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


 * /Archive 1

Disrupting Valkyries
See: Talk:Valkyrie && Talk:Valkyrie (disambiguation) for examples of User:Cool Cat senselessly disrupting Wikipedia; he has moved the various Valkyrie articles around in a manner against policy (and had them moved back) and has now proposed the moves again seemingly for the sake of the disruption and out of spite. &mdash; Davenbelle 04:58, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Your oppose stalking is unwarranted. I am NOT disrupting wikipedia with that. There is no established wiki policy that suggests that artilce Valkyrie should be where it is, I am allowed to move pages and make suggestions. You are disrupting a move procedure for reasons I cannot even begin comprihending I confess. You had no edit on the Valkyrie article, and still dont have an edit yet you oppose the move. This is ridiclous. --Cool Cat Talk 05:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I really dont understand a bit of this. Why is Arbcom is not even considering sanctions on Davenbelle and Stereotek when clear cases of stalking is avalibe? I also might add that at least four admins support this? Can we focus on the reason why this arbcom was started? --Cool Cat Talk 05:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's because (as we already pointed out many times) have monitored you and your disruptions for a number of very good reasons. Your most recent behavior that Davenbelle has pointed out in this section, is another piece of evidence of that. Also, it's a good recent exampel that your disruptions is not limited to articles regarding Turkey, and that the ArbCom should properly consider a more extensive ban, than the current that is only regarding Turkey related articles. -- Karl Meier 09:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? So what am I disrupting by suggesting a move vote? You realise you do not make any sense. So far as I see it arbcom is encourageing you guys to stalk on and THATS very disapointing. --Cool Cat Talk 15:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an anti elitist community, one being an admin does not give them a "speciality". I am more aware of anti elitism policy than all 3 of you combined I guess. I did not mention the CVU here, arbcom wasnt aware of it either, you did. I did not mention my edit count, you did. I have more edits than all 3 of you combined yet I did not mention it at all. So I am not restrictied to make suggestions against what an "admin" feels, Adminship is no big deal. I do listen to their advice, not because they are admins but because they are veteran users. --Cool Cat Talk 15:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That's something new comming from you Coolcat, had you not brought "elitism," I would probably not have answered here. It is interesting that you read Wikipedias founder sentiment of anti-elitism, and use that term here, when it is obvious that you don't yourself know of what you are talking about. Coolcat, where were you, when I was angry of this anti-elitism in Wikipedia, when angry, I was searching in google "elitism + Wikipedia" to then, end up in an article from one of the founder, expressing much of my sentiments then, while you were trying to silence me in an article and was trying to remove what the "elite" was saying? Do you even comprehend what people mean by anti-elitism in Wikipedia? I really doubt it. Let me just give you an example of anti-elitism, anti-elitism is when, for intense a member that has not a slighest clue about a subject try to impose a preconcieved belief, and in the process silence others who knows the subject. Anti-elitism, means abusing the fact, that everyone can edit, to edit, when you don't have enough knowledge to do so. Anti-elitism, is to remove any references to the "elite" in the subject of the article, like you were after, for an article, that I don't believe I have to name. In fact, I, very early in my Wikipedia days, was angry of your anti-elitism, even repeating my cases to the moderation committee, at that time, I have not read you ever using the term "elite" or anti-elitism. An elite Coolcat, document something, because it is a field he study... it is true that you have more edit than I, but this doesn't mean much, the fact of the matter is that, I have documented and justified, in a way that anyone if any have done here in Wikipedia, and you have abused and gone after me, as if we were during an "elite" hunting season. You won't even read longer than 10 lines of answers, and yet you now shout anti-elitism. You can't even feel how you are unrespectful to the elite, by shouting anti-elitism, you of all users here, when, you were the most anti-elitism member I have ever uncountered in wikipedia, mark my words on that. It is just disgusting that you will use this term, just to advance your cases and buy few new supports from people that are tired of this elite hunting. Fadix 03:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats great, you were the one mentioning my edit count NOT me, I explicitly did not mention it and the only time I used it was for ratios. You are just trying to gain sympaty with the elitism thing. FYI, The fouder of wikipedia, User:Jimbo Wales does not dictate wikipedia and stays away from all disputes. He has regular admin access, not even a burocrat. Please don't lecture me on a concept you cannot possibly comprihend since you mentioned edit counts not me. --Cool Cat Talk 03:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you know what is really laughable? It is the way you repeat what others say, and then use their own words against them. Now, please, why don't you visit our mediation page and read what I had written there? Was that not few months ago? I was very angry and not managing my words, and was just talking about anti-elitism in a way that I could have not obtained the "sympathy" you are alluding to here. On the other hand, you record what others have to say, and repeat them like a parrot, and even hammering them with what they themselves were accusing you of doing. Had I wanted to get sympathy, I would have gone crying on other users pages, like you've did, I would have used IRC and pittying my own ego, to get this sympathy. But I did nothing such, I just minded my own business, and I was EVEN NOT giving Barnstars to users I thought worthed them, because I thought that in my situation it would appear as if I was trying to get my way by trying to buy supports. In fact, I have just given my Barnstar, and it was very recently, and I did it, because the user really, really worthed that specific barnstar and I could not understand why he still have not recieved it yet. In fact, I don't need sympathys that I bought by IRCing or being kind with people, but because people are satisfied with my contributions in articles,(which is what reall matters in Wikipedia) and besides, I am NOT here to have friends, neither to find people that will "pitty" me, the only reason why I am in Wikipedia, is to contribute, write articles etc., the rest is the last of my priorities..., if others like me, it is just a bonus, nothing more. Fadix 03:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * How is this related to Valkyries? --Cool Cat Talk 05:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Mr. Coolcat, you brought "anti-elitism," not me, and I answered. Fadix 17:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You mentioned the CVU, I did not. I do not use CVU to gain support. In fact I asked the RC patrolers to never mention it here. --Cool Cat Talk 03:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Whatever...
 * I do not have to know shit about a topic to ask for sources. If you cant cite them, well then it is not wikipedia material. --Cool Cat Talk 03:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You are lying again, now that's anti-elitism if you ask me. I have cited sources, books, records etc., while you relied on racist websites, that the material you have even not read. Again, that is anti-elitism. Fadix 03:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * NO you havent cited any sources, thats what I have been asking, I have personaly talked to some of the arbitrators hearing this case, while I wont reveal provate communications, they agree that Armenian Genocide lacks adequate citing. Also, how is this related to Valkyries? --Cool Cat Talk 05:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You are lying again, while the article does not cite the sources on the main page, you know well that the talk page did. I have already cited various works, like the Genocide Encyclopedia of Israel Charny, Robert Melson book, Dadrian various abstracts published in the Holocaust and genocide studies, and I have myself access to the http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org records, except to those prior to 1996, that are accessible from the http://www.oxfordjournals.org/jnls/collections/archives.html besides, the book America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915, that was also cited, has pratically every points covered in the article, to those add, another that is also published in the Cambridge University Press, "State Identities and the Homogenisation of Peoples" by Heather Rae. In fact, I just pied attention to my own answers in Fadix analysis and in the archives, I have stopped counting, after 20 works from which I have cited. I also took the list of the concentration camp from a French work covering concentration camps of the last century, and I have even given the title and the authors. And above all, I already clarified that as long as you disturb the article, and that I am in constent fear of getting my changes reverted, I won't start footnoting and adding quotes, because no one will spent dozens of hours to then get reverted by some POV pusher that can't even cite one book they have read about the topic. Fadix 17:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not follow you around wikipedia and troll you around. You haven't recieved an oppose from me on anyvote you hae voted earlier, this actualy is misleading, since you don't regularly participate in voting. For examle the ony RFA you voted on was on mine and you opposed it. Or your vote/opposition on Namechange requests, you had no edits prior as well. You are not there by coincidence for sure. Wikipedia is a comunity every good/bad suggestion is processed by the community and goes along with what the community feels like. It isn't uncommon for moves people don't vote on at all. One moves a page and voting starts only if someone hints a move back or moves page back. Compunity made out of 5 admins directly said what Davenbelle and Stereotek are doing is unacceptable on previous two rfcs. On IRC quite a number of people are also disapointed with this RfAr case while on the other hand YOU do not have a community against me. --Cool Cat Talk 15:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What you are doing is alienating me from wikipedia. Not just me but quite a number of potentialy good users, you just find someone to stalk as they are there to wreck the project. No one on wikipedia has the authority, includes burocrates, stewards, developers, and perhaps Jimbo Wales himself, is entitled to follow around a "problematic" user of their choice and do what you are doing. 550 admins are more than qualified to tell me if my suggestion is "bad". Infact the spesific 2 of the 5 admins I mentioned opposed the defcon idea (which you also conviniantly opposed after you noticed it). --Cool Cat Talk 15:55, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"Fascinating" &mdash; User:Phroziac and User:Cool Cat are disrupting Skuld in the same manner that CC did Valkyries. See: Skuld history -- Sept 27, User talk:Phroziac and Talk:Skuld. &mdash; Davenbelle 05:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not disrupt that article... --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 05:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've left a note at User talk:Wiglaf asking for a comment from the user who has undone these moves. &mdash; Davenbelle 07:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are complaining the silly of everything. You see every suggestion, every move request, every hint of change I make as a disruption. No one on wikipedia always contributes without having a conflict. Conflict is inevitable if two people are working on a topic. I am not restriected to make suggestions.
 * For the sake of great encyclopedia lets explain what Skuld is about:
 * Skuld, one of the three norns in Norse Mythology.
 * Skuld, a princess of Norse mythology.
 * Skuld, a fictional character of the anime/manga serries Oh My Goddess!.
 * On all three cases it is fiction. Two being different characters in Norse mythology, I do not see any reason why we have to take sides. This BY NO MEANS is a disruption.
 * On Enterprise you can observe that there are no primary disambiguations, most certainly the aircraft carrier is the most notable human knowlege that can be peresented, but other topics appear to be similarly notable. One cannot dismiss the likelyhood of someone searching for USS Enterprise to get info regarding the NCC-1701-D rather than CVN-65. Disambiguations are observed when there are two or more things with same name, unless there is a topic that is overwhelmingly notable compared to others a (disambiguation) is not observed.
 * Disruption is people vandalisisng wikipedia or harrassing another. Disruption is also complaining the silly about everything and follow a user around and make posts effectively making the level of conflict there. --Cool Cat Talk 11:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think the primary reason of the conflict is this: --Cool Cat Talk 14:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The history of Skuld (Oh My Goddess!) is interesting. Originally this article was at Skuld and was about two characters from Scandinavian mythology; you can see this at this old version. The current version of the article is, of course, all about a character in Oh My Goddess!; the history of the Scandinavian article has been lost and apparently can only be recovered by technical people skilled in the use of pooper scoopers. &mdash; Davenbelle 08:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not see why this is of any concern to you or arbcom, it is just me editing wikipedia on an article that you havent even edited. It is not an issue between you and me.
 * Also complaining to users about me recieveing a vandal fighting barnstar to user RickK is disruption that disgusts  at least one admin. --Cool Cat Talk 11:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Kurdish people
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 Vandalism --Cool Cat Talk 10:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

I encourage arb com members to view Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence, section "Kurdish people", and tell me if I am pov pushing. --Cool Cat Talk 16:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Southeastern Anatolia Project II
Cool Cat is now PoV editing at the Southeastern Anatolia Project article. He has moved some of the content there...:

Completion of the Ilisu dam would cause the flooding of the ancient city of Hasankeyf whose history stretches back over 10,000 years.

Investigations by the Kurdish Human Rights Project (KHRP) claims that


 * widespread perception that the GAP project, and Ilisu in particular, is motivated primarily by a desire to destroy the Kurds as an ethnic group by destroying their most important cultural sites.

''Between 50 and 68 hamlets and villages will be flooded affecting approximately 25,000 local people. An additional 57 villages will have their land partially flooded.'' Many villages have been evacuated at gunpoint by the Turkish authorities, and in many cases houses have been burnt to the ground.

....to a new section called "Conspiracy". It's plain PoV-editing and I don't see the "hundreds of admins that are avaliable" doing any thing about it, or in any way monitoring what he's doing. Another editor, FrancisTyers, that has been opposing Coolcat's PoV editing in this specific article, is not edting very much anymore, and is apparently not there to oppose his PoV pushing anymore. -- Karl Meier 05:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Next thing youll suggest that boston cream pie was invented by the russians. How the hell will a concrete wall destroy "Kurdish" cultural sights? Is there any accedemic widespread acceptance that Hasankeyf being a Kurdish historical site? Turks see it as a part of their heritage. Whenever goverment builds a large project such as dams and highways towns get demolished. Often people are evavcuated by force. It is at best a conspiracy detached from reality like UFO's demolishing the WTC. Why dont you stop complaining about every edit I make and mind your own affairs? Why are you harrasing me? You had NO edits on that article prior to me edit, I basicaly wrote that article. --Cool Cat Talk 06:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And that is why the content in this section are just conspiracy theories? And is this also why you think that it's NPoV to label it as such? -- Karl Meier 08:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, enlightenment time. Since you don't know English well I presume.


 * con·spir·a·cy   ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (kn-spîr-s)
 * n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
 * An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
 * A group of conspirators.
 * Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
 * A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
 * al·leged   ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-ljd, -ljd)
 * adj.
 * Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed.


 * Conspiracy means people (in this case Turkish Goverment) is doing something illegal/wrong. As far as I know the statement that "Turkish gov is building GAP to destroy Kurds" is an allogation by KHRP and by no one else. I could argue that this is indeed propoganda and falls under WP:NOT. Even if proven it would still be a conspiracy as per the dictionary definition of the word. For now it is an "alleged conspiracy" in my view but I droped the alleged you can add it if you like, would be more NPoV. --Cool Cat Talk 16:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Karl on this and have edited the article to reflect this. &mdash; Davenbelle 10:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You and karl always agree whenever reverting me to this date I havent seen you or him revert each other. I still am waiting for a sockpuppet or open/semi-open proxy check on you guys. --Cool Cat Talk 16:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

A question to the ArbCom: Incivility and personal attacks
A question to the ArbCom:

