Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

User:Cool Cat continues to disrupt

More disruption of Kurdish characterisation efforts [2] ^(oldid) by User:Cool Cat.

--Moby 04:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moby Dicks engagement in stalkery and trollish behavior

Moby Dick has engaged in actions very similar to stalking and unwanted observation. It difficult to say exactly how this user began into words. I simply elected to use my statement from WP:AN/I:

I've little opinion of the conjecture of a reincarnated Davenbelle, but there is a qualm in this editor's behavior. As per the above edvidence, this editor's initial confrontation with me conflicted over a userpage misunderstanding. This is a archived discussion on my talkpage which can be found here. After the I refuted the accusation, said editor took to being my shadow, which I noted after a number of appearences in locations across the encyclopedia which were in direct contact to my usertalk page (he has it consistently watchlisted you see). I made a final verification of this after he made a spell check on my talkpage, confirming he sees almost every comment posted there. [3] This has been prevelant ever since the allegation on AN/I, but I never gave it much heed and it didn't bother me, so I let it alone. There were no subsequent direct confrontations after this incident, so I assumed good faith, and didn't have a valid complaint anyway, since, despite his occasional trolling, Moby makes excellent contributions to article space, not to mention ground-breaking work. [4] Proceeding that incident, I took his talkpage off my watchlist and went about other things. I soon forgot the subject and the user, and made the presumption he had as well.

During some article expansion, I ran into two disruptive editors (BIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 70.231.130.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) on Talk:Colonel (Mega Man) and Ridge Racer during which said editors introduced/removed content from article space without any sources and any factually correct rebuttals. I made many reverts, for which I was subsquently blocked for [5], but respected due to the fact one must accept the consequences of his actions regarding the violation, despite the fact I was correct. I questioned the point of the blocks due to the fact, neither admistrator had taken the discussion on the talkpages into account and how each of the blocks were issued large timeframes after said violation (The first block occured 24 hours after the edit war was nullified and the page protected; the second several hours later, and after I had reverted myself to reach an comprimise). This incited a more active response from the editor, who had merely been watching my talkpage and contributions to this point. Druing the timeframe of my second block, He posted a note [6] on William's talkpage (Another one of my elaborate plans to take the wiki by storm) concerning an established contributor engaging in vandalism. I had extreme difficulty believing this post when I first saw it. I posted a reply rearding this shortly afterward [7] detailing my surprise at this bad-faith attempt to descend me into scurtuniy. William percieved this as a personal attack and threatened to block me shortly afterwards [8]. It certainly wasns't intended as a personal attack, but I removed the comment as I don't believe personal attacks accepteble on anyone. I complied and altered my comment as I deemed necessary [[9], after which William decided to block me anyway for being insolent. Not too much of a problem, since it was bedtime anyway.

The editor in question persisted. After a clearly confused william asked how it was relevant, Moby replied I circumvented my block and I was still up to something [10] (I was still plotting my master scheme, you know) and that I should still be punished. Now expasperated, I made another note on the talkpage and explained the situation in full. [11] which defused the matter. Around the ensuing timeframe, he proceeded to conflict in the Kurd-nonsense with Cool Cat, who was subsquently blocked. I'm aware that Cool Cat has a aggressive viewpoint on this subject and has encountered much opposition on this before, so I didn't comment on the matter, although it was quite obvious to the informed Moby didn't report the rfar violation in good faith. I took note of this after seeing his replies to various editors on subject on WP:AN/I, which gave me great cause for concern on his intent:

Revision as of 09:45, May 9, 2006 - "Thanks for you comment!"

Revision as of 09:28, May 10, 2006 - "..His post is interesting in that he has basically documented more of the disruptive behavior that I have objected to and for this I thank him."

I drew the line there. At wikipedia we report violations to enforce stability on article space and the workings of the site. Seeing this joy in the punishment of another user was very disturbing. One must really take into account weather this user is advocating the well-being of the article or muggery of those he disagrees with.

There certainly is a problem here.

At the current date, I was prompted by MONGO on my talkpage to accept an rfa [12], which I was hesitant, but felt I was ready for the additional workload. Before I accepted the nomination, I made note that I was being closely survallianced by Moby and I had no doubt a opposition would arise. I was correct in the assesment (I would have been honestly surprised had he not taken participation) [13], with said user agressively making the point of my image forgery and the rebuttal I made regarding his outrageous accusation. I was presently away from the computer, so when I returned I was atonished to find my rfa had already been withdrawn in an act of kindness by the nominator.

