Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision

message: I request that the members of the ArbCom should take a close look at what Coolcat has been doing most recently, on the Kurdish people article and it's talkpage. I don't think there is much need for me to make comments regarding his behavior there. His actions speak for themself. -- Karl Meier 10:02, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the Arbcom has been warned enough, they are probably monitoring Coolcat themselves, for this cases, I for, don't have any more time to waste. Seems, that this time perhaps, justice will be done, and that was the only thing I was asking, so that I can start working on articles without a constant fear of getting unjustified reverts, we should now leave the system doing what shall be done. For this reason, I will take vaccation from this cases, and won't answer in this talk page anymore. Fadix 18:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Update: Coolcat is now reverting as he is insisting on using a Wikipedia mirror as a reference to demographic data. He labeled my refusal to accept the mirror "sneaky vandalism"  and and added a notice about it, at the "vandalism in progress page".  -- Karl Meier 10:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox where you get to create random demographics data. Messing with statistics without citing sources and/or refusing to cite sources for statistics is against wikipedia policy WP:NOT. also see Wikipedia:Vandalism --Cool Cat Talk 10:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been adding a lot of references to that page Coolcat. What have you done, apart from disrupting , pushing Wikipedia mirrors as "references", and in every possible/impossible way tried to make the Kurdish population figures become smaller? I don't know why the ArbCom is so soft when dealing with an obvious PoV pusher like Coolcat, that cannot cooperate and has nothing but kookery and PoV to contribute.-- Karl Meier 11:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kurdish people]]

message: During the last few days User:Cool Cat has taken to copying all of the dialogue that I and Karl Meier have had with him on his talk page to our talk pages:
(mine:
 —
Karl's:
)
I have repeatedly removed the duplicates from my talk page and he has continued to repost them. In my last post to his talk page diff I asked him to Quit spamming my talk page with a copy of every bit of dialogue we have on yours. He replied on both his talk page and on my talk page Can you elaborate? How would you like me to respond?
This is obviously intended to disrupt and is an example of his being deliberately obtuse. User:Cool Cat complains clamorously about how we don't talk with him enough and this is but a small part of why. Talk with User:Cool Cat never goes anywhere but in circles and is a "waiste" [sic] of whomever's time.
User:Cool Cat recently rebuffed an attempt by myself and Karl to calm things pending the close of this case — we proposed that all parties accept all proposed decisions as binding prior to the close of this case.
User:Cool Cat makes inflammatory edits to "contraversial" [sic] articles, makes provocative assertions that "this is disputed" on the talk pages, and drops  tags wherever they will produce the largest firestorm. He returns again and again to an article to reapply his preferred edit no matter what reverts, talk or consensus has occurred since his last visit. It is my view that User:Cool Cat has no intention of significantly altering his ways; he views the proposed decision as a "temporary restriction".
User:Cool Cat is a Troll. I have no doubt that he will be back before ArbCom in the future — indeed, the proposed remedy for myself and his other opponents refers to "subsequent proceedings which involve Coolcat", so I expect I am not alone in this belief.
