This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Done, I have two, one for late May, one for June. Fred Bauder 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Until at least the arbitration case is closed, I think it is imperative to store the checkuser data as they have already begun to expire. It has been over 10 days since Moby made an edit asn I suspect he is trying to ilude the system. If the logs are lost there is no point to this arbitration. --Cat out 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Opposing an RfA does not constitute harassment (especially when the consensus is against the request).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by Moby 05:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One single action alone never constitutes harassment. It is described as a continued process of negative actions towards an editor or editors. See Wikipedia:Harassment. -Zero^Talk 08:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar behavior they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by me, from LaRouche 2 arbitration, February 2005, and many other cases. --Tony Sidaway 04:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not allow for coincidences. User:Cool Cat and User:Megaman Zero both write "weather" when "whether" would be correct. Would this mean that they are the same person? Moby 05:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) Concentrating negative attention on one or a few other users is a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment, see Wikipedia:Harassment#Coolcat, Davenbelle, and Stereotek.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I do not feel that I have done this. One incident of forgery and opposing two RfAs? Moby 05:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) The evidence concerning Moby Dick overwhelmingly points to their being the same person. Moby Dick is a person in the same geographical location as Davenbelle with a very broad range of similar behavior and preoccupations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by me. See evidence presented by Cool Cat and Tony Sidaway, and checkuser evidence alongside Davenbelle's known location, Bali. --Tony Sidaway 04:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, denied. Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world. Moby 05:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, but

• I do not believe there are that many people at indonesia with your level of english.
• Among that 'elite' few, I doubt there are many people aware of Kurdish/Turkish issues.
• Among that 'elite' of the 'elite', I doubt there are many people aware of wikipedia.
• Among that 'elite' of the 'elite' of the 'elite', I doubt there are many people aware of Davenbelle's existance.

What we are left with is a very very very very 'elite' minority, a single person. It's simple deduction. Elementary dear Watson, elementary.

--Cat out 15:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think it would be prudent to have a check to flush out any other Moby Dick socks (sleeper accounts or not). I do not believe someone as persistant as Davenbelle or Moby Dick to give up this easily. It is very hard to gather evidence proving stalking, a number of sock accounts is much harder to prove. --Cat out 17:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything comes from Indonesia. Fred Bauder 13:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat,_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek involved findings that Davenbelle had inappropriately focused on the activities of Cool Cat.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 13:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Moby Dick has engaged in stalking or harassing behavior towards Cool Cat and Megaman Zero. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Evidence#User stalks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Moby Dick seems to personalize matters, focusing on individuals. Fred Bauder 13:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think this is the crux of the problem. I'm not really concerned if the editor is Davenbelle or not. His actions were disruptive. -Zero^Talk 13:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I feel that opposing these users on specific issues does not constitute harassment. Moby 05:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moby, I'm sorry you feel that way. If that's the only instances you consider valid, then you haven't learned anything from the initiation of the case. -Zero^Talk 08:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) Before leaving Wikipedia Davenbelle awarded a "bicycle" to Megaman Zero. A few months later Megaman Zero modified the award using a new image "Exceptional newcomer.jpg" which displays as a butterfly, see Wikipedia:Other_awards#The_Exceptional_Newcomer_Award. This proved to be deeply offensive to Moby Dick [1] [2], subsequently bring the matter to the attention of the community at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where he characterized it as "User:Megaman Zero and his forged award", see subsequent discussion. When Megaman Zero was nominated for administrator Moby Dick again cited the matter [3] again characterizing it as "an incident where he basically forged an exceptional newcommer award on his user page".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 14:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I'm still quite baffled by this and I think it the most prominent edvidence of Moby's association with Davenbelle. At the time of the discovery of the "forged award" (my changing of the image to one of personal preferance, not the award itself; that wasn't the intent) was quite entrenched within the userpage history. I've no idea how a new editor would, unprovoked, simply go through a history and proceed to construct such an allegation, later forcefully withdraw the award, then call such actions inexcusable and attempt to construe the situation into that of an blockable offense on WP:AN/I. Moby's tendancy to make outlandish allegations and various attempts to descend fellow editors into negative situations is also a trait I noticed of Davenbelle.

However I noted this earlier. I don't know if this editor is Davenbelle and I don't care. These are some outrageous acts.-Zero^Talk 20:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

does this make you a party to this case? Moby 06:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I first encountered this 'award' while reading User:Davenbelle's contributions, so when I saw the Exceptional Newcomer image on User:Megaman Zero's page, instead, it was a simple matter of a binary search to find the specific diff. I took this to wp:an/i only after he took to deleting my talk from his talk page and only allowed his side of the issue. Moby 06:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why were you reading davenbelles conribs? He had ceased editing for roughly a month by the time you registered. --Cat out 14:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

4) Checkuser results show Moby Dick edits from ips compatible with the Davenbelle's location. Edits show a common interest in Kurdish and Turkish issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Highly circumstantial and inconclusive. Moby 06:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Moby Dick is banned from editing articles which concern Turkey or Kurdish issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This is completely unwarranted; my edits to such articles have been well-sourced ^[4] and productive. Please apply this to User:Cool Cat who can not say the same. Moby 06:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

2) Moby Dick is prohibited from harassing or stalking Cool Cat or Megaman Zero.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Not that I believe that I have, but this is already policy for all. Moby 06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Should Moby Dick violate the ban on editing certain areas he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Should Moby Dick violate the ban on harassment he may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. All banns to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 20:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Should Moby Dick return with a new account after a month long wait, logs allowing a checkuser should be avalible that would otherwise expire.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by me. Since there is a good chance moby Dick is infact Davenbelle, I think such a long term storage is prudent. This should actualy apply to all such arbitration hearings as all hearings can be "evaded" with a simple wait of a month and carefull editing or using multiple sockpuppets. While several arbitrators already stored this info, I feel wikimedia servers are more of a reliable location for this info. It doesn't have to be avalible to public and can be stored at a location such as deletion log. --Cat out 13:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: