Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek

Please note that Coolcat has begun using the account Cool Cat (talk · contribs). This may affect certain links, in most cases substituting Cool Cat for Coolcat will cause the link to go to the proper place.

Case Opened on 13:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

• Coolcat is still concerned that he is being stalked by two other editors.

• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)
• Cool Cat (talk · contribs)
• Stereotek (talk · contribs)
• Davenbelle (talk · contribs)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

Cool Cat is still concerned, apparently with some justification, that Stereotek and Davenbelle are dogging his footsteps and making it very difficult for him to edit Wikipedia. It looks to me as if this is a deliberate campaign against Cool Cat. It seems to be impossible to persuade Davenbelle and Sterotek to cease. I recommended against arbitration earlier, but I think it's reached the point where the case should be examined. Perhaps a mentorship for Cool Cat would be a good outcome for this, because it would protect him from abuse while permitting any issues that may be identified in his behavior, which may be contributing to his problems, to be controlled.

I bring this case on my own behalf because, while Cool Cat's pleas tend to be wordy and miss the point, I believe there may be a case to answer here.

I have undeleted the earlier RfC which didn't make cert, was userfied and then deleted (by me). It contains comments by other editors expressing very much the same concerns that I have.

• User:Coolcat/Davenbelle_and_Stereotek

Statement by Cool Cat

I am on vacation and am in a rather crowded net cafe so they give me 1 hr to use the internet. My apology for any spelling errors etc...

I would like to firstly point out to the ArbCom Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek

1. One thing that may not be clear in the RfC case is that users assigned me a nationality, even though I want to stay anonymous. I have no reason to advertise any info on the internet since I started using the internet for over a decade. They clearly know this (assuming they bother reading
2. For all my disputes with them, prior to my edits in all cases neither user had a single edit. Maybe with the exception of Armenian Genocide however I haven't checked.
3. Please bear in mind the mini revert war in the RfC page of which I misquoted Davenbelle as I was typing/paraphrasing that quote from memory (when typing the rfc case). Such errors in an assume good faith enviorment is fixed without a redundent signature embaded in my section even though regardless of the material one presents no one should be editing each others section spesificaly if the case is filled by/against/for one another anyhow.
4. I am out of time. That's all I got for now. OK, they gave me more time but I used it elsewhere. I don't think I need to present more evidence. I was told I have more meetings t attend, I intend to take losts of photos. I may vanish from the scenes for a while.

As far as I am concerned, the general flow of the conversation is more than enough evidence I can present. I am coping my points from the RfC case below for your conviniance. I did amend some.

1. Excuse of dismissing governmental data: "Governments have been known to lie..." [1].
2. user:Davenbelle definately has a personal issue with me [2] and probably with Turkey as well.
3. Nanking massacre: Image sizes are a good excuse to start rever war. Standard Thumbnail size (180px) vs 280px [3]. I expect decency in the article. If people want to see full sized corpses they can click on the image. The Holocaust entry uses thumbnail sized images. Reverts should be evaded and things should be discussed. They had no edits on this article prior to my arrival as well. I was trying to mediate this thing in hopes that I learn better ways to mediate, their and User:Fadix's "contribution" made a mediation impossible. They had no edits prior to my arrival as well.
4. I abuse wikipedia templates: [4]. User did not voice an opinion in articles talk page or in my talk page or in any talk page aside from a 3rd parties. (ammended - RFC)
5. Davenbelle marked GAP project a copy vio. Material was PD and is used on 11 websites of which two are PD. Copyvio people deleted the page anyway as copy vio people if they are marking pages as a copy vio make sure material is not on a PD source. I rewrote the page from scratch the page still is not there as the "copy vio" issues are still discussed. The page is rewritten from scratch twice so far. It is yet another stressful and unnecessary case which would be easily avoided. I don't enjoy red tape sorry. SO as to satisfy User:Duk... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
6. Another assume bad faith case in Greco-Turkish_relations. I do not know what the user was trying to prove. Topic stayed locked because of his intervention (trolling). See how the discussion went on (or lack of discussion). [5]. Check the revert war in on going in archived discussion. I am doing spelling corrections. They cannot even tolerate that.
7. I was asked to mediate Javier Solana (via IRC). Which I accepted but Davenbelle for one removed my mediation guidelines to the users (which I later forced back in). His interference is visible in talk archive 3. I have every right to push a few rules to hopefully force people to discuss the matter rather than them continue their revert war. At least that was my intention which they again made impossible.
8. For instance I listed Antiwar.com on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 16 ([6]) as Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Antiwar.com at 16/06/2005, 15:39:55, Davenbelle oppsed it on 16/06/2005, 15:41:10 ([7]). In other words 1:15 minutes later of it being listed he opposed it. Granted people can suggest whatever the wish I am not criticising that remotely. But the fact that they are so efficent in oposing any and every suggestion or edit I can this easily and fast bothers me (times were my local time). On many other instances such as recent deletation of Template:CVIP and Template:RWIP they were also in the opposing corner. (ammended - RFC)
9. Another example will be in Abortion. Article is contraversial yes, my edits were not. My edits (bear in mind I have two blocks of edits and some changes were not my doing): [8] All edits from my last edit till just before Stereotek's first edit (mostly links being removed/added): [9] Stereotek's edits as follows: [10]. From my first edit till the end of Stereotek's first block: [11]. Granted Not every thing I did is gone, but the majority is. Aside from the links (which was not my doing) almost all of my edits are gone. I was doing cleanup duty. Bear in mind that he used no Talk: . I was talking to User:Tznkai on IRC. Infact he invited me to clean the article. While the discussion of which version is better is open to debate, like any edit. I wouldn't be as buged if someone else than the two (Davenbelle and Stereotek) appeared.
   • I'm not sure where the best place to put this is, but here it goes. I did infact invite coolcat via IRC to help clean up the abortion article, and I think he did a good job of it in some places, and I disagree with others. In the time I worked with him, he made his edits in good faith. While he may have been incorrect in doing somethings, he did his best to do what I asked him: improve the article.--Tznkai 7 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)
10. PKK: Users have not contributed to this article prior to my edit. They just abusively revert. No discussion no talk no assume good faith...

1. POV delete or is it? PKK's drug ties is well known. So says the Turkish government and so confirms the US government. Bear in mind user posted nothing to talk. just do a google search with this string: pkk drug site:.gov google search. That's a ridiculously simple search. Users however ignore common knowledge, stick to their "governments tend to lie" ideology... [12] rv to last NPoV version by Bobblewik
2. Example of double standard. Bear in mind that restore of "removed material" removed about 5182 bytes of data. (assume bad faith and discard the work of others out of hand) [13] revert; don't discard the work of others out of hand
3. Users NPoVise articles by stubisizing: [14]

Statement by Stereotek

Cool Cat has disrupted Wikipedia by refusing to follow Wikipedias policies regarding NPOV in many articles, and has been pushing a pro-Turkish government/Genocide denialist PoV in many articles such as Armenian Genocide, PKK and Nanking Massacre.

Cool Cat has frequently violated Wikipedias policies regarding No personal attacks, and has exposed several users to extreme personal attack across several pages. Examples include: User:Stereotek and User:Davenbelle just SHUT UP and GO SCREW yourselves. [15] and Stereotek + Fadix = Death [16]

Cool Cat has shown complete discontempt for the opinion of other editors and Wikipedias rules regarding concensus. Examples include insisting on redirecting the Abdullah Öcalan article to the PKK article ([17], [18], [19]), disregarding the clear consensus on the talkpage not to merge the mentioned articles.

Cool Cat has also been a frequent violator of wikipedias policies regarding civility, and has among other things used edit summaries such as: "Stop being silly, do you have some sort of sick wet dream to stare at a dead naked woman? Or do you enjoy staring at dead chineese?..." [20] and comments such as: "You cant read either, the color format is discussed above" [21]

Cool Cat has frequently been violating wikipedias policies regaring copyright. Examples include the GAP Project article which he insisted on recreating unitarily, despite consensus not to do so on the votes for undeletion. Other examples of copyvios that Coolcat has been insisting on including are his now deleted version of the Diagnosis: Murder article. More evidence regarding Coolcats dishonest use of copyrighted material is available here: [22]

Another one of Wikipedias policies that Cool Cat has frequently violated is the 3 revert rule, and according to Cool Cat's own userpage, he has been blocked three times violating 3rr.

Apart from these violations of Wikipedia policies, Cool Cat has been disrupting Wikipedia by aggressively promoting a some odd ideas. These include insisting on using a very unusual colorsheme when 'mediating' in articles such as Greco-Turkish relations and Javier Solana see: [23], this often despite other editors clearly rejecting his idea.

More evidence is available here: User:Davenbelle/Evidence re User:Coolcat moved: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence/Davenbelle's Evidence re Coolcat.

Statement by Davenbelle

I request that the ArbCom accept this case because I feel that User:Cool Cat's edits need a review. I don't feel that those who have opposed him have done much wrong. Please see the current RfC Cc has opened against Stereotek and myself and our previous attempt to get User:Cool Cat before ArbCom. 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 have little time or bandwidth to gather much new evidence; I would hope that someone will present diffs of User:Cool Cat's conduct on Talk:Armenian Genocide from late March — very telling.

On the subject of assuming good faith I would like to say that I did so until User:Cool Cat showed ample evidence of bad faith.

I will be off line for the rest of the week as I have a bus to catch to Padangbai (again!); the white sand beach there has no electricity.

— Davenbelle July 5, 2005 02:37 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

• Accept. Fred Bauder July 4, 2005 17:27 (UTC)
• Accept. ➥the Epopt 23:10, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. sannse (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. Neutrality^talk 07:09, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (sort of)

This may be the wrong place to mention this, but I blocked Coolcat (talk · contribs · block log) for one week - at his own request - following IRC discussion at #wikipedia. I consider his stepping up to say that he's too angry to edit, a sign of maturity, even if strictly speaking vacations shouldn't be enforced by account suspensions. (Please move this comment if it's out of place.) Uncle Ed 20:57, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, after a public discussion on the #wikipedia IRC channel, Cool Cat has agreed to let me block his account at any time and for any reason, as part of an informal and temporory mentoring agreement. I shall try to advise him on good conduct, and he shall try to follow my advice. All for the greater good of Wikipedia. Uncle Ed 14:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Final decision (none yet)

Principles

Mediation

1) Wikipedia mediators are "are part of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, and are experienced and trusted Wikipedians."