— Davenbelle 08:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thanked you for an interesting characterization here: i.e. your mediation procedure as "a disease." nb: "(origin is "dis-ease" — Lack of ease; trouble.)" — Davenbelle 12:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have I established you as bad? If so, thanks for the acknowledgment — however I am not sure you really mean this; to establish someone as "bad" is to obtain consensus that someone is, in fact, "bad", not to merely have declared them so. You might be better off using a word like "allege." Also, I don't believe that I have ever asserted that you were "bad" — my comments and actions have been directed at your edits and views, not your person. — Davenbelle 04:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Cool Cat -- endgame 

message: Banning Cool Cat for a year is insane. I don't have much experience with any of these editors, but it's clear to me that Cool Cat is a good faith contributer. I can't comment on the others, because I simply don't know them. But, certainly we should not be banning good faith contributers who aren't seriously harming the project? Hasn't Boothy443 done more? Yet we still let him edit, and from his RFC, I think we came to the conclusion that Boothy is a good faith contributer, though he his use of rude comments, talk page blanking, user page redirecting, etc was bad. And he changed his behaviour, though he still opposes almost all admin candidates with no reason. But he wasn't banned from editing! Of course, if boothy wrangled with Jimbo more he probably would have gotten banned. :) The restrictions that have been proposed for Cool Cat all sound reasonable to me, but banning is insane. And from looking at Cool Cat's talk page when I left him a message recently, I can see a lot of abuse from some of the others. Even if Cool Cat was deserving of a ban, this is *NOT* acceptable behaviour in my book. Anyway, I intend to leave if Cool Cat gets banned, as this all seems too much like the evil world outside. :( --Phroziac (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you don't know User:Cool Cat as well as we do. I do not consider him to be a good faith contributor. A meat-axe ban seems like the only workable solution to the myriad problems he causes. — Davenbelle 02:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll admit I don't. But, certainly you aren't perfect either? --Phroziac (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you have any recent evidence to show that he is not a good faith editor? I looked at your evidence, and it ends on April 10th. People usually don't get banned for making a few mistakes when they're newer. --Phroziac (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I compiled that evidence then for an earlier attempt at getting User:Cool Cat before ArbCom. I live in Bali and do not have the time or bandwidth to compile further evidence — however you might want to take a day to read this talk page. Also, on the evidence you've just posted you state that "Davenbelle admits to stalking Cool Cat" /Archive 1#*Monitoring* User:Coolcat — I do not accept that what I and others have done amounts to stalking; read what I wrote, please. And I was not complaining about User:Cool Cat's new username, I was complaining about him breaking links to evidence (see: [[#User:Coolcat-> User:Cool Cat]]. — Davenbelle 07:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Phroziac: There is plenty of evidence that Cool Cat has been disruptive recently. Try to read this page and the other ArbCom pages such as the workshop subpage. Cool Cat is incivil, use personal attacks, he's PoV editing, and is disrupting in many ways. Also, regarding the evidence you have posted, the majority of it is already covered elsewhere, and has been discussed extensively. (such what happend at the Kurdish people article, or Cool Cat's insisting on including a non-credible site like tallarmeniantale) -- Karl Meier 08:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll read even more of this drama. As for the evidence, argh! I'm a little new to this. --Phroziac (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you have also added a lot of diffs regarding what happend at the Kurdish people article. These are already there on Cool Cats evidence page, and the matters has been discussed a lot on the workshop talkpage. I don't mind that you are posting the diffs there, but on the other hand I don't think there is a need to have these diffs in several places. Things are already quite complicated around here. Another thing is that it suprise me a bit that the discussion regarding this article interest you now. I remember that I asked you for a third opinion regarding this article in a private discussion on IRC, and you didn't responded to that question at that point. -- Karl Meier 15:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mostly to show the fact that both of you made what appears to be exactly three reverts, two days in a row, over something pretty silly. I also wanted to point out the block I made on you, and the unblock, and the fact that you told me you would be good, on IRC. I'm not really interesting in the armenian people article, but I am interested in this case, because I want to see the proper punishments go out to the right people. I've tried to stay away from the case, but the banning thing made me want to submit some evidence. --Phroziac (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't think that having an accurate presentation of the demographic figures of the Kurdish people is in any way a silly question, and Cool Cat was indeed making a fierce PoV fight to get a figure as low as possible, while I provided all the sourced information that is now there. And regarding what do suggest that I should have done? Should I accept the wikipedia mirror as a source? Even when I told Cool Cat that it was a Wikipedia mirror and it wasn't acceptable as a source he insisted on using it, until an admin interfered and reverted to my version of the article. Cool Cat's response to my concern was to list me at vandalism in progress. -- Karl Meier 16:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not silly to have an accurate presentation of the demographic figures of them. But, it is silly to have a revert war over which figures are accurate. Yes, listing you on VIP was extreme. Why is it that both of you insist on reverting these articles exactly three times per day? It only takes one person to stop an edit war. I've never reverted any article more then once per day, personally. If you are correct, someone else will come around and fix it anyway. --Phroziac (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banning for a year!? 