I posted a request more than a week ago, that the evidence regarding Coolcat's incivility and personal attacks should be considered. I don't know if the evidence currently is being considered, and what the ArbComs position is on the rather large amount of evidence, that has been brought forward regarding these issues? Is personal attacks and incivility serious violations of Wikipedias according to the ArbCom? Coolcat's behavior regarding these issues has not improved, the latest example being an editsummary where he call those opposing his questionable behavior: "f***ktards!" (fucktards!). My edition of the OED doesn't know the word but according to our own Wiktionary a fucktard is "an extraordinarily stupid person" and is properly derived from "fucking retards". To yell "fucking retards!" in an editsummary is in my opinion a clear violation of civility, and is also very rude. Coolcat has not improved his behavior regarding incivility and personal attacks, and I would very much like to hear more about the ArbCom's position on these matters. -- Karl Meier 15:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It wasn't directed at you was it? If you didn't monitor me you would not have seen it. If you are THIS easly offended I suggest you stay away from public, IRC, and internet. --Cool Cat Talk 16:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I could have been swaring at Iraqi insurgents (in my own userspace on a discrete subpage) blowing up bombs. Or cab driver that overcharged me in Chigaco a while ago. --Cool Cat Talk 16:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right, Cool Cat. Your personal attack was properly directed at Santa Claus... Anyway, I suggest that we leave it to the ArbCom to decide if it is acceptable to be incivil and call other editors things such as "fucktards" here on Wikipedia. Also, it's not impossible to avoid personal attacks. A lot of people do that, including myself. I have never called you any dirty names Cool Cat. -- Karl Meier 16:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I never called anyone or ever used the word you allege me of using, you on the otherhand did use it. I had used the word "f***ktards" in a discrete page in an edit summary and even then I did censor the swearing.... I suggest you don't watch TV either because the *** denotes for the beeping. This is being quite an amusing discussion for me. --Cool Cat Talk 16:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * When and where has I ever called you any nasty words? Why don't you provide the diffs? Also, I don't think your incivility and personal attacks (asking me to go screw myself and such) is very "amusing". I don't like to be called "idiot" or other strange names. But again, let us just leave it for the ArbCom to decide, if incivility and personal attacks are allowed here on Wikipedia. I believe that it isn't. -- Karl Meier 17:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There: . Your usage of "dirty names", "nasty words" amuses me. Reason is cultural, nothing personal. I would explain, but you may interprete it as a Personal attack. When did I called you an "[idiot]" ? If you mean IRC, IRC is not subject to any wikipedia rules. In wikipedia complete autrhority is in the hands of a bunch of ops, which are not necesarily wikipedia admins but some are, few are even arbitrators. --Cool Cat Talk 17:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I too believe this case should include a finding of fact that User:Cool Cat has frequently violated WP:NPA and that some sort of remedy should be imposed. He really has been an [ personal attack omitted ] on this point. &mdash; Davenbelle 05:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the one I consider to be the most egregious personal attack, in case you missed it: 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? [sic] Not everyone likes to see the pictures, but people can read. &mdash; Davenbelle 09:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Eeto,
 * I resized 3 images (not all) and alligned the sections and pictures going along with it.
 * The reduction of the size did not comprimise any details on the pictures as frankly they do not look much smaller since the change was less than 100px.
 * The size I reduced images was to the standard thumbnail size identical to the image sizes on Holocaust article.
 * Certainly Jews suffered most from ethnic clensing than any other in the hands of the Nazi Gov. In all senses Holocaust is by far the WORSE case. The images of corpses should be treated with dignity. I feel it is DISRESPECTFUL and UNCIVIL to display pictures of the dead. Wikipedia is not a coprse showcease, there are sites for that. Thumbnail sizes are more than adequate. People should click on images to enlarge them if they wish. Else the size is fine. I am not among the "Wikipedians for decency group", I do feel wikipedia is an encyclopedia which people should be able to read articles without beeing sickened by "large" pictures of content you wouldnt be able to put in books or games without getting it an "M" rating.
 * What was the motive of you revert waring with me for image sizes? What policy were you enforcing? And what POV was I pushing? Is it not UNCIVIL to harass a user? You are in no position to complain about lack of civility from the party you are harassing.
 * --Cool Cat Talk 15:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it not uncivil to irritate/stalk another to the point he gets mad? --Cool Cat Talk 21:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat -- endgame
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:      &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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.

&mdash; Davenbelle 08:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC) Kawaii! 7 points in response. --Cool Cat Talk 15:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See: Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence
 * 1) You cannot tollerate anything I do. You dissmiss things I have done such as rank insignias which people like User:David Gerard commended me for. I dont write articles to be commended but I do not see myself as a threat to wikipedia. Just because I am doing something makes it wrong as far as you are concerned. Your extreme involvement on matters involving me also catches attention.
 * 2) *Harassment covers your behavior. The arbcom desicion on my prohibation is in my view feeding the real trolls: Davenbelle and Stereotek. Though I am not too terribly bugged by it.
 * 3) Copying entier treads to respond in talk pages is normal procedure. You removed the threads right after you read them, then post a response on my user page. I recall you complaining about me archiving your comments on my talk page too fast . Now you aren't even archiving.
 * 4) * Talk "going in circles" is called conversation. We didn't have much of a conversation since all you do is oppose me. Check for yourself:
 * 5) My restriction is for 3 months. You on the other hand have done nothing but minor edits here and then and the majority of your contribution is reverting, opposing me and a "Tery Stone", Arbcom viewed both of your behavioras unacceptable. You were banned from articles regarding poitics but we see you on Kemal Ataturk, a politician.
 * 6) *I do feel the prohibation and other restrictions are unnecesary in my view since the evidence leading to the prohibation dessucuion is from my earlier edit behavior I no longer pursue. Also it is exactly what Davenbelle and Stereotek have been stalking me for, to not allow me to make edits. Blocking me off of topics I am knowlegable on because a few trolls is more than unjust I believe.
 * 7) Having said that I don't even neet to try hard to prove your obsession with me. On your userpage for instance you have the picture of a "KewlKat". I am not offended, but I refuse to believe it is a mere coincidence it there. Also the news article(s) and book(s) you post on your userpage shows that you do have a level of POV on matters you claim to be "NPoV"ising.
 * 8) In the context of the Internet, an Internet troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages intended to cause a disruption in discourse. Also covered in WP:POINT and WP:HA.
 * 9) *The revert waring on Kurdish people was Karl disrupting wikipedia.
 * 10) **Karl revert wared and insisted on keeping uncited statistics. And declared me of pov pushing for purging the uncited statistics.
 * 11) **Since may karl (was steriotek back then) had not had a single edit on Kurdish people.
 * 12) **Later on karl got me blocked for violating the 3rr (I wasnt counting my reverts well) on an article he had no edits prior to mine
 * 13) *The revert war on GAP page was also a disruption by both of you.
 * 14) Wikiquette
 * 15) *Forgive and forget.
 * 16) ** The whole "rebuff" is about me forgetting your unnaceptable behavior, I told you to leave me alone and let community decide if I am pov pushing/trolling. Why the hell would a troll even try mediation?
 * 17) *Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages, or list them at Great editing in progress.
 * 18) **On Oh My Goddess! I commend you for your good minor edits and ask you continue contributing on the article, you reply with a simple "no". How am I trolling for commending you when due?
 * 19) **How many times have you said anything "nice" to me (or anyone)? How can you talk about me being the troll here.


 * I thanked you for an interesting characterization here: i.e. your mediation procedure as "a disease." nb: "(origin is "dis-ease" &mdash; Lack of ease; trouble.)" &mdash; Davenbelle 12:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * One question, how am I trolling when you are following ME around and establish me bad? --Cool Cat Talk 20:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Have I established you as bad? If so, thanks for the acknowledgment &mdash; 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" &mdash; my comments and actions have been directed at your edits and views, not your person. &mdash; Davenbelle 04:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I try to use over-simplified English when talking to you, big words like "conspiracy" tends to cause stress on you so I try to write simplified, since you ask otherwise.
 * I am fine for people to fix spelling errors even on my posts, I also don't mind people fixing of factual errors.
 * Internet troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages intended to cause a disruption in discourse. The word is also often used to describe such messages
 * What I do not like is for example people attempting to establish a consensus that suggests I am there for "POV-pushing in the guise of 'mediation'" and "that now is not an auspicious time to unprotect this article". . Certainly your contribution on Greco-Turkish relations caused disruption in discourse. Your attempts were quite successful in keeping the topic locked and in killing the discussion. I do not see anyone accusing me of POV Pushing on Greco-Turkish relations or any evidence presented to that extent. I made my edits to the article and applied almost any suggestion I made (which became a "monologue" (as you referred to it ) thanks to your contribution) to the article. I was not there to cause disruption, you were there to generate a consensus in establishing me something I am not.
 * A type of Wiki-harassment is following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor to be coined as "wiki-stalking". This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful
 * Our policies on wikipedia are in place to help us write the encyclopedia. Going around pestering a user pointlessly is clearly not attempts to help us do that, but are rather just someone disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point.
 * If there is a user posing potentially hazard to wikipedia, it is mentioned in ANB. Admins review it and react to it if they feel necessary. You do not following someone around. For example if a user is reverting another on Kurdish people, Southeastern Anatolia Project, Yggdrasil, voting against the moving of Kemal Ataturk, and Valkyrie is generally viewed by a large community as someone disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point. It is rather funny you mention WP:POINT on several of these.
 * I have difficulty finding articles you made a major edit and that it was not a POV dispute after a short review of your entire contribution. Majority of your edits are either reverts or RFC/RFA pages.
 * --Cool Cat Talk 22:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Pointlessly? &mdash; Davenbelle 03:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Your and karls revert on the GAP page had no merit. Karls revert war with me on Kurdish people also had no merit or his reverting me at Yggdrasil (which he actualy apologised for). Your interference is not improving wikipedia, you are JUST disrupting wikipedia. You backed off quite a bit since the start of this RfAr just not adequate enough. --Cool Cat Talk 17:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am fine with grammer corrections as long as the meaning of what I am suggesting does not change. --Cool Cat Talk 17:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Coolcat-> User:Cool Cat
Cc has been editing many articles, talk pages (including this one) and archives to "rename" himself. While I'm not really sure what wiki-policy says about this, I've noticed that he's done this with global search-and-replace and has broken links and edited the posts of others in the process. I have reverted him on several pages where such damage was done and request that he cease, at least for now, and that he exercise more care should he perform more of this sort of refactoring. &mdash; Davenbelle 11:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

pages that had links broken:
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision
 * Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance
 * Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence/Davenbelle's Evidence re Coolcat
 * Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Workshop
 * &mdash; Davenbelle 12:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes&mdash;they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. Cool Cat Talk 12:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Also do not abriviate my nick to Cc. Thanks. --Cool Cat Talk 13:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * CC, you have broken links a number of times here and arrogantly commented that I am welcome to fix any "broken links". You also have the termerity to drop a  template here. You do not have the right to edit every reference to you made in the posts of others to your preferred form of address, you do not have the right to edit pages (this page of all pages) in such a way that you break links to evidence that others have posted about you, and you do not have the right to rename section headings that may have links with anchors to them. This is disruptive.  Do you really think it sane to revisit every page that has a link to your old User ID and change it? It only serves to disrupt and run your edit count up.


 * ArbCom, I object in the strongest terms to CC's behavior here. Thank you. &mdash; Davenbelle 03:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, CC has claimed that he is fixing "double redirects" &mdash; False &mdash; the rename of his User ID produced simple redirects to his new ID but no double redirects. &mdash; Davenbelle 03:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Note this edit, with the edit summary "Revert to last version by User:Cool Cat, can you show me which links am I breaking?". First off, this is not a revert; there are many minor differences (underscores instead of spaces in CC's new User ID) and one very significant difference: the very last change is where he repairs the broken link. &mdash; Davenbelle 04:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have every right to edit any page. Any broken link can be fixed without reverting every modification I made, you are being quite uncivil. I intend to fix every entry linking to my old username in the future, you will not interfere with that.
 * You are not trying to solve problems. You are just generating problems. Reverts are disruptive, a few broken links (if you see them) can be fixed without reverting. You revert too easily.
 * Wikimedia treats underscores like spaces, either way works identicaly. I fixed broken links when I noticed them, in 600 entries finding broken links is a demanding task, I fixed any such to the best of my ablilites. But that did not prevent you from reverting (because you probably did not bother checking edit summary until after your revert). You are right instead of replacing "Coolcat" with "Cool Cat", I replaced it with "Cool_Cat", in 3rr an admin would count this as a revert. Or User:Coolcat -> User:Cool Cat/User:Cool_Cat
 * I am not the arrogant party. I asked you not to abriviate my nick, you fail to observe this. You are also the one revering first, you could have fixed the "broken links" wherever they are, instead of a full scale revert. I guess expecting any kind of civil behaviour from you is pointless.
 * How wikipedia community works: Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly, how wikipedia comunity does not work: reverts. You use edit summaries of you reverts instead of talk pages.
 * -- Cat chi? 10:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... You are right they were not double rediects, rather regular redirects, still should be evaded whenever possible. -- Cat chi? 10:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Links
So tell me what "broken links" are beeing fixed in this: 23:27, 17 September 2005 - User:Davenbelle - false edit summary

Are you claiming I am intentionaly breaking links?

-- Cat chi? 10:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * First, the diff you've given above is for a sequence of 8 edits I made; the edit summary you give only applies to the last one. In the sequence of edits, I reverted the edit in which you broke links and then changed your sig links for you (you're welcome!) without breaking anything or refactoring the comments of users other than yourself, and I made some comments of my own. In your multi-edit diff there is at least one block of links that were broken; see this section &mdash; and look at the links in the paragraph of mine that begins with Kelly, I have made many efforts to bring this to the attention of the Wikipedia Community. If you examine the diff directly, see the changes just above those labeled "Line 979:". Your edit also broke the inbound link from my post at Mediation Cabal/Closed Cases Archive 1 (this one: *Monitoring* User:Coolcat). You have broken links on other pages in the same manner.


 * I can not claim to know your intentions. Your edits of your User ID have been performed very sloppily for someone with 10,000 edits to wikipedia and who claims to be a computer major; if you were on one of my development teams, your future would look bleak. Simplistically replacing text as you have done breaks things


 * &mdash; Davenbelle 03:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If one makes a mistake and you notice it and quietly fix it neither you nor wikipedia will not loose anything. Template:Sofixit was designed for such situations. You quietly corrected a number of issues on Oh My Goddess!. Realise I am on a FAC drive for it, so any improvement to that article is the best thing you can do for me. FAC commentators are often quite "evil" in a sense that they complain about things that are otherwise minor.
 * Unless you are suggesting I am intentionaly breaking links just to break them, you should agree that I was not trying to wreck wikipedia. If you havent noticed I have broken my own evidence urls as well. I find it less than pleaseasing when someone scorns on any error I make, rather than quietly fix. It is even better if that person explains himself to me so I can next time don't make the same error. Why are you STUCK with the edit summary of mine? Why is it so imperative for you to scorn on an obviously an unintentional error of mine?
 * Ultimately your issue is a lack of assume good faith and an excessive amount of assume bad faith. I did not revert you on Oh My Goddess! have I? I did not see your presense as an annoyance either, infact I was quite pleased to be not opposed as you "fixed things".
 * You opposed me on practicaly every vote I was part of. Your obsession in getting Constantvandalisminprogress and Revertwarinprogress as well as Category:Extraterresial Wikipedians deleted was less than warranted. If you did not mark Category:Extraterresial Wikipedians for deletation probably no one would have notcied it. The category occupied no more than 50 bytes on wikipedia servers and possesed a threat to wikipedias integrity no more that Category:Australian Wikipedians.
 * Not just that but in every occasion of a dispute you were right there.
 * Why do you see me as a threat to wikipedia? I am not. For christs sake I am writing a bot to detect vandalism, you think it is easy to write something that detects vandalism? Do you have any idea what fraction of my internet connection I am sacrificing to that end?
 * Unless Arbcom bans me from accessing wikipedia irc servers, my bot will continue to detect vandalism. Several recent RfA nominations of a bunch of RC admins who got an overwhelming support were and still are using my vandal bot. Also a good portion of were detected by my bot only to be deleted.
 * Your tone is less than admirable. Not only you insult me personaly you insult my skills. My edits on Kurdish people were not "sloppily" and on the countrary were actualy waranted, no arbitrator will support the keeping of uncited statistics. My edits on GAP was just moving a material to a section conspiracy (see dictionary deffinion of conspiracy) was approporate, if you didnt like it why not make an alternative suggestion? I was not pushing any kind of POV, that would be removing the entry. My suggestion of moving Valkarie to Valkarie (Norse mythology) was not the best suggestion I made, wikipedia comunity rejected it overwhelmingly and it would have been rejected without your interference.
 * Your (plural) "policing" me and ohers is causing great deal of stress and alienates us from wikipedia. Wikipedia has a history of chronic vandals turning good. Heck we have a G.N.A.A. member becoming good. I am neither a vandal nor a troll. I do not try to create disputes. Your policing on at least one occasion (recent gap revert war) was unwarranted.
 * --Cool Cat Talk 19:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

