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

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

Let's not kill dispute resolution
There's a whole bunch of informal mediation systems on wikipedia. It would really suck if we rule that people can only be a mediators if they join the  mediation committee (which is still not operating as smoothly as it might). This would hurt every other mediation(-alike) system too.

Other than that, yeah, coolcat shouldn't be trying to mediate. Can we find other wording? Kim Bruning 14:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Kim that killing off dispute resolution is not at all the correct thing to do. I don't agree that CoolCat should be barred from mediating. At least he tried to help. Rob Church 21:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Mediation as privileged conduct?
I am concerned that the proposed findings and decision here essentially declare that mediation, on Wikipedia, is the restricted province of the Mediation Committee and that anyone not approved by the committee who attempts to act as a mediator is potentially subject to sanction.

If this is the intent of the ArbCom, I object. If this is not the intent of the ArbCom, I request that that be made clear in the proposed findings and decision. Kelly Martin 15:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Kelly; I don't believe that killing off informal mediation is the intent but I'd like to see that made explicit. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Another voice
While I basically agree that groups other than the Mediation Committee ought not present their mediations as having binding force, I am also concerned about the suggestion that only the mediation committee can mediate. I am even more concerned, though, by Coolcat's ban from mediation - interpreted broadly, this could stop him from trying to reach a compromise or resolution in any dispute. That's BAD. Snowspinner 15:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Defense
I do not feel ready to mediate, I failed to mediate anything so far. However I do not believe banning me from mediating completely would not be a wise desicion. I advise arbitration comittee the complications I recieved from Fadix, Davenbelle, and Stereotek while trying to mediate articles. They at best made things exteremely complicated, the closest I got to resolving disputes was on Javier Solana --Cool Cat My Talk 16:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I was firstly unaware of the article, I was asked on irc to mediate it.
 * Parties accepted me as a mediator, started using the format I suggested.
 * Later Davenbelle started, reverting my edits in the talk page, making accusations (somehow armenian genocide is linkied to this individual).
 * Davenbelle successfully kicked me out of my mediation atempt by convincing parties in the discussion that I am something evil.

Under these circumstances no one can madiate anything. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration comittee do not need to prevent me from mediating. Fadix, Davenbelle, and Stereotek will never allow me to even begin mediating. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Also for mounths I haven't tried to mediate anything. I do not intend to hunt disputes to mediate, but I may (unlikely) accept if asked to mediate. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

An explanation
If you look at the talk pages of the articles Coolcat tried to mediate, you will see that things went very poorly when he put himself forward as a mediator. The proposed decision is based on that evidence. It is not intended to disparage informal attempts to mediate disputes by other editors. It is only intended to prohibit Coolcat setting himself up as the mediator on the talk page of an article. Fred Bauder 23:31, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it should be more specific in it's wording, because at the moment it's not doing what you're saying you want it to do. For instance, the proposed principle about Mediation states Wikipedia mediators are "are part of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, and are experienced and trusted Wikipedians." but neglates "Of course, anyone can mediate between anyone else" which is a few sentences further down on the same page. Also, is it normal for the findings of fact to contain nothing about wrongdoing by a party which you're prohibiting from mediating? -- Joolz 23:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Look at the talk pages of the articles Coolcat has tried to mediate. He has done nothing wrong and is not being punished. He simply fails either from lack of community support, attempting to mediate in areas where he is perceived to have a strong POV or from employing ineffective techniques. If he will quit trying to mediate then that big noise will be out of the picture and we can see if there are other underlying problems which are causing the tensions between him and other editors. Fred Bauder 23:51, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I feel you didn't respond to the concerns there, Fred. I'm almost positive ArbCom doesn't want to prevent dispute resolution. Your amendment I disagree with as well; it contradicts your precedent and makes for a shaky cover-up. I'm not the only one thinking this, I know; and I'm also almost positive ArbCom doesn't want a riot on it's hands. Short-term, informal mediation is what drives the consensus that gets pages edited. Far be it from me to tell the Committee it's business, but I feel that you need to clarify your findings and precedents very carefully. Rob Church 13:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand ArbComs concerns. However I have no point of view regarding several articles. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nagorno-Karabakh, wasn't aware of a Armenian Azerbaijani war. Actually I wasn't mediating this even though I placed my template as no discussion had taken place. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Javier Solana, didn't know (still don't know) the individual. Never read the actual article, just I tried to cool individuals. Davenbelle declared me a non-official mediator, and that I am not qualified to mediate and removed my mediation guideline template etc. People were actually using the template and talking. Later Davenbelle's insistence on talk pages format color and the way convo must go made the discussion go horribly wrong. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nanjing Massacre, I wasn't aware of this. I do not care about it either. Davenbelle declared me as a non official mediator and have no official status when I told him he did not have an official status either he responded with "official statuses are un-wiki" --Cool Cat My Talk 14:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not have any real pov on Armenian Genocide either. Just what I heard from a few people in short convos. My edits on any of these articles do not show any pov. Several suggestions declared POV--Cool Cat My Talk 14:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * While Armenians were migrating to Syria in 1919, they were visiting a number of "relocation" camps (According to an older version of the wiki article prior to my arrival to the article). This is refer by Armenians as "Concentration" camps. I suggested that both names be used Relocation/concentration(According to an older version of the wiki article as well). --Cool Cat My Talk 14:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Greco-Turkish relations this is a unique case, I know the Greek version and the Turkish version of the story. Since I've been on both places. Although I admit I have been on Turkey longer. I was declared bad by Davenbelle the moment I appeared in the convo by Davenbelle. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In sum the wikipedia community aside from Davenbelle, Stereotek don't have much of a problem. Comments on the mediation committee membership I applied but later forgot about was a result of Davenbelle/Stereotek trolling. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Davenbelle is away, and Stereotek left because of Coolcat
How could an arbitration continue this way when Coolcat might make any charges he find will advance his cases, without being opposed from the other party. I don't see neither why I should babysit anyone. If Davenbelle want to follow Coolcat to see if he behave, that decision should be his, I for, refuse to do that. I don't even have enough time to contribute to articles and creating articles I planed to creat, I don't want to waste my time with Coolcat. I do have a proposition to make. Coolcat should have limits of edits on everything that link directly or indirectly to Turkey. Fadix 20:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Karl Meier aka Stereotek is active. This hearing will probably last several months. That is the avreage. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You will waiste time with me and other users. You have to work with other users. I haven't had a tiny bit of cooperation from you fadix. I hope to see this change. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting proposition. Perhaps you shouldn't write about anything related to Armenia, Armenian Genocide, Genocides in genreal. Your proposition is as ridiclus as mine. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * But I do not write about Armenia, the only sections about the Armenian people or such I modify is regarding the genocide, because I know the subject pretty well. The other cases was Nagorno Karabakh, but again, the only real thing I did there was to add a link in the link section which was later deleted by Tabib, because according to him the information in the link was innacurate. I may participate in talk pages, but this is for the evolution of articles. I did the same with Turkey, while I have not editted the article, I have treated my concerns. You can in no way compare your behavours with mine. While I try to make propositions and ask for opinions, you decide to make changes that you know most will disaprove. Check my edit proposition at the "Armenian quote" entry, has been a month I think that it is there, I still haven't made the change in the talk page because I want to be sure that this will not lead to a confrontation. While I have changed my behavour for the best of Wikipedia, you remain the same POV-pusher you have always been. I won't respect you, and I will not accept respecting you. As long as you lie and play with your cheap tricks, only Wikipedia will suffer. Go ahead make your threats of leaving Wikipedia everytime you jump in s@t, and you are pointed finger at because of that. Or editing other articles uninvolved with Turkey just to show how wrong others were about you. I really don't care. I don't have time to oppose every POV pushers. Fadix 23:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Among all of my edits in Nagorno Karabakh I was not revert wared even by Davenbelle or Stereotek. I was mediating it perfectly. Since no one was talking it was a deep slience. Frankly I do not see why you bring up Nagorno Karabakh. If you are blaming me for Tabib's contribution to wikipedia, I really would be confused. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You are supposing that everything I write is to accuse you of something. Whom told you that my references to Karabakh was even concerning you? I answered to your claim that I edit everything involving Armenia in comparaison to your edits on things concerning the Turkish republic directly, or indirectly. Fadix 21:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The diference between me is you have "no respect to my edits" (quoting you). On the other hand I "respect" your edits and voice concerns to talk pages and you respond to my concerns by discussing why I shouldnt edit that article and also spice it with personal attacks. I can't compare you to myself. I havent reverted spelling corrections and label it as POV/Vandalism. You blindly and baselessly (and rudely) accuse me of things and then prosecute me. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I had no respect to your edits, because your edits were not done in accordance to Wikipedias NPOV policy, this has nothing to do with you at the beggining. But human behavours are the way they are, now it has to do with you, I just can't help it. Fadix 21:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't shown the finger, I really wanted to get away from the depresive enviorment of (Davenbelle and Stereotek). I was going to leave wikipedia a number of times because of the overwhelming concensus against me by them (Davenbelle and Stereotek). I decieded, I should not be intimidated by them. So my leaves were just wiki breaks. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You're making this as if a selected number of people have against you, and will do wherever possible to make your stay here a hell. What to say about Adam that wanted you out from an article for a similar reason, and even some Admins being furious about you? Fadix 21:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is my hypotesis: by irritating me, they (Davenbelle and Stereotek) wanted to scare me off of wikipedia. That way they can make sure you and others will not be challenged with no resistance from people like me with me "anti-genocide" POV, whatever that is. --(User:Coolcat)
 * well that's a hypocritical statement; you coined the terms "pro-genocide" and "anti-genocide" on Talk:Armenian Genocide as a part of your "mediation" attempt; note to others: "pro-genocide" meant that you accept that Armenian Genocide is a factual historical event and "anti-genocide" meant that you denied it. Davenbelle 03:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * You were never a challenge. You blocked any discussions, and this even between turks and Armenians in the talk page. You archivated answers made few hours before, including mines, you started editting, you proposed your stupid mediation template, and colors etc. You did everything to get on peoples nerve. Stop blaming others. Fadix 21:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * NPoV means all views regarding a matter be presented equaly. Meaning your pov and my pov should be presented in the article 50/50 (something you refused). Your idea of a NPOV article has a section "Turkish Goverments Denial". I do not even need to bother finding individual statements. You scared away anybody that don't agree with your views.
 * Here is where you are wrong, and here is the thing that you still didn't get. And many people have supported me on this, including Admins, you are completly reinterpreting what NPOV is. From Wikipedia: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." As for: "Turkish Goverments Denial." I was not the one having created that category, and I also believe that that category should be made NPOV, but not by you, I think that you should stay away from the genocide article, and as well away from many articles as long as you refuse to accept what NPOV is. Fadix 21:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You also threatened to leave wikipedia if I were to be made an admin. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I did not. I was making an announcement, I had no intention to get people telling me: "no please don't leave." For something to be a threat, first there should be something to be threatened of. Had you been an Admin, I would have left Wikipedial, mark my word on that. This was a sincere anouncement of what I would do, and not a threat to force people to not vote for you. Fadix 21:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom just banned Davenbelle from editing articles related to politics for one year. The ArbCom found that Davenbelle has a history of "reverts with no citation of authority and no discussion on the talk page regarding the dispute", and that Davenbelle (and Mel Etitis) perpetuated an edit war (started by Viajero).  Frankly, I do not see why the ArbCom is taking Davenbelle's complaints all that seriously.  Davenbelle has proven himself to be a troublesome editor; Coolcat should not be punished for his inability to successfully intercede in an edit war with an acknowledged POV warrior. Kelly Martin 19:22, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Although I could be said to have taken the lead in proposing the ban on Davenbelle, he remains a Wikipedian in good standing with every right to be respectfully listened to. The same goes for Coolcat whatever resolution we may come to. We may go after troublemakers with some enthusiasm but having done so, if there is any sign that they want to be productive editors, we welcome them back and support them. Fred Bauder 13:19, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am most certainly not suggesting that Davenbelle has no right to be heard (as some have mischaracterized my statement). Rather, I merely state that CoolCat's failure to effectively mediate disputes involving Davenbelle should not be seen as evidence of incompetence as a mediator.  Kelly Martin 17:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I find your answer to be disrespectful of some Wikipedians. Any Wikipedian should have the same right, you are trying to discredit a cases, in which many people(including Admins) are involved against another member, on the basis that one person from those people has been banned. For what Davenbelle was banned for, Coolcat has done the same, and even worst. Fadix 21:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Then he should be dealt with according to what he has done wrong. I am not saying that CoolCat has failed to maintain civility; perhaps he has breached that obligation from time to time, as perhaps you have as well.  However, I feel that the ArbCom does an injustice by punishing him for his inability to find a way to mediate a dispute involving Davenbelle, who has already been found by the ArbCom to be an unremitting POV warrior.  The ArbCom's proposed findings so far say nothing about CoolCat having been incivil.  Kelly Martin 23:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, the Arbcom can not judge a cases based on an previous decision, it should take the cases at hand and study it regardless of whom is involved. If the Arbcom find someone has abused the system, whom has lunched it should not undo those findings. Coolcat had various problems with many users, he has abused Wikipedia, and is a POV pusher, and that there was a decision against Davenbelle should in no way change the Arbcom actual and future findings. Fadix 00:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This case isn't just about him and Davenbelle, I (and to some degree Fadix) are also involved, and there are many other editors that has been or currently is opposing his behavior. The evidence regarding his constant and brutal violations of Wikipedias policies regarding civility and no personal attacks should also be considered. Here's a most recent exampel of his uncivil attacks on other editors, from the page regarding this ArbCom case: : "You still havent learned to summarise your cases. I don't enjoy reading essays. This isnt a f***ing forum..." -- Karl Meier 21:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Frankly I think his incivility is an understandable, if inappropriate, response to previous incivility by other parties. Any punishment meted out upon him that is not meted out in equal or greater measure on the instigators in this affair would be unjust.   Please note that refusing to reasonably discuss a dispute is at least as incivil as using profanity, if not far more so. Kelly Martin 23:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * F*** can mean a number of things. Here 191 words: :P --Cool Cat My Talk 22:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fadix. I really am tired of responding to you as it is me talking to a wall... All you want to achieve is get rid of me. I am doing this partly for your sake. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am neither a wall, neither want to get rid of you. I don't even request civility from your part, just a comprehention of what NPOV is, and honesty. Those are the only things I ask. Fadix 00:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been in discussions with CoolCat for some time about these issues. I believe that he is having trouble grasping the complete meaning of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.  This is not unusual; a lot of people seem to have trouble grasping NPOV.  However, I have not known him to be other than honest, subject to the limitation that he states as truth that which he believes to be true, without regard to whether it actually is true.  I think your accusations of "dishonesty" should be more properly characterized as accusations of differences of opinions; you and he simply have different opinions of what is true.  From what I've seen, you and he are both too close to your beliefs to be willing to countenance the possibility of being wrong.  This is a poor trait in a Wikipedia editor, as it tends to lead to edit wars.  Which, as I see from examining your history of participation, is something you have quite a history of yourself, even more so than CoolCat, in fact.  Hmmmm.


