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

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


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Request posted by Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
 * Coolcat notified 17:28, 4 July 2005
 * Stereotek notified 17:30, 4 July 2005
 * Davenbelle notified 17:31, 4 July 2005

See also editor comments below.

Stereotek has told me that he's leaving Wikipedia over this. There are no edits from this user since July 4th.


 * If it matter in any way to this RFA, I've actually been making a few edits as an anon since July 4th, but not many though. The project doesn't interest me much anymore and I won't follow this RFA very closely, properly not at all. -- Stereotek.

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless
 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

See Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek where Coolcat gives extensive evidence of his attempts to resolve this using all other means available to him in the dispute resolution process.

Stereotek et al are supposed to let an admin watch over Cool_Cat?
I may have understood that wrong, as I've even closed that window, but did it mean that an admin will be appointed to watch over Cool_Cat? If so, I'd be willing to do just that as I've read a few of the pages concerning his case and I know the editor. Also, FWIW, I'll soon be the newest mediator to the medcom. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would hope this is the case. Even if ArbCom does not explicitly appoint someone, you are free to monitor his edits. I would encourage you to follow your conscience &mdash; you'll get no objection from me. &mdash; Davenbelle 03:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am open to monitoring. I oppose monitoring by Fadix, Davenbelle, and Stereotek. As quite often they go beyond enforcing wikipedia policies. --Cool Cat Talk 03:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The decision says that:
 * "there are hundreds of administrators available to monitor problem users" (Principles 4.1 Monitoring of problem users)
 * and "Davenbelle, Stereotek, and Fadix are counseled to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Cool Cat." (Remedies 2 Davenbelle, Stereotek, and Fadix)

To clarify: the three people named are advised not to monitor Cool Cat themselves, and in particular they should avoid behavior that could be interpreted as further evidence of [stricken by Davenbelle 07:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)], modified again by Tony Sidaway Talk 07:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * '"wikistalking" or "hounding" Cool Cat, and so disrupting Wikipedia and discouraging his positive contributions.' (Findings of fact 3.1 Efforts by Davenbelle and Stereotek to monitor Coolcat),

with a particularly dire warning that
 * "if subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed." (Remedies 2 again).

No one administrator is to be appointed, all administrators are charged with and empowered to restrain any disruptive editing by Cool Cat in certain articles, and empowered to enforce this restraint by a block of up to three days. (Enforcement 5, Coolcat mentorship). --Tony Sidaway Talk 04:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, I have stricken out part of your above comment because it is an inaccurate summary. I do not mean offense by this &mdash; I only intend it to highlight what I feel is inaccurate.


 * We have been counseled to let others take the lead in monitoring User:Cool Cat, not to refrain from monitoring him at all.


 * I do hope that others  will take the lead in monitoring User:Cool Cat and I hope to minimize my involvement with him in the future. I appreciate your call on all admins to restrain disruptive editing by User:Cool Cat and would urge that they pay particular attention to Armenian Genocide and Kurdistan Workers Party.
 * &mdash; Davenbelle 07:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm just one of the mentors, not an arbitrator, so I can't make an interpretation of what was written. My own opinion, however, is that you, Fadix and Stereotek would do well to avoid the kind of monitoring that you have been engaged in in the past. The mentors are charged with acting as an avenue of appeal for Cool Cat himself, and part of that duty could involve further proceedings at arbitration. Think of us as guardians. --Tony Sidaway Talk 07:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I did say that I hope to minimize my involvement with him in the future. I have also said that I do not intend to edit articles related to Turkey, Kurds, and the Armenian Genocide.


 * I'm surprised to find Mentorship a red link; is there a definition somewhere else? The decision does not mention a function of guardianship (which also has an element of responsibility to it). I am not surprised that you are bringing that view to your role as mentor and this is part of why I objected to you as a mentor. A mentor should teach and correct as necessary. If you are charged with guarding anything, it would be Wikipedia, not User:Cool Cat.


 * My concern here is that no one will, in fact, take the lead in monitoring his editing. This concern was expressed by Jayjg and Raul654 . Do you see it as part of the mentors' responsibilities to take the lead in reining-in POV-Editing and any other objectionable editing by User:Cool Cat? &mdash; Davenbelle 09:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * On guardianship, not only do the mentors have powers and discretion to block and prohibit, they also have the power to review and amend or anull any other block made under the terms of the decision. They are to act "as an avenue of appeal."  A mentor is a "wise and trusted counselor or teacher."  Most of the mentorship happens person-to-person, nobody will see it.  It's a matter of giving good advice, and I'm afraid that does involve considering the interests of Cool Cat as well as Wikipedia.


