Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision/Archive 1

message: There's a whole bunch of informal mediation systems on wikipedia. It would really suck if we rule that people can only be a mediators if they join the   mediation committee (which is still not operating as smoothly as it might). This would hurt every other mediation(-alike) system too.
Other than that, yeah, coolcat shouldn't be trying to mediate. Can we find other wording? 
Kim Bruning 14:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's not kill dispute resolution 

message: I am concerned that the proposed findings and decision here essentially declare that mediation, on Wikipedia, is the restricted province of the Mediation Committee and that anyone not approved by the committee who attempts to act as a mediator is potentially subject to sanction.
If this is the intent of the ArbCom, I object.  If this is not the intent of the ArbCom, I request that that be made clear in the proposed findings and decision. Kelly Martin 15:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
:Concur with Kelly; I don't believe that killing off informal mediation is the intent but I'd like to see that made explicit. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation as privileged conduct?

message: I do not feel ready to mediate, I failed to mediate anything so far. However I do not believe banning me from mediating completely would not be a wise desicion. I advise arbitration comittee the complications I recieved from Fadix, Davenbelle, and Stereotek while trying to mediate articles. They at best made things exteremely complicated, the closest I got to resolving disputes was on Javier Solana --Cool Cat My Talk 16:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also for mounths I haven't tried to mediate anything. I do not intend to hunt disputes to mediate, but I may (unlikely) accept if asked to mediate. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defense

message: Davenbelle (talk • contribs), Stereotek (talk • contribs), and Fadix (talk • contribs) are counseled to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Coolcat (talk • contribs). If subsequent proceedings which involve Coolcat show that he has been hounded by them substantial penalties may be imposed.
I don't see how this apply. First, I am not in the arbitration cases, the cases include Davenbelle, Strereotek and Coolcat. Secondly, even if I were in the cases, I don't see how it can be applied since I havn't tracked Coolcat for a very long time, the only "thing" I had with him more recently was when he decided to edit an Armenian article, in a section I was implicated. The rest, were critics of Coolcat, for the arbitration committee. Besides, I don't really understand what it is meant by "hounded," does it include when Coolcat makes POV pushing in articles I am implicated with? And what is hounded and what is not? I mean, isen't it one of the tasks of members to prevent POV pushing? If I track a wrongdoing from a member, should I not edit a POV introduced and tell him to stop it? Also, I am aware that Davenbelle was in vaccation, for a long time, and also, Streotek was not much involved in activities in Wikipedia involving Coolcat, since there is a vote on the fact that the three of us(Davenbelle, Strereotek and me) have brought to the attention problems which concerns Coolcat, and that none of us recently have really tracked Coolcat, how could we be really counseled to do something that we are not really doing. And what is the real purpouses of voting for something like that, when it is accepted that abusivly tracking a member just for the "pleasure" of doing it, is unwiki, and penalities could be imposed regardless of if we have been warned of anything or not. I just think that the message this vote tell me, is: "Don't try tracking or stopping POV pushers, or you'll get busted." Fadix 13:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davenbelle (talk • contribs), Stereotek (talk • contribs), and Fadix (talk • contribs) 

message: The way I see it is that I should not be mediating any time soon since I am asked not to. I do not need a ban enforcement. I do inquire however what if I am asked to mediate someting? As unlikely that is it is a vague possibility. Should I decline or try to help? --Cool Cat My Talk 18:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: I am curious about the definition of a "POV Pusher" in the eyes of arbcom. Since there exist people denying that earth is sphericaly shaped, if I suggest earth is round am I pov pushing? The way I see it everything can be interpreted as "pov pushing". --Cool Cat My Talk 18:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "POV Pusher"?