 * In any case, I do not believe that CoolCat has been intentionally dishonest, and I think he better comprehends NPOV than he used to. And as he has clearly indicated the intent to restrict his Wikipedia actions to uncontroversial topics, I see no need for this witchhunt to continue. Kelly Martin 00:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * As much as your experience with Coolcat is concerned, I know Coolcat all but honest. The guy admitted having lied and having fooled users, and I have witnessed this with my own eyes, this made me furious, as well as two other users, that have lost their controls and tried to kick him out from the article in question(those users are not involved in the Arbcom cases BTW). I have given another example of dishonesty in this same talk page, my answer that Coolcat considered as an essay. Without ignoring the copyvio of not so long ago. Beside, my problem with him has nothing to do with his beliefs, I, also have beliefs. There is nothing wrong in that. My problem with him is deletion of informations and POV pushing. I believe the Armenian genocide happened, he thinks it did not happen, there is nothing wrong for one to have an opinion. What Coolcat has tried to do is to delete informations such as the belief of most western scholars, just because he claims that saying that most Western scholars support one position against others, it will suggest that one position is right against the other. Coolcat, doesn't stop having a position, he tries to delete informations and modify articles as to kill the NPOV nature of those same articles. Ignoring NPOV and what it really means doesn't justify this, even less when I have tried in various occasions to explain him what NPOV is.


 * I, as an Armenian, got two Armenians against my back, because even thought I had the same beliefs as them, I was able to differentiate myself from my beliefs. And I don't see here why me believing or being close to something makes me someone that is not willing to accept the possibility of being wrong. This statement coming from you is weird, because Wikipedia is not here to say what is true and what is wrong, talk pages are not there to debate on wherever or not a position is true or wrong, doing this is against NPOV policy. Just as an example, an Administrator even edited and reverted my edits and made them sound what Coolcat will consider as more pro-Armenian as they were. Just to show you how I try very hard to not present my POV in articles. That I have opinions doesn't mean that I can not present the different positions in an article. I know both positions, and I agree with one, and disagree with the other. But what I will do in such cases is to present the two positions, whom support them, their critics, and leaving as much spaces to a position as it is accepted in the academia. This is how a NPOV article should be. Coolcat has opposed this, he even wanted to delete who support one position against the others. This POV pushing from his part coupled with his dishonesty, make of him, someone that is harming Wikipedia, and for this reason I will oppose him. Fadix 02:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I remember that copyvio allegation, as it was my first experience with CoolCat. I investigated it and found that the copyvio allegation was completely without basis.  It was my impression at the time that CoolCat was being maliciously targeted, and the evidence to that effect has continued to mount.  CoolCat's behavior has not been sterling in the meantime, but his misbehavior doesn't excuse the misbehavior of other editors, and I am inclined to cut some slack for someone who behaves poorly while under concerted attack by an entire squad of malicious editors out to get that person.


 * Your allegation above that CoolCat admitted lying is rather serious. I think you should either produce evidence for this claim or withdraw it.  Kelly Martin 03:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I know an Admin that will be furious to read those words, I happened to have read the same things as you, but I don't see, like most that have read through the cases, that the allegation was without basis.


 * My allegations of lying? Well, here is the “famous” allegation evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArmenian_Genocide&diff=12282057&oldid=12282007


 * The guy came there, claiming to not know anything about the subject, perhaps do you want evidences for that too? He came there edited by excusing it of neutralizing the article(I guess deleting informations is neutralizing, according to him of course). And finally after playing on peoples nerve, as someone that did not knew the subject and being an independent observer, he came there and claim, that his claim of not knowing the subject as a strategy, as if members here are chess pieces. After posting that, he was boycotted from the article. And this coming from someone you suggest being honest. The guy that after claiming the Ottoman Turks being his ancestors, and who still is not being honest about this to(perhaps, do you want the diff. For that too?). The guy that has dumped my answer to him, regarding my concerns regarding his participation, in the archives, and this few hours after it was posted(abusing the archives). The guy that has deleted my posts, and two others post(Thoth and Raffi). The guy that has asked to a known racist over the web, assistance, which led that person to come and turn the talk page of the article as a war zone...


 * There are countless numbers of examples of abuses coming from the guy(those I provided are just few compared to the rest). Just also adding, that Coolcat even playing with the “Murder” entry, and tried to change it, only because the term was used in the genocide article, and he couldn't smell that.


 * It seems that members are not equal for you. While you try to discredit Davenbelle, you try to protect a member and excuse his acts, for things that were a lot worst than what Davenbelle was accused of. Fadix 15:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess I must be an idiot, because I don't see the lie in the quoted edit. It seems that what he did was previously refuse to identify his personal position on an issue under debate.  I can't fault that all that much, since I do the same damn thing: I do not discuss my personal political beliefs on the Wiki either.  What you're calling a "lie" to me appears to be more a case of you making an incorrect assumption about CoolCat and then accusing him of lying when it turned out that your assumption was incorrect.


 * And you've repeated the allegation of "countless" abuses without providing citations. To be blunt, put up or shut up.  If the abuses are "countless" it should not be hard to provide evidence of them. Kelly Martin 18:47, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

What???? Are you pulling my legs?

“I am merely suggesting, If I share your views you will loose the only objective party. I know more about the topic than I appear, I was tring to hear what you have to say, so I can determine my bias. Was a failed strategy I admit. You declare that I must accept genocide, should you not want an objective view?”

The guy just claimed there, that he know the subject more than he claimed to know. He claims having done that to determine his biases, and that was his strategy. If you really mean your words, and really do the same, I would sure never want to enter in a debate with you. While you don't see anything wrong in someone claiming knowing nothing about a subject, to claim objectiveness, and then, out of the blue moon, while others ask him to read books, before questioning the accuracy of the subject, he claim totally ignoring, then claim to actually know the subject. If, this is not a lie, and being dishonest, tell me what is it? Would you here, be ready to claim, of being dishonest with members, and lying about your knowledge, the way he did?