message: I don't know if it is a good idea. What prevent him to come back by using a proxy and under another persona? He already said in the past, that he could come here with another alias, without others knowing it's him. That'll be worst. :( Fadix 16:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I also remember that said that, but with his very special editing style it should be easy to recognize him again, if he should return using another name. -- Karl Meier 16:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also concerned that a banning may alienate some members that don't have the clear picture. Coolcat has probably given a selective and narrowed interpretation of what happened, by IRC, to various members. I don't want this thing returning against me. I'm concerned that some members, that don't know the whole story, could later accuse me of having tried to "shut" someone just because of his opinions. A ban may be interpreted as a silencing of "freedom of speech." A card that Coolcat has already played and am afraid that he will more than ever play once he get banned, and this underground. Also, since Coolcat still don't believe having done anything that could worth a ban, I'm pretty sure that he will log another account and probably never use again his current alias. Don't forget that he moved himself from Coolcat to Cool Cat, and the only reason that I find that could justify this, is to remove his "bad" history. For those reasons, I think that restrictions would be better than a ban, because a ban could make things worst. Maybe a restriction of certain things, and that if he doesn't respect them, he could get long bans of a week or more, just enough to limit the harm he may do, but not enough so that he could decide to let that alias die and start a new one under cover. Fadix 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I bring back my proposition brought in the mailing list. There should be NPOV courses in Wikipedia. Coolcat could benefit from it. An Admin follow him and teach him how neutrality works, and then he passes an "exam," in which there are situations, and he must be able to differencate NPOV from POV. Of course such things will only address some part of the problem... but at least then, if he abuses and POV push, it could only be intentional. Fadix 18:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: As I said Phroziac, please read all the pages here. Cool Cat is causing disruption and is POV pushing to a very large extend, and there is nothing that indicate that he is changing one bit. A lot of people has tried to change his ways, and has failed. (for a recent example see the "I give up" section on this page. Anyway, I don't think ArbCom should let it's actions and decisions be controlled out of fear of Cool Cat might or might not be doing in the future. If he violate his ban he will be easy to point out, and his ban should then be reset to start again from the beginning. His best interest would be to wait for the 12 months to pass and be able to start again without any restrictions. -- Karl Meier 17:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Karl, you know how obsessed he can be at times, do you seriously believe he will wait 12 months? It's unconcievable. Fadix 18:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fadix the only people obsessed here are Davenbelle and Stereotek with me. I do not pursue them. I do not intend to stay in a place if I am not wanted. I am quite capable of sockpuppetary and writing vandal bots, but Id rather die than vandalise wikipedia. --Cool Cat Talk 18:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  [User:Cool Cat would] "rather die than vandalise wikipedia." — How theatrical. Bravo! Encore! Author! User:Cool Cat regrets that he has but one life to give for his 'pedia. — Davenbelle 07:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: From all the members involved, only you were enough obsessed to creat a page about the members you claim are obsessed with you. Think about this a little bit. Fadix 18:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd like to add that we have a great difference in philosophy. While Karl and fadix come up with random theories on how I could be harmfull, I am busy reverting vandalism and hunting down willy on wheels. --Cool Cat Talk 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are again throwing words Coolcat, I don't see how what I brought are random theories. Random supposes that they do not originate from a thinking process and are arbitrary. Feel free to show me, how my "theory" is random. Fadix 18:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Then what would your suggestion be Fadix? A one year ban has been effective when dealing with disruptive users before, so I don't think it's a bad idea. Also, I don't believe that Cool Cat has the skills that is needed to really hide his identity, and there will be users that'll watch out for any early return. Wikipedia has been able to deal with very motivated disruptive users before, despite of it's openess. I am sure we'll also be able to deal with Cool Cat as well. -- Karl Meier 18:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestions are not clear cut and not complete. Maybe I am egoist, and maybe I don't want him to get banned, because I don't want others accusing me of having accused Coolcat, to silence him. He has build a strong lobby. Bu this is not my only argument. I won't take position about his banning, and I wan't to wash my hands from this. Fadix 18:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the ArbCom block Cool Cat because of his endless disruptions, it is because of the disruptions and violations that Cool Cat himself has made and not anything elsee. Cool Cat is responsible for his own actions, and we are just bring them to the attention of the community. If he didn't make these violations, there wouldn't be any hard evidence for us to present. I fully support the suggested one year ban of Cool Cat. His disruptions just go on and on, and if he doesn't get blocked during these ArbCom proceedings, I am sure that he will get blocked in connection with a new ArbCom case at some time in the reasonable near future. It is obvious that Cool Cat has no intention of changing his ways or behavior, and several editors has accepted that any attempts to change Cool  Cat's behavior is a waste of time. -- Karl Meier 19:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly I was not disrupting wikipedia in Ranks and insignia of NATO or in Oh My Goddess!. On the other hand Davenbelle raised concerns on both of these articles. You are breaking my heart. I have no reason to change my intentions yes, I intend to contribute wikipedia and make it better. I am more determined to achieve this when two users bully me around. I have shown no tollerance or intimidation to bullying thorughout my life, I have no reason to start now. My behavior did change though. I used to remove lets say www.pkk.org from Kurdistan Workers Party, I now revert people doing so. I may revert people blocking articles regarding Kurds, Turkey, Armenia since I am not certain if my ban on these articles include reverts. I also feel the restriction is to broad and requires more clarification on exactly what can I do and what I cannot.