New evidence re Coolcat
I request that the members of the arbcom should review the new evidence that I have added to the evidence section, regarding Cool Cat's most recent efforts in the Southeastern Anatolia Project article. -- Karl Meier 20:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I also covered it at /Evidence/Coolcat --Cool Cat Talk 19:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * After reading your "evidence" page, I was forced to end my silence Coolcat, you are a pathological liar and a manipulator. While this might be considered a personal attack, you forced me to build my evidence page and set the records, and to show that both of my accusations are the only way to qualify your behavour here. From when Tony locked the Armenian genocide thread because I reverted grammar corrections? He locked it after a new alias registered and made the changes you wanted. Tony later recognized that that version was not appopriate, and not a good one. This is one example of your pathological lies in your evidence page. By doing that, you are not respecting the administrators, and are taking them as idiots. I will have to resume my evidence page, I guess for the better. And expose the manipulations in yours, so that administrators witness how much you should be trusted. Fadix 16:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok Ill add more. Thanks for that. --Cool Cat Talk 17:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fadix btw just and FYI, below are a result of my counter vandalism bot.
 * Like I have nothing better to do, I manuplate admins. Cute. You are welcome to expose whatever calamity I am allegedly conspiring. Meanwhile I'll update my bot and with User:Linuxbeak and go on annoy User:MARMOT a bit more. --Cool Cat Talk 18:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Like I have nothing better to do, I manuplate admins. Cute. You are welcome to expose whatever calamity I am allegedly conspiring. Meanwhile I'll update my bot and with User:Linuxbeak and go on annoy User:MARMOT a bit more. --Cool Cat Talk 18:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Like I have nothing better to do, I manuplate admins. Cute. You are welcome to expose whatever calamity I am allegedly conspiring. Meanwhile I'll update my bot and with User:Linuxbeak and go on annoy User:MARMOT a bit more. --Cool Cat Talk 18:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I could care less. Fadix 00:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Then why have you responded? --Cool Cat Talk 00:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I care to say, I could care less. Fadix 00:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool Cat's evidence page
I agree with Fadix's above comment, and the ArbCom should indeed take a close look at what he is doing on his evidence page. There are many places on Cool Cat's "evidence" page, where he doesn't stick to the truth and are making things up. (the evidence page is available here)A clear example is his claim: "Bear in mind that he used no Talk" regarding what I did in the abortion article. It is a long time ago, that I exposed that allegation on my evidence page, and I provided the diff that clearly show that it is not a true statement. Fact is that I used the talkpage and mentioned my concerns. But Cool Cat still keep this allegation on his evidence page, and has evidently made up his mind that the ArbCom members will believe his claim and misrepresentations without checking facts. Another strange thing in this part of his "evidence" page is that he mention "Stereotek's first block". I am not sure what he want to say with that, but I was never blocked as a consequence of my editing of that article. If that is what Cool Cat want to imply, it's more dishonesty from his side. Another thing is that he use a wrong editsummary in the diff that he present on his evidence page. My first editsummary was "see talk" not "Debate on abortion -Restore headlines to improve layout+make navigation on the TOC more easy + minor cleanup" as Cool Cat claim on his evidence page. I my opinion Cool Cat's behavior on his own evidence page is just more evidence, that support the view that he is a highly uncivil editor. To make the one untrue claim after the other, is disrespectful to the members of the ArbCom and everybody else that is reading these pages. It's a violation of civility. -- Karl Meier 19:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well people are reading it. Not just arbcom members but I get a number of peer reviews from IRC users. A lot of people are watching this case. You are welcome to disagree with the evidence I posted. You are welcome to point out any factual inacuracies I may had in the evidence talk page of mine. Errors are unintentional you know. --Cool Cat Talk 21:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Bullets on my evidence page are my comentary so that Arbcom can see my perspective. Actual evidence is the diffs. --Cool Cat Talk 21:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

To make obviously untrue accusations on a evidence page (or elsewhere) in incivil and disrespectful to the members of the ArbCom and anyone else reading this pages. To me that is just more evidence that show that you are not a good faith editor. If you where a good faith editor you would apologize for making false claims and adjust your evidence page accordingly. So far you haven't done that. You have evidently made up your mind that the members will just believe your claims without checking the facts and diffs, that clearly show that your above allegations are false. -- Karl Meier 09:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Errors are not intentional? YOU HAVE LIED, IT IS NOT AN ERROR. I still am waiting you to provide the evidences for what I allegedly said about Tony. Do you think that I like wasting my time here having to answer your crap? You take the accusations against your person and throw them on others. So I’m a POV pusher right? Let see if this claim passes the test. User:El_C a respected administrator reverted my changes. Not once.


 * For what? Because I was neutralizing more than the typical articles, and even against my own position. Even in my own article, was I, it seem, more neutral that I should have been.


 * Those are not exceptions.


 * The revert of mine, when I justified it on the talk page, you did even not read the nature of the revert and have accused me of reverting and used that as arguments to assume that I was POV pushing, when my revert was against my own personal POV. I have even left the material deleted, deleted by user:A.Garnet, since it appeared that he had much problem with it, none having to do with Wikipedia policies, and I wanted to be constructive and work with him regardless. Me, the POV pusher, leaving a Turk delete a material… I must have been the bad boy. I even modified some sentences and replaced the word genocide with massacre(which was reverted), so that some fragile hearth don’t start reverting.


 * Your evidence page is full of such lies and manipulations and reinterpretation(and I will give other examples in my evidence page), and I advice the arbitrators to be very careful with what they read. Fadix 23:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And adding, User_talk:Fadix. I was accused in my own talk page to be anti-Armenian, and being treated of prostitute in Armenian, by an Armenian member that got away with it. Another member(user:Eupator) got personal and intimidated me, in a way that could be considered a slander, in the template of Europes, because I was against the inclusion of Armenia in the list. And again I repeat, either Coolcat support his charges against me, or he should shut up. Fadix 23:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you please be creative with insults, I am having difficulty finding new ones to post on my userpage. --Cool Cat Talk 00:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what are you driving at. I havent made any major edits to anything relating to armenians in the past months. I am accused of many things. Check my userpage for a list. --Cool Cat Talk 00:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am waiting that you either support that I am POV pushing, or either you stop this accusation, that you started after being accused of doing that yourself. Mud throwing and wishing that some will stick, does not work in a civilized panel. As for Nanking, once the arbitrators study the matter, they'll understand that no one could have been blamed to oppose you. You've decided the scrap the place with your stupid templates, just after you left the Armenian genocide entry in search of an article that you can spew the same way to kill the suspicions against your person, just like you did with Murder article, after you opposed its uses in the Armenian genocide entry. Fadix 00:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You WERE pov pushing a few months ago at a level much more ridiclous than I was. I watch only two users on wikipedia, those are willy and marmot. So I do not know what are you doing now. --Cool Cat Talk 00:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You are pathologically lying. User:Fadix/Evidence this was the evidences I was gathering when the Arbcom members refused to give a follow up to the first cases. Those alone demonstrate, that you were deleting informations and POV pushing, while I was adding materials and you were deleting them, you were first even not using the talk page. While you accuse me of participating in the talk page of Nanking just after you appeared there and not before, when you have vandalised the Armenian genocide article(and those are vandlisation, since you were litheraly deleting things without having to justify them in the talk page), you had before that never used the talk page. You in fact, started accusing me of POV pushing, to throw back the accusations against you. And I have given various example of lying, dishonesty. As we speak, you are wasting my time, because I have to protect myself from your pathologic lies, as if I have time to waste in fruitless childishtic ball games. I wonder how old you are, but you have, not matured, not only here in Wikipedia. Call that a personal attack, but don't expect me to cross my arms while you are throwing accusations against me. Fadix 00:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The first arbcom case was rejected because of a lack of RfC, ie lack of dispute resolution. You have quite a foul mouth by the way. --Cool Cat Talk 14:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You also still disregard WP:NPA --Cool Cat Talk 00:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer having someone to say on my face, what he thinks of me, even if it is attacks, rather than lying on my back. I would say what I think of you, I will not go lobby and chat on the back of other members. I may be harsh some times, but I have some dignity and am respectful of others enough, so that they know what I think of them and give them the occasion to defend themselves. I do no start false rumors against members. I already told this, I will say it again. I don't assume good faith in regard to you. Assuming good faith in those circonstances would be naivty and is unhumain. As for personal attacks, I will call you a pathological liar, but not an idiot. You are a pathological liar, you lie pathologically, and I can't help it. I call a car a car, and someone that continuisly lie, a pathological liar. And again I repeat, if you think that I will sit down and watch while you are throwing mud and false rumors against my person, you are dreaming in color. Fadix 00:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA is not subject to exeptions based on peoples personal philosophies. A civil discussion requires that usage of phrases such as pathological liar be evaded. You basicaly proven my alogation of you violating WP:NPA on literaly the next post. I do not believe I need to even cite sources. --Cool Cat Talk 14:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Pathological liar, is what you are. And I already said that I am ready to pay the price for what I said against you. I am ready to assume what I do wrong. I will not lie about what I did, and what I did not. And if need be, I will even lunch an Arbcom cases against my person, because I have nothing to hide. On the other hand, you have slandered me and other members without respecting that policy, and you fell that low by attacking me and making false rumors against my person on my back, and you even refuse to assume what you did. Fadix 16:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Admins are NOT my pets, and they stay away from disputes unless they are convinced their interference is necesary. I do not believe they run around on every accusation. I do cite diffs from time to time and ask what they think. They verify, react, and take action if they think its aproporate. They tell me I am wrong when I am not. --Cool Cat Talk 14:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstract thinking is not your force Coolcat. There is a difference between what you consider Admins and members to be, and what they really are. I did not say, that Admins were your pet, but rather, that you do not respect them when you lie to them, by believing that they will buy those lies. Fadix 16:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Banning for a year!?
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)


 * 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. &mdash; Davenbelle 02:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I don't. But, certainly you aren't perfect either? -- Phroziac (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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 &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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: . &mdash; Davenbelle 07:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Cool Cat's attempts to create a drama
As it has been mentioned on the workshop-page, Cool Cat has in many instances requested that he should be blocked a period of time, because "he was too angry to edit". I request that the these attempts to create a drama around himself should be restricted by the ArbCom, as they serve no purpose, except providing Cool Cat with the attention that he constantly wants and needs. If Cool Cat don't want to edit, he can just stop doing that. Self-blocking by admins is not allowed because they doesn't serve any real purpose and can cause problems for other editors, if the self blocked admin is not using a single IP address. Also, I think it is important to make it clear that blocking a user is a very serious matter, and not something that should be used just because Cool Cat wants to create yet another melodrama. Previously in his Wikipedia career, Cool Cat tried to attract attention to himself hy "quitting" Wikipedia a number of times (usually only for a few hours, though). If Cool Cat in the future wants to attract attention to himself, I suggest that he go back to his old way of doing that, by "leaving" Wikipedia for a few hours. The blocking feature that the admins have access to, is not there for this kind behavior. -- Karl Meier 12:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * See WP:IAR. Also, as far as I'm aware, the autoblocker was unblocked immediately, so that only Cool Cat's account was blocked. Drama? wtf? Ever think that just maybe he was to angry to edit? I think that's a very mature thing to do. Sometimes it's harder then it looks to not edit. Ever wonder why these people that get banned by arbcom for a year come back and reset their ban timers? They're probably just addicted. -- Phroziac (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the solution is to get rid of the ban reset, as with some editors it results in a lifetime ban. Cool Cat is addicted to a lot more than Wikipedia. He is also addicted to aggressive POV editing and no matter how innocently he apologizes he is, like a drunk, soon back at the bottle. Fred Bauder 14:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You are treating me like MARMOT or Willy on Wheels and I think that is a detachment from reality. The claim that I was "pov pushing" on Kurdish people for commenting out uncited statistics is also a detachment from reality as I see it. --Cool Cat Talk 14:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with removing uncited statistics, but the revert war it caused was not cool. Revert wars annoy me, to say the least. -- Phroziac (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If he was banned for a year, maybe you could try it without the ban reset? I haven't looked that much at pov editing, but I definitely see a few cases of excess reversions; but it's not one sided, and I haven't looked at that much either. -- Phroziac (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wiki-leaves when one is frustrated is considered as good practice. Blocks on people while they are enraged (on their request) is ok though not standard practice but was done before. If the admin blocking and the user getting blocked requested it, I fail to see the problem. The block prevented me from doing something stupid lets say vandalising wikipedia, causing more stabiliy on wikipedia by evading instability. All cases of me "quiting" or getting blocked on own request is because of YOUR stalking.
 * Admins are NOT my pets. They have no benefit in siding with me. I "take attention" not by MY but on the contrary YOUR drastic actions such as reverting cited/sourced material on PKK (pov vandalism? come on!), that was a big no no, or on Nanking masacre your revert waring against me for image sizes, that was perhaps one of the "lamest revert wars on wikipedia". I am not going to mention Yggdrasil incident since you apologised (though how sincere I am not sure).
 * How much dispute resolution have you seeked? I seeked tutoring (primarily from Tony Sidaway himself), mediation, AMA, RfC, counseling by a number of admins (one being an arbitrator I later learned (not hearing this case)). Infact one admin, User:Tony Sidaway, filed this against you two. He viewed that the RFC was more than adequate as an evidence. You (plural) complain the silly out of everything. For example copying talk messages to user talk pages for the purposes of preventing broken threads is common and recommended practice. I haven't heard of ANYONE complaining about it rather than complain a lack of it . Or complain about me changing the background color of a table.
 * While you complain about me "create a drama", I respond to you by citing evidence proving the contrary. --Cool Cat Talk 14:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see with self-blocks are that silly auto blocker that will block anyone else who uses your IP address, as being you. But, as far as I'm aware, this was unblocked immediately to prevent collateral damage. -- Phroziac (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This is attention seeking behavior. User:Cool Cat complains that I was "stalking" him yet after the April ArbCom case was not accepted, I ceased *monitoring* him. And two months later he starts filing RfCs? He can't let things go, he had to dig into this all over again. He *loves* all the attention we're giving him. Long, protracted arbitration is feeding the trolls.


 * Don't conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others.