And, it appears, that you have nothing to say about Coolcat claims regarding my person, I don't see either any evidences. While you are the first jumping on Davenbelle, when Davenbelle doesn't have half the opposition and critics Coolcat had, and still have, even being one of the factors why a respected Admin left Wikipedia to never come back.

You want abuses??? Well, maybe then, you should check the evidence page, even thought you crucify Davenbelle, consider at least the evidences he present in his evidence page. I would not call those just blunt accusations. So, since we're there, here another evidences of dishonesty, and lying from his part: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATony_Sidaway&diff=10257986&oldid=10257803

“And if you are going to accuse my ancestors that makes it NOT neutral. If you really want to accuse them do it in some other wikipedia page.”

While, the same guy that call the Ottoman Turks, his ancestors, and called Armenians, “Armanians” in various occasions in the past, a common mistake Turks make, because of the term Armenian, in Turkish, the guy has continuously lied about himself.

Now, you want the evidences of his archiving of my post, hours after it was posted? What about, his deletion of others post in talk pages? What about their editions, with his stupid templates? What about the deletions in articles? Oh and, would you prefer I show you the discussion regarding murder, and when after he was not satisfied of its uses in the Armenian genocide entry, he decided to play with the Murder entry? Or Nanking massacre?

Oh and, and this is a serious thing here. I would believe, that you as an administrator, should refrain accusing and discrediting members, you should as well refrain making assumptions against members, the way you do with me in the above post. Fadix 20:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Here you go. Read the discussion. User_talk:Postdlf/Archive4. And it's not the only time, that Coolcat has changed his explanations regarding these issues. He's done it again and again. -- Karl Meier 07:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've looked at that link and find it unconvincing of anything at all; the narrative is not clear at all. And you haven't supported the "He's done it again and again" claim.  If you're going to claim that there's a pattern, you have to demonstrate it; you can't just assert it.  I know for a fact that CoolCat has been falsely accused of copyright violation (see Talk:Kurdistan_Workers_Party).  I think there is now a culture of "assume bad faith" regarding CoolCat in the minds of a certain cadre of editors now, which stems from CoolCat's earlier tendency to engage in POV pushing on various Turkish topics earlier on in his editing career.  Many Wikipedia editors make mistakes early in their careers, but learn from them over time and correct their behavior.  I think CoolCat has learned from his mistakes, with help from other editors, but this aforementioned cadre of editors refuses to let go of him and is determined to hound him off of Wikipedia without regard to his personal growth.  This is unacceptably incivil and must not be tolerated. Kelly Martin 10:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Of course you find it "unconvincing of anything at all". It seems like you have already made up your mind about this case. I don't know based on what evidence, but that doesn't matter anyway. I am obviously wasting my time here. Goodbye. -- Karl Meier 12:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason I find it unconvincing is that the records is simply unclear. I also know that CoolCat has since admitted that the material in question was a copyvio and has indicated that he won't do that sort of thing in the future.  Since you can only find one instance of such conduct, and that instance is months ago, I see no reason why this shouldn't be treated as an early mistake from which the lesson has been learned.  Yet you insist that "he's done it again and again", without citation.  Your conduct makes you look like a bully, and to be honest I'd rather have people (like CoolCat) who make mistakes, accept correction, and go to become positive contributors to the community, than have a squadron of bullies who run around and beat up on people because they made mistakes at some time in the past.


 * Make no mistake about it, teaching CoolCat how to behave on Wikipedia has been difficult, and it's taken several of us some time to pound it into his head that the things he's been doing aren't really that welcome. But he's got several of us helping him now with that and I have no doubt that he can and will continue to contribute usefully to Wikipedia.  But for that to happen, the witchhunt needs to stop.  Kelly Martin 15:05, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've only just now read all of the above; I've spent most of the last two weeks on Gili Trawangan. Yes, ArbCom has barred me from political articles (and no, I do not agree with their decision). However, most of my "POV-edits" have, in fact, been simple reverts of blatant POV edits by User:Trey Stone and User:Coolcat. I have never been uncivil in my postings and have attempted to discuss things with User:Coolcat &mdash; at least until such time as it was obvious that he only talks in circles. The fact is User:Coolcat (and User:Trey Stone) have waged aggressive POV war on content they disagree with &mdash; far, far more than their opponents have had time to resist their assaults. If my actions warrant such a ban, then User:Coolcat should receive a much stronger sanction. &mdash; Davenbelle 07:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Instead of making claims, can you please establish what is POV and what isnt, also what is NPOV. I am well aware of the wikipedia articles explaining these. Can you please tell me how am I "POV" pushing in accordence with the wikipedia policies. Since on occasions I got reverted for things that cannot be pov in any sane way. Such as "helicopters not operating well in hights" (paraphrasing). --Cool Cat My Talk 16:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

My problem with you (plural) is your uncivil and constant stalking. No more, no less. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I know I'm chiming in late on this, but I happen to know a lot about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, as a friend of mine has one Armenian and one Azerbaijani parent. The way to mediation and reconciliation has got to begin with sympathy for the pain of both sides. You can't get angry at either side.


 * If you need help in any mediation, please ask me. I'm the champ. Not modest, but I get the job done. Ain't never failed yet: give me a try. Uncle Ed 23:54, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:Coolcat's POV-Editing
I would like to suggest that User:Coolcat be barred from editing articles related to Turkey, Turkey's unpleasant relations with her neighbors Armenia and Greece, and Turkey's oppressed Kurdish minority (and Kurds in general) and articles related to genocide. Cyprus, too: see. He has made numerous POV edits on these subjects. Additionally, I suggest that he be restrained from aggressively rearranging and speedily archiving article talk pages. &mdash; Davenbelle 07:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Although consideration is being given to working something up of this nature, the hope is that if Coolcat will quit trying to mediate when his efforts are ineffective and unappreciated some of these other problems may be less significant. If we are wrong and he simply shifts his POV activity to other methods we will eventually have to deal with them. What I would like from you is to give him a vacation from close monitoring. Many other users are available. Fred Bauder 13:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I now second the above requests. Coolcats most recent and very questionable behavior at the Kemal Atatürk article, has made it obvious to me that his conduct especially in articles regarding Turkey, has not improved at all. It is as bad as before, if not worse. -- Karl Meier 14:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I feel your hopes re Cc are unfounded; he is relentless in his POV-editing. If you look at my activities since I started my vacation -- indeed since late April -- you'll see that I have not paid the alien feline much attention; he "doth protest too much, methinks".


 * While I'm addressing you directly here, Fred, I'd like to say that my motivation for "monitoring" users like (aka ),, and  has been to get them they ArbCom attention they richly deserve. &mdash; Davenbelle 02:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Do kindly stop doing that, then. Some of us want to reduce the ArbCom's caseload, not increase it.  And if mentoring, mediation, or informal guidance can resolve a problem without involving the ArbCom, shouldn't we welcome that?  Why do you feel the need to push people toward the ArbCom when their issues can be resolved by the community on its own?  Deliberately exacerbating a situation in order to build an eventual ArbCom case should be flatly prohibited by policy, and people who do it should be, at the absolute least, not trusted with administrative privileges, if not banned outright.  Kelly Martin 05:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * "when their issues can be resolved by the community on its own?" According to what evidences you believe those issues could be resolved by the community on its own? Is it not right, that the arbitrators actualy judge this before theyr approve a cases or reject it? I mean, isen't right that only by the fact that those cases were approved, it means that those could not have been resolved by the community by its own? Furthermore, why do you still maintain an antagonist tone with Davenbelle? Fadix 15:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have been leaving User:Coolcat pretty much alone for some time now. Previous attempts at informally mentoring User:Coolcat && User:Trey Stone (notably by User:Tony Sidaway) have failed to curb their egregious editing, so that option has been tried. I am not an admin and have no desire for that role. Bye for now &mdash; I'm going diving. &mdash; Davenbelle 06:22, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Inacurate, I haven't been making edits due to your agressive reverting. Until this case settles it will stay that way. I am just tired of writing something and it being declared pov. On many instances I got reverted just because I was the person making the edit. So after a few months the level of stalking I deal with from Davenbelle and Stereotek wikipedia-wide, and from Fadix on articles mentioning armenian genocide one way or another. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)'
 * I won't go there if I were you. There are plenty of evidences that the way I have found those other references regarding the Armenian genocide, was when I took a look at your contributions and found out that you were in a war of getting any articles that contained this reference, to later alter it. Fadix 15:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have already been "there" are you hiding something for my sake? Please dont. Oh and keep threatening me, it is rather amusing. You have reverted spelling corrections of mine in the past without reading haven't you? --Cool Cat My Talk 16:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Threatning you? What reversion are you talking about? Those that under the guises of grammer correction, you have changed other stuff without discussing them previously? Oh and, do you really want me to present here all the edits in various articles, in which the term Armenian genocide was used? If you want, I will... and one could then see that I was in those articles, only after you have edited them. Fadix 16:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I won't go there if I were you. is generally interpreted as a threat. It means: if I go there I will be hurt/punished. Feel free to provide any and all evidence you wish. Do not act based on what I "want". Act on your own inititive. You can provide any "wrongs" I've made, in fact thats what you are supposed to do instead of senseless ranting as you did earlier on with an average post of 3,500 bytes. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Here a few of your Armenian genocide chassing.


 * Here it comes.


 * The World War I entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_I&diff=11593045&oldid=11591792


 * Holocaust (disambiguation)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_%28disambiguation%29&diff=prev&oldid=11562738


 * Here, you even write: “I really am sick of Armenian genocide POV everywhere I am having difficulty tracing them down.”


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_%28disambiguation%29&diff=prev&oldid=11551922


 * Armenia
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenia&diff=prev&oldid=11535003


 * Those are a few, of your tracking down of the Armenian genocide reference, and this before I even did anything.


 * Your claim about me was unfounded, while mine about you, was not, as one can see. Fadix 17:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * On Mustafa Kemal Ataturk you were reverting me werent you? For forever I have tried really hard to remove that minor 6 words off of the article as that is baseless pov. First of all the introduces of it was an annon, and have done so without citing source (source was wiki-quote yes but I harly see wikiquote as a valid source). Islamist extremists see Ataturk as an atheist and an enemy of islam. They regularly claim "random"/"baseless" things about him. In order to make claims that needs to be cited. So how come I am pushing pov? Granted in wikipedia we do not publish what are "facts" but instead we publish views and interpretations of facts from every angle but this does not mean we allow propoganda. Spesificaly baseless propoganda. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have done my homework. In order to "purge" pov you have to establish its baseless. In order to "push" pov you need to base it to something. Since it isn't sourced at all, when first introduced this 6 words quoting Ataturk should not have been on wikipedia. Or else it is pov pushing. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Expert Opinion
I've just been reading King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild; in it he reprints a political cartoon titled Expert Opinion. It shows King Léopold II of Belgium meeting with Sultan Abdul of Turkey. They are reclining on a divan and are smoking from a hookah and Léopold has been reading a newspaper with the headline Congo Atrocities (he also has papers marked profits protruding from his pocket). Hochschild's caption to the cartoon reads: "Punch, 1905: One of a number of cartoons where Léopold compares notes with the sultan of Turkey, also condemned for his massacres (of Armenians)." The cartoon gives the following dialogue:

Léopold:

Silly fuss they're making about these so-called atrocities in my Congo property.