 * On monitoring, this is a normal administrative function carried out routinely by administrators. It's the reason why we have talk pages, RfCs, an administrators' noticeboard, and so on.  If complaints filter back about an editor's behavior, administrators tend to get involved. --Tony Sidaway Talk  04:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat decision

 * This was copied from User talk:Raul654

By my count the prohibition on User:Cool Cat editing articles articles related or referring to Turks, Kurds, or Armenians for three months, plus Probation for one year passed with four in favor: Jayjg, &#10149;the Epopt, Theresa Knott, Neutrality. If I misunderstand something, please let me know. &mdash; Davenbelle 02:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, plus the caution to not interfere with his mentorship. &mdash; Davenbelle 02:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I anticipated that little happenstance. The arbitration rules make no allowances for such a contingency (where two mutually exclusive rulings pass). So, (figuring that that is what would happen) I emailed the arbitration committee mailing list 4 days ago asking if everyone was OK with the mentorship passing instead of the the 3.0 and 3.1 (because the mentorship seemed to have the most support, all of it unqualified). Since one objected to closing it as such, that's how I closed it. &rarr;Raul654 02:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as the caution (2.1), it was an alternative to 2.0 -- 2.0 had 6 supports, 2.1 had 5 supports; thus, I closed it out with 2.0 and not 2.1. &rarr;Raul654 02:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... Well, off-the-cuff, I'd say that passed is passed and I don't see how the two decisions are mutually exclusive; indeed the mentorship text refers to "administrator-imposed blocks" and the mentors as an "an avenue of appeal" &mdash; presumably for action based on the other decision.


 * I strongly feel that the prohibition on Turks, Kurds, or Armenians articles and the Probation needs to be imposed and that it has passed. &mdash; Davenbelle 02:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The mentorship and probation are inherently mutually exclusive (and I say that as the architect of both). The mentorship was presented as an alternative, it passed with far more support than the probation, and (just to cover my bases) I emailed the arbcom and no one objected. So while you are entitled to feel strongly about it, it has not, in fact, passed. &rarr;Raul654 02:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the exact wording is "In addition, the mentors may overrule or modify administrator-imposed blocks on Coolcat stemming from this decision at their prerogative". The administrator imposed blocks are a reference to an earlier part of that same remedy - "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." &rarr;Raul654 02:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I somehow misunderstand, I thought the mentors were for Coolcat general participation in Wikipedia, since this was proposed after Fred proposition of a year ban(from every articles) was found to be too strong, while the proposition of three months(for things related to Turkey) was accepted and not found too strong, in fact, if I remember, Jay proposed that after he has abstained from another proposition and Fred asked him to present an alternative. The conclusion here is not my problem, but rather, I believe things are unclear. Also, was the mentorship not proposed for Coolcat general participation? If not, so why has it been proposed as somehow an alternative to Fred general ban proposition? What I understand is that the situation in which we are, Mentors will only have a say on his participations regarding matters that concern Turkey, directly or indirectly, while Fred told me to bring my problem with Coolcat hitlist to his mentors, when according to the final decision, they do not have a say here, which seems to not be what was planned and discussed previously. Fadix 03:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with coolcat's editing basically boils down to the fact that his editing on Turkey/Kurdish related articles was bad, but his editing outside those areas was generally good (mostly good but admittedly not perfect). So here's the solution passed in a nutshell:
 * Any admin may block coolcat for up to three days if he disruptively edits a turkey or kurdish related articles
 * The mentors may overrule blocks arising from part 1
 * The mentors can prohibit coolcat from editing any article they believe he is causing problems on. &rarr;Raul654 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that clarify things. Fadix 03:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To which I'd add another point: The mentors also have discretion to block Cool Cat. --Tony Sidaway Talk 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Davenbelle should bear in mind that, together, the sysops and the mentors have far more extensive prohibition powers than those contemplated under the probation and ban. The Committee found that Cool Cat has a long history of POV editing, particularly in relation to the articles about which Davenbelle is concerned, and the mentors are bound to take that finding of fact very seriously. Under the mentorship, administrators are permitted more discretion in blocking, using their own judgement as to when Cool Cat's edits are disruptive; the mentors may mitigate instances where they think that such judgement has erred. In the proposed probation, the administrators would have had to show reasonable cause for a complete ban from editing an article. If they can show this, then under the mentorship they can petition the mentors to perform such a ban, which in my opinion should not be refused without equally good reason.