I believe that the proposed one year ban is the best of the currently proposed decisions, however I would prefer a ban on his editing Turk/Kurd/Armenian/Genocide articles for a year along with the other proposed restrictions. This would allow his other "good" editing to continue. If he is serious about doing good, let him find other area to attempt it. He has zero credibility on these issues and has proved himself irredeemable here. — Davenbelle 07:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree. I do not have 0 credibility. Thats a personal attack as far as I care. --Cool Cat Talk 11:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerns over a year ban

message: I updated my evidence section And I hope arbitrators who claims Coolcat is acting in good faith, pay closer look. Those are from months ago, and I will be covering until this day, to show how he started, and how he hasen't changed a bit. Only clear cut evidences will defeat Coolcat lobbying with lies. I also have a section on dishonesty, and will add many materials on that section when I can, so that it is made clear where Coolcat intentions lies. Fadix 02:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent updates at my evidence section

message: I still insist on a ruling that states Fadix is not exempt from WP:NPA or WP:WQ since he completely disregards these. I know this Arbcom case is not filed against Fadix but his unacceptable behavior here on this page and in the archived part is visible. At least a warning is neccesary. --Cool Cat Talk 23:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider "pathological liar" to be really a personal attack. It is an accusation I already placed against you, and will be bringing various evidences added to what I already brought recently to support that in fact you lied and continue to lie regularly. On the other hand, I find it rather ironic that you still bring this, when you have slandered me with words harsher than the instances when I have been harsh with you. I never accused you to be on crack, never threatned you, like you've did with me. You of all persons here are the last assuming good faith. Wasn't it you, that pooped the lie that Davenbelle, I, Thoth and Streotek were all the same person? You brought this to various members attention, and hell knows how many other members you have tried to trick underground. I don't think saying that you can't behave in society is a personal attack either. You don't have the integrity, neither do you respect Wikipedia. That you have accepted the RickK barnstar, as if it was a typical barnstar is even more disturbing. Fadix 04:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So by that logic any insultive behavior is quite civil and acceptable. --Cool Cat Talk 08:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I call things by their names. A vandal is a vandal, someone that chronically lie is a pathological liar, I can't help it. Stop lying and building false rumors to attempt the credibility of those you oppose, and I will reconsider and even appologize. I once already told you that when I am in the wrong, I have no problem appologizing. Fadix 17:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I find it amazing that you feel yourself to be in a position where you can make complains about incivility and personal attacks, Cool Cat. It is a fact, as Fadix point out, that you have been lying on a number of occations. Do I have to mention your evidence page, and the copyvios that you have been insisting on? To mention and point out a fact isn't a personal attack. We have to be able to discuss issues. Something that is actually incivil is to create a whole page dedicated to attack five named wikipedian. Anyway, I would like to second Cool Cat's request that the evidence that has been brought forward regarding incivility and personal attacks is somehow responeded to by the ArbCom, especially in the "finding of facts" section. -- Karl Meier 10:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fadix and NPA

message: I am not opposed to a mentoring arrangement for User:Cool Cat. I stated in my initial response to this case that "I would support the proposal by Tony of a mentorship for User:Cool Cat if previously uninvolved admins will agree to assume the role; if this option is acted upon I would be more than happy to give Cc and most of the articles we've interacted on a wide berth."
I do, however, find it highly inappropriate that Tony Sidaway has been proposed as a mentor. Firstly, Tony is a party to this case; he filed it due to his concerns over the monitoring of CC's edits. Secondly, Tony has effectively already attempted to mentor User:Cool Cat for upwards of six months and, as documented in this case (indeed by it's very existence), this prior attempt at mentorship has obviously failed. Tony has, in my opinion, been entirely too forgiving of User:Cool Cat's many objectionable edits and has quite obviously taken User:Cool Cat's side in this dispute. It is not surprising that User:Cool Cat views Tony as his "guardian angel".