I stress that its not obtuse to believe Moby may be Davenbelle, as I'm still utterly baffled as to how a new user can simply migrate to a userpage, search the history extensively, and blow an ensuing argument about a misunderstanding out of porportion. It also strikes one as odd when a user immediately engages in long-standing conflict about aftermentioned article and makes reverts unusual for one so new. However, despite the sockkery or not, it needs to be known this editor has engaged in trolling and many contributions have been verified to be unwelcome at this encyclopedia. -Zero^Talk 18:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moby Dick first edited 23 December, 2005. Davenbelle last edited 7 December, 2005

• Moby Dick's first edit
• Davenbelle's last edit

Moby Dick's preoccupation with subjects related to Davenbelle

Megaman Zero

• 2005-10-26 Edit by Davenbelle concerning the award
• 2006-02-25 Moby Dick's comment on an award given to Megaman Zero by Davenbelle
• 2006-02-26 Moby Dick's complaint about the award on WP:ANI

Cool Cat

• 2006-03-10 Moby Dick cites Cool Cat arbitration case

Three administrators identify Moby Dick as a probable sock of Davenbelle

Here Moby Dick was also warned not to persist in stalking behavior towards Cool Cat. In the earlier arbitration involving Davenbelle, Fadix, Karl Meier and Cool Cat, it was found that efforts by those three to monitor Cool Cat's problem behavior had "tipped over into effectively "wikistalking" or "hounding" Cool Cat, and so disrupting Wikipedia and discouraging his positive contributions" and they were asked to let others take the lead. "If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed."[14]

• Tony Sidaway 20 May 2006
• MONGO 24 May, 2006
• Bishonen 25 May 2006

A checkuser was requested but was not 100% positive

• Essjay 25 May 2006 At this point, the best I can offer is for you to take the issue back to the Arbitration Committee; the vast majority of the checkusers on this project are AC members, and they can do the check and come to thier own conclusions. I'm just not comfortable putting people's IPs out there unless it is 100% clear that the privacy policy allows it, and I'm not going to be responsible for saying "He's somewhere within 1000 miles of the suspect" and have that turned into a conviction

Moby Dick has edited "articles which concern politics" during Davenbelle's ban from such articles

Obviously a lot of articles Moby Dick has edited (pertaining to Kurdistan) concern politics, but I'll stick to a very strict construction here--just edits of articles about political parties, politicians, etc.

• August 2005 Trey Stone and Davenbelle arbitration, "User:Davenbelle is banned for one year from editing articles which concern politics, particularly articles which concern the foreign relations of the United States."
• May 2006 One of several edits to Nationalist_Movement_Party
• May 2006 One of several edits to Grey Wolves

As arbitrators probably know, logs allowing checkuser are only stored for a month. Hence due to technical difficulties steming from that there is no way to confirm weather or not Moby Dick and Davenbelle are the same person.

I believe it is necesary to store checkuser data on Moby Dick somewhere. Checkuser data has begun to expire since Moby Dick ceased editing...

User stalks

Stalking Megaman Zero

1. 2006-02-25 Moby Dick conviniantly discovered "forgery" on Megaman Zero's user page
   • This is just 3 edits after him opposing my rfa. Mind the month long gap.
   • Davenbelle gave Megaman Zero the award in question.
   • This incident had made its way to the ANB and is Moby's first post to the ANB/I
   • This is Megaman Zero's first contact with Moby
2. 2006-03-11 participates in two deletion votes Megaman Zero had been involved with ^{(Nom 1 Nom 2)}
3. 2006-05-10 _{RFA/Megaman Zero} opposes Megaman Zero's adminship
   • RFA started on the 9^th, less than a half day diference in creation and time of vote
   • Megaman Zero and I have been close friends since perhaps he started editing wikipedia.
   • Long ago ^(2006-01-02) Megaman Zero complained about Davenbelles behavior on his talk page.