Of course the purpose of this case is to ensure that Cool Cat is able to rehabilitate himself and continue to perform the useful work he has done, without causing further problems for other editors. It means striking a balance. Disruptive editing won't be tolerated, but Cool Cat should otherwise be permitted the space he needs to continue to develop ways of working with the Wikipedia community, for which he has already drawn much praise. I know that Davenbelle, Stereotek and Fadix will take their own responsibilities under the committee's decision seriously, as I intend to take mine. --Tony Sidaway Talk 03:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, for me the cases will be really over, after that Coolcat hitlist gets deleted. For some, this may not be a big deal, for me it is. Since you are one of his mentors, can you do something about this? Fadix 03:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I, too, still want that page gone (and yes, I realize that delete just means hide from non-admin view). Fadix, please note that User:Cool Cat will be free to edit Armenian Genocide so long as he plays nicely. &mdash; Davenbelle 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you realise that the mentors cannot overrule WP:MD. I have voted delete in that debate.--Tony Sidaway Talk  04:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Mark (Raul), and Tony, thanks for the clarifications. It is my hope that all parties can disengage to a large degree and work together civilly where mutual interests bring them together. For now, I think we need to let the dust settle a bit and see how things go. I like the suggested mentorship page idea and feel that the parties and the mentors should make a few agreements there. I look forward to suggestions. &mdash; Davenbelle 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek; Mark, if you would, please... &mdash; Davenbelle 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I db'ed my semi-evidence/notes to self page. Should the need arise for a second rfar it is easy enough to undelete it, for now however I do not feel the need for it. --Cool Cat Talk 19:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Coolcat, it is greatly appreciated. Fadix 01:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My thanks, too. This was the appropriate ending of this issue. &mdash; Davenbelle 06:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I db'ed it strictly because the rfar concluded. --Cool Cat Talk 05:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Remidies
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, ... This ban shall continue in effect until such time as he is officially appointed to the Mediation Committee.

Passed 4-3


 * I do not see how this works, I cannot be a member of Mediation Committee unless I demonstrate I can mediate. --Cool Cat Talk 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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


 * What exaclty does this mean? I dont have a history of "restructuring". I just moved embedded convos into my post on that instance (I also forgot about this). I cannot abide by the "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" as that would mean I cannot respond people in votes for example. I also dont see the purpose it serves. --Cool Cat Talk 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll discuss these issues on the mentorship page. --Tony Sidaway Talk 04:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Request for appeal: /Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek

 * Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration for archiving purposes. Daniel (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (Formerly Coolcat) (initiator)
 * aka
 * aka
 * aka
 * aka
 * 1 year ban per Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan (ban reset on 25 February 2008)
 * aka
 * aka
 * aka
 * aka
 * aka
 * Indef blocked per rfar discussion and recently per comment
 * aka
 * Inactive since 14 February 2008
 * aka
 * Inactive since 14 February 2008
 * Inactive since 14 February 2008

Appeal by White Cat
Too long... *click* -- Cat chi? 00:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Moreschi
I really don't recommend altering this. White Cat is still the same old Armenian-bashing, anti-Kurd POV-pusher he was back at the time of the arbitration case. At the very least mediators should pretend to some faint semblance of neutrality. White Cat doesn't come close to cutting the mustard. Moreschi (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please try to remain civil on this page Moreschi. --bainer (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. You chaps are seriously contemplating letting White Cat - White Cat - go back to mediating. And you're freaking out because I called him a POV-pusher, an entirely accurate description, as Folantin has nicely proved. Talk about screwball sense of priorities. Moreschi (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, White Cat has just made my point for me. He still thinks that the Turkish Government is a reliable source for matters relating to the Armenian Genocide and Armenian-Turkish conflict stemming from the genocide, despite countless attempts to explain to him why this is not the case. It's the old, classic fallacy of equating NPOV with middle ground. HE JUST DOES NOT GET IT. Mediators need clue as well. Moreschi (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse
I suggest not changing the ruling. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment from AGK
I'd like to note that the remedy self-terminates when White Cat (née Cool Cat) is appointed to the Mediation Committee—not the Mediation Cabal. There's a few mentions of the MedCab in various statements and comments (I pick up on Sam's view, below, as an example). After all, one cannot be "appointed" to the Mediation Cabal, by its very nature. Just a comment, for technical accuracy purposes. AGK § 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Folantin
No thanks. White Cat's contributions to the 2005 Nanking massacre talk page are an object lesson in how NOT to mediate a contentious article. In White Cat's own words: "I tried mediating both topics and I knew nothing about them. I still don't know much as I do not care". That's the reason why it failed, not the interference of some stalker. White Cat thought that committing the fallacy of middle ground ("it's always six of one and half a dozen of the other") at enormous length was somehow equivalent to NPOV. As Bathrobe put it when, well into the mediation, White Cat asked who Koizumi was: "It is a bit rich that Cool Cat is trying to moderate this article when he doesn't even know who the current [Japanese] Prime Minister is. How can you decide what the facts are when you don't even know the basic ones"? His attempted "mediation" of the Armenian genocide article was even worse, given the obvious pro-Turkish bias of his general editing history.