&mdash; Davenbelle 08:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Really, maybe thats because I was not contributing much for that time period? --Cool Cat Talk 11:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Concerns over a year ban
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

There is nothing to prevent him doing so other than his desire to be a productive Wikipedia editor in good standing at some point. Certainly a ban is an invitation to turn to the dark side. Suggestions are welcome. Fred Bauder 17:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are we even considering a year ban? Lir didn't even get this on his first arbcom case. -- Phroziac (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 *  [User:Cool Cat would] "rather die than vandalise wikipedia." &mdash; How theatrical. Bravo! Encore! Author! User:Cool Cat regrets that he has but one life to give for his 'pedia. &mdash; Davenbelle 07:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Davenbelle 07:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)

Coolcat editing in good faith
As a Wikipedian, I seriously question (which is my right) Raul654 added new sentence. I also believe that his added proposition picture from his part a partial, or even a full ignorance of the cases at hand. How can such actions be in good faith? Coolcat archiving edits made less than 24 hours ago, ending with my concerns about neutrality addressed to him, which to not answer, less than 24 hours after dumped in the archives to hide it from others. Raul, before making such blunt statements, please analyze fully and completely the cases and the concerns against Coolcat. And before you say that my example does not indicate bad faith, imagine that someone less than a day after you write your concerns about the neutrality of an article, in its talk page, and your concerns about his possible wrongdoings, he archive from the first post in that page to yours(which BTW had been made less than a day ago). If that is not a clear example of bad faith, I wonder what it is. There are bunch of such examples that can be given. Fadix 19:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Raul654's, efforts doesn't convince me that he know this case very well. He haven't posted a single comment to any of these pages yet, but I would request that he do that now and provide the evidence that which he believe show I and other editors has been opposing legitimate edits by Cool Cat. Raul654: Please let me see some diffs so that we can respond to these concerns. My claim is that I have opposed Cool Cat where it was appropiate, and I would like to see what evidence that makes you think I have done otherwise. -- Karl Meier 20:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My reason for making that statement (that coolcat edits in good faith) stems from a previous interaction with him. He was accused of making POV edits to several articles, and asked me for my opinion as a neutral outsider (I cannot remember all of them but Rape of Nanking was one). I told him I thought the others were correct, and that his edits were POV. Based on these discussion, I got the distinct feeling that he was trying to do what he thought was the right thing (...and failing badly). &rarr;Raul654 20:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That Coolcat has acted in good faith about certain things is one thing, but to claim this: "that all of Coolcat's actions have been taken in good faith" is another. Coolcat has asked for comment from various members, but the question is, has he stopped doing what they said was wrong? He'd go after trying to get some to agree with him, and when he find some, it satisfy him to cintinue in the same path. I don't find it is an evidence of good faith, to go lobby, trying to find some that will say his action is right. In the Armenian genocide entry, he still request something, that various members told him to be not correct. He will still request changing, and when he does not get answer, he'll do it. He, just recently gave an ultimatum of 24 hours, saying that if he does not get opposition, he'll do those changes, even if, those same proposed changes have been refused, over, over and over again. Does this seem to be the behavour of someone that act in good faith? Fadix 20:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The "Ultimatom" is Ed Poors's suggestion. Giving enough time for people to react on matters. While one can immidiately make an edit in a good faith enviorment giving them few hours or even a day should help evade confllict, assuming the other party is assuming good faith as well. I am going to leave it at that. --Cool Cat Talk 23:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Here an example of bad faith. You know that you are manipulating my point, as to give it another meaning, but you do it regardless. Of course taken alone, the ultimatum is not a bad thing. But when the ultimatum is to bring back something, that you have been opposed to do, and not only by me, but others(and this countless numbers of time), and that you say that you will be changing the article if you don't get oppositions, when you know that you will get that opposition(since you were opposed EVERYIME you suggested those SAME changes). That's bad faith, bad faith is when you bring that back, after a long moment of silence, just after I got involved in this Arbcom cases, and when during the same time, you've made an insignificant edit on the article, wishing that I will revert it back without reading so that you bring that to the attention of the Arbcom. Those are bad faith things I am talking about. of course, others that don't know the way you act and react, won't see those things. I've seen you doing those things continuisly, to the point, that assuming good faith would have meant, I'm an idiot. If you acted in good faith, how on earth, one would find any rational reason that would explain, why after a long time of silence you'd request the same unwiki thing at the Armenian genocide talk page, that everytime you proposed reverted the place in a chaos. Why on Earth you would say that you would do that change if not opposed, when YOU KNOW, that not a single member there would approve, because we've always opposed them? In what good faith this was done? You knew, that your proposition(which is contrary to the Neutral point of view policy, and this more than one administrator have already told you this) will disturb the hard reached peace on that article, because it always did that. Of course, like I said, someone that have not followed you closly, won't know this. I know why you did that, you knew that this would make me angry, and about the same time you added a single dot, wishing that I would think you made those changes, and that I will revert without reading, and you will bring that to the Arbcom. Both of us know that this sort of cheap trick has been attempted by you various times. Like when you allegedly made grammar corrections, after repeated "vandalism" wishing I'd bite, and I did bite. But unfortunitly for you, it did not happen in your recent attempts. Fadix 00:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Raul654, is that what you making your votes according to? Have you been reading these pages, as it is your duty as a member of the ArbCom? We have spend many hours presenting evidence here, and I'd expect that it is considered seriously, and that you vote according to what you read here, and not according to an incident that happend a long time ago and which you remember something about. I have until now strongly assumed that the cases was based on the hard evidence that was presented here. however, if that isn't the case then I guess we are just wasting our time... -- Karl Meier 20:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read the evidence page (twice - once before I went on vacation and again after I came back). And I have already agreed with all the material FOFs; however, if you think that I'm going ignore my first-hand impressions of someone when judging his actions, then you are severely mistaken. &rarr;Raul654 21:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And all of this page, and the stuff that is avalible at the workshop? It should be pretty clear that Cool Cat is indeed disrupting and has not improved one bit. I can't believe that you just find that he's an editor that is disrupting and PoV editing in good faith and that it should not be a problem because of that. I don't think that he's always acting in good faith, and even if he did his edits would still be a problem to Wikipedia. Good faith is not everything, because we are here with a purpose: to write a descent encyclopedia. Cool Cat is obviously not helping us to do that, as he provide nothing but disruptions. Also, again, where do you think that I have opposed Cool Cat for no good reason? What evidence has made you think that? I have only been opposing a small fraction of Cool Cats many many edits, and for what I believe has been very good reasons. I request that you take time to review what has been brought forward on all the pages one more time, and possibly reconsider your positions on this case. Also, be aware that Cool Cats evidence section contain a lot of misrepresentations and untrue claims, that has been discussed on this page. If you have only read what is on the evidence page, and without closely checking the diffs, then I can better understand your current position regarding this case. A lot of new important material has been added recently and I strongly recommend it for your consideration. -- Karl Meier 22:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly it doesnt help wikipedia when one insists on uncited statistics. --Cool Cat Talk 23:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Given that, after I have supported the Armenian genocide entry, with many dozens of sources, and you still have called it uncited. You claiming something is uncited, should be taken with a grain of salt. Fadix 00:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I certainly dont see adequate citation, several of the arbitrators agree. --Cool Cat Talk 15:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly do not agree that *all* of User:Cool Cat's edits have been made in good faith. He is absolutely intransigent in his POV editing of Turk, Kurd and Armenian related issues. He returns to these articles time and again seeking to advance rejected arguments. User:Cool Cat does *not* seek consensus, he seeks the advancement of an Armenian Genocide denial POV and the deletion of material at odds with his POV. He also seeks to remove as much Kurdish-related material as he can. This is not good faith editing. When others oppose him, he makes personal attacks and declares them sockpuppets of each other. This is bad faith. More than anything else, User:Cool Cat is disruptive to wikipedia. This needs to change. &mdash; Davenbelle 02:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * see also: Talk:Armenian Genocide/A Letter from The International Association of Genocide Scholars
 * see also: Talk:Armenian Genocide

&mdash; Davenbelle 03:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The International Association of Genocide Scholars have no juristiction over this RfAr, nor are they relevant in determining the nature of my edits. --Cool Cat Talk 15:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Assuming a user is assuming bad faith is by nature assuming bad faith. Strictly based on that statement above one can argue you are assumin bad faith. --Cool Cat Talk 02:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * more double-talk. (And more poor spelling and grammar.) &mdash; Davenbelle 03:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why don't you try assuming that we're opposing you out of our own good faith &mdash; see Assume good faith. &mdash; Davenbelle 03:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been doing that, that doesnt change the fact that your interference irritate me. --Cool Cat Talk 15:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

"wikistalking" or "hounding" Cool Cat, and so disrupting Wikipedia and discouraging his positive contributions


What was I doing, when Coolcat placed me at the bottom of his food chain, just above vandals? What was I doing, when Torque, the “famous” racist author of a racist website was placed as a good contributor(who beats the legendary newsgroups spammer, Multu, that even has an entry for himself here in Wikipedia)? What was I doing when Coolcat contacted other members that had no clue of what was happening, while I was a newbie, to assassinate my character? What was I doing, when Coolcat contacted Torque asking for help, against what he perceived as my “POV”? When have I ever talked on the back of Coolcat, trying to ruin his credibility by writing to other members? When have I ever run a page, on my userspace to ruin his credibility by blunt accusations? Who is the Arbitrator, before throwing such a stone, who is ready to come here and give an alternative to what I should have done? Was I not the one having lunched a mediation, that got unanswered? How have I followed Coolcat obsessively? How many times have I reverted him? When have I ever been blocked for 3RR? I believe that as a member here, I have the right to have some explanations, and alternatives to what I may have done? I have been stalked and hounded by Coolcat, in a way, that I never did against him. The only member that I have really stalked and hounded, is an ex-member, Torque, who calls Armenians cockroaches, and has materials in his website considering us as lower than the lowest form of life, the same member that Coolcat has supported and asked for help, and accused me of attacking unjustifiably. Coolcat even request to have the right to use his racist website to support his position.

I have never asked to ban Coolcat, if such a decision is taken, I will have nothing to do with it. The only thing I requested, is to put an end to his disruption on the Armenian genocide related articles(and Raul is even opposing the three months ban from articles related to such subjects, and here I am seriously questioning Rauls knowledge of the issue at hand). Was I hounding Coolcat, when he lunched a war for getting every reference to the Armenian genocide deleted in any articles he could find that cite it, including World War I article, which is a featured one?

You know what? Fine, I’ll leave him edit whatever he wants. I’ll leave anyone edit whatever they want. That guy at the Khmer Rouge article, that wants his revisionist material get equal place, do that, and won’t oppose him, I’ll do the same with the one at Chinmoy entry, writing how great his Guru, who is accused by many ex-member, of sexual abuse. I’ll let him write all the “great” stories and will not include the critics. So much there is extraordinary, that after spending hours and hours of hard work, and getting disrupted by Coolcat, that did everything to assassinate my character, and who was twice got me in a target list, and wasted my time, there is not a single arbitrator that has ever included any proposal about Coolcat behaviours against my person. As a matter of possibility, the Arbcom, will justify this by claiming that I was not involved in the cases. When I report what has been done against my person, it passes incognito, but there is no problem there, to include my name in this case, as someone that allegedly hounded Coolcat. And you know what? Id prefer, and this, anytime, a harsh character, that will write and contribute in articles in a way, that very few can work on, against some goody, goody, under benzo influence, having $c1t to contribute, or modifying articles for the worst. And no, lobbying, chatting, lying could justify this.

This being said, I officially confirm, that I will never ever revert a users bad edits, others should do it, and then be blamed for it. It’s time consuming, and it’ll get one way or another against that person.(in this cases, me) Fadix 01:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And besides, which of his positive contributions have ever been discouraged? Fadix 01:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you have to post such long rants all the time? :( -- Phroziac (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How convenient coming from an administrator. Who would have thought that administrators could engage in such empty answers, absent of any substance? Assume yourself, if not for my sake, at least for the one of Wikipedia. Perhaps, you could address any of the points I brought, you that advance the thesis that Mr. Coolcat is acting in good faith. Why afteral, would he lie about himself, and about his intentions(as he himself admitted, and that no one here has even raised it to address the issue, you’d prefer pitying Coolcat during his self flagellations).


 * Would there be any Administrators or Arbitrators, that would tell me why Wikipedia IRC exist in the first place? How does such an enterprise even benefit Wikipedia?


 * MrX: hello, nice day today.
 * MrZ: lol, ya tk u.
 * MrX:User: dd is an idiot.


 * We have mailing lists to address issues, and improve the system; people can address various issues and having time to think about them. Why on Earth, having a dumb chat system?


 * Oh yeh! Besides, no one told you that you have to read my “long rants,” Wikipedia IRC is the way to go, texts are shorter and doesn’t require complex reasoning. Fadix 16:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever having a conversation like that on IRC. It usuall looks something like..
 * 10:57 < Phroziac> 14:56, September 26, 2005 Phroziac deleted "Edward Burney"

(We will run out of these letters if this is not removed! content was: 'jjjjjjj')
 * Don't make my adminship a big deal. It's not. I'm not above a regular user, but I have proved that I'm not an idiot. I didn't read your rant, I simply asked you to post shorter ones. You don't have to listen. -- Phroziac (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Warning, answer more than usual chat length.


 * Proving is a strong word. I don’t believe having questioned your intelligence, far from my sight such thinking, I usually don’t judge someone from the first impression, but I’m always ready to reconsider this, since it seems that even some admins have no problem doing that.


 * I will repeat. We have mailing lists to address issues, and improve the system; people can address various issues and having time to think about them. Why on Earth, having a dumb chat system? We have also various other sections in Wikipedia to address issues. To answer to this, you copypast, but taking a closer look at it, one wonder what real advantage such a chat system has over other system we have that could be used to address those same issues.


 * Now, the juicy, and in the same time, the sad part, and this are the sort of things it takes for me to make a judgement about a user. “I didn't read your rant, I simply asked you to post shorter ones. You don't have to listen.” You admit not having read what I posted, but yet, you make a judgement based on the length of my answer, to call it rant. And what is amazing, is that from all the users out there, the only person that ever called my answers as “rants” and criticized their lengths, was none other than Coolcat.


 * The sort of thing as well, that I use to judge a member, is the sort of things you present the evidences you present to the arbitrators, which alone picture your biases, only by the way you present it. How on Earth, changing the time of my edit be considered to show any wrongdoings from my part? Yeh, I did change it, my mistake, but if you pay a closer look you’ll see that I actually added not far from that edit the “Fadix 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)” to another answer I forgot to sign. Have you assumed good faith, you would have perhaps understood that I reintroduced the “Fadix 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)” where it should not have been introduced, since for that part I already did it, which basically changed the time. It wasn’t the first time it happened, I remember another such incidence. If I was to use, your low quality evidences, I could nearly use all of Coolcat posts. The same goes, with your interpretation in your “evidences,” which you basically assume that my theories about Coolcat intentions are weird, when I accuse him to hide things. You can certainly not understand, because you did not follow closely what happened with Coolcat attempt to transfer his account to another one. It is like asking a French speaking Canadian, to read a French newspaper in Africa, about municipal politics, and grasping the names, and the expressions used. Those are the type of evidences you produce, they have no contrast, you just come here and fish few things you could get. …oh and, I do make of your adminship a big deal. I thought that the standards for Administrators were higher than usual members. I guess I was wrong. Fadix 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? I'm not biased, I thought it was pretty strange that you changed your timestamp on your signature, I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. Could you calm down man? --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px]] 22:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Bias not biased. Again, you do not grasp a bit of my answers. A researcher can not be necessary biased, but he can introduce bias in an experiment, for many reasons like sampling methods. Evidences are meant to be useful, but yet, your evidences which concerns me, in no way can be useful, and above all, you interpret them when you do not have the necessary background(since you have not followed the whole story behind Coolcat username) to have an enlightened and accurate picture. Fadix 23:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fadix IRC is a place people happen to talk and discuss things. Including several arbitrators and Jimbo Wales himself taggs along on IRC. The DUMB chat system for example helps us deal with vandalism on wikipedia. Thats one of the most notable usage. Having said that you do not have to use IRC. --Cool Cat Talk 16:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * All of those things could be done without a chat system. Fadix 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fadix also for people not obsessed with one topic there is always a wide variety of matters to discuss. On IRC, discussion can range from politics to favorite colours. See: IRC. --Cool Cat Talk 17:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)~
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it is not some bar gathering or a talk show. Fadix 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And? --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px]] 22:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't be more clear. Fadix 23:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