Abdul:

'Only talk'', my dear boy. They won't do anything. They never touched me.

&mdash; Davenbelle 09:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I fail to relate this to the ArbCom case. Please elaborate your expert opinion. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Abdul's expert opinion. &mdash; Davenbelle 03:27, August 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see how this relates to this Arbcom hearing. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Note by Coolcat
I'd like to remind Arbcom an earlier decision regarding one involved party (Davenbelle):Requests_for_arbitration/Trey_Stone_and_Davenbelle. I know Arbcom has a long memory but since there are so many cases I do not believe a reminder will hurt. --Cool Cat My Talk 18:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not ignoring him or you. Keep in mind that neither he or you are subject to general bans. If you both had your way, both of you would be. You banned from articles relating to Turkey and he to a more extensive ban. Fred Bauder 13:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I never claimed or implied you or anyone were ignoring something. Just a kind reminder. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm touched by your "kindness." &mdash;Davenbelle 09:08, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasnt reminding you. I spesificaly adressed arbcom and you are not a member. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep up the officious work! &mdash; Davenbelle 06:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I wont. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat and articles re Turkey
The ArbCom should take at look at Coolcat's most recent efforts in the articles regarding Turkey. More specifically the Kemal Atatürk article and especially it's talkpage Talk:Kemal Atatürk. It's one of the very few articles regarding Turkey that Coolcat has made any edits to for a long time, and it's just more of the same, with Coolcat aggressively archiving the talk, and in my opinion trying to aviod the fact that he lost a vote regarding a move on the talkpage. It's not much different from what he did earlier at other articles such as Abdullah Öcalan. I don't think there is any hope that he will change his previous behavior, "mediating" controversial articles or not. I think his most recent behavior makes that very obvious. -- Karl Meier 10:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please define agrasive archiving and also explain why are you monitoring the nature of my edits? Also why are you assuming bad faith when you arent supposed to? --Cool Cat My Talk 11:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What I call aggressive archiving is to remove all, and even the most recent discussion from a talkpage. I made an edit to the talkpage only hours before you removed (archived) the whole thing, to start a new vote about a subject that we had already voted about recently, in order to force your will through. It's the same thing as what you did it in the Abdullah Öcalan article, where you redirected it to the PKK article against the very clear concensus on the articles talkpage. Also, Wikipedias rules about "assume good faith" doesn't say that an editor is supposed to be naive or blind to realities. Just minutes ago you removed some sourced and valid information from the Kemal Atatürk article, just because it apparently didn't suit your PoV. You even made an untrue statement in your edit summary about the quote not having a source at Wikiquote . It should be obvious to the ArbCom now that your behavior haven't changed one bit. It is as bad as before, if not worse. -- Karl Meier 12:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I archived all concluded discussion. In wikipedia an archived discussion if necesary is continued on. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. I said I did not recall a source last time I checked. I still know it is a poor translation can you please use talk rather that the revert nonsense you are used to? REALISE this is Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision NOT Talk:Kemal Atatürk. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you sourced it I can't remove it although I had to visit wikiquote to find out that it was later indeed sourced. I cannot however yet verify if the information mentioned is indeed in the book. Now the revert spree would be shorter if I saw what I saw on wikiquote in articles talk page. I also do not see why are you reverting me when I am already discussing or attemting to discuss this with Davenbelle. Does Davenbelle need your revert help? Why do you guys have a constant alliance to revert my edits? Can't Davenbelle exlain himself in talk rather than edit summmaries in reverts? I am annoyed by the number of reverts I deal with from you, the fundemental of my problem with you. Yes I see no improvement in the situation. I make an edit, you come and revert it. You are not arbcom, you cannot declare me bad on your own and create a sub comitee to agressively revert my edits. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Davenbelle should not me making an edit in this article anyways, he is already, per arbcom desicion disqualified to make any edits to articles that relate to politics (IIRC). Why must you act like his sockpuppet? --Cool Cat My Talk 13:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You archived the discussion, including my very recent edit there, in order to start a new vote about a question, that has already been voted about. I see that as a sign, that you have still not learned to respect the opinion of other editors (in this case Davenbelle, Tony Sidaway, Jordi, Neutrality, Jayjg, Jonathunder, Mel Etitis and myself) and still insist on forcing your wishes through. It's just like what previously happend in other articles such Abdullah Öcalan.
 * Regarding your last allegation against me, that I "act like his [Davenbelle] sockpuppet?". I don't know if the ArbCom will understand that as a personal attack against me or just another exampel of your continued violations of Wikipedias rules regarding civility.
 * Update: I now see that you have just removed the quote that doesn't suits your personal PoV again. Maybe, Coolcat, if you ended your constant violations and startet to respect Wikipedias policies and editors, people wouldn't oppose you. -- Karl Meier 13:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * People you mention is made out of 3 people. Davenbelle and Stereotek and Fadix. Why did Tony Sideaway, Silsor, and even Mirv (an admin which was pounding me due to my rank suggestion) mentioned you were wrong. You are the one stalking me. You are the one irritating, stalking, and constantly oppose me on every opertunity and vote. Now tell me, how do you claim this is a civil behavior? You are openly admitting stalking. You and Davenbelle (although are more carefull now) have voted against me together on every vote, revert war, etc.. I recall. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Please do not talk about respect when you are stalking another user, you are more than disqualified. What discussion I archived is an on going one? ITS A WIKI! We even have a template for that! --Cool Cat My Talk 14:31, 20 August 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.


 * Also please indent your posts so that I dont have to for you. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not stalking you Coolcat, and you know it. In fact I haven't had any contact with you for months before now. However, now you returned to one of the articles that I am interested in, and from what I have now seen there, it's obvious your behavior is as bad as before, and properly worse. Also, Davenbelle, Fadix and I are not the only editors that has been opposing your behaviour. Should I mention other editors such as THOTH or AngryParsley? And these are just two of them, there has been many others. Also, right now, I am not the only one opposing your behavior at the Kemal Atatürk article. John Kenney has also made some critical remarks about your conduct there, on the articles talkpage. -- Karl Meier 14:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How else are you definning the nature of your edits? "Enforcement"? "Saving wikipedia"? "Irritation"? --Cool Cat My Talk 16:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You are interested in an article you havent ever edited before? Odd. Really odd. What was your first edit? Reverting me.
 * AngryParsley was trolling me on IRC earlier on. I am not making this claim he said so. Logs are avalible from multiple parties. I do not recall who the heck THOTH is aside from him in Armenian Genocide article. Conflicting POV creates NPoV. Thoth was trying to "edumucate" me. You talk as if people in general reject my existance. I know at least 5 admins (ones already commented in the failed and survived RfC and on the RfAr) that will dispute your claim. Although I only talk for myself and not in the name of other users, I sincerely believe there isn't a concensus against me you talk about. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User:John Kenney opposes the move. I am cool with that, thats his view on the naming of the article. Just because User:John Kenney opposses me does not justify your stalking. What bothers me is YOU opposing me on that vote. Since you actively oppose me in general. Your "semi" revert of my edits in Abortion is the easiest proof. Why did you revert me? Was it simply because of me editing? Quiencidence? I don't think so. You constantly interrupt my wikipedia experience with the unreasonable number of reverts, you fail to use talk. If you haven't noticed but articles are not NPoVised by revert wars. If someone is "pov pushing", which is fine according to WP:NPOV so long as it is done in a npov manner. If it is indeed not NPOV in order to NPOVise it ammeding and discusing is imperative. No article is npovised by a revert var or two.
 * Revert wars only creates stress and scares users off of wikipedia. You claim you are enforcing NPoV? I see it as you pushing your own pov. You have successfully scared away a number of users due to your agressive reverting on at least Armenian Genocide --Cool Cat My Talk 16:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * How often do you walk away from revert wars untill you are "victorious"? What are you trying to achive by agressively revert my edits? --Cool Cat My Talk 16:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Also please indent your posts so that I dont have to for you. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have already explained to you why I have opposed you edit in articles re Turkey and elsewhere: "My main reason for checking your 'contributions' in Turkey related articles, is that I consider the vast majority of your edits to be of extremely low quality, and not suitable for an encyclopedia. Another fact is that I consider the majority of your edits in Turkey related articles to be POV." . There is nothing wrong with editors looking out for users that cause problems, make PoV edits and violated Wikipedias policies. If you stop violating Wikipedas policies, start respecting the concensus among other editors and edit according to NPoV, people will start to trust you, and they will look at your edits with more trust. Instead of just constantly demanding good faith and trust, why don't you start giving us a some good reasons to trust you as an editor? -- Karl Meier 16:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