An example of White Cat's "moderation" : "You are obligated to recognise my authority and the authority of all moderators and they recognise yours, you are welcome to ignore me but any more Personal Attacks from you will not be tollerated. Such attacks will result in your destruction, I do not WANT your destruction. I am warning you so that you dont get destroyed. This is neither a threat nor an attack - just a freindly warning. I am a moderator and so are you. Everyone on wikipedia is a moderator. Not everyone is an Admin. I know mods who turn down admin requests as it is a lot of hard work so dont underestimate/dismiss us mods". --Folantin (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Your point being what? I've collaborated with Moreschi on several occasions trying to maintain NPOV on Armenian-Azeri-Turkish-Iranian pages. In fact, I only noticed this appeal when I was looking for clarification on the Armenia-Azerbaijan Arb regarding Iranian articles. You seem to have taken up semi-permanent residence on RFAR and ANI, so it's hardly surprising people keep stumbling across you. None of this has any bearing on the arguments I presented. --Folantin (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to White Cat
 * Must be a new definition of reliable source if we're allowed to use a Turkish tourist board website trying to attract punters by presenting a history of Armenian-Turkish relations so skewed that it doesn't mention the Seljuk invasions (erm, so how exactly did the Turks get to Armenia in the first place?), the Hamidian massacres or even the Armenian genocide. Mind you, it took forever to get you to stop linking blatant hate sites like TallArmenianTale. But that's beside the point. "This is why I will not even attempt to mediate". Good. So we're all agreed now. --Folantin (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
I would just point out that a meditor's main attribute is an ability to assume good faith, yet White Cat writes above "In the form of Jack Merridew, Davenbelle is still around..." despite nothing of the sort having been proved.  Black Kite  20:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seddon69
I have had no real on-wiki interaction with this editor and have only known this editor through IRC though with only a small amount of time has been spent in direct conversation with him but i feel that perhaps in the spirit of this encyclopedia's OWN policy we all start assuming a little good faith. This was passed 2 years ago and time has moved on. It may be an idea to allow him an opportunity to mediate one case under supervision through MedCabal by co-mediation. Now i don't expect him to solve this case as the Cabal has far from a 100% success rate but i think what does deserve to happen is that we see how he acts. Seddon69 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Xavexgoem
I second Seddon69. I was in IRC at the time, and this seems like a common sense approach. Note that I was not canvassed; I just wandered into the conversation and was bored enough to go through the diffs in the '05 arbcom case. Conduct may have been poor at that time, but I agree with Seddon69 that this was 2 years ago and People Change. I think that allowing mediation through WP:MEDCAB would be best to allow some degree of oversight; and I recommend to White Cat that he avoid mediating issues ethnic, religious, or political (esp. in regards to SW Asia), but that would be up to him.