Stalking Cool Cat

1. 2006-01-26 _{RFA/Cool Cat} first edit to wikipedia namespace ^{(84th edit)}
   • RFA started on the 24^th, roughly one and a half day difference in creation and time of vote
   • Davenbelle had opposed my other previous two of my rfas.
     • On one occasion Davenbelle opposed before the nominator (Megaman Zero) could support
     • This was after Davenbelles second RfAr
   • This is my first contact with Moby
2. 2006-03-10 Moby Dick informs Aucaman about my RfAr
   • This is his first post for 11 days, in the previous post he was complaining about megaman zeros award on the ANB. [15] [16]
   • Arbcom much later ruled that Aucaman's edits were problematic.
3. 2006-03-11 Moby opposed the copyvio nomination I made.
   • This is the first and last time the user participates in copyright matters
   • Concensus was delete, however Moby kinda recreated the page (he linked to the actual document)
   • Davenbelle was involved with the Armenian Genocide article and was practically opposing anything I suggested. It can be said that was his entire contribution.
4. 2006-03-11 Moby opposed the deletion of Category:Kurdistan which I initiated.
   • user had not been involved with any other issues regarding Kurds or any such deletion votes for that matter.
5. 2006-03-13 Moby got involved with an article about Kurds for the first time on article Batman, Turkey.
   • Moby has repetitively restored "Kurdish dominance" line by reverting my edit. This continued on...
   • Davenbelle also preferred to oppose me whenever possible. This might be too vauge to be considered as evidence but take a look at [17] and [18]
6. 2006-05-16 Moby votes on the same deletion vote as myself just ten hours after my vote
   • Fadix voted 10 hours after Moby.

Davenbelle-like-edits

1. 2006-04-01 Moby created the KHRP redirect.
   • There is nothing disruptive with that. however if you take a look at history of the article redirect leads to you will see Davenbelle had initiated it.
2. 2006-06-07 Moby reverts article to "better version" by Karl Meier removing cited sources etc
   • Davenbelle had frequently reverted to the better version by Karl Meier who was a participant of the previous RfAr that Arbcom had found him to be stalking.
   • This comes after Tony's warning to Moby to "cease stalking". While I wasn't editing the article (I no longer edit articles related to Kurds much), I was discussing on the talk page.

Statistical look at Davenbelle's and Moby Dick's preferred edit times

• Similar editing behavior between Davenbelle and Moby Dick has been presented above.
• We have been told by Davenbelle that he lives in Bali which according to the article is +8 UTC
• According to [19]
  • Davenbelles most active times are 3:30 UTC (11:30 Bali time) and 9:00 UTC (17:00 Bali time).
  • Sharp drop at 5:00 UTC (13:00 Bali time). Looks like a lunch break given its afternoon
  • 14:30-16:30 UTC (22:30-24:30 Bali time) appears to be the time where lowest number of edits are observed. Not too early to sleep
  • Number of edits increase after 24:30 which is odd but he said he was traveling so it may actually be consistent if he was traveling 3, 4 or more timezones practically shifting day/night a few hours... Smaller volume implies that he was temporarily in this location.
• According to [20]
  • Moby Dicks most active times are UTC 9:00 (17:00 Bali time) and 12:00 UTC (20:00 Bali time). 17:00 spike is identical to Davenbelle.
  • Moby Dick edits after 6:00 UTC (14:00 Bali time) with minimal number of edits prior.
  • Sharp drop at 15:00 UTC (23:00 Bali time) to 0. 23:00 is not a bad time to sleep.
  • Edit pattern resumes at 1:30 UTC (9:30 Bali time) not a bad time to wake up.

Data is consistent with a person editing from +8 UTC... Or at least editing at same hours. A checkuser can be conducted to determine Moby Dick's whereabouts, at least to the country. I wouldn't be surprised if it is Bali.

I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences. --Cat out 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On going behavior (recent evidence)

Evidence from commons

2006-07-03 User votes on my commons rfa

• See users entire contribs (3 edits as of this report)
• While I know commons is beyond en.wiki arbcoms jurisdiction I think arbcom should consider this as evidence. Furthermore what would arbcom suggest against interwiki stalking?

Evidence from en.wiki

2006-07-14 User revert wars in a dispute between Randall Brackett (formerly Megaman Zero) and Cool Cat

• This is users first edit on an Anime related article.
• Surprisingly, Belldandy is one of the few articles, if not the only article, both I and Randall had a significant amount of contribution.

2006-07-25 User participates a vote after my involvement in the related discussion in ANB/I ^{(ANB/I discussion)}.

• This was the first edit of the user since 19 July and user has not participated in the actual discussion.

• Moby Dick from May, 2006

• Davenbelle from January, 2006 (denied, but the IP addresses alleged may be relevant.

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.