message: Is it right for people to revert an editor they view as "bad" on the basis of pov pushing without even try to talk and explain what about the edit is pov. --Cool Cat My Talk 18:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Agressive Reverting

message: On August 4th, User:FrancisTyers and User:Coolcat had a tussle over FrancisTyers' inclusion of a sourced account (by the Kurdish Human Rights Project) of some of the social impact of the project, namely the flooding of many Kurdish villages and the evacuation at gunpoint of Kurds. User:Coolcat, apparently in fit of pique, vandalized the article by removing all of 'his' contributions to the article, leaving only the bit about flooded villages. A half hour later, he restored it, acknowledging that it was vandalism.
See also: Talk:Southeastern Anatolia Project#What are you trying to proove? for User:Coolcat's rude, bizarre and ever-trekish comments.
The Southeastern Anatolia Project article is, of course, the current version of the GAP Project with which Mr. Cool Cat has had so much trouble with the "copyvio people". — Davenbelle 08:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
:Many admins agree the deletation of the entier page instead of the copy vio paragraph is wrong while they agree the deletation of copy vio material. They point out that it should have went through the copy vio porcess (of one week). Bear in mind you marked that page (that I wrote) for deletation. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kurdish Human Rights Project is not a neutral web page and it only has about 600 pages (300 English, 300 Turkish). I havent forgotten of that contribution by User:FrancisTyers and I am currently debating on how to process that addition by User:FrancisTyers. Why are you watching every edit I make when it doesn't concern you since aside from getting this article deleted you had no edits there. Stalking? Yes. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh yes I did walk away from that revert war on my own just like wikipedia policy on reverts say, walk away from revert wars. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Southeastern Anatolia Project]] 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_15#Category:Extraterrestrial_Wikipedians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_30#Category:Extraterrestrial_Wikipedians
User:Coolcat has twice created this nonsense category and added his user page to it and the category has twice been deleted. Those processing the deletion have, per policy, removed ( && ) the category from User:Coolcat's page. In spite of this, User:Coolcat has added the category to his page again... — Davenbelle 08:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
:Which was placed on CfD by you and was speedied because it was indeed nonsense like all BJAODN. Clear example of stalking. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Extraterrestrial Wikipedians]] 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence#Evidence presented by Davenbelle (talk • contribs)
I'd like to draw folks attention here again, as I feel that it illustrates User:Coolcat's True Colours. — Davenbelle 08:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
:My colors are clear. I personaly do not see the evil in converting all referances from  Antiwar.com to www.Antiwar.com. Oh and btw you already presented this as a part of your evidence. I encourage you to stop repeating yourself. This is yet another evidence of your stalking. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No Coolcat, it's just another piece of evidence, that show that we have been monitoring your edits for a number of very good reasons. -- Karl Meier 16:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a concession I presume that you have been stalking me around which you are not supposed to do. If there is a "bad" user, you dont hunt him down, you instead request comunity action, how ever judjing from the comments on the failed RfC, successfull RfC and here, I see at least 4 admins are not happy with you chacing me around. Bear in mind these admins do not always side with me. --Cool Cat My Talk 17:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I have been watching your edits, and there is nothing wrong with that, as there has been very good reasons for me and other editors to do so. You have been PoV pushing, used personal attacks, made the one untrue statement after the other, aggressively pushed copyvios and practially violated every policy that exist here. We have provided evidence for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with monitoring the edits of a user, that constantly cause problems and violate Wikipedias policies. -- Karl Meier 18:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Antiwar.com]] 

