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

message: User:Cool Cat is required to abide by the ArbCom's decisions. He has engaged in many "restructurings" of talk pages and has been required to limit his editing of talk pages as a result. This is appropriate. Votes on requested moves for example should go at the end of the list (end of a section enough for me) and he's free to comment on a request in progress at the end of sections. No Problem — Good Wikiquette. — Davenbelle 10:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coolcat prohibited from restructuring 

message: Wow, that is one unfunny Garfield strip. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Garfield

message: This is being extremely difficult. I do not see a solution out of it... -- Cat chi? 04:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See a revert war on Ilısu Dam, an article I started and wrote which davenbelle should not have been present. I am not a heavenly creature and I do have a limited paitence, please assist. -- Cat chi? 09:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I do not believe that I tipped the POV of the article; please review my edits and note that the section about the Kurdish Human Rights Project's view was part of User:Cool Cat's original version (to his credit; copied from Southeastern Anatolia Project); I only reworked it a little bit. My editing of Ilısu Dam was not intended as a provocation, it was an attempt to improve the article and to see if User:Cool Cat and I could work together; it is he that refused and simply started reverting me. I have not conspired with User:Karl Meier as you're implying; we have not communicated off-wiki in many months — even through the ArbCom case. This has been deliberate, on my part at least, in order to avoid the appearance of a conspiracy re User:Cool Cat. I believe that the whole Kurdistan flap was due to User:Cool Cat feeling emboldened by my block. As far as "staying away", I'd like to ask from what? Everything User:Cool Cat was found to have a history of POV editing on? Please note that he has never edited The Kurdistani and my vote to keep it was much of why Red Wolf blocked me. — Davenbelle 06:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, of course it's a conspiracy against Cool Cat that I fix a typo and remove some empty space in a few articles that I am not banned from, and has not been adviced not to edit. It's actually so obvious, that I can just as well admit that it was something that was planned all along. Hundreds of e-mails and telephone calls was exchanged to plan these truely evil and bad-faith actions. All I can say is that I was very surprised, that everybody was so naive about my intentions, for such a long time. -- Karl Meier 07:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Davenbelle]]

message: I shall block you both if I catch you edit warring any more as you have done on  and .  I am warning you both.  This has nothing to do with the arbitration case or the mentorship, it has to do with the disruptive behavior of both of you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning to Karl Meier and Cool Cat

message: From: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek#Coolcat prohibited from restructuring:
: User:Cool Cat is not permitted to archive any talk page other than his own.
See:  and  where User:Cool Cat archives the Wikipedia:Vandalism SWAT Team talk page.
Plus this for an explicit statement of intent: I hereby today will start ignoring all rulings levied on me 
— Davenbelle 04:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To monitor someone's edits and report them here is not the same thing as "stalking". I don't think Davenbelle do anything wrong by reporting Cool Cat's violations of the ArbCom's decision. It seems like the right thing to do and it has absolutely nothing to do with so-called "stalking". -- Karl Meier 09:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont know about that but voting on straw polls in the opposing corner, revert warring on an article he wrote cant be coincidences. -- Cat chi? 09:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's you that started the revert war by reverting Davenbelle's edits only one day after he made them, not the other way around. And you haven't been editing that article for months. Also, there is nothing strange about opposing an deletion request on an article that he was editing anyway... The block of Davenbelle was entirely unreasonable. -- Karl Meier 10:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there is nothing strange. Then why are you complaining about me following you around? There is nothing wrong about me removing a single line from the article which made the code more readable. -- Cat chi? 10:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is something wrong with reverting peoples edits for no good reason. That is harassment and stalking. -- Karl Meier 10:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup and I was blocked for it. Baiting another user is also harrasment. -- Cat chi? 10:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: One thing interest me though... How do you know that I and Davenbelle made 40 % of all the edits? Did you count all our diffs in the articles history? -- Karl Meier 17:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Antagonising the mentors (the very people who are meant to be supervising the person with whom you have a conflict) is not a good idea. The time Tony has spent on this mentorship is astounding, and he is absolutely right: this mentorship is for Cool Cat's development and self-improvement, not a vehicle for you and whoever else to satisfy some unhealthy personal vendetta against him. I completely concur with Tony Sidaway. - Mark 08:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coolcat prohibited from archiving