I don't believe I've seen him around medcab's talk page, so I don't know what the coordinators (User:PhilKnight & User:Vassyana) and other old timers would think of this. At any rate, I think it's acceptable to drop the sanction but bring transgressions to enforcement per the '05 case. A trial run, if you will. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe
While I could understand White Cat being banned from mediating disputes on topics with which he is involved, is a total ban needed? Were there to be a dispute about correctly identifying certain types of flora, for example - would the project be harmed by White Cat being able to offer to assist in resolving the dispute? I would point out that users who have strong POVs that make them unsuitable to mediating in certain areas have been acknowledged to be very effective at resolving disputes in other unconnected areas. It does seem that this sanction could be made a little narrower in scope. WjBscribe 17:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Nick

 * Not a clerk, but I'm going to note this here, just to let Arbcom know that per this diff Jack Merridew has self identified as a sockpuppet of blocked/banned user Davenbelle. Don't know what impact, if any, this is going to have on this request. Nick (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The remedy unusually has a built-in provision for its own termination: if White Cat can win the confidence of the community and be appointed to the Mediation cabal, the remedy is discharged. While noting that he prefers not to go down this route, I regard it as the best way of determining if he is a suitable user to act as mediator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the remedies and especially the long-forgotten enforcement provision contained in the Davenbelle decision are weird. It also is not completely clear to me that remedy 1 (rather than 1.1) is the one that should have been deemed to have passed. That being said, it is apparent that when this case was decided a couple of years ago, the arbitrators were pretty much unanimously convinced that White Cat's talents lie in areas unrelated to mediating disputes and that his past attempts at mediation had worsened rather than helped solve problems. I would like to ask White Cat to briefly explain what has changed since the time of that decision such that he now wants to help mediate things again. I would also ask White Cat if he would agree that any attempts at informal mediation (because the chances that he will be appointed to the Mediation Committee are non-existent) would related to areas unrelated to the topics on which he has engaged in editorial disputes recently, such as Turkish/Kurdish and episodes-and-characters-related matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, choosing 1 to pass does seem odd. I too think the underlying opinion was clear. There were two common factors (subject-matter in which White Cat has an interest, and the involvement of certain editors) which probably contributed to the failure of those attempts at mediation, but the third common factor remains White Cat's involvement. The issue for you, White Cat, is to demonstrate which of these factors is really the problem; that is, should we continue to prevent you from acting as mediator altogether, or would the better remedy be to restrict you merely from mediating disputes to do with those certain editors or certain subject-matter? It would be good if you could point to some incidences of successful mediation that you had been involved in before this remedy was passed. --bainer (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wholly opposed to removing these restrictions. I do not feel that the encyclopedia project will be helped thereby.  The restrictions were imposed because of real problems. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Request to amend Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * White Cat

Review of White Cat's sanction related to mediation
White Cat has requested the Arbitration Committee review and lift Remedy 1 in the Coolcat, Davenbell, Steretek Case.

Statement by Ryan Postlethwaite
I would suggest that this motion isn't as straight forward as some seem to think it is. White Cat was originally banned from mediating disputes because he was mediating them where he had a clear point of view and often made the situation worse. Lifting a ban on mediation would allow White Cat to request to join the mediation committee and probably free reign to mediate any dispute he feels like for the mediation cabal. I suspect that a request to join the mediation committee would be unsuccessful, but I also suspect that participants of mediation cabal mediations would not be aware of the full facts and therefore accept him as the mediator. There's little stopping him from getting involved in the highly contentious disputes where his involvement could potentially be highly problematic. To put it bluntly, whilst White Cat does some extremely beneficial work on wikimedia projects, I believe he doesn't have the right demeanor to mediate any dispute here. I've seen him jump into too many disputes head first without looking at the overall picture or understanding what it's about. I'd thereofre suggest that the ban on White Cat mediating should stay in place indefinitely - there's plenty of other things he can do here.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by White Cat
To clarify the concerns of Ryan Postlethwaite and anyone else. I am uninterested in mediating at this point. When I tried to mediate in 2005, I was merely trying to help (no good deed goes unpunished). I was not trying to destroy wikipedia. I understand I was no good at mediating back then and I am unsure if I am any good at mediating right now. So I myself feel I am less than ready to mediate and wouldn't expect anyone else to feel otherwise. I hope people can agree with thus far.

Mediating is an art not everyone can do. Many users on Wikipedia should never mediate a dispute but this does not mean they should be banned from doing so. There are many users out there who should never touch Mediawiki:Common.css but that should not mean over 80% of the current admins should be sanctioned by arbcom from doing so.