As I said above, I do not feel that terms such as "wikistalking" or "hounding" apply here. I, and the others, have *not* interfered with activities of User:Cool Cat's on wikipedia that are "good" (or at least not harmful). I have deliberately steered rather clear of his non-disruptive activities in order to leave him a place to go instead of going after Kurds. If our opposition to his Bad Editing has an adverse effect on his "good" editing that we have left alone, we can not be held accountable for it. While I may feel that much of his other activity amounts to a ruse to provide cover for his base agenda, I have not tried to make that case. Our opposition to his disruptive activities is not merely more disruption, it is damage control. If I sound disdainful of his "good" efforts, it is only because I feel extensive articles on anime and the badges of Star Trek and Nato are not very encyclopedic &mdash; not outright unencyclopedic, but they are distinctly lacking in gravitas. &mdash; Davenbelle 03:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've witnessed you not being very civil or nice to him here... -- Phroziac (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Really? I've been uncivil? Care to be specific? &mdash; Davenbelle 04:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute you just declared most (if not all) of my contribution not very encyclopedic. --Cool Cat Talk 17:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I was referring to specific groups of articles &mdash; "most" is your characterization. &mdash; Davenbelle 04:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Phroziac: if you want to complain about civility, then perhaps you should avoid remarks like the one that you just directed at Fadix, above. I've always been polite to Cool Cat, even when he has asked me to go screw myself, has called me an idiot, and claimed that I enjoyed looking at dead naked chinese woman. But I guess you don't have any worries regarding such personal attacks, because they where made by your favorite IRC chit-chat-friend. Regarding the IRC channel, I do believe that Fadix does indeed have a point. I've watched some of the conversations there, and from what I've seen they are at best useless offtopic nonsens, that doesn't help anyone create a serious encyclopedia. At worst it's a great place for a user like Cool Cat to throw mud at other editors, unopposed. In my opinion the place should be closed or strictly moderated. As it is now I don't believe it help Wikipedia, as it just make things less transparent, which is in any case not a good thing. -- Karl Meier 18:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool Cat: I'd agree to that. I don't think that you have contributed anything that has been very encyclopedic, and in my opinion the majority of your (major) edits has actually been harmful. The reasons is that your edits has often has been PoV, and (even more often) of very low quality. -- Karl Meier 18:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you show us the diff on where I am calling you an "idiot"? I am not throwing mud at anyone. I am citing diffs on my evidence page. --Cool Cat Talk 18:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The IRC channel is not official. You cannot punish anyone on the wiki for what happened on IRC. If you don't like him calling you things there, you could always use /ignore. IRC is a place where wikipedians talk about stuff. Not just wikipedia. Sorry you don't like it. I very rarely see mud being thrown on IRC. Civility? Hah. What i said to Fadix was very nice and polite. Davenbelle, on the other hand, well we all know what he does, read the rest of this page. And my civility comment wasn't about what he said on *this* comment. I never did anything to you, don't take your aggression out on me please. -- Phroziac (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool Cat: No, I can't show the diff where you call me an idiot, and that is actually my point regarding the IRC-channel. However, I can show you a lot of diffs, that makes it obvious that you use personal attacks against me and other editors. See the evidence section. -- Karl Meier 18:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Phroziac: You find it, "very nice and polite" to respond to Fadix thoughts by saying: Do you have to post such long rants all the time?? That might be a descent and polite level to communicate on in a chat-room, but remember this isn't a chat-room. Also, I wonder if they got a chat room to discuss off-topic stuff like their favorite colors, at Britannica? I believe it more important to keep things transpanent and at a descent level, than satisfying 50 people wish to have fun discussing their personal issues in a chatroom. There is plenty of IRC and chatrooms elsewhere on the internet, where such conversations is more appropiate. I don't think there's a need for Wikipedia to have such a feature. It doesn't help anything, and can sometimes be harmful, as it makes decisions that are made less transparent. Also, I can hardly believe that you don't know how Cool Cat use the IRC room. I've been there and from what I've seen he's constantly busy rallying support for his questionable behavior. -- Karl Meier 18:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can convince User:Jimmy Wales, User:Raul654, User:CryptoDerk, User:Brion, User:Tim Starling, User:Jdforrester, User:David Gerard to rise to your level of descency, I am sure many will follow. And I just listed a brief list of more notable people on wikipedia, some are even arbitrators. IRC is quite transparant. Btw have a look at.
 * Also check, a recent interview with Jimbo. Mentions IRC on national tv. Quite indecent, yes.
 * ... There‘s a really strong community of people behind the site and they are in constant communication by email and IRC chat rooms and things like this. And so they are monitoring every change that goes to the site – there are people who are looking at it and vetting it and trying to see if it‘s good or not...
 * If you cant show a diff, you cant complain about it. IRC is unofficial and is NOT a part of wikipedia. Although wikipedians hang out there.
 * Karl on IRC I RARELY mention this RfAr, recently it has been mentioned more, not necesarily by me. On all cases the link poseted is a diff. People dont actualy care what I got to say, they read posts on the diffs posted. --Cool Cat Talk 20:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * On this Cool Cat is speaking the truth. I often hang out in IRC and I do not believe I have ever seen CC bring up the RfA, and I speak with CC often (about Oh My Goddess!- there's still a chance it can make it to FA!) --Maru (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Maru: I've been there a couple of times to see what Cool Cat is up to, and every time I was there, he complains about me, Davenbelle, Fadix or other editors that has opposed him. He doesn't always mention his ArbCom case, but it's always about matters that has some relation to his questionable behavior, and the editors opposing his ways. I feel it is a problem that a user like Cool Cat can use IRC to attack other editors, because it is a place where we can't speak against his accusations, that on several occations has been proven to be false. (see the debate on this site re his evidence page). I also find it quite interesting, that the editors that has supported Cool Cat here, is all people that has been very active on IRC, and not people that has actually done much work with him on (controversial) articles. -- Karl Meier 21:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Cool Cat: I don't think any of the editors that you have mentioned has asked anyone to go screw themself on their userpages, and none of them has called me an idiot, so I don't think there is any reason for you to question their "descency" as you call it. Also, I don't think that we can say that the IRC channel is not a part of Wikipedia. As far as I know it's hosted on one of the Wikimedia servers, and is obviously there for the Wikipedians. It is correct that what you say on IRC can't be used as direct evidence against you, however the fact that you have repeatedly used rude personal attacks against me on IRC should (together with all the diffs to your personal attacks on wikipedia itself) give the readers of this ArbCom case an impression of your rather rude ways to communicate with other Wikipedians. This being said, I appriciated the link to the interview with Jimbo Wales. It was quite interesting. -- Karl Meier 21:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said, I can only speak for what I've seen in the public #Wikipedia channels. What happens when I'm not there or in pms, I do not know and cannot vouch for. --Maru (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Maru here. As far as I can see and have seen, Cool Cat is a perfectly normal IRC user.  He has no more arguments than anyone else.  He whines a bit, but that is inherent in IRC!  Cool Cat may have made mistakes and edited poorly, perhaps sometimes in bad faith, but it is clear that his overall effect on Wikipedia is a positive one, with his vandal fighting &c.  I hope the ArbComm take this as mitigation.  They did with Wik.   [[Sam Korn ]] 22:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Can both of you explain me from where you've learned this Arbcom cases from? Fadix 22:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 03:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why don't you let them answer for themselves? Oh and, if you are trying to immitate my "No" that I addressed to Coolcat. That "No" too has a history, and it's uses and the way it was used require a background on the history of the "between me and Coolcat" to understand. Fadix 03:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought you were talking to me. And no, I'm not trying to immitate you. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 04:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I appologize then. Fadix 17:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Response To Karl's post...
 * I rightfuly complain ONLY AFTER you show up, if you didn't show up I wouldn't complain. It is a very simple action - reaction mechanism. You are in no position to stalk and complain about me complaining. I do not need your presence on, certainly Oh My Goddess! is not a contraversial topic. By nature I can't push pov there. Davenbelle showing up on that page and complain is hounding, especialy on an article in a FAC and PR drive. FACs are the best articles on wikipedia, reviewrs are harsh. Falls under WP:POINT as well as WP:HA.
 * You implied/said IRC was at an indecent level (things transpanent and at a descent level). If one stalks another user, annoys him and later shows up on IRC, does he expect to be greeted with open arms from the user he just stalked? Fadix sees irc as "dumb" that implies that all irc users are dumb to use such a dumb system, that means you are insulting all devs a good portion of arbitrators admins and users.
 * You admit monitoring me even on IRC. Simply astonishing, I do not need to provide evidence. It also shows that you actively try to find fault on anything I do. You just complain the silly about anything you can.
 * As far as I care this very page is enough evidence for your (plural) incivility and lack of respect to certain policies, most clearly visible beeing Wikiquette. All cases of my incivility towards you is a result of your actions, which makes you the more guilty party than I as far as I should care. Don't be a dick so I stay civil; piss me off and I may regratibly go incivil.
 * Karl, have you ever considered that you could perhaps be... ummm wrong? If you are criticizing people like Tony Sideaway I recomend you dont because I worked with Tony Sideaway on contraversial articles long before I met you oddly enough on Armenian Genocide.
 * I find this degraded and pointless thread quite appalling and horrid. I do not intend to be a part of it any longer. --Cool Cat Talk 22:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sam Korn: Well, frankly, right now I can't help thinking that this very discussion in some way and to some extend demonstrate my point. How did you people suddenly find this specific discussion? The problem with Cool Cat of course isn't his reverting of vandalism, eventhough I think it would be a good idea if he used more neutral edit summaries (For instance I don't think "Jihad!" is the best editsummary when reverting vandalism in articles such as Islam or Allah). I wouldn't mind a decision that allowed him to continue his efforts in these areas. The problems regarding Cool Cat are PoV editing, incivility, and the fact that Cool Cat has been disrupting by strongly insisting on a wide range of odd ideas. The low quality of most of his edits haven't helped the situation eighter. -- Karl Meier 22:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Karl, quit with that, he've used worster edit summaries, and find this minor and far from the central issue here. This is in my sense cheap evidence. What is the most important, is what he does with the content of articles. Fadix 05:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Jihad means "holly war". By nature we RC patrolars are at a state of holy war against vandals. You are complaining about my revert of vandalism, simply amusing. Do go on. --Cool Cat Talk 23:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I am not criticizing that you where reverting the vandalism. I was talking about the edit summary. Actually, what I did was just to suggest that it might be a good idea to use a more neutral editsummary, and if you actually feel that what you are participating in a holy war, then, well... -- Karl Meier 23:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Since when is Jihad pov? Its a word meaning holy war. I have a holy war against vandals yes. I spend a great deal of time taking mesures against vandalism on wikipedia in 8 diferent languages. A good portion of vandal reverts and blocks are because of my bots detection. Since the start of this arbcom I am directly/indirectly responsible for over 2000-6000 reverts of vandalism. By all means, I am waging war against vandals. Notice my battle scar, my user page is locked. Also, User:Marmot harrases me on irc regularly. So yes, I am at a state of war. I am fighting vandalism realtime throughout wikipedia on 8 languages. --Cool Cat Talk 11:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see much of vandalism out there in Wikipedia, unless controversial articles, in in such cases, you yourself participate in the hijacking of articles. Besides, if anyone would really want to minimize vandalism it is by simply requiring that only registered users can edit articles and view talk pages. Trolling is reduced 10 times in forums, when registration is required, it helps to better track members, and it brings in the equation a kind of selection. Besides, some of the things you brought yourself to conter vandalism, in praticle would make matter worsts(counters etc.). Fadix 05:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You dont because people lıke me revert it. Saying that you have no idea at the levl of vandalism wikipedia recieves. --Cool Cat Talk 13:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Define "hijacking article". Do I steal the article and move it elsewhere or hold it hostage? Do they call wiki-SWAT? --Cool Cat Talk 13:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, there is a great deal of vandalism on en; the reason you don't see much of it is that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of people watching for it and reverting it when they find it. We use tools that allow us to spot vandalism very quickly (often within seconds). Cool Cat is one of the people engaged in this process and, as far as I can tell, he does a pretty good job of it.

Now, as to how I got involved in this discussion: I'm an informal mediator on Wikipedia, and as such I was concerned with the ArbCom's proposed findings and rulings in this case, which have the potential for being interpreted to mean that informal mediators do so at risk of being sanctioned should they fail. I think the ArbCom has addressed this point, although not entirely to my satisfiaction. As to how I found it: I can't recall whether I spotted it on my own (I have a habit of checking on the ArbCom's activity once or twice a week) or it was brought to my attention by another informal mediator. Some of us are very much involved in the Wikipedia community and go out of our way to make sure that there aren't any undesirable developments brewing in the policy and social arenas here; it's our way of helping the encyclopedia by ensuring the environment stays hospitable. I'm also deeply concerned about wikistalking, and am very interested in seeing what the end result of that discussion is. I could care less about the POV war on Armenian, Turkish, and Kurd topics except to the extent that POV wars harm Wikipedia.

I'd ask you not to question why a fellow editor has become involved in this or any case. We have a policy called assume good faith, and I would recommend that you follow it by assuming that everyone involved in this case -- including Cool Cat -- is here with the intent to improve Wikipedia.

Regards, Kelly Martin 14:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin: I don't think it help Wikipedia to become a serious encyclopedia, to ensure that the enviroment stays "hospitable" to any kind of disruptive and PoV pushing "editors". Maybe you couldn't care less about the neutrality of articles regarding Armenian, Turkish, and Kurdish topics, but that's your problem. Wikipedia still has a stong interest in that these articles are written according to NPOV and not according to the ignorance and silly personal opinions of this user "Cool Cat". Maybe my and other editors efforts to control the damage that Cool Cat has caused in these articles haven't been according to this-or-that policy in the bureaucracy called Wikipedia, (or maybe they have been according to policy, I don't know..) but they have been for sure been positive, regarding the quality of the content that Wikipedia now offers it's readers in these areas. I don't think that there is any reason that a user like Cool Cat, that has a long history of PoV pushing and disrupting, should have the freedom to do whatever he wish, without anyone watching him. There is a lot of cranks, and PoV pushers out there on the internet, and the Wikipedians should be allowed to defend the good articles around here. Another thing is that I consider your suggestion that I should "assume good faith" regarding Cool Cats behavior and PoV pushing in articles re Turkey, to be an insult to my intelligence. Cool Cat has been here for a long time and we should be able to expect that he know what NPoV is about. However, he's still PoV editing and disrupting Wikipedia with his kookery. It's clear that he's not acting in good faith, and "assume good faith" doesn't imply that we should be naive. We are here to write descent articles. With your above comments in mind, I suggest that you and Cool Cat start a new Wiki called www.wiki-unconditional-love-pedia.org with no ArbCom and admins, so that all kinds of trolls and cranks can have a place where they can go wild and still be appriciated. There should be no policies except "assume good faith nomatter what", "Wiki true and endless love", "don't monitor (ups.. stalk of course..) disruptive users" and "forgive incivility and personal attacks". Good luck with the project! -- Karl Meier 20:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent updates at my evidence section
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)

A question for Davenbelle et al
Davenbelle, Stereotek, and Fadix - I'd like to hear what you three have to say about Coolcat's behavior outside of articles related to Turkey and/or the Kurds. After looking through the evidence, I only saw two cases where he was doing disruptive editing on topics that bore no relation - the Nanking massacre, and the Diagnosis Murder copyvio. The latter, as Coolcat said, appears to be a newbie mistake, and the former is (what looks to me) an isolated incident. &rarr;Raul654 07:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hist edits at the Nanking massacres and Diagnosis Murder are both related to the Armenian genocide entry(which make it worst, since it shows an intentions from Coolcat parts to disrupt other articles not directly related, to advance his person cases for the worst of Wikipedia). He got implicated to Diagnosis Murder after he opposed to the uses of the term murder to refer to the killings of Armenians. He also decided to get implicated in Nanking massacres to dissolve the critics of his so-called “neutralization” of the Armenian genocide article. He tried to turn into derision the fact that he is denying the Armenian genocide in bad faith, and because he was an extremist ultra nationalist Turk who get involved in anything that could imply Turkey in bad light. If you pay a closer look at it, after his disruption of the Nanking massacres, he also added in his user page, the claim that he was said to be a Japanese and other such cases, to dissolve his admission of trying to protect his Ottoman Turkish ancestors. (see my evidence section.) Fadix 17:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * For starters, please see: above, and /Archive 1 for a disruptive bad joke. He has also been very disruptive on the pages of this case; for example, breaking links (User:Coolcat-> User:Cool Cat), reverting the list of subpages to the evidence page, and deleting diffs to comments of his that Fred had posted (*I* had added the diffs). And there's /Archive 1 (plus my evidence && Articles for deletion/Antiwar.com) where he edited every article linking to the article to link externally before nominating it for deletion (please note that my only opposition to him on this was a no vote on the VfD; others took the lead, the article survived and I believe people restored all the links). &mdash; Davenbelle 08:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Davenbelle, I advance the thesis, that all of Coolcat disruptions in one way or another are related to his pro-Turkey POV pushing. At first, this is not apparent. One has to study the overal of Coolcat activities, and he/she will be forced to conclude that. Nanking is related to it, the murder entry also. His multiple repeated minor edits also, since they seems to follow or precede the majority of times, controversial edits. I have provided two cases in my evidence section, in which Coolcat makes various repeated insignificant changes, to then go hijack something. He uses the "action reaction" technic. He repeatdly do edits, to conditionate people, and then he goes on. All of his activities not related to Turkey, are a ruse, and this regardless of if yes or not they can have something positive. Take his vandal unit for instance, and pay a closer look at when he founded it. He also, makes repeated insignificant edits to boost his edit count, and to bring that as evidences that he has done many edits unrelated to Turkey. And his unwarranted changes in form and styles of the articles, and that for many times are for the worst(I remember a french term, in which he deleted the "accent" on the letter "e," and those are the consequences of his "boosting" edits. Since he will go on changing wide range of articles, that normaly such edits would not be done. I will maybe provide evidences there too. Also, Coolcat is attention seeking and will go proposition things only for the pleasure of proposing them, or in some way or another, to present his own ego. He will for example vote for his propositions, like when he voted yes, in his own candidature as an administrator, or when he present his food chain and try to implanent it. And guess what, him being on the list of good contributors. He will also try assassinating the character of those that oppose him to silence him. Don't forget when he accused Thoth, me, you and Karl as being all sockpoppets of the same person. He will then go allert everyone he could find and try sabotating the reputation of his opposition. I provided a list of 10 names, to whom Coolcat contacted about my person, I limited myself to ten, there are more out there, and it excludes IRC.