MacGyverMagic has, according to User:Cool Cat's recent posts here, also previously attempted to mentor him (with no apparent success either), so I have some concerns about his appropriateness, too. I've had a few brief exchanges with Mark Ryan and have no concerns here.
I request that the mentors be neutral parties that have no significant prior involvement with him. Neutral mentors coupled with the other restrictions placed on User:Cool Cat's behavior should allow him to continue editing wikipedia without inflicting much harm, and may even result in good contributions from him.
— Davenbelle 08:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above comments by Davenbelle. Tony Sidaway is indeed a highly inappropiate choice for a mentor. I second the request that the mentors should be neutral parties that have no significant prior involvement with him. -- Karl Meier 10:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not accept any mentor if User:Tony Sidaway is not among the crew, or User:MacGyverMagic for that matter. It no workie, if they go. --Cool Cat Talk 13:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also suggest User:Ed Poor as a 4th mentor. --Cool Cat Talk 13:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you are in a position to make any such demands Cool Cat. You'll just have to accept the mentors that the ArbCom assign to you. Anyway, I think Cool Cat's above comments should make it clear to anyone reading this, that Sidaway is not in any way neutral in these matters. He was also the one that opened this case against me and Davenbelle, and is clearly a part in these discussions. I really think the ArbCom should reconsider this and find some neutral mentors that can provide a more neutral view on Cool Cat's behavior. Another thing is that I find it strange that the candidates was not mentioned to the people involved in this case, and was never discussed here. To me most things here seems to be decided somewhere outside these pages, at some place where we can't follow the discussions. There doesn't seems to be much transparency regarding what is actually going on here. -- Karl Meier 14:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll see about that.  Arbcom can ban me if I do not see tony sideway on the mentor bench. If they really think thats better for the project they are welcome to do so. I have had enough of this nonsense. I have a great deal of patience and its running out. --Cool Cat Talk 14:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Cool Cat's Mentors 

message: I am willing to be mentor Cool Cat, but only on the following conditions:
#This agreement is independent of the arbcom: the appointment comes not from the committee, but from Cool Cat volunteering of his own free will to seek my guidance.
#Either of us may end this agreement at any time.
#Cool Cat must promise to do whatever I suggest, and to refrain from doing anything I forbid.
#Cool Cat gives me permission, in advance, to block his account for any reason and any length of time, at my sole discretion.
I promise to Cool Cat that if he will trust me and follow my advice, he will have an enjoyable time at Wikipedia and learn how to make valuable, lasting contributions that will be respected and even admired by others. I caution him that if he stops listening to me or drops out of mentorship prematurely, I cannot help him avoid sanctions from the arbitration committe.
My first suggestion to Cool Cat is that he read about the relationship between Frodo and Gollum. Seriously. Uncle Ed 14:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept that. I have no problem following your advice. --Cool Cat Talk 14:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This is a good idea.  A mentor should have the trust of whomever he is assigned; ArbCom-mandated mentorship is no mentorship at all. Kudos, Ed. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's settled then and since it's independent of the arbcom ruling that would begin immediately right? Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 16:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Its technicaly already underway. I do not onbject to the other 3 mentors either. --Cool Cat Talk 16:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool Cat: I want to say that I support Uncle Ed as a good choice for a mentor. If Ed Poor will take the time to follow your edits and if you will actually do as you have now agreed to and follow his instructions, I think that the situation might actually improve. -- Karl Meier 17:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I, I only hope that now you'll be more flexible on who the 3 arbcom appointed mentors are. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 19:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is another question, and I actually think that I am very flexible. I'd recommend any experienced editor, with a good understanding of policy, that haven't been actively involved in the ongoing dispute. I believe it is for very good reasons that I and other editors here, strongly oppose that Tony Sidaway should be appointed to that role. Davenbelles above comment points out some of the more specific reasons. -- Karl Meier 20:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this "I and other editors" go beyond you, davenbelle, fadix? I am happy with the mentors proposed and Ed Poor. 4 of them is fine. My comment regarding Tony Sidaway and MGM still applies. --Cool Cat Talk 20:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncle Ed's proposal