Despite all that I am very tired of explaining the circumstances behind the ban even on issues when the ban itself does not apply. The circumstances behind it is quite complex and it gets more complicated over time. If anyone asks...
 * I would need to start explaining the entire dispute between me and Davenbelle (aka Moby Dick aka Jack Merridew) and that four year old harassment case. After all Davenbelle played a key role.
 * I would need to explain all remedies in the rfar case on 2005. (linked case)
 * I would need to explain all remedies in the rfar case on 2006. (Moby Dick case)
 * I would need to explain issues surrounding User:Diyarbakir in 2007 and the relevant checkuser case.
 * I would need to explain several issues surrounding User:Jack Merridew in 2008
 * The complexity of that case may get even more complicated over time.
 * I would need to explain other remedies concerning me on the 2005 case. (linked case)
 * I would need to do my best in explaining why this remedy will not ever expire (how it only expires if and only if I get an official MedCom seat and how that will not happened to a user who has an outstanding arbcom sanction on Mediation).

...and so on...

The arbcom ban was and still is a bit flawed too. It does not even clarify what kind of an action would be taken in the event of me mediating. I guess what I am trying to say is the arbcom remedy has a lot of room where I can game around. To date I have made no attempt to game around the remedy. Basically the remedy itself was never used. I am told it was in fact ancient history no one cared about until I brought it up.

So please give me a break.

-- Cat chi? 07:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Mediation Cabal Coordinators
Following discussion between the three coordinators of the Mediation Cabal we have come up with a simple plan if User:White_Cat wants to take a case at MEDCAB. For the first mediation he takes it will need to be co-mediated with an experienced mediator. In this instance "experienced mediator" will be someone chosen by the coordinators.

It cannot be categorically stated at this time who that will be, as it will depend on availability of mediators to mediate. Subsequent mediations at WP:MEDCAB will be watched as is done by the coordinators for new mediators. This is to ensure those who come to the Mediation Cabal for dispute resolution get the best possible mediation provided by volunteers.

Although MEDCAB is the normal venue for informal mediation, we have no jurisdiction to maintain informal mediation outside the cabal, eg. Third opinion. We will do what we can to assist. Any additional needs from us for mediation conducted outside MEDCAB, will need to be stated and discussed with us.

Signed by Mediation Cabal coordinators

Sedd&sigma;n talk Editor Review Xavexgoem (talk) Huzzah! PhilKnight (talk) Huzzah! indeed

Clerk notes

 * Six supports now. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * After discussion with White Cat and reviewing the past circumstances that lead to the sanction, I support lifting the sanction that restricts mediating. Based on my conversion with White Cat, he does not intend to immediately start involving himself with mediating disputes, but would like to be able to participate in discussions without the burden of explaining the reason for an active ArbCom sanction. Given the long length of time from the date of the sanction (Case Closed on 5 October 2005), I think it is a reasonable request and make the following motion to lift the sanction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloNight (talk • contribs) 17:06, November 15, 2008
 * Comment:Ryan, you misunderstand the current sanction. The ruling did not prevent him from requesting to join MedCom, it merely restricted informal mediation, so there is no change in status with the Mediation Committee. In general, I'm not comfortable leaving an indefinite ArbCom sanction hanging over the head of an user when lifting the sanction will cause no harm. I've discussed his interest in doing mediation, and he tells me that it is not something that he plans to do at this time. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Seddσn, and Xavexgoem. It sounds like a good plan. Your prompt attention to this matter is very much appreciated. ;-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have asked the Mediation Committee to submit their view on this, and will be guided by what they feel. FT2 (Talk 04:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that nothing in that ruling prevents White Cat joining MedCom (in fact the sanction automatically ends if MedCom accept him); it does however prevent him mediating informally or as part of Medcab. I do not have a problem with open ended sanctions, provided they are subject to periodic review to see if the consensus is they are still needed. FT2 (Talk 04:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

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


 * There are 11 active Arbitrators, so a majority is 6.

Support:
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. I'd like to clarify why I am supporting this. Mediation is a totally optional process, in all forms. By supporting the removal of this sanction, it is still possible for users who are unhappy with White Cat mediating their disputes to refuse to let him mediate their dispute, and seek another mediator, so it's not like we're forcing him on users who do not want him. It seems somewhat silly, at this stage, to refuse to let White Cat mediate if a group of users are happy with him doing so for their dispute. --Deskana (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Kirill (prof) 20:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Deskana. --bainer (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All of us find our niches at different roles within the project, and I don't think that mediating is the highest and best use of White Cat's particular skill-set, but I can understand his desire to get this years-old restriction off the books. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:
 * Pending response from the Mediation Committee. If the Mediation Committee had sufficient doubts as to not recommend this, then I would wish to think twice and discuss further, before saying otherwise. FT2 (Talk 04:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)