 * For those reasons, I don't know what can be the best decision taken against him. Probably, restricting him to ever and permanently edit anything directly or indirectly related to Turkey. That being done, he will have no reason to do all the bad things he do for Wikipedia. I know that a permament restriction like this sounds very heavy. But a temporary one won't work, because Coolcat will still try to get the favour of the public, and buying their trust, to then, after, doing what he is here in Wikipedia to do. Why would he, afteral still deny being a Turk, after admitting being one? Why is he lying about so many things? Why do he still try to impose his unwiki principles, when not only me but many others explained him why they were not neutral. Coolcat knows now what is neutral, and he still refuse to accept the principle of neutrality. Refusing after knowing one is not respecting it, can in no way be in good faith.


 * Since my porposition is a very harsh one. I could add to this, that Coolcat could still participate in articles relating to Turkey, but this made through followish from administrators. If he thinks a change must be made, he would have to present them to an administrator, that will ask to the contributors of the articles how they find Coolcats propositions, and if Coolcat request is concordant with NPOV and other Wikipedia policies, that administrator will make the changes.


 * So, I would say, that the alternative proposition I see, is a permanent ban from anything related directly or indirectly with Turkey, and a permitted participation through administrators. If there is a garanty, that Coolcat will never be able to disrupt Turkey related articles, his principle reason which causes the other disruptions will not exist. And he will still be able to present his cases through an administrator so he won't lose his freedom of speech. Of course, I object him using the talk pages of the articles himself, after all the things he did there. But he could present his propositions at the talk page of the administrator s that are following him, and then, they can present Coolcat propositions. The rest, the other articles that are not related directly or indirectly with Turkey, I don't see why he should be banned from them, after implamenting such a restriction. Fadix 17:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That was over 5500 bytes. I refuse to read it. Cool Cat Talk 22:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why should I care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadix (talk • contribs)
 * I dont know, you can find a reason. --Cool Cat Talk 08:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, one reason could be that your refusal to read anything longer than chit-chat IRC "discussions" might have had a negative influence on your contributions to Wikipedias articles... -- Karl Meier 10:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Coolcat did not grasp my answer. I will simplify this for him. Since he still is not read to listen, and consider the critics some members have against him, and won't even read them in some cases. I don't see why I should bother that he does not listen to the critics anymore? Fadix 17:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding Cool Cat's disruptions outside Turkey related articles: Davenbelle has already pointed out some of the most recent places, where he has been disruptive outside articles re Turkey. I could of course also mention what has happend at places such as his Wikiproject ranking, where the community clearly rejected his idea, which Cool Cat refused to accept and continued to waste everybodys time. And there is also the whole issue about Cool Cat being incivil/using personal attacks and creating whole pages in order to attack a list of named wikipedians. I could find a lot of examples, but I don't know if there is any reason for me to go through all of his disruptions. Davenbelle already mentioned some of the most recent examples, and the real problem is that it goes on and on, eventhough a lot of Wikipedians has made genuine efforts to try make him change his questionable behavior. -- Karl Meier 10:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Kawaii! I really find your complaining about irc quite amusing. Almost all veteran wikipedians are there. Since you see everything I do as disruption I guess I cant help that. I was not disrupting Yggdrasil. I certainly was not disrupting wikipedia on GAP. Nor was I disrupting wikipedia on Wikiproject, wiki rankings.
 * Ranking was a bold suggestion, too bad it got rejected. ıt had taken about 1-5 minutes of every user voting on it. I do feel there was some good out of it. No one will try rankings again. --Cool Cat Talk 13:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Fadix here in his paragraph beginning Davenbell I advance the thesis... My experience with Coolcat has been almost exclusively in the Armenian Genocide Talk pages and related article. Here is my comment/observation: Coolcat is somehow pathological - given his combination of biased obsessiveness and total lack of knowledge he is entirely inappropriate to be any kind of moderator for these (Armenian Genocide and related) pages and his (so-called) contributions cannot be allowed to go unchecked. I certainly think he is entrirely inappropriate as a contributor in this section. Accepting his contributions here is akin to allowing a chimpanze to contibute to an article on the workings of the internal combustion engine - worse because he doesn't believe that the internal combustion engine is functional and he has dedicated himself to blocking any true knowledge about the engine to others as he finds the concept of such a thing personally offensive. Is this really the purpose of articles here - that the least knowledgeble - yet heavily biased and predjudiced - be allowed to dictate content and to hinder the efforts of those who actually possess factual information? --THOTH 13:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I asked for citations/asked the removal of uncited material, as far as I care you are making it up unless you can base it to something. Original research is not welcome on wikipedia. "Cite sources" aplies to Armenian Genocide no less than Physics --Cool Cat Talk 13:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are lying, when I was citing, you were refusing to read and requesting an unwiki 50-50 coverage. You see, you continue to lie. I ask you, how can I assume good faith, when you lie like this on peoples face? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadix (talk • contribs)
 * Unwiki 50/50 is one of the fundementals of wikipedia, all notable views be present equaly assuming there is even a counter view. --Cool Cat Talk 13:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How many administrators have to tell you this is not what is to be neutral, so that you finally accept? The thesis that there was no genocide is supported by an insignificant number of scholars in the West, compared with the official position, that there was in fact a genocide.(I can name pratically all such scholars who reject there was a genocide, that wrote about the subject, and my fingers will be enough to do that, now why don't you try counting those that do support the thesis?) I keep presenting this, and I have even given few examples in the talk pages of the article, of many notable international criminal, or justice journals, and everytime they've cited the Armenian cases, it was to support the majority view. Yale university press, or such reputable editors, don't require the word Armenian genocide be supported in an article, while without support, you will have much difficulties to get, "there was no genocide" word being accepted in the Peer review process, without argumentations and without having a reputation. But, again, you are playing as if you still don't get what neutrality is. A crime by ignorance is not punished as strongly as a crime with an intention. And you are again pretending to now still understand what neutrality is. But sorry, it doesn't work anymore. Fadix 14:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, so majority view thinks PKK and Al-Quaida are terrosts. Why not frame them as such? Bias is bad you know. --Cool Cat Talk 15:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know enough about PKK, and I don;t remember getting involved in those subjects. I do not engage when I don't know enough. Fadix 15:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Fadix and NPA
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)
 * 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)
 * So by that logic any insultive behavior is quite civil and acceptable. --Cool Cat Talk 08:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Vandalism and good faith, addressing your points Kelly.
Correct me if I am wrong, most vandalism, are done under IP addresses. I just recently realized that my user page has been vandalized two times by an anonymous user, and was reverted by other users before I even realized it. I thank them. But we must face it; most of the vandalism is done because of the System. All serious forums that I know, requires registration before posting, and here we are supposed to be contributing to write an encyclopaedia, which means, it is meant to be more serious than the most serious forums, and we let people that don’t even bother registration to vandalize articles. I believe that if someone does not bother taking the time to register, maybe that person is not really serious in his/her participation. Also, in serious forums, when someone register, the registration should be approved by administrators. Add to the required registration, something such, in which administrator have to approve a user, and you eliminate most vandalism, and keep getting only the most serious people out there. Also, the registration information required are not enough, there should be sections covering field of interests etc. which will be used by administrators to judge if a request for registration makes sense. If for interest, I write: “killing people” or such a stupid statement, it is evident, that I am not serious, and am trying to register to cause trouble.

Also, I do believe that talk pages should be made invisible when someone is not logged, maybe members pages too. People should come here to participate to write an encyclopaedia, and not because they found out something in a talk page, to which they want to answer and fight with members, or after reading someone, which arguments they don’t like, they start blanking the article that person participate to the redaction of.

You possibly know I am right here, if you think I am, so why not spare all this time fighting against vandalism, when there are things available that will nearly eradicate it?

Coming to Coolcats cases. Kelly, do you really think that I am taking pleasure opposing him? He is wasting my time, in fact, I decided to let this cases out, before I have read Coolcats evidence page, in which he literally fabricate evidences. In fact, I had never gone after him, most of the time, he came on articles I had engaged in. Nanking massacres is one of the exceptions, because I knew right away, after I realised that he was not really participating in the Armenian Genocide article anymore for a moment. At that time, I admit I could not have assumed good faith, and I decided to check his contributions.(and this before anyone warned me about) I already admitted, I can not assume good faith in the cases of Coolcat, and his situation doesn’t requite me to do it. When you revert vandalism, you do not take the moment and assume good faith, when you see someone intentionally doing something, you do not cross your arms and be passive, by assuming good faith. Coolcat lies, and repeatedly. Do you want an example? Do you remember him denying to be a Turk, he just above in one of his posts, in his answer, used the Turkish character “ı” instead of “i.” He lie in many issues, and then expose his own lies by making mistakes that expose them.

Would you assume good faith, when a member report you to a dozen members, from them, many admins, lying about you? Will you assume good faith, if that same member, use other Wikipedia communication facilities, like IRC to continue in this path? He claims he does not do that, but between you and me, how is it possible, that a member that alert so much people on the open, doesn’t do anything similar underground? How do you explain, that two recent IRC users land here, having no clue of the cases to somehow defend Coolcat? When I will be harsh about a member, I will tell it on his face, and everyone will know what I think of him, I will not go cry to various people about that member. Those sort of things are done by weak people that have self esteem problems. While I made an announcement that I will be leaving the day Coolcat becomes an admin, coolcat has used that evidence. But I am not the one including in my evidence page, the many instances that Coolcat cries and self immolated himself, and threatened to leave and alerted various members about it. The difference is that I was really serious when I said I will be leaving, while Coolcat was using that to get peoples pity. He has conditioned members, to a point that they don’t even realise that he shall pay for what he did, they even defend him. Had I done the same things as he did, I would probably be banned now. Take the Armenian genocide entry as an example, because of Coolcat, members I didn’t even knew about, landed on the middle of the discussion to take Coolcats position and telling me how wrong I am, and then leaving, when I present my cases, and they don’t even dare telling Coolcat he is on the wrong, while I am claimed to be in the wrong, when I am even not.

Also, while I have changed a lot, Coolcat did not, if you follow my contributions, you will see that at first when I came here, I did not really now what neutrality was and how wikipedia worked, I even introduced an essay I wrote in an article. But I have changed. If I had ill intentions, I would remain the same. Coolcat remained the same, after many people told him, he was in the wrong. We are at a point, where, we can assume he perfectly knows what he do, and I, as a member, can not assume good faith. Good faith here in wikipedia, doesn’t mean absence of common sense. Fadix 16:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't have to be turkish to live in Turkey. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 01:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your point, how is it related with what I wrote? Fadix 04:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * He lives in Turkey, but isn't *from* turkey....I think. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 05:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * He claimed he does not live in Turkey. But why should this have to do with my answer? Fadix 14:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism and wikipedia:
 * Actualy vandalism from user acounts (sockpuppets) pose a more serious threat to wikipedias integrity then anons. Willy on Wheels has about 480 marked sockpuppet accounts, MARMOT has about 228.
 * Isolated cases of "hate" blankings or "test" blankings are quite easy to spot, at least just using my bot.
 * Now detecting reapearing vandals, thats hard. I keep a database of bad usernames and ips that are known vandals. I am working to this end and am open to newer ideas. Majority of IP vandals are on dynamic ip networks which means they can appear to be a "new" person simply by reconnecting.
 * Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, IPs make very very good contributions and only a minority are vandalism.
 * This is not a serious forum, infact it is not a forum at all. This is a serious encyclopedia open to everyones contribution. The suggestion of restricting anon access has been made in the past and some suggestions were put in the practice. Spesificaly after several disturbed people such as Willy on Wheels started moving pages around causing havoc. Anon's are also capped at how many edits they can make in a minute. There are other mesures I am not inclined to discuss in public for obvious reasons.
 * --Cool Cat Talk 14:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, when someone selectivity take from my answer, what he can answer, the interpretation is quite different. Maybe you should reread what I wrote. The registration process is very easy, another can go there, and register in a second; there is no selection of users. It takes more fields to fill, and it takes an approval period, where Admins use this information, and the IP of the user.


 * Do you think that by repeating this is not a forum, you have any arguments? No, everyone should not have the right to edit, if Wikipedia want one day to compete with Britannica, it should be trustful for its users. While there are good contributions by anonymous users, you can not draw a correlation between reducing access, and the ratio of good users you will loose. The chances are that more bad users will leave than good users. Serious people are not obsessed, they can wait being approved, and they will fill what should be filled, as information. An encyclopaedia should be more credible than the most serious forum, for the simple fact that, someone researching about a subject may or may not trust the content of forums, while he should have the guaranty, that, anyone that want to edit, can not edit an article.


 * Wikipedia is not being what real GNU are. Blender codes are not changed in realtime over the web, where everyone no matter what can scrap the code source that is open to be edited. There are no GNU that are like that.


 * As for your claim, that accounts pose a more serious risk, this is against common sense, it is way more easier for an admin to block an account, than having to run after someone that relog with new IP addresses, and leave the admins in a situation that they have to block a range of IP addresses, preventing other users that are not implicated, to participate. The system used in serious forums, will make vandals work harder, they will have to wait to vandalize, and it isn’t even sure that they will be approved. Here is where bots should be placed, codes that Admins could use, based on a database, which compare IP, interest fields, etc. and track them, so the Admin could know that the new user that want to register is a vandal.


 * This system works with forums, and works in real life, because this selection process is how things are done when things should be done in all seriousness. Fadix 15:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Other points (not related to vandalism remarks):
 * I do not "cry" to people, I do not see how me crying over hear affects people miles away.
 * "How do you explain, that two recent IRC users land here, having no clue of the cases to somehow defend Coolcat?"
 * By that logic at least 3 of the arbitrators hearing this case are here just because of IRC. I knew Tony Sideaway long before I met him on IRC. I still regularly contact him on IRC. If you are suggesting there is an IRC cabal thatsa different thing. Kelly Martin is avalible on IRC as well, just like brion who happens to be one of the most improtant developers (I picked brion at random). I do not think there is a reason for you to criticise me or other peoples usage of alternate communication. I do not "manupilate" evidence. The diffs are there.


 * Regarding to the input regarding the usage of "turkish characters", well it happens that in Turkey internet cafes have Turkish keyboards. So when I am at one of these I happen to use those keyboards. If I were used to turkish keyboards I would not have made such an error. I am currently in Turkey, Past two years I was in US of A, two years prior in belgium etc. I travel a lot, yes. I lived longest in Turkey aside from my home state of course which as far as you care could be planet Vulcan and is of no concern to you or arbcom or anyone.
 * Maybe you should rather ask your self: "how often I assume good faith?", you were accusing me of a hidden agenda since day one we met. I do not know if you still believe that I have a "hidden agenda".
 * --Cool Cat Talk 14:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you think that by using the term cabal, and trying to make a parallel, with what happened with the neo-NAZI that posted a list of members in a right wing site, you will start having more supports? You’ve did the same, when you’ve learned the term “anti-elitism” and thought that such problematic at the core of Wikipedia will attract attention, when I myself brought it, starting with my first weeks in the project.