If I may chime in here, I have also been a victim of Karl Meier's wikistalking. It is quite disrespectful and it poisons the atmosphere. When I confronted Karl about this and asked him why there wasn't a single comment of his on the article's talkpage, he gave me some reason about "opposing my behavior". He has continually stalked me over the past few weeks or so. In addition, he comes off very inimical at times. In the first edit-war I got in with him, he immediately threatened me with an RfC. It's as if he's only editing to try and "bring down" users that have a POV he doesn't agree with. This mindset is not conducive to good editing. Wikistalking itself has gotten people banned before, most recently the user Ril.Heraclius 00:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Give us some evidence instead of just complaining Heraclius. Anyway, it's you who have been stalking me, and not the other way around. I edit the Ma malakat aymanukum article, and you show up hours after confronting my edit . When I said that I was "opposing your behavior" I meant, as I explained to you, your unexplained drive-by reverts, and yes, I have confronted a few of them, such as here: . There is nothing wrong with that. If I see that you make more unexplained driveby PoV reverts in the future, refusing to discuss despite other editors efforts on the talkpage, I'll confront that too. About the RfC, I wasn't suggesting that the first time I met you Heracilus. Please don't make any such false claims. I have seen what you have been doing more than a few time, and yes, I still think that a RfC regarding your POV-editing and drive-by reverts would indeed be appropriate. -- Karl Meier 08:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Karl Meier, it is you who is up for abitration here, not I. I don't even know the nature of this dispute, nor do I frankly care.  The Ma Malakat Aymanukum article was edited by me following a discussion with Germen on another article.  It had nothing to do with me "stalking" you.  You, however, have made no secret of your stalking habits.  I will say that this RFAR proves to me that you are indeed a wikistalker.  The gall of you to think that you can stalk two different people and still keep it unseen.Heraclius 14:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Still, I think it is funny that it happend only hours after I edited that page... Anyway, I was invited to take a look at those two articles, where I have been opposing your aggressive behavior recently by Nickbee (see my talkpage), so please don't make any false accusations. Also, at the Maria al-Qibtiyya article, what I did was just to oppose another one of your unexplained drive-by reverts (there is still no messages from you on the talkpage). I explained to you that you should discuss things with the other editors there (Zeno and Zora), but you would not listen. You just did your unexplained revert to a very old version of that article, without any discussion, until you ran out of reverts. Also, I don't think that I (or any other editor) have done anything wrong by checking Coolcat's edits. Editors that continuously refuse to follow the rules here in Wikipedia needs to be watched more closely, than editors that give us good reasons to trust them. The rules regarding "assume good faith" doesn't demand that we should be naive, or fail to protect the content here in Wikipedia. Another fact that you seems to forget Heraclius, is that I have been more than just fair to you on several occasions, such as in the Ali Sina article. Despite the incivil and harsh edit summaries that you where using to address me there, I still did not oppose your edits in any unconstructive way. I calmly explained to you what was wrong with them, (despite your insults) so that you in the end could remove some of them yourself. -- Karl Meier 15:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Karl, you can call my comments uncivil even though all I said was that you were making stuff up. I later apologized for this.  You are being melodramatic here and it seems this is not the first time.  Please stop threatening people and wikistalking them just to annoy them.  Once again, I have not read the dispute, though I am inclined to agree with Coolcat here just because of your behavior.Heraclius 15:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * People edit wikipedia and does that bother you? You avoide reverts, thats the proper practice. You fail to even see that. With you everything is pov pushing, even scientifict facts that helicoters dont work well in hights (as you Npovised and insisted on removing it on a revert war that lasted weeks). You just like annoying people. I cant think of a better explanation. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * How many people are you actively reverting till they give up? Who gives you the authority to establish what is POV and what isnt. Besides how does "POV pushing" conflicts NPOV. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Besides how does "POV pushing" conflicts NPOV." Well, thats one of the few things that I would expect, that you had already learned now Coolcat. People has really made some serious efforts to explain that to you. -- Karl Meier 13:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Err not quite. I will write about what I believe are facts ie will pov push my facts. If your views conflict you will introduce your views with my views in sich a way that both our views are presented equaly, that is the basis of NPOV ie you will push your fatcs. What else do you think is NPOV? Unless something isnt sourced (ie original research) it is perfectly fine. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is exactly the thing you refuse to learn. Wikipedia is not there to present facts. I repeat this for the xnt time. Wikipedia present POSITIONS NOT FACTS, POSITIONS!!!!! Something such, it is claimed by some(and then, giving sources as to who believe this), that bla, bla, bla,... on the other hand, others claim(sourcing, as to who say this, which group etc.), bla, bla, bla..., but in the same time, fringes (which include personal views, of some individuals) are excluded. That you believe something to be a fact, and that you can "prove" that, it doesn't make something as NPOV. Fadix 15:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

That just isn't true. We do report facts. Some of the facts that we report are facts about the things that people say--what you call positions. Some of them are things that are universally considered facts, and we report them as facts.


 * "Ankara is the capital of Turkey and the country's second largest city after Istanbul."
 * "The average distance from the Moon to the Earth is 384,403 kilometers."

--Tony Sidaway Talk 05:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Fadix can of course speak for himself, but I think that what Fadix want to say with the above is that Coolcat has been mixing up facts with (Turkish government) positions more than once, and presented these positions not as PoVs held by one specific part of the discussion, but as facts. I believe this has actually been a major part of the problem. -- Karl Meier 07:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, those two you present are positions that are not opposed, or are apposed by a fringe of the population, therefore their opposition are not encyclopedic proper. What Coolcat think, is rather what he equal with "truth" which is against the neutral point of view here in Wikipedia. If there are various positions, I can not say this one is a fact, or present it as such, because in this cases, the fact is not an evidences to present the position, but rather presented as a truth. If you remember correctly, Coolcat oppose the Armenian genocide to be presented as a fact, but has no problem presenting his positions as such. Which means that Coolcat has a selective understanding of NPOV. Facts are either presented as evidences for a position in Wikipedia, either presented when there is no opposition to a position, or the opposition is a fringe.(or both)... but Coolcats presentation of facts, is what he consider as "truth" that is allegedly established, and since his position is opposed by other positions that are not a fringe... his presentation of "facts" is simply not Wiki. Fadix 14:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Questions from User:Coolcat to Arbcom
OK, my senses have returned to me. I'll be ignoring comments from Davenbelle, Stereotek, and Fadix as per an advice from a friend. --Cool Cat My Talk 18:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Below are things I wonder. I'd like answer from Arbcom members only, any other posts should go to "Other Comments" --Cool Cat My Talk 18:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

"POV Pusher"?
I am curious about the definition of a "POV Pusher" in the eyes of arbcom. Since there exist people denying that earth is sphericaly shaped, if I suggest earth is round am I pov pushing? The way I see it everything can be interpreted as "pov pushing". --Cool Cat My Talk 18:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC) My edits on article:Kemal Atatürk is how I interprete NPoV. Is there a flaw in it? I view NPOV as present "all notable views". --Cool Cat My Talk 18:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Other Comments

 * I would like to bring to the attention of the arbitrators that Coolcat has just done once more, what he has been doing in the talk pages, which brought many against him. He still refuse to accept, that talk pages run by rules that are already preestablished here in Wikipedia, and not rules that he set himself. I have the right to answer someone, without having to abide to Coolcats preestablished rules, on where to post my answers. While he claim wanting to change, in the same talkpage where he say he will be trying to behave, he does the exact same thing others disliked of him, once more. As for his new charges of ignoring my "ranting," http://www.wordreference.com/definition/rant I really do not appreciate having my answers considered as such. Fadix 01:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As Fadix states, User:Coolcat has been messing with the comments of others again; Fadix posted ( and ) replies to statements of User:Coolcat's and Cc moved Fadix's comments to this Other Comments section which caused Fadix's posts to lose the context in which they were made, namely just what statement of User:Coolcat's he was replying to. Cc has done this many times and this is another reason why I, for one, have largely given up trying to talk to him as it often involves a battle to keep what I've posted intact. &mdash; Davenbelle 07:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * nb: User:Coolcat has moved Fadix's comments yet again. &mdash; Davenbelle 07:46, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * That edit of yours is obviously POV, it doesn't take an arbitrator to tell you this. Fadix 22:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Give any example of me having reverted you, after you having justified your edit and me not explaining my revert. Beside, please don't start requesting unusual answers in a talk page, such as answering in a section and not others. Fadix 22:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat has done it again
User:Coolcat/Wiki-politics moved by Davenbelle to:

Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence/Coolcat's Libelous Statements about other Wikipedians

He has again used his userspace to accuse members with false charges. He did that again in the past, and took it away, but yet again he does it again. This is unacceptable and clearly unwiki to use ones userspace to make accusations against other members. Either Coolcat support his claims on an Arbcom cases, either he stop lying about me on his userspace. No member could tolerate this. Fadix 19:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, it's another example of recent and totally unacceptable behavior by Coolcat, and I find especially his "theory" section to be quite outrageous:

One or more may aplly.
 * 1) Users want to eliminate me so that I dont push anti armenian genocide pov. They went to great lengths to scare me away. Cool Cat My Talk
 * 2) Users are GNAA members. If you dont know what GNAA is, feel yourself lucky. Cool Cat My Talk
 * 3) Users are in reality one persons sockpuppets. Cool Cat My Talk
 * 4) CIA folks playing a joke. Hello guys! Cool Cat My Talk

Coolcat should provide some evidence that indicate that I and the other users that he is attacking (Fadix, Davenbelle, Blankfaze and Dmn) are indeed members of GNAA, CIA and/or sockpuppets of each other, or stop these silly accusations. Regarding the first accusation though, I must say that I am indeed to some extend guilty. I do not want to do drive Coolcat away, but I do in fact want him to stop pushing anti Armenian genocide PoV, and all other kinds of strange PoV in the articles regarding Turkey. (such as those regarding the Kurdish minority) -- Karl Meier 10:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Evidence or not, it is completely disrespectful of members on the list. I will never fall this low. Of course I could build a a page myself, exposing all his lies, and manipulations about my person, and those also in his main user page, about him being said to be this or that nationals etc. But it is childish, unproductive and no ones interest. Something is obvious, and it is that Coolcat is not changing, from the first Arbcom cases that was rejected to this one, after all the processes of changing and behaviors, no evidences permanent progress could be observed. No amount of “vandalism unite” or stupid template creations of vandalism indicators, trophy lists, Star Trek titles will undo the harm he is doing. This is all I know, and I also know that people like Rovoam(before his vandalism) were doing much less harms before they got reverted repeatedly. While we are accused of stalking him(what has he afteral)... up from the start, this guy has posted BS on others member pages back when I was a newbie in Wikipedia, he repeatedly tried to assassinate my character and introduced me to other members, as someone that is here to destroy Wikipedia(I even had a debate with members that landed in my discussions, and who had no clue of what was happening because of him), later he build a list of hierarchies of users, on his member pages, of course nothing surprising that I was classified as an undesirable Wikipedian user. Having deleted that stupid thing, one would have thought he changed, but he still continue up to now, when he just reintroduce a “to be castrated” stupid and kiddish list.


 * But I guess there must be something wrong, because its him that is playing the poor victim that is hounded by us, and I am even in the list, when I wasn't even in the official Arbcom cases, and that I found it by accident when reading cases.