message: 2) Davenbelle (talk • contribs), Stereotek (talk • contribs), and Fadix (talk • contribs) are counseled to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Coolcat (talk • contribs). If subsequent proceedings which involve Coolcat show that he has been hounded by them substantial penalties may be imposed.
:# Fred Bauder 13:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC) 
:# ➥the Epopt 22:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: # James F. (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: # ➥the Epopt 21:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Since 21:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know you are manipulating facts here, he already answered you, and this was his explanation: No threats here. A simple statement of act is all. I believe you to be wildly, wildly, wildly unsuitable for adminship. You have lied about things, namely copyright statuses, on a number of occasions, one of which caused a very, very good Wikipedian to leave the project. We should not reward such conduct with the tools and aura of trustworthiness of adminship. Beside, I do agree the title of your message was stupid. Fadix 22:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How? By simply warning a user that another got a list which included him? I would sure want to be warned by another if I am included in a list. Would you not? Fadix 22:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I asked them to explain themselves and they did not. So I noted it down on a place everyone can see. Anyone interested is aware of a dispute, I just keep note of "threats to leave wikipedia if Coolcat becomes an admin" for practical purposes. If I want to create a concensus against blankfaze why would I post it in a discrete page in my userspace rather than a RfC? --Cool Cat My Talk 15:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am included: Davenbelle (talk • contribs), Stereotek (talk • contribs), and Fadix (talk • contribs) are counseled... yet, I wait any evidences showing I did anything that should be followed by penalities. And here, I could not comment about the new page created in your talk page that was deleted, I had no clue about this, and have no clue of what the content was. Fadix 22:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fadix it is exteremely rude to BUG into a list of evidence provided by someone. Fadix your warning on Blankfaze's page serves to what purpos may I ask? --Cool Cat My Talk 04:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  Fred this is the stuff I hate dealing. I post a list of items and people make it unreadable. The beulty of the symetry is also gone!!! --Cool Cat My Talk 04:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consider, that this is not an official evidence page, but rather a talk page. As for my "warning," I thought that he should know that he was included in a list... like I would want to know in his place. Fadix 04:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Civility is not extablished in books. You are welcome to make my comments unreadable as there is no policy preventing you, however I prefer you dont. --Cool Cat My Talk 05:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  My comment is unreadable according to you... every bit were signed by my alias that followed it, and it was written in English, and also, writen with a civil language. The rest is your taste, and you should accept others "estetic" tastes. Fadix 20:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Enforcement Request

message: #en.wikipedia.vandalism [01/09/2005, 01:35:20] <Computer2> Possible "gibberish" problem: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:Fadix Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22282091 Change: +4107 bytes Excuse: Coolcat has done it again -
 #en.wikipedia.vandalism [01/09/2005, 20:39:50] <Computer2> Possible "gibberish" problem: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:Fadix Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22338717 Change: +4468 bytes Excuse: Coolcat has done it again -
 #en.wikipedia.vandalism [04/09/2005, 22:37:00] <Computer3> Possible "gibberish" problem: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:Fadix Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22549249 Change: +4899 bytes Excuse: RE:
 #en.wikipedia.vandalism [04/09/2005, 23:33:38] <Computer3> Possible anon "gibberish" problem: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:24.201.46.149 Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22567261 Change: +3816 bytes Excuse: Coolcats disruption of the Armenian Genocide entry -
 #en.wikipedia.vandalism [05/09/2005, 04:10:40] <Computer3> Possible "gibberish" problem: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:Fadix Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22583277 Change: +3614 bytes Excuse: Coolcats disruption of the Armenian Genocide entry -
 #en.wikipedia.vandalism [05/09/2005, 23:14:52] <Computer3> Possible "gibberish" problem: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:Fadix Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22641742 Change: +3213 bytes Excuse: Coolcats disruption of the Armenian Genocide entry -
 #en.wikipedia.vandalism [06/09/2005, 03:17:38] <Computer3> Whitelisted user added significant material, likely reverting vandalism: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:Fadix Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22658299 Change: +4095 bytes Excuse: edit point -
 
7 posts 4107 + 4468 + 4899 + 3816 + 3614 + 3213 + 4095 = 28,212 Bytes =~ 28 KB
 
 [20:36:36] <Computer2> Whitelisted user added significant material, likely reverting vandalism: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:Fadix Change: +7263 bytes Excuse: Section reserved for User:Coolcat an arbitrators and admins (sysops Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22707398
 
