Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 17:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 22:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

In the opinion of several administrators, Moby Dick continues to stalk another editor despite warnings. He is believed to be the sock of an editor who was formally warned by the Committee not to engage in this behavior. He may also be in breach of a one-year ban on editing articles which concern politics.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • This formal notification to Moby Dick. --Tony Sidaway 15:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • This formal notification to Davenbelle. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

See:

[edit] Requests for comment

[edit] Statement by Tony Sidaway

In the opinion of myself, Bishonen (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) and MONGO (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves), Moby Dick exhibits stalking behavior similar to that of Davenbelle (see Cool Cat arbitration) who was one of three editors warned against stalking Cool Cat. He has persisted despite warnings. Davenbelle's last edit is too old to permit technical means to be used to verify this user's identity.

Davenbelle is also enjoined from editing articles which relate to politics (Trey Stone and Davenbelle arbitration, August 2005) and Moby Dick's identity may have a bearing on that ban. --Tony Sidaway 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Moby

This is absurd. User:Cool Cat and his friends are defining stalking as making reasonable edits to articles that he happens to not like. I have made many reasonable edits to articles and talk pages, added cited facts, and have sought consensus. Unfortunately, User:Cool Cat does not like the facts and does not seek consensus. He seeks his way and harasses anyone who does not yield to his will. His allegations of sockpuppetry are merely an attempt to run me off from the very group of articles that he was found to have made many POV edits to.

User:Tony Sidaway has stated that User:Cool Cat repeatedly attempts to promote the removal of categories, templates and content related to an ethnicity that, while not having a single national entity of its own, is significant enough to be treated seriously by an encyclopedia. Editors who complain about his activities and his attitude thus have a solid basis upon which to do so. diff

In User:Cool Cat's current complaint about my editing on wp:an/i, he states that I opposed him on all of the vote options on Talk:Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict — Not True, he also opposed four of the moves that I opposed. And it is entirely reasonable that I'm involved in that article. I voted on the AFD that resulted in its being renamed and I edited the article proper before User:Cool Cat ever did.

Of course I participated in the CFD on Category:Kurdish inhabited regions, as I did the previous CFD. I have been attempting to categorise Kurdish homelands and User:Cool Cat hates the Kurds and has been highly disruptive of such efforts by myself and others.

User:Cool Cat has shown up on a number of pages right after I've edited them: Talk:Nationalist Movement Party diff, CFD of Category:Imposters of Moby Dick diff. And he has been hyper-aggressive on pages such as Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 27#Category:Kurdish inhabited regions, badgering every user that does not agree with his POV.

It is User:Cool Cat who is stalking, harassing and seeking the deletion of encyclopaedic content related to Kurds and the users who edit in ways that he does not like.

See also: User:Cool Cat's disruption of Kurdish categorization efforts

--Moby 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Clerk notes

As a participant, Tony Sidaway is recused as a clerk.

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Identity

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.

Passed 8 to 0 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment

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

Passed 8 to 0 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] CheckUser and common interests Davenbelle, Moby Dick

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

Passed 8 to 0 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prior behavior by Davenbelle

2) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek involved findings that Davenbelle had inappropriately focused on the activities of Cool Cat.

Passed 8 to 0 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moby Dick has harassed other editors

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 and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Workshop#Bicycle.

Passed 8 to 0 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

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.

[edit] Moby Dick banned from certain articles

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

Passed 8 to 0 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moby Dick prohibited from harassing Cool Cat or Megaman Zero

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

Passed 6 to 0 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moby Dick may be blocked for continuing to harass

2.1) Should, in the opinion of any administrator, Moby Dick make any edit which constitutes harassment of Cool Cat or Megaman Zero, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Log of blocks and bans. This remedy may be expanded in scope to include harassmennt of any other user if, in the opinion of at least three administrators, it is deemed necessary.

Passed 7 to 0 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Enforcement of subject ban by block

1) Should Moby Dick violate the ban on editing certain areas, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After five 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.

Passed 7 to 0 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement of ban on harassment

2) Should Moby Dick violate the ban on harassment, he may be briefly blocked, for up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. After five blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 7 to 0 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

I have blocked this user for one week for continuing to stalk Cool Cat, in direct violation of his Arbcom ruling. The diffs in question are [1], [2] and [3]. Bastiq▼e demandez 19:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC) 02:07, 9 December 2006

[edit] Objection to this Block

This block was appealed at Bastique's talk page, with link to reasons at Moby Dick's talk page. Bastique has replied that he will not lift the block unless ArbCom tells him to. I request ArbCom consider this appeal speedily so as not to prolong an unjustified block.
Bastique cites as "harrassment of Cool Cat":
  1. Moby's remark "makes for interesting reading!" below a link to Moby's RfAr (but note the consensus at ANI, Moby was legitimately responding to his own name being brought up); and
  2. Moby's participation in RFC:Elaragirl – endorsing the summary of Elaragirl – Moby's "Well said, Elaragirl" remark, among 12 other endorsements... (Bastique does not cite Moby's no-comment endorsement of Doug Bell's summary, or Moby's "ya, rfc wo merit" endorsement of Swatjester's summary); and
  3. Moby's supportive post to the user talk page of Elaragirl, who was being accused by Cool Cat.
I don't see where the ArbCom forbade Moby to respond where someone else brings up his name, or to endorse summaries on RfC's, or to write to other people Cool Cat has attacked. These cannot reasonably be termed "harassment of Cool Cat" – but Bastique has done so anyway; just as Cool Cat claimed "harassment" on Wikipedia over the complaint on Commons that CC had repeatedly blanked and even protected Moby's user page, where clearly the harassment was in the other direction.
No neutral admin chose to declare any of the above-cited posts "harassment" in open discussion, or to block Moby. Bastique did, but he is not a neutral admin. His alliance on Commons with Cool Cat shows that.
It is my impression that admins should recuse themselves from admin-powered intervention in disputes where they have personal loyalty to one disputant, not use those admin powers against the other disputant. That raises questions of fairness and impartiality, versus conflicts of interest. I hope everyone on ArbCom agrees with that much.
If a block was appropriate, it should not have been enacted by one of Cool Cat's cronies. And it would have been nice to see some consensus-seeking that harassment was indeed occurring, especially since (as noted above) consensus on the first item was that it wasn't harassing Cool Cat... while the second and third items were being supportive of Elanagirl on the RfC and her talk page – and if that constitutes harassing Cool Cat (because CC opposes her), then how many other people are equally guilty of it? – SAJordan talkcontribs 19:18, 10 Dec 2006 (UTC).
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Moby_Dick_3ead.html"