 * This guy will always get away. I just hope that other members will be as lucky, but I have my doubts. Fadix 23:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I, too, object in the strongest terms to User:Coolcat's unrestrained statements about other users. I have moved his statements to an evidence subpage and request that they be considered as a part of this case. &mdash; Davenbelle 07:49, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Moving a subpage from someone else's User: space without asking is extraordinarily rude, and then editing the redirect afterwards so he can't move it back even more so. You did not need to move the page to place it into evidence at the RfAr, which calls into question your motives for actually doing so.  This action on your part does a great deal to substantiate CoolCat's claim of stalking.  Kelly Martin 15:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * and this from my talk page:


 * Moving pages out of other user's user: space... is extremely rude and unacceptable under any circumstance. Please don't ever do that again.  Kelly Martin 15:19, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that in this case it was warranted. I would only perform such a move in serious circumstances. As for it being unnecessary for this RfAr, I, again, disagree: After I moved User:Davenbelle/Evidence re User:Coolcat &rarr; Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence/Davenbelle's Evidence re Coolcat it was incorporated into Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Workshop &mdash; I had pointed ArbCom at the evidence on a subpage of my user page to little effect since April. As Fadix also commented, I find it curious that you omit any comment on User:Coolcat's statements about other users; he has a long history of using his user space for personal attacks. &mdash; Davenbelle 07:46, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * The page you moved was a notes to self page. These are not accusations, just how I interprete several things, If you disagree with any point below please argue in talk for my sake. My userspace is mine, you cant touch it unless I allow it. This move is an example of your staliking and hence I will move it back after arbcom case is complete. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Mistaken again. Your user page is not yours, it is to the community, including you. It should be viewed by you, as the community page ABOUT you and your activities in the Wikipedias community. It is meant to say more about you. You aren't making your cases easier, when you have yourself admitted such a behavior was not acceptable, when you have apologized on March 28, for a similar behavior. That is what you wrote, and I'm sure you remember: “I thought you might want to know that is no longer the case, my apologies I wasnt thinking clearly at the time.” User_talk:Fadix/archive If you are not ready to respect members, just don't expect being respected. Fadix 16:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't really know if Davenbelle did the right thing by moving the page. But it seems that you had nothing to say about Coolcat behavior, and once more you jump in the discussion just after Davenbelle did something. What makes you then different than those that oppose Coolcats unwiki acts? Fadix 16:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Davenbelle was most obviously making the above edit to explain his actions. Not so that "he [Coolcat] can't move it back", as you for some reason claim. If you want to see an edit that was truely malicious and intented to make it impossible to move a page back to it's correct title, you should rater take a look at what Coolcat did when he wanted to move the Assyrian genocide article to a new title, Assyrian Massacres. He moved the article, and made a small insignificant edit to the redirect page, so that the other users had to go through the process of a requested move to clean up the mess that he had left for us. For more details regarding this see the articles talkpage here: . Also I can't see that there should be anything wrong with bringing it to the ArbComs attention, that Coolcat has now again decided to make frivolous attacks and accusations against 5 named wikipedians on his talkpage. Making such rude attacks against other users is something that Coolcat has done many times before, and examples include asking named wikipedians to go screw themselfs and providing users that he has been disagreeing with, with less flattering Startrek ranks. Again, Coolcats behavior has not improved one bit. -- Karl Meier 16:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Davenbelle and Stereotek (a.k.a. Karl Meier) has not been disagreeing with me. In order to have a disagreement one must have a discussion. At all cases of stalking we dont observe a discussion. I asked only Davenbelle and Stereotek due to my frustration with their stalking. My userspace is my userspace I decide on what I feel stays and doesn't, while you can talk me to change something, you can't make me do anything to it, you definately cannot move it out of my userspace without my knowlege. The only exeption applies to people who post copyrighted material on their userpage or some permanantly blocked people.
 * You are less than tollerant of my existence in wikipedia, all you want is me leaving. The less flattering Startrek ranks got me a barnstar btw. You are supposed to congradulate users for their good contribution even if you don't like startrek as a sign of good faith. I contributed significantly to Starfleet ranks and insignia with your comment you don't just insult me, you insult 2 other users (of which one is an admin I think). My frame of mind is of no concern to you. I am not banned for posting what I think of you. It isn't incivil for me to make claims on my own. I clearly marked that those are not evidence, just what I think. --Cool Cat My Talk 17:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * About the Assyrian_Massacres move. Guess who the parties voting "for" move? Davenbelle, Stereotek, THOTH (whom is a party as well linked to the Armenian Genocide article which I feel could be a sockpuppet), and a Violetriga (which is the only person not stalking). I forgot about that case of your stalking. Thanks. --Cool Cat My Talk 17:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Really, now THOTH is a sockpuppet too? Anyway, who provided you with a barnstar for giving users that has opposed you (such as Fadix) a very low ranking in you startrek ranking scheme? Also, it's no excuse that you use you own userspace for these things. Wikipedias rules regarding civility and no personal attacks also apply to the users personal pages. -- Karl Meier 18:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong again, Wikipedia is community based, it is build by a community formed from people, without people engaged in this project, there could be no Wikipedia. User pages are part of Wikipedia, you can not use your user pages to engage in character assassination of other members, I have passed considerable amount of time in the project and the least I ask is to be respected. If you have problem with members there are relevant Wikipedia bodies which you could use, one of them, is Arbitration. The cases is already on Arbcom, and it is to the arbitrators to study it and decide. What you are doing is to abuse your user page to attack and slander members. You are defaming me and other members by using your user page, one of the members has now registered with his true name, so you are directly attempting his credibility by making false charges. I can't say with certainty if Davenbelle did the right thing, but him as one of the members being attacked unfairly on that user page could sure not left this at that. I could have build a page like you have done, and I have bunch of evidences against you, and using them I could have slandered you like you do, I could have started doing that on my main user page too, and intellectually intimidating like you did, with your self-victimization..., but those sort of thing are just plain dumb and kiddish, and none of the members you have accused of having stalked you have fell that low. Oh and, like my other “rantings” you can decide to ignore this one too. Why afteral should you even listen to others users, when you can't accept Wikipedia as a community. Fadix 19:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Fascinating, I had the oposite impresion. You shall not lecture me about the wikipedia community. I'll go outside of my promise and fail to ignore you for just this time, just to set the record straight. I listen to a lot of wikipedia users and am involved with the wikipedia community rather zealously. I ask advice regarding policies, and often give advice. At times I contribute to discussions that determines newer wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not an elitist community so admins do not decide policies alone. I am the side complaining about users not using articles talk page. Davenbelle at least has an arbcom rulling supporting this. I am not the one just claiming this, a number of users, admins, and even arbcom members (as per Davenbelle's arbcom ruling from earlier on) will agree.


 * I do not see the stalking bit as an accusation. Let me enlighten you a bit, according to dictionary.com stalk refers to:
 * stalk (stôk) v. tr. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=stalk
 * To pursue by tracking stealthily.
 * To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
 * (1) can be interpreted as actively reading every post I make, (or else there is no way Davenbelle could know about something I posted in a sub-page in my namespace not mentioning it to anyone.
 * (2) can be interpreted as actively and aggressively reverting me to death. Stereotek (below) is accepting this as he is actively pursuing, reverting, and opposing me on every possible vote then brags about it. Simply fascinating.


 * You referenced to my post classifying your posts as "rant" and expressed/implied that this is somehow "uncivil"/" insultive ". Let me clarify that too, rant literally means speak or write angrily. Your post constantly has a rather angry flow. My very existence on wikipedia angers you. Your posts have little value to me and to a number of users (some being admins) as your average post makes one feel attacked. You obviously know a great deal about topic of interest to you but are willing not to discuss it unless other parties are agreeing with you generally.
 * rant (rnt) v. intr. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rant
 * To speak or write in a angry or violent manner; rave.


 * Stuff I place on my own userpage is of no concern to anyone, by that I am talking about the random and quite baseless claims I made in my userspace away from everyone's eyes aside from people stalking me. If you are complaining about something resulting from your behavior the fastest way to resolve it is to change your behavior. You, Davenbelle and Stereotek are not pursuing any way to settle matters. I made all attempts of discussion, mediating a dispute of reasons not even clear. For example I asked Stereotek to observe proper indenting, he ignores this and keeps on repeating the same error. I have to indent his posts properly so his repose to someone else's post aligns properly. I apparently am a "revisionist" "pov pushing" and hence qualify to be stalked? I think not.


 * I make a move request of Kemal Ataturk -> Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Davenbelle and Stereotek opposed it why I ask you. Was I violating NPoV? No. Was I violating NPA? Nope. Just what was I violating? Nothing. In sum no consensus was reached which means page will not be moved since it can go either way. Granted people can vote on whatever they like, but these people did not oppose a move of any kind for at least a month. This may be their first oppose of a move. Certainly this is excessive by all standards. If it weren't for Davenbelle and Stereotek's votes page might have been moved.


 * According to users on IRC, some being admins, a persons userpage is his userpage, so long as it doesn't violate copyrights or turn out to use too much wikipedia server hdd space generally people are fine with that. If I am not pushing something as evidence against you directly you have absolutely nothing to worry about. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

see: User page: specifically: Community policies, including No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. Davenbelle 01:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * You will not lecture me on the NPA, you cannot possibly understand its ramification. I'll leave it at that.--Cool Cat My Talk 03:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT MOVE MY POSTS ABOUT. ArbCom: this is what we mean by dictating the format of talk pages; I again request the User:Coolcat be barred from this sort of abuse of the editing privilege. Cc: re your reply: No personal attacks, again. &mdash; Davenbelle 07:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not surprised of you going outside of your promise, it isn't the first time you claimed you shall ignore me and reversed your decision to then answer me back.


 * Coming to your answer, I don't see what it has to do with what I wrote. Every pages in Wikipedia are part of Wikipedia, every pages are to the community, there is no pages you can claim to own. When members are banned, their userpage are used to say more about the reason of the banning of that particular member, which in part shows that no one has property over any pages in Wikipedia. In fact, when a member is banned, he is also blocked to edit his user page, the user page being part of Wikipedia. You can talk and talk about your implications in the community and how you have helped it, it won't change anything about your uses of your user page to slander members. Also, you can claim giving members their chance and talk in the talk page..., but this is contrary to the behavior of a responsible person. You just don't slander members and ask them to come and “prove” that the accusations against them is wrong. It is like kicking someone in jail and asking that person to prove he's not guilty. This is not how it works in a civilized society. Also, in the same line, have you ever witnessed from a serious Wikipedian, using the user page to self-victimize himself? Have you witnessed any user, indirectly alluding to other members, by claiming how he was called this or that only to redirect suspicions against him? What do you expect? People crying for you? You yourself made serious threats against me, telling wanting to see me hurt, but by then, it wasn't me that started to self-immolate myself to get few to pity me. Don't take me wrong Coolcat, you can play the poor kitty hiding from the big old dog yapping after you..., but then, don't wonder why you aren't taken seriously by some. I myself consider you as an immature not grown up man. But I won't start building a diary a note to myself like you call, about those members I dislike. I am here to contribute on the project, participating in the creation of articles, everything else is secondary, as far as I am concerned.