8 posts 28,212 + 7263 = 35,475 Bytes =~ 35 KB (His 8 posts qualify the 32 kb limit that is normaly observed for archiving)
User:Fadix should be lectured on how to summerise responses. I was asked to "whitelist" him on my vandal bot. No other user on wikipedia posts as long as he does this frequently. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no rules on the size of answers, on the other hand, the NPOV policy should be respected by any members. Fadix 01:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Why would I intentionaly delete those?(deleting intentionaly is your type not mine) You were editing this page in a short period of time, to add your answers... when I had my answers screwed out because I got answers that while I was answering another answered, this happened three times. I copypasted my stuff, the deleting probably happened during it. Fadix 01:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I kindly ask you to not to repsond to my posts unless you are adressed. (as per arbcom ruling I cant post this where it wouild be aproporate which would be the "There is no rules on the size of answers, on the other hand, the NPOV policy should be respected by any members. Fadix 01:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How conviniant Coolcat, I addressed various times to the Arbcom, and if I remember correctly, you answered all of them. Have you not? It is a talk page, and I can answer without restriction. Fadix 01:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask you AGAIN not to respond to anything I post unless I spesificaly address you. It is a civilised request, can you please honor it? --Cool Cat My Talk 01:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No ! Fadix 01:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fadix Issue

message: 3.1) Coolcat (talk • contribs) is prohibited from editing any articles related or referring to Turks, Kurds, or Armenians for a period of 3 months, and is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. The latter means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban Coolcat from any article he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Coolcat must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.
:What does this mean? I can't work on complete Ranks and Insignia of NATO? You mean I can't edit wikipedia since it can be argued that United States is related to Turks. Heck I am in Turkey right now. What does this mean? --Cool Cat Talk 18:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isnt fadix blocked from editing Armenian Genocide, if I am pov pushing exactly what is he doing? --Cool Cat Talk 18:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple, because I conform to NPOV while you disturb articles. You POV push, I do not. I have provided evidences to support my point, that you indeed POV push, I provided evidences that you have lied on members faces in various occasions, I have shown that you do not respect other members. What you did on the other hand, is telling how long my answers are, you have claimed that my edits in the Armenian genocide article were not NPOV, while not only one administrator has told that your interpretation of NPOV was wrong and not mine. So spare me all this worthless waste of time, and get hell out of the Armenian genocide article and everything involving directly or indirectly Turkey. I think this would be a good thing for arbitrators to vote on,... because the majority of your disruption happens in those articles. Fadix 18:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and, another IMPORTANT thing, your claim about me regarding the Armenian genocide fall short. And had you known me from forums, and some that know me here could confirm, or I could even email you links of some of those forums. I also fought against Holocaust denial and documented two other cases of war crimes. Had my implication in the research of war crimes been only, ethnicity based, the study of other cases would not have been explained. Fadix 18:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Can arbcom please CONSIDER any restriction on people actively stalking me, harrasing me, and violating NPA. Source: This page. --Cool Cat Talk 18:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just mind you that in this same page, you have claimed that I have not stalked you. I claim, you are disrupting Wikipedia, that you are wasting my precious time in endless worthless debates, as someone that was even not able to cite one work he has read about the article he is trying to disrupt. Fadix 18:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: What does this mean? I can't work on complete Ranks and Insignia of NATO? You mean I can't edit wikipedia since it can be argued that United States is related to Turks. Heck I am in Turkey right now. What does this mean? --Cool Cat Talk 18:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Why isnt fadix blocked from editing Armenian Genocide, if I am pov pushing exactly what is he doing? --Cool Cat Talk 18:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Can arbcom please CONSIDER any restriction on people actively stalking me, harrasing me, and violating NPA. Source: This page. --Cool Cat Talk 18:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Southeastern Anatolia Project is about Kurds and Turks (also since Armenians live nearby about them too), Will I be restrict to edit that. Notice the contraversy added later regarding GAP existing to destroy the Kurds, or some similar nonsense. --Cool Cat Talk 18:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh section away from fadix rant