Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Propositions 2 Additional evidence 3 Identity 4 /Workshop#Logs_allowing_checkuser_be_stored_for_long_term_referance 5 Moby Dick in action

[edit] Propositions

I am not particularly happy with these propositions. I am relying heavily on the judgement of Tony Sidaway and MONGO Fred, since there is a finding of fact that Moby Dick has harrassed other editors, remedy 2 applies even if the connection with Davenbelle is not conclusively proven. If you are unsure, I suggest remedy one could be changed to article probation and banning from certain articles on the judgement of 3 admins that his has been disruptive. Thatcher131 06:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have commented on the proposals on the workshop page. I would like to add that relying heavily on the judgment of Tony Sidaway, a party to this case, is not exactly being impartial. Moby 06:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, the large amount of acumulated evidence is sufficient, I believe. I've no idea why Fred would simply base the foundation of the case simply upon Tony's suspicion of Davenbelle. Disruption is disruption, by account of sockpuppet or not. -Randall Brackett 01:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional evidence

Perhaps ArbCom would consider the additional evidence at /Evidence. I am concerned with his behaviour shifting to other wikis and continuing there. While I know other wikis are beyond arbcoms juristiction, I welcome suggestions. --Cat out 13:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

maybe they'll vote on your commons RfA... --Moby 05:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thats possible but I was inquering about your comment. Cat out 04:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not care with this Arbcom cases, I just found out that I am included in the evidence page, because of some vote I placed, according to Coolcat 10 hours after Moby. I didn't knew that placing a vote where Coolcat does will be considered as evidence of some sort. Please CoolCat leave me out of this, for your information, yes! indeed someone contacted me about it to request my input, and it was not Moby, but another user, which username I will keep confidential. Unless that members come here and decide to clear this thing. Maybe Moby did also in my talkpage, I could not tell, I did not have as far as my memory goes any interaction with this user. Fad (ix) 19:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think you were accused of anything. Why are you alarmed? --Cat out 09:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Then please stop naming me in every given occasion. My vote in that poll had nothing to do with Moby Dick, some respected member emailed me and requested my feedback, and no, it was neither Karl, Davenbelle, it was not Moby Dick, after reading the article and reading the RfD, I have in all honesty voted. Assume Good Faith. Fad (ix) 16:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith, or else we wouldnt be talking and there would be an arbitration case actualy involving you... --Cat out 22:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[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.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

2. James F. (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

3. Dmcdevit·t 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

4. SimonP 17:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems overly broad. In fact, there is a bit of irony in the way this was phrased! Note the four parties signing above are several users with similar behavior (they spend most of their time here at RfAr, they tend to agree with each other much more than they disagree, they have similar patterns of writing ...), and they are clearly involved in dispute resolution. May they then be treated as one user with sock puppets?

Can't the scope of this be narrowed, somewhat? Adding one or more of "for purposes of this RfAr", or "given the inability to use checkuser", or "users with similar abusive behavior", or something like that? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an absolutely standard Principle; we use it in many, many cases.

James F. (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] /Workshop#Logs_allowing_checkuser_be_stored_for_long_term_referance

I'd like arbitration commitee to consider this proposal. (Just making sure people seen it) --Cat out 16:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moby Dick in action

I'd like to point out this diff to the arbitration commitee. Last thing in my view moby dick wants to do is get involved in a disagreement between megamanzero (User:Randall Brackett) and User:Cool Cat --Cat out 17:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)