 * Oh and, please stop referring to Davenbelle ruling, because tracking other peoples misbehaviors in no way absolve you from yours. The question here is, do both users act against Wikipidia policies by following you? I don't see of any policies restraining them to do what they have been doing. Screaming to the ears of those that want to hear [or not], that they are after you won't really advance your cause. Because being after a member in itself is not against any of Wikipedias policies. The question to ask is, had they done anything in their interactions with you, that was reprehensible? Voting against you, in practical is not against any policies, neither edits that have to do with tastes or reverts etc. Of course, you can claim they have not used the talk pages to justify the changes, but your changes that were changed were not also justified in talk pages, neither the consensus. Take for instance your move of the Assyrian Genocide entry, I did not really oppose to the move myself, what I opposed was about you moving it without polling people, asking them what they think of such a change. Yours Ataturk names change, here also, I do not disagree with what you have proposed(Mustafa Kemal Ataturk)..., but your behavior of acting without getting a consensus made me not want to support what you did.


 * Coming to my behavior, I don't think I am doing anything wrong..., I did wrong things during my newbies day, so as the majority of the members. But what you claim about me is simply wrong, either try an Arbcom cases or just stop accusing me. If you don't stop, I shall be the one starting a fresh new Arbcom cases. What I have against you are wrongdoings from your part, that you don't want to admit, and still repeat them, and then, you think that by founding anti-vandalism units etc. you will somehow get peoples supporting you and trusting you. Fadix 22:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I do hope to see you (on the long run) as a valuable contributer to the wiki community that I can show as an example withought a second thought. I am not accusing you of anything you aren't. Maybe you haven't noticed but you were (mind the past tense) ruling over Armenian Genocide article. I do not know if you have improved or not, we all have a rough start, some have it rougher thats no biggie. I don't see you (fadix) as a threat to my wiki experience.
 * I am ignoring your first paragraph completely as at first glimpse its less than fascinating and is completely unproductive. It should not have been posted at all, it makes a shining example to the definition of the word "rant" and has an immature/trollish tone. I encourage you to stop using such a tone as a civilised request and as per WP:NPA. An average user would find that insultive. My only answer is sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.
 * Random thinking Coolcat. You are repeating it over again. I will clarify this for the last time. My ruling of the Armenian genocide article happened when the entire article was falling apart and it was either this or to vote to get that article deleted. It took an iron arm to entirely rework on that article, and if no one believes me, they can compare the article in its current version with what it was before my first edit(IP, since I wasn't still registered). Not only had I improved that article, BUT, it was also because of me that Torque hasn't started invading every single articles that concerns the Armenians and make of Wikipedia a continuation of his racist website. No one in his right mind could accuse me for what I did. Tony himself, when he edited my answers to Torque, because some were harsh, when reading Torque he realized what sort of problematic individual that guy was.(the guy you have actually asked for help, also the guy you accused me of having chased away) After what has been done, I was the one proposing other Turks to make propositions to change the article, I was also the one giving the talk page its true function. Fadix 17:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * For the second paragraph, I am referancing to his ruling as it is a desicion accepted by the ArbCom. I do not need to accusing him of anything, they already established certain things about him. Stalking is against wikipedias policies, users cannot follow another just because they dont "like" him or they want to "eliminate his pov" or whatever excuse one can come up with. Wikipedia has over 120 active admins. One of them being Kelly Martin who does tell me when I am wrong, we discuss and find ways to move along. While, I have the option of ignoring her, Tony Sideaway, Silsor and many other admins as well as regular users completely, I prefer to follow their advice. A lot of people are complaining about Davenbelle and Stereotek, not just on irc but occasionaly on my own very talk page, I try not to get involved in other peoples disputes. I can justify all my edits, or else why the heck would I do them. My edit practice has evolved over time. I disagree with several number of earlier edits I made. I choose not to do so unless asked. Since Davenbelle and Stereotek need an explanation to almost each and every edit I make this is extremely frustrating. If you are supporting wikipedia stalking, thats a diferent issue and I suggest you mention it on pages explaining why stalking is bad.


 * Following a member in itself is not against Wikipedia policy, acting against Wikipedia policies when following a member is. Yet, you have not brought anything that will indicate that both users have done anything against Wikipedia policies, and here, I already answered the issues at hand, so I won't repeat myself. As for the complains against them, number of complains in itself doesn't say much. I as a user can go track vandals, and they will start complaining against me. What says much, is when the complains have to do with bridge of Wikipedia policies. Moving articles without trying to get consensus, deleting paragraphs, links, without justifications within the NPOV notion, not respecting votes etc. are all things that are condemnable, and you did such things. Beside, I have seen more people against you than I have seen against the other members. Streotek was called anti-Muslim, but it isn't hard to get why(he participate in controversial articles, some Admins were called just more than anti-Muslim)... accusations or members complaining, without a cases has no value. Here we have an Arbcom cases and this is what matters. Fadix 17:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * For the third paragraph, this arbcom case is filed against two users not you, your defensive tone is quite unnecesary, it can include you if you continue to post stuff like your first paragraph and would not be my doing. File an arbcom case against me if thats going to satisfy you. Thats quite your problem. I am less than tolerant to threats, that is what you are doing (Grab a dictionary for the dictionary meaning of the word). Do realise this is not an ArbCom case filed against me, although I am the relatively defensive side. The most invaluable evidence against Davenbelle and Stereotek is probably this very page.
 * "wrongdoings" is a loaded word. Feel free to elaborate. I am editing wikipedia yes, if that's wrong I wont.


 * This Arbcom cases is not filled against two users, you should rather see this an Arbcom cases which concerns the behavior of three members, which includes you. It is true that I am not concerned, but if you pay attention, my user name is referenced in the cases, I was not aware that members could be dumped in cases like this, I would have expected to be warned, but now I know that this can happen. So since I am now in the cases, this concerns me as much as you, even if I wasn't in this case, it would still concern me, because I am a member of the community too, and I have “le devoir” to report misbehaviors. Besides you are thinking randomly, and this randomness coupled with selectiveness is again a way for you to get away. Let me clarify, what I said, is that, I have Arbcom material against you, such as direct threats against my person, not bla, blas about lunching an Arbcom cases(which you have threatened of doing in various occasions against me), but yet, I do not self-immolate myself going after members to pity me and get their support. Don't forget that you have started a campaign to assassinate my character by writing to a dozen of members about me. It isn't much surprising that you get people supporting you landing in discussions which the subject they ignore, and you know I could bring many examples. Fadix 17:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * People do not blindly trust me. The counter vandalism unit is a bot that is designed to detect vandalism and spesificaly willy on wheels. So if an idiot (willy) moves Armenian Genocide to Armenian Genocide on wheels, my bot will alarm a number of users and will get immidiate attention. Meaning the article you wrote will not get destroyed. Or if some misguided fool blanks (ie remove everything on the page) Kurdisan my bot will alert users as well. If someone blanks Kemal Atatuk the bot will also alert. Bot has taken great deal of attention. Asside from CDVF it is the only bot detecting vandalism as far as I recall and has taken a great deal of attention by a number of users including Jimmy Wales himself. The admin supporting me here, Kelly Martin, is currently oposing WP:DEFCON. People sometimes agree sometimes not. I respect peoples desicions (unless they are obsessed with me) and take a stand, I may or may not agree with them, I can even change views.


 * Again, you didn't catch the essence of my message, you understand again what you want to understand. Let me reword what I was saying. It isn't by building anti-vandalism units, or by building star trek members rating that people will ignore your wrongdoings that obviously, in my sense, undo what good you offer to the community..., because Wikipedia is first and primary and encyclopedia, ARTICLES, those are what should be preserved, their quality should be preserved, the harms you are doing concerns directly articles. Fadix 17:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If people trust me they do so not because they use my bot. Its open source, people do not need to trust me to run the bot. I doubt anyone on wikipedia that "trusts" will hand me $20,000 for safekeeping. RC patrol (hunting vandalists) is fun, why not try? --Cool Cat My Talk 03:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant Fadix 17:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know how many times I have to repeat this to you Coolcat, but monitoring the edits of a user for a number of good reasons (in this case things such PoV pushing, making untrue statements, pushing copyvios, abusing speedy deletion tags and so on...) is something very different from maliciously stalking a user for no good reason. Your second claim is just another untrue statement of yours. What I said below is that I have indeed been montering your edits, and for a number of very good reasons. So don't make thing up, and don't try to put any words in my mouth.
 * That is not true. Wikipedias policies regarding civility and no personal attacks also apply to your personal pages, and if you use them to throw mud, and attack (in this case 5) named wikipedians, it is something that should indeed concern other users. Regarding the personal ideas that you have about indenting, I just see that as another piece of evidence that show, that you haven't changed your behavior/aggressive ideas regarding how, where and with that color letters other editors should be allowed to participate on the talkpages.
 * As I already mentioned on the talkpage, I opposed your pagemove because there had just been another vote about the same issue recently. Your achieving of the previous vote, in order to start a new one about was disrespectful by all standarts. It's not much different from what you did when you changed the Abdullah Öcalan into a redirect 3 times, despite the clear concensus on the articles talkpage not to do so. -- Karl Meier 22:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Firstly please see the guidline below made out of 3 items on how to respond in talk pages as I am serriously sick of reformating your posts.
 * Do not embed messages, respond after the entier chunk of a users posts, this way we will not be confused on who says what.
 * Please indent one level for your post (ie if ::: post as ::::) this way even an idiot (me) will not be confused. On who you are responding to.
 * Please sign only the last line only so that we dont have a clutter of sigs. Signing each line is only good on a discussion inteded to go on in enbedded msgs (such as policiy discussions on wiki projets)
 * Moving right along.... Stalking is wrong, whatever the reason. I am accusing you of stalking and you are admitting it and the claiming there is nothing wrong with it. You do realise you are just a user and not an arbirator or jimbo wales. You cannot do anything that is spesificaly targeting me. If I make a bad edit someone will eventualy fix it. If you see a problematic user (your claim is that I am a problematic user) there is a procedure that you are required to follow. After a level of dispute resolution you can rfc a user. After that you can RfAr him/her (depending on the out come of the rfc). You have not attempted a single notch of dispute resolution, instead reverted me agresively. You didnt even bothered to post anything on talk page. Hence you fail to validate why you are reverting on each case. You claim you have valid reasons to stalk, but stalking is wrong regardless the reson (not that I accpet being an evil "pov pusher"), wikipedia is a community, if a user is being problematic just RfC him. If people agree you dont even need to try. You act behalf of the community ignoring what might the comunity think. Also I challenge you to define "POV" "POV Puhser" and "NPOV", doing so do not paste policies, just post recent pov pushing of mine, lets say in Kemal Ataturk.
 * I do not see the personal attack you mention of in the page Davenbelle moved. Its at best a number of hypotesis on why you and several others "hate" me. Since you arent explaining yourself I am inclined to make up reasons to fill in the gap.
 * What you call "recently" was months ago. What harm does it do to wikipedia if Kemal Ataturk is renamed to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Let's say that my masterminded plan did worked it was renamed, what on earth would that change? What policy does it violate? You are opposing me on that vote for no good reason. You didnt have to oppose but you and Davenbelle just could not resist the opertunity I presume. Fadix below is actualy agreeing with the move. You shall not lecture me on how to move a page, tell me how often do you vote on page moves or put a vote for a move? When was the last time if at all? Why are you bringing up Abdullah Öcalan here? That was months ago, Kemal Ataturk was days ago. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the idea that monitoring a user that has behaved like you have is wrong? Dictionary.com? Anyway, I, like many other users am sick and tired of you moving the responses on the talkpages around, so that they completely loose their context. That has been a major part of the problem, and obviously still is. Regarding your "challenge" that I should post some evidence from your edits to Kemal Atatürk, that show that you are still POV-Pushing. Well, I don't have to do that, because a member of the ArbCom already did it. So there is really no need for me to do that. -- Karl Meier 07:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