 * You do fabricate evidences, compare mines with yours, you bring things, which I can use as evidences against yourself, and things that were already brought against you, to this you add things you totally fabricate. I will be covering this as I already told.


 * Coming to the second part, again, you are manipulating. This was brought as evidences that you lie in many issues, at a point common sense would be to not assume good faith. This alone is not an evidence, but added to the fact, that you used the term “Arman…” in various occasions in the past, and even after you called the Ottoman Turks, your ancestors, and even after frequently living in Turkey…, and even after not having English as a mother thong, you still persist lying. This is about you lying, and not about whatever or not you are a Chinese or a Martian. Fadix 15:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Lets, for the sake of argument ASSUME I am turkish, what difference does that make? English is my mother toung, this degraded level in a conversation is generally viewed as trolling. --Cool Cat Talk 11:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How many Turks do you know in Wikipedia, that I used his/her ethnicity to discredit him/her? Again, that you are a Turk, I don't care about. What I care about is when you lie on my face and the face of others. I think, I made it clear that this was for me, one of the most serious issues. As for English being your first language. Its beside the point to give examples of some of your mistakes, one example, which is the introduction of agglutitativness in the English language, in some of your answers. Common to Turkish speakers. Fadix
 * I do not CARE about spelling or grammer when I am posting in talk pages. I lived in turkey for over 2 years, I perhaps picked up a phrase or two. Since you do not care about me being a Turk or not, wtf is the issue? --Cool Cat Talk 00:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Introducing agglutativness in the English language, is not typical grammar mistakes, or expressions, it is a structural mistake, more to do with introducing in the language a structure from another language(in this cases Turkish). I can't help it, I introduce myself French structures and innapopriate usages of words, that their equivalent doesn't have exactly the same definition in English. For someone that knows French, he or she will be able to give examples of such cases, in my writings. To say the truth, I could have entirly denied to be Armenian, and claimed to be French, and no one would have been able to show my Armenian origine, since I have two mother thong. Fadix 01:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure! English is your first language, and I am the King of Kashmir... Seriously Cool Cat, I find it incredible that you wants us to believe something like that. How stupid do you think we are? -- Karl Meier 14:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not want yo to believe anything. I just want you to stop suggesting that English is not my mother toung. I already told you "how stupid" I think you are on IRC, but thats my personal POV. I am not qualified to determine your IQ. --Cool Cat Talk 00:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So you are confirming here that you said he was an idiot on his back, while you somehow denied that. BTW, English is not your mother thong, it's not only a suggestion. Fadix 01:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * IRC is not subject to any wikipedia rules and I am free to say or do whatever I want unless I am disturbing the channel. I only got kicked once BY myself. --Cool Cat Talk 02:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And this comming from the same person that question another members intelligence. I will pretend assuming good faith, and suppose that you did not understand, that you just admitted having lied when you somehow denied having called him an idiot. Fadix
 * On wikipedia I did not call him an "idiot". On #wikipedia, I did. #wikipedia is on freenode servers and wikipedia policies do not apply. Furthermore #wikipedia is unofficial and cannot be used as evidence. --Cool Cat Talk 02:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat to stop lobbying against users he dislike.
I bring this as a new proposition. I have enough of this lobbying. It should be noted that Coolcat stop talking in bad, in the back of users, and this, not only in Wikipedia, but anything using Wikipedia server etc., including IRC. Fadix 14:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fadix, IRC is not affiliated with Wikimedia. Arbcom can't impose restrictions on him there. Besides, he does not rant about anyone anymore then anyone else would, especially for being arbitrated! --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 15:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Phroziac, where is it hosted? Fadix 15:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's hosted by Freenode, http://www.freenode.net --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 16:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see the IRC listed in a Wikipedia page, as if it was something official. I have to admit it is unprofessional, it should be administred, and backtalking should be restricted, at the very least, at best, just closing that thing down. Wikipedia should compete and beat Britannica, and chat, and such things are in the minus. Fadix 19:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * IRC is an important tool that Wikipedia's administrators and editors use to communicate and collaborate with one another. Shutting it down would be a terrible blow to the project, and a totally unwise thing to do.  Kelly Martin 20:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly, what I am dimissing is that IRC can not be replaced, not that it is a useful tool, when good intentioned people use it. Chat, are like short talks, to engage in a serious discussion, people should think a little. Another problem, is that members can use it to talk on the back of others, when they know they are not here to defend themselves. A Wikipedia community forum, is a lot better project and will serve better than a chat system. In a forum, you know that what you have said once, will be open to other members. I also, sorry to say this, find chats, dumb, and as a system not up to the level of the whole encyclopedia project. That's of course my opinion. Fadix 22:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * IRC is useful for things such as watching recent changes. I'm an admin at the Danish Wikipedia and I've been doing that myself. However, there is no way it that it could be used for any kind of serious collaboration on articles. The issues regarding most articles are much too complicated for that, so the IRC stuff that we got except for such things as watching recent changes, is pretty useless and should be closed. If you read the discussions in Wikipedias main IRC channel, it's obvious that the majority is off-topic and a waste of the editors time. Another thing is that such a chit-chat room might very well attract the wrong kind of people. We don't need chit-chatting 12 year olds editing important articles. The fact that users such as this "Cool Cat" can use the place to whine about how awful it is that he can't PoV-edit without anyone watching him, is another reason to be concerned. The IRC room makes decisions less transparent and makes people able to attack other Wikipedians without having to respect important policies such as those regarding civility and personal attacks. I believe it poisons the atmosphere that you are allowed to be completely disrespectful to other editors, just because you move from the Wikipedia talkpages to the Wikipedia chat room. -- Karl Meier 21:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Cool Cat is doing some "stalking" himself through constant badmouthing. He seems rather immature. Kind of like a kid brother. Perhaps some tolerance and sense of humor is in order. Fred Bauder 21:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well there are several proposals to remove #wikipedia from the error messages which if done would make it entirely unnoficial. Your never going to convince people that shutting it down is a good idea is a good idea since it is amazingly helpful even if we do get off topic quite a bit and the day you shut down #wikipedia I'll leave the project for good.  Jtkiefer  T - 22:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So, what you are basically saying, is that you will stop contributing to an encyclopedia, if a chat is closed. The question to ask, would be. Would you have joined Wikipedia, if there was no IRC? Fadix 22:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * How is it stalking to do "constant badmouthing"? Also, I have not seen him say anything not-true about this case. Also, how is *ANYTHING* he did anywhere near as bad as these people? *sigh* --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 22:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Now, after saying this, in my book you have loss any credibility. I can't help it, sorry. Fadix 22:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't care. By the way, I'm taking a wikibreak. Real life is raising my blood pressure enough already. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 22:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont understand you, Fred. Can you elaborate what you mean by "badmouthing". Fadix has been ranting on and on, there are more than enough personal attacks I am recieveing here. You are aware of Davenbelle and Fadix complaining of me recieveing a freaking barn star. I am most certainly not the immature party here. What post here counts as stalking fred? --Cool Cat Talk 22:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The only time I said anything about you underground, is in a discussion with Davenbelle by email months ago, during our Arbcom cases, and maybe Streotek, but I don't remember. The discussion with Davebelle was about the Arbcom cases, and how it worked, and how evidences should be presented, and bla, bla, bla. Also, I don't remember gaga gouing on others user pages about you. I don't remember me, building a page about you, beside my evidence page, since I was told, that's how it works to collect evidences of an Arbcom cases. You can accuse me of anything you'd like, but immature i am not, at least not in Wikipedia. I am harsh with you, and I've admitted this many, many and many times. i don't see why I should hide it. Why should I be not harsh with someone that is disrupting the progess of the article that I am working on, but first dumping a color scheme and hammering me of your "modership," and then, bringing unwiki concepts and force them without any supports. You don't accept Neutral Point of View, you disrupt, and I will be harsh with you. I can't help it. I don't think that a policeman, will be so nice with someone that vandalise a public place, again and over again, and refuse to stop. This is not immaturity, this is responsability, and I am ready to pay, if I did anything wrong. Fadix 01:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The constant agitating Fred Bauder 23:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * on a related note I should mention that User:Fadix has been blocked for 24 hours for violation of WP:NPA and WP:Civil Jtkiefer  T - 23:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Jtkiefer: I wonder where you where when Cool Cat asked me to "to go screw myself" and a "fucktard"? Maybe Cool Cat's personal attacks will be taken more seriously if the editors that is questioning Cool Cat's behavior start chit-chatting on IRC, all day long? Anyway, the block of Fadix doesn't make sense. It has been proven that Cool Cat has lied on several occations, and we should be able to discuss these issues without admins coming out of IRC making unreasonable blocks, just because Cool Cat is complaining and attacking us behind our backs all the time... One question, I haven't seen you before. How did you find this page? -- Karl Meier 23:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know but if he does break NPA and I either notice it or it's brought to my attention I have no problem blocking Cool Cat just like any other editor, he is not above the law, nobody (except maybe Jimbo) is and that includes Cool Cat and since I assume that the quote above is already on the evidence page I'm sure the arbcom will seriously consider it when they work on this arbitration. Jtkiefer  T - 23:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable. I'll make sure to bring it to your attention, the next time Cool Cat violates NPA and civility, so that you can block him for 24 hrs. Also, his endless violations of these rules has indeed been mentioned here, and I also expect that the ArbCom will seriously consider that evidence. -- Karl Meier 23:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have unblocked Fadix based on his statements on his talk page I am assuming good faith in that he will do his best to remain civil. Jtkiefer  T - 00:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to warn readers, that I have not said I will behave now, in my talk page, because Jtkiefer hasn't still justified the block, so that I know how presenting a cases at the Arbcom, and advancing the thesis that Coolcat pathologically lie, is in anyway against the policies. It is like blocking someone, for claiming another is a troll, at an Arbcom cases, and being ready to present the evidences. Fadix 00:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

What we are going to do if we can find someone to mentor him is to try a new system of mentoring. We probably won't make any more detailed findings of fact. If the mentorship fails we might fall back on some kind of ban but that is not our plan. We hope he will straighten himself out. We are going to warn those he complains of to give him some breathing room. Fred Bauder 00:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to volunteer to mentor Cool Cat, however if appointed by the arbcom as his mentor I would prefer to have either another mentor who has a lot of experience mentoring or the same as an advisor instead of a 2nd mentor. Jtkiefer  T - 00:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I also think it has to be someone with a lot of experience, that doesn't get intimidated by Cool Cat's constant complaining and insisting on getting things his way. -- Karl Meier 00:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, I know that arbitrators don't have much time, but it would be good if, the one that is chosen, knows the cases, and the last time I've checked, Arbitrators are also administrators. But, on the other hand, I think that the prevention for three months for things involved with Armenians, Kurds, Turks etc. must remain. BTW, what if, we present administrators here that we think fit the task? Fadix 00:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You can... but I would have to accept the person. I am cool with Jtkiefer's mentorship. --Cool Cat Talk 01:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you don't, it is to the arbitrators to decide, it is not up to you to say who will be one. If there will be mentoring, it will be to limit your disruption, it will be imposed upon you, and not because you decide so. Fadix 01:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and assuming that arbcom decides for mentorship I think that at least 3 mentors would be ideal since that way we could have at least 1 (preferably 2) extremely experience people mentoring Cool Cat since that's what appears to be needed. Jtkiefer  T - 01:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Bah, I'm having a hard time peeling myself off of here for a wikibreak. I'll start it tomorrow. Anyway, I would like to help mentor Cool Cat also, but i have to say I have no experience. Email me if you need me, i'll hopefully be gone until monday. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 02:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you don't seem to find any real wrong from Coolcats part, I don't see how you can mentor him. It takes people with authority, that will not bother saying to Coolcat if his wrong, as well as seing the wrong, when it is there. Some like El C, that will not manage their words when something is unacceptable may fit for the task. And i agree that it should be more than one person, since Coolcat makes various edits, it would really not be fair for just one admin to loose precious times of mentoring a user. But, in anyway, the three month ban at articles related to Armenians, Kurds, Turks, (and I will add, sections of articles relating to them) should remain. He must take the time to think a little bit about his participation, and this three months could be very constructive, from my part, it will give the time to work on some articles Coolcat might disrupt, NPOV them, improve them to the highest standard. Fadix 04:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't remember saying he didn't do anything wrong, and if I did, I must have been clueless about the case at the time. He has done things wrong, but you've all done a great job of pointing out every single thing he's ever done it appears. So, there hasn't been a lot of reason for me to point it out. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 15:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Mentorship I do not like is guranteed to fail, which means that can lead to very serious consequences such as a second arbcom hearing and more restricions levied on me. Since arbcom tries to enforce minimal punishment (no more than necesarry) I am inclined to believe their intentions is not to make my life miserable and hence they are not for example assign me User:Davenbelle or User:Fadix as a mentor. I do not disrupt wikipedia. Fadix I recomend you stop being a dick, thanks. --Cool Cat Talk 15:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * They are already assigned, and Arbitrators are voting it. You do propose, but they choose. As for assigning me, don't you think I have enough of your disruptive activities, so that I accept something such? Fadix 16:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If I declare a mentor inaproporate or unacceptable, it obvliously will not work. Tiny Sideaway and MGM have been informal advisors to me already. I have no problem accepting their mentorship. Mark Ryan, at least on IRC is a reasonable guy. I dont know him too well, I have no problem accepting him as a mentor as well. I have to accept the mentors assigned to me.
 * "Disruptive activities" such as complaining about one recieveing a barnstar on Rickks page? Yeah I'll stop doing that.
 * --Cool Cat Talk 00:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it is not for you to choose who to accept, mentors are there because you could not behave, they are imposed. Besides, I still maintain that accepting RickK banstar, was an illplaced audacity from your part. And if you take the moment to think about it, it would be needless for me to explain you why. Fadix 00:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm no nothing new is imposed. I am used to listening to Tony Sideaway and MGM. I saw them as mentors long before the start of this arb com case. They are knowlegabe, reasonable, fair, and respectable, they tell me when I am wrong and explain why. Mark Ryan on irc did advise me on a few occasions, but not much. Arbcom will not assign me for example Davenbelle as a mentor because they know I am less than inclined to agree to that. Arbcom is basicaly handing teeth to people I already listen to. If Davenbelle and Stereotek stalks ever again, my mentors will respond to that. If I screw up, theyll tell me that as well as they always have. I have a learning curve, I'll only grow to be a better user with this mentorship. --Cool Cat Talk 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Odd, the people reverting vandalism on your user page have done so using my bot. You can find them being regulars on #en.wikipedia.vandalism on freenode. You should try RC patroling sometime as well. At least it will give you the hint on the level of vandalism we have on wikipedia as it is clear you have no idea. I am thinking very hard (ok I am not) on what evil is in me for accepting a barnstar. --Cool Cat Talk 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Mentoring
Since Coolcat will be having three mentors, can it be said, that if Coolcat has a problem with any users, that he should report those problems to his three mentors, and no one else, and that if the issue is important, it is to the mentors to warn other administrators. I really want this issue, of him reporting me to various administrators be resolved. He now have three of them following him, and can report me and others to them. Fadix
 * Thank you for your concerns! I'd rather discuss my mentorship with arbitrators. Mentors will monitor my edits and people I am dealing with. If for example Davenbelle or Karl reverts me for no good reason, the mentor will deal them. The mentor is ment to be a guardian angel. protecting wikipedia from harms on issues involving me. --Cool Cat Talk 15:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't atticipate too much. That you think that they will be your "gardian angels" against others, protecting you, shows that you still refuse to admit being in the wrong. But for now, that should not be a concern, since people will be asigned to deal with it. I will wait the conclusion of the cases, and finally return in my projects, I have lost enough time with this. Fadix 16:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I definately think the arbcom made a good choice in choosing Mark Ryan, Tony Sidaway, and MacGyverMagic as his mentors assuming that it passes. Jtkiefer  T - 20:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Eeto, I am not "wrong". The mentors are ment to protect or whack me when necesary. If necesary they will whack parties let's say are stalking me.
 * Then again as far as you are concerned perhaps I havent done anything "right".
 * It is a very good deal. If you think you are waisting time, then why the heck are you here? You can return to your projects any time.
 * --Cool Cat Talk 21:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, they are not meant for that. Besides, now show good faith, and delete this or I will bring that to vote for deletion. Fadix 00:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * AfD does not cover user sub pages, feel free to do that, see how fast it gets declined. That page is me collecting reminders about peoples actions I do not feel are approporate. It is neither evidence nor should have any value as such. If for example blankfaze screems at me in the future I'll have a reminder of my past dispute so I take extra care in dealing with him. I also need reminders regarding my dispute with you. --Cool Cat Talk 01:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I will NOT do anything you order me to do on the basis of you are ordering strictly because of your general attitude as if you own the place. You are in no position to make demands. Since Day one I have had enough of your constant insults. You completely disregard WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL to the point it irritates admins and other users. --Cool Cat Talk 01:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I and multiple users are severly disapointed with arbcom in regarding the treatment of Davenbelle and Stereotek. Their behaviour was unnaceptable. I did not ask Jtkiefer to review this case. I do not recall even mentioning it to him. He is here on his own will. I did not ask Kelly Martin or Phroziac to get involved either. --Cool Cat Talk 01:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * On the other hand there is a division on opinions regarding me as I made quite a number of questionable edits on my earlier days. Quoring you: "My first days in Wikipedia should be ignored I've made many mistakes during my first days, more or less because of my misunderstanding on how things work, or what is really “neutral point of view” here. So please, don't judge me based on those mistakes. Ignore the first impression." --Cool Cat Talk 01:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not in the position to question ArbComs desicions, I will abide by all rulings. However I and many others are not too terribly pleased about the lightness of rulings regarding Davenbelle and Stereotek. What you call lobbying is wikipedia community reacting. --Cool Cat Talk 01:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with CC here. I'm one of those "several users". Additionally, i'm back from wikibreak. --Phroziac(talk)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 01:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In my book, members choosing you as an administrator here in Wikipedia was a mistake, which makes me believe that maybe the way administrators are chosen need changes, as to include a minimum of common sense and experience here. I will add nothing here, and won't answer Coolcat empty answer. Fadix 02:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps everything about wikipedia is wrong so long as they dont abide by your book. You know lots of wars started with that ideology. Have you ever considered maybe, just maybe, you may be the wrong party rather than everyone else??? --Cool Cat Talk 02:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * How many times an experienced administrator told me I was wrong? How many times have I ever been blocked because of a revert war? Who is the user, that write as much as me to justify an edit? You are using sophistry again, and you wonder then, when I call your answers as empty talks. It is suspected that you just don't take word by word your own answers addressed to me, but rather just write to show me that you have actually something to say. This guy doesn't fit to adminiship, my book is constantly being writen, it is not "according" to my book, but what I do write in my book, based on what do happen, it is the happening that creat the book. A member that claim that your behavour is very far from being as bad as mine, has some serious lack of common sense. And he has all the adminship powers, but doesn't have the responsabilities going with it. Fadix


