [116], 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. [117]
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". [118]
01:11 14 March 2015: User:OccultZone reverted same changes by User:Zhanzhao as 00:04. Edit summary states "rv, requires some consensus" [119]
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 ([120]). [121]
08:15 21 March 2015: User:OccultZone reverted properly sourced content added by User:Malaiya [122]. 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. [123]
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". [124]
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". [125]
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." [126]
06:51 23 March 2015 User:Bgwhite unblocks User:OccultZone, in responding to the unblock request. Indicated the block was not warranted. [127]

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 ([128]). 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]

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,[129] with whom he was in content dispute.[130][131] 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]

[132] 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]

Statement by {Non-party}

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 case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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]

Review of admin actions: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/5/1/2>

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 , 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]
~~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 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]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 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. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 08:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
+All replies from {{blue|09:10, 23 April}} 2015 - {{blue|13:18, 28 April}} 2015 (UTC) can be read from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=659712620#Replies here]. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
++
+−
+:{{yo|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. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 17:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 ====Replies====