Passed 7-0

Informal mediation

1.1) Informal mediation is welcomed as a part of the normal editing process regardless of whether a user is an official Mediator.

Passed 6-0

Competence

2) Some tasks necessary for the functioning of Wikipedia require skill and, in the case of mediation, the trust of the community.

Passed 7-0

Clarification of issues

3) When there are a number of problems, it may serve to attempt to resolve the most pressing, then observe the situation.

Passed 7-0

Stalking

4) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy.

Passed 5-0

Monitoring of problem users

4.1) There are hundreds of administrators available to monitor problem users.

Passed 5-2

Findings of fact

Mediation attempts by Coolcat

1) Cool Cat (talk · contribs) has unsuccessfully attempted to mediate a number of contested articles Javier Solana, Greco-Turkish relations, and Nanking Massacre. Please look at the talk pages of these articles for examples of the results of Coolcat's efforts.

Passed 7-0

Coolcat's status as a mediator

1.1) Cool Cat (talk · contribs) is not a Mediator. His nomination as a Mediator had no support Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#Removed_nominations. Self-nomination [24]; opposition by El C (talk · contribs) [25]; opposition by Davenbelle (talk · contribs) [26] citing attempts to mediate disputes where he had a strong POV. Coolcat responds to opposition [27]. El C reinforces his point [28]. Having gained no support after several months nomination removed by Angela (talk · contribs) [29]

Passed 7-0

Restructuring pages

1.2) Cool Cat (talk · contribs) has engaged in the practice of "restructuring" talk pages [30]. This results in the talk pages being confused as comments have been moved out of the context in which they were made.

Passed 7-0

POV editing by Coolcat

2) Cool Cat (talk · contribs) has a history of POV editing which has attracted the attention of other users. He may have moderated his behavior but continues to engage in it in some instances see these edits.

Passed 6-0

Efforts by Davenbelle and Stereotek to monitor Coolcat

3.1) Davenbelle (talk · contribs), Stereotek (talk · contribs), and Fadix (talk · contribs) monitored Cool Cat (talk · contribs) with the view to bringing problems he caused to the attention of the community. However, this has tipped over into effectively "wikistalking" or "hounding" Cool Cat, and so disrupting Wikipedia and discouraging his positive contributions.

Passed 6-0

Remedies

Coolcat prohibited from mediating

1) Due to lack of community support, Cool Cat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from holding himself out as a mediator or attempting to serve as a mediator of any dispute, see
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Workshop#Mediation and opposition,
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Workshop#Coolcat's status as a mediator,
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Workshop#Coolcat's mediation efforts at Greco-Turkish relations, and
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Workshop#Nanking Massacre. This ban shall continue in effect until such time as he is officially appointed to the Mediation Committee.

Passed 4-3. Remedy lifted, per below.

Motion to lift Coolcat, Davenbelle, Steretek Case Remedy 1.

1) Remedy 1 in the Coolcat, Davenbelle, Steretek Case is no longer in force.

Passed 6 to 0 (with 1 abstention), per this request for amendment (voting tallies).

Davenbelle (talk · contribs), Stereotek (talk · contribs), and Fadix (talk · contribs)

2) Davenbelle (talk · contribs), Stereotek (talk · contribs), and Fadix (talk · contribs) are counseled to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Cool Cat (talk · contribs). If subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed.

Passed 6-0

Coolcat prohibited from restructuring

4) Cool Cat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from moving the comments of others around on the talk page of any article or any user talk page other than his own. Additionally he is not permitted to archive any talk page other than his own. Cool Cat may make no edit to a talk page which is not at the end of a section unless he begins a new section at the bottom of the page. This restriction shall last for one year.

Passed 7-0

Coolcat Mentorship

5) Cool Cat (talk · contribs) is, for one year, placed under a mentorship as follows: If Coolcat should disruptively edit articles relating to Turkey or the Kurds (or on mostly-unrelated articles with sections dealing with Turkey or the Kurds, such as the Armenian Holocaust on Holocaust), an admin may block him for a short time, up to three days.

Coolcat will have users: Mark Ryan, Tony Sidaway, and MacGyverMagic. as his mentors. The mentors will have the power to block Coolcat or prohibit him from editing certain articles. In addition, the mentors may overrule or modify administrator-imposed blocks on Coolcat stemming from this decision at their prerogative (and thus act as an avenue of appeal).

Passed 7-0

I have imposed a 48 hour block on Cool Cat for violating the above ruling; according to several users at a recent AN/I posting, his edits relating to Kurd categories have been disruptive. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)