 * 17:49, 29 September 2005 Jtkiefer blocked "User:Fadix" with an expiry time of 24 hours (violations of WP:NPA at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat,_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision)... ok thats one block. Is this book avalible on amazon.com ? --Cool Cat Talk 02:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Block was reverted not far after it was innitiated, and a result of incromprehention. An administrator wasn't aware, that I was defending the position that you pathologically lie. But as expected, you could not answer my question. Pass my abrasivness, I was never really subject to misbehaving... and this regardless of User talk:Phroziac claim that what you did wrong was far from being close to what I done. I guess evidences like date changes, were the sort that could support that. Fadix
 * I am sorry I am having difficulty following you since each post of yours comes with nonsense much worse than the previous post. --Cool Cat Talk 03:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess, throwing back, in a ball game, is the last resort of the random minded. This pseudo-discussion leads nowhere. Since the cases is at its end. This time I'm really done with it. I'll give you the opportunity to have the last word, so you could sleep careless tonight. Fadix
 * How generous of you, though I am not sure what we are discussing. Hence I dono. --Cool Cat Talk 04:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fadix, do not for one minute believe you can speak for me, I unblocked you not due to cool cat I unblocked you because I felt the reasoning behind blocking you was shaky and would rather assume good faith then keep the block on. Jtkiefer  T - 16:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat's Mentors
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.

&mdash; Davenbelle 08:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * I would also suggest User:Ed Poor as a 4th mentor. --Cool Cat Talk 13:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Uncle Ed's proposal
I am willing to be mentor Cool Cat, but only on the following conditions:
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) Either of us may end this agreement at any time.
 * 3) Cool Cat must promise to do whatever I suggest, and to refrain from doing anything I forbid.
 * 4) 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)
 * I accept that. I have no problem following your advice. --Cool Cat Talk 14:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Well that's settled then and since it's independent of the arbcom ruling that would begin immediately right? Jtkiefer  T - 16:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. Its technicaly already underway. I do not onbject to the other 3 mentors either. --Cool Cat Talk 16:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * As do I, I only hope that now you'll be more flexible on who the 3 arbcom appointed mentors are. Jtkiefer  T - 19:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

I have no problem with Ed Poor's offer to mentor User:Cool Cat. I also very much like his first suggestion. &mdash; Davenbelle 04:50, October 2, 2005 (UTC)

Request that Cool Cat is banned from Wikipedias main IRC room
I request that the ArbCom should consider banning Cool Cat from the Wikipedias main IRC room, because his behavior there has made the situation a lot more difficult on a number of occations. One exampel is this ArbCom case where a large amount of IRC people has supported Cool Cat and created an even larger conflict. Another recent exampel is the vote for deletion debate here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat/Wiki-politics where Cool Cat's constant agitating in the IRC room also made a lot of people from IRC enter the discussion, and create a larger conflict. I think it would make the efforts of Cool Cat's mentors much easier, if they only have to deal with Cool Cat and not his whole IRC-team. Other users has also expressed concerns regarding his IRC lobbying, and some of it is discussed here: User_talk:Zscout370. I believe that a ban from the IRC room would calm things down a lot, and create a situation that Cool Cat's mentors would be able to address any issues that may come up, in a much more calm and less dramatic way. With Cool Cat working on IRC to rally support for his cases, I seriously doubt that they'll be very successful, in convincing Cool Cat (that is supported by a large number of IRC users) to change his questionable style of editing -- Karl Meier 19:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll say this once and only once more, IRC IS SEPERATE AND ARBCOM HAS NO JURISDICTION OF #WIKIPEDIA OR ANY OTHER IRC CHANNEL, I apologize for the caps but I had to get the point across, that being said arbcom has no power to do that. Jtkiefer  T - 20:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll clarify, technically I believe as per freenode rules the wikimedia foundation has the right to technically order the ban of anyone in the channel (subject to freenodes discretion of course) just as freenode has the right to kill off the entire channel, however that right does not extend to the arbcom unless the foundation gives the arbcom that right and historically the arbcom has recognized freenode, #wikipedia, and IRC in general as a seperate entity and outside their jurisdiction and most likely will continue to barring some extreme circumstance in the unforseen future. Jtkiefer  T - 20:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous suggestion. Cool_Cat has helped us fight a LOT of vandalism, whether it be in #en.wikipedia.vandalism or in the main channel. I have never even seen Karl Meier in the IRC room so I don't understand how he can suggest this. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

JTK is correct - the arbcom does not exercise jurisdiction over the #wikipedia channel (and may not even have it to begin with). So, speaking as both a member of the arbcom and a #wikipedia chanop - request denied. &rarr;Raul654 20:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is a hypothetical question Raul, let's say Coolcat has a conflict with someone on wikipedia. The person he argued with then starts to find things going badly for himself on Wikipedia. He can't figure out why at first, but he just starts getting a lot of pointed hostility and disrespect from certain users with some subtle innuendo to his contact with Coolcat. When the user tries to find conversations that led to this hostility, so that he can defend himself against some obvious misconceptions, he finds nothing on wikipedia.


 * He eventually notices that the people being hostile to him are IRC regulars. And then discovers on the IRC channel long running behavior by Coolcat. While telling his side of the story, Coolcat exaggerates, distortions of truth, makes short statements of fact that neglect to mention certain parts of the conflict, makes snide comments that malign his enemies, paints himself as a victim who's been abused when, in fact, he's caused his own problems. With the end result (over many months) being to poison the minds of Coolcat's irc buddies against people Coolcat doesn't like. Nothing spectacular, just your standard low level character assassination.


 * Hypothetically, behavior like this can have very serious and unjust consequences. So, Raul, who _would_ exercise jurisdiction over behavior like this? 67.94.174.218 04:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What will most likely happen is that User:Cool Cat will bicker and argue &mdash; much as he has all along &mdash; until dawn when the first rays of the sun will turn him to stone. In time a bird will build her nest in his ear. &mdash; Davenbelle 07:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I notice that bickering isn't the prerogative of a single party here. But here I think it's of more interest to note that the three two of you (Karl, Davenbelle and  ) are asking for some kind of sanction to be brought against Cool Cat, while none of you has presented a shred of evidence to support the sanction you request. I have searched the evidence page in vain for evidence related to IRC activities.  Don't you see that it would be unreasonable to ask the arbitrators to take action on the basis of innuendo and speculation?


 * Cool Cat's problematic editing is a matter for which there is good evidence, and the same goes for his attempts at mediation and the lapse of your own efforts, though well meaning, into what the committee describes as "wikistalking" or "hounding" Cool Cat, and so disrupting Wikipedia and discouraging his positive contributions. These are activities on your part and on Cool Cat's part for which evidence has been presented.


 * But no evidence has been presented to support a ban on Cool Cat using IRC. --Tony Sidaway Talk  15:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't change the subject Tony, I didn't ask for a ban on Cool Cat using IRC. Raul said this wasn't the place. My question was, in the light of how nasty character assassinations are, where _is_ the place to deal with this type of behavior? I've never collected any evidence, because I'm not involved in this case. But I've seen it first hand and I know shitty character assassination behavior when I see it. Conflict always has multiple sides to the story, and an honest view of the situation is arrived at through discussions where the people involved, and objective outside parties, have their say. This type of community discussion leads to a somewhat shared perception of reality. And the open nature of the discussion prevents distortions of truth by any one party. It's an element of due process and it's the wiki way.


 * But when one side of the argument is effectively shut out of the discussion, unable to defend himself or even hear what his enemy is saying about him, a seriously unbalanced view occurs. There emerges a pack mentality and behavior against the excluded party. Often the people who are influenced in this way don't even realize it. Especially when it's a seemingly benign, low level poisoning dealt to them over a period of months by one of their buddies. Hell, the bloodthirsty pack of jackals might even start to think of themselves as righteous, protecting one of their buddies who's been unjustly victimized. We should have a way to deal with situations like this when it involves an arbitration case. Character assassination is a nasty business. 67.94.174.218 23:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Re-read my comment. You'll find that, far from changing the subject, I fully address your points. You, Davenbelle and Karl have made some demands based on pure speculation.  What's more you continue to employ the most venomous innuendo.  Firstly, I'd like you to observe WP:NPA a little more closely than you have done.  Secondly, you can still present whatever evidence you like to the chanops of #wikipedia, to Wikimedia Foundation, and to freenode.net. If Cool Cat has been doing something wrong then there are plenty of avenues of redress.  But if you don't even present evidence but only continue these veiled personal attacks, well, you won't get anywhere. You falsely claim that you are shut out.  What's all that about? Anybody can use IRC. --Tony Sidaway Talk  00:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey Tony, where have I supported this idea? (I do agree that User:Cool Cat's behavior on IRC is likely a problem.) Please toilet-train your cat. &mdash; Davenbelle 03:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Fixed. And since anonymous also denies, Karl is alone in suggesting that Cool Cat has misbehaved on IRC. --Tony Sidaway Talk  04:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I do believe Karl, I just realise that this is beyond the scope of ArbCom's jurisdiction. This is an ideal issue to be addressed by mentorship (and there's always a dawn coming). &mdash; Davenbelle 05:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, you basically want him banned from the IRC Channel because he had some friends from there to back him up. Maybe, just maybe, he earned it. Made the conflict larger? More like gave him a fighting chance. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but can something be added to where his mentors can use the IRC medium for communication purposes? Zach (Sound Off) 21:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the mediators should have the ability to use IRC for communication with Cool Cat as it is a quick and easy communications medium, however at the same time it should not be forced upon them. Jtkiefer  T - 21:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Karl, Cool Cat's participation in the IRC channel has not "expanded this conflict"; rather, it's resulted in the community taking a greater interest in it and participating in crafting a solution. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. His participation on IRC has been a benefit to him and to Wikipedia, not a detriment; banning him from there would be just silly. And, as noted, the ArbCom lacks jurisdiction over the IRC channels anyway. Quite frankly, this suggestion really does press the limits of good faith on your part. Kelly Martin 21:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not know how it will be started, but if none of them can use IRC, I could sign on as a IRC mentor, if all parties agree. Zach (Sound Off) 21:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Redwolf24: Sure, with an endless amount of IRC editors supporting him all over the place it'll be difficult to oppose him! He doesn't even have to make his own responses here :-). Good luck to the mentors convincing that he will have to change his behavior in any way. As it is now, he can even make quite a few editors support the incivil hit list that he use to attack a number of other editors. Anyway, if he can't be banned from the IRC room, then I'd support a mentor for the IRC medium also, eventhough I do find it sad that 4 mentors is not enough, and that yet another person will have to spend his sparetime watching out for this guys questionable behavior. --  Karl Meier 21:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I'd accept Zscout370 as a mentor for Cool Cat's IRC activities. A second mentor would also be nice in my opinion. -- Karl Meier 21:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not your job to accept or refuse to accept a mentor (on IRC or otherwise) for Cool Cat. Further, IRC has its own "governmental" procedures, also known as "lots of people with Ops", and if Cool Cat had behaved inappropriately on IRC, he would have been dealt with.  It is for those of us on IRC to deal with problem users, not random Wikipedians with nothing invested in the #wikipedia channel other than a disapproval of one of its regulars. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no authority -- or reason -- for the arbitration committee to order that Cool Cat have an "IRC mentor". His behavior there has been thoroughly reasonable and there is no evidence that I've seen, at least, to support the suggestion that his participation on IRC has contributed in any way to the conduct that is at issue in this request for arbitration.  Kelly Martin 22:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I second that, and if I see anyone stalking Cool Cat on IRC for the purpose of using what he does or says on the channel against him they will be banned from the channel. Jtkiefer  T - 22:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Karl, I especially think that this is an unreasonable stance by you since not once have you even been on the IRC channel so you have no idea how much good work cool cat and the other editors do their nor do you know what goes on at all on the channel. Jtkiefer  T - 22:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking at the proposed decision, as yet I see no finding of fact related to IRC. It follows that no ruling related to IRC would be appropriate.  Raul654 also said that he understands that arbcom exercises no jurisdiction over IRC. --Tony Sidaway Talk  22:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer: You are welcome to ban me from the IRC channel, because I do not intend to visit it again. My IRC name was/is "gdrr", and I've actually been visiting it a few times already, to see how Cool Cat behaved there. Every time I visited he was busy whining about other users that has opposed his behavior, and the result... Well, that should be obvious. -- Karl Meier 00:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)