A note here
Per a request from Coolcat on IRC, I'm noting here in a completely unofficial capacity that it probably wasn't the bestest of ideas to move that page out of his userspace like that; a link from somewhere to the page in its natural habitat would have sufficed. Coolcat also claims that someone edited the redirect to prevent a re-move; that probably wasn't the nicest thing to do either. Slap on the wrist for all parties involved, okay? Finally, for what it's worth, at an initial reading I don't think the page in question necessarily contains any strong personal attacks. Now, I don't claim to support it either, but... he's not calling anyone worthless good-for-nothing ignoramous or anything. For whatever it's worth. -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 02:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, please see my reply to Kelly above about this move. User:Coolcat presumes to know the reason *why* I edited the redirect; I actually do know why I edited it, namely to be very up-front and clear about what I was doing and why. Cc has posted many personal attacks directed against myself and others talking here; we are sick of it; strong or mild (or in between) they are against policy. Inspite of his conduct, I have refrained from attacking him personally. &mdash; Davenbelle 08:05, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Southeastern Anatolia Project
On August 4th, User:FrancisTyers and User:Coolcat had a tussle over FrancisTyers' inclusion of a sourced account (by the Kurdish Human Rights Project) of some of the social impact of the project, namely the flooding of many Kurdish villages and the evacuation at gunpoint of Kurds. User:Coolcat, apparently in fit of pique, vandalized the article by removing all of 'his' contributions to the article, leaving only the bit about flooded villages. A half hour later, he restored it, acknowledging that it was vandalism.

See also: Talk:Southeastern Anatolia Project for User:Coolcat's rude, bizarre and ever-trekish comments.

The Southeastern Anatolia Project article is, of course, the current version of the GAP Project with which Mr. Cool Cat has had so much trouble with the "copyvio people". &mdash; Davenbelle 08:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Many admins agree the deletation of the entier page instead of the copy vio paragraph is wrong while they agree the deletation of copy vio material. They point out that it should have went through the copy vio porcess (of one week). Bear in mind you marked that page (that I wrote) for deletation. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Kurdish Human Rights Project is not a neutral web page and it only has about 600 pages (300 English, 300 Turkish). I havent forgotten of that contribution by User:FrancisTyers and I am currently debating on how to process that addition by User:FrancisTyers. Why are you watching every edit I make when it doesn't concern you since aside from getting this article deleted you had no edits there. Stalking? Yes. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yes I did walk away from that revert war on my own just like wikipedia policy on reverts say, walk away from revert wars. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:14, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Extraterrestrial Wikipedians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_15#Category:Extraterrestrial_Wikipedians

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_30#Category:Extraterrestrial_Wikipedians

User:Coolcat has twice created this nonsense category and added his user page to it and the category has twice been deleted. Those processing the deletion have, per policy, removed ( && ) the category from User:Coolcat's page. In spite of this, User:Coolcat has added the category to his page again... &mdash; Davenbelle 08:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Which was placed on CfD by you and was speedied because it was indeed nonsense like all BJAODN. Clear example of stalking. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Antiwar.com
Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence

I'd like to draw folks attention here again, as I feel that it illustrates User:Coolcat's True Colours. &mdash; Davenbelle 08:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * My colors are clear. I personaly do not see the evil in converting all referances from Antiwar.com to www.Antiwar.com. Oh and btw you already presented this as a part of your evidence. I encourage you to stop repeating yourself. This is yet another evidence of your stalking. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No Coolcat, it's just another piece of evidence, that show that we have been monitoring your edits for a number of very good reasons. -- Karl Meier 16:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats a concession I presume that you have been stalking me around which you are not supposed to do. If there is a "bad" user, you dont hunt him down, you instead request comunity action, how ever judjing from the comments on the failed RfC, successfull RfC and here, I see at least 4 admins are not happy with you chacing me around. Bear in mind these admins do not always side with me. --Cool Cat My Talk 17:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course I have been watching your edits, and there is nothing wrong with that, as there has been very good reasons for me and other editors to do so. You have been PoV pushing, used personal attacks, made the one untrue statement after the other, aggressively pushed copyvios and practially violated every policy that exist here. We have provided evidence for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with monitoring the edits of a user, that constantly cause problems and violate Wikipedias policies. -- Karl Meier 18:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk page "restructuring"
I think it's insane to even consider punishing Coolcat for indenting talk messages. Talk pages that are not indented are very difficult to read. Indentation is a neccessary structure, and should always be used. It's not hard to do, and it makes everyone's life easier. I have personally indented talk messages, and no one has ever complained about it. -- Phroziac (talk) 16:41, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I misread something, oops! But I still want to state that nobody should ever be sanctioned for indenting talk messages! -- Phroziac (talk) 17:07, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * This issue has nothing to do with talk page restructuring for people to follow better a discussion. Coolcat has again set a rule, a way to answer, without community support, and then, after the answer to something was posted he changed its place and made my message entirely lose its meaning. He thinks that he can set rules without having to ask others involved in the discussion. Fadix 17:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Our complaints about User:Coolcat's editing of talk pages are not about indenting &mdash; a few colon's are no big deal &mdash; moving comments about is very disruptive and needs to cease; see: Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision. &mdash; Davenbelle 05:23, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

In this edit &mdash; with the edit summary "moving my own comments" &mdash; User:Coolcat effectively moves Fadix's comment away from the post of User:Coolcat's that he was replying to. &mdash; Davenbelle 06:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Pfft, I didn't read the whole thing, but maybe it does make it harder to understand. I asked Coolcat on IRC, and it sure sounds like a mistake to me.

13:46 < Phroziac> Cool_Cat: by the way, why did you move fadix's comment here? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=next&oldid=22526267 13:46 < Phroziac> it looks kinda odd 13:46 < Cool_Cat> Phroziac I accidentaly saved on my earlier post 13:47 < Cool_Cat> I had an edit conflict 13:47 < Phroziac> oh 13:47 < Phroziac> So it was a screwup then? 13:47 < Cool_Cat> no I merged them properly I believe 13:47 < Cool_Cat> regardless I have to pase at end os sections now on 13:47 < Cool_Cat> while they screwup my posts 13:48 < Phroziac> Cool_Cat: you took fadix's post out of chronological order, putting it after yours, which you posted 7 minutes after he did. 13:48 < Cool_Cat> eH? 13:48 < Phroziac> I don't really see a problem with it, but one of them gave me that diff when i asked about restructuring before 13:48 < Cool_Cat> It takes me 7 minutes to finish typing that crap

-- Phroziac (talk) 17:57, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

"Hounding" CoolCat
A note to the arbitrators: I was involved in some of the early stages of this dispute and it did appear to me that CoolCat was being unreasonably followed around the wiki by his detractors, even to completely unrelated articles, to have all his edits called into question. The current proposed decision says "If subsequent proceedings which involve Coolcat show that he has been hounded by them substantial penalties may be imposed" - I am curious as to why penalties are not being imposed now, since in this arbitration both parties are being called into judgement. If CoolCat should have known better than to engage in the editing style that is currently bringing down penalties upon him from the Committee, shouldn't they? The original complaint of this RFAr was brought by CoolCat Tony against Davenbelle and Stereotek because he felt Coolcat was still being stalked by them. silsor 02:19, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not like if Coolcat had no opportunity to provide evidences. I think that a judgement should be fair and based on evidences provided rather than ones ability to lobby and get supports. Please, here don't imply anything by this message, but I find it rather misterious, that in a short period of time, Coolcat start getting supports, when restriction ourselve only on evidences, it should have been otherwise. I am not saying here that Davenbelle and Streotek are not "guilty" of anything, I am not an arbitrator, and is not my job to take such a decision. What I can say though, is that Coolcat has yet to provide anything that will justify taking measures against both users(Davenbelle and Streotek). If you read the evidence pages, and also follow the workshop, and read the answers from both sides, you will see the clear disproportion between the accusations. And I think that who lunched the cases against who, before or now is irrelevant. Fadix 03:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I just returned from a two-month hiatus away from the Internet. I was one of the very few people who tried working with CoolCat on articles. silsor 11:02, September 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that he is doing a lot of things that would cause almost anyone to follow him around. If he quits doing some of those things perhaps folks won't be so interested in his case. Another thing involved is that it is very hard to differentiate between genuine concern and harassment. Anyway they have a warning. Whether in the event we will be able to come to a consensus is another question. Fred Bauder 03:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just so we're clear, are you saying that Coolcat wasn't harassed by them? -- Joolz 12:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No and the proposed decision includes a warning Fred Bauder 15:24, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you agree that he has been harassed can we have a finding of fact about it? The "Efforts by.." one is severely lacking in this respect. Furthermore, the warning states "If subsequent proceedings which involve Coolcat show that he has been hounded by them substantial penalties may be imposed." which implies that they haven't been harassing him, even though you agree they have. That vague warning applies on wikipedia all the time to everyone anyway, since what it basically states is "If in the future arbcom decide that they've been harassing Coolcat then arbcom can impose a judgement", this applies universally to all on wikipedia, does it not? -- Joolz 16:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What I can say is that I did not harass Coolcat, in fact, it was quite the opposit, I have been harassed by him from my early days in Wikipedia, back when he included me in a list of undesirable user, back when I got my edits reverted back without an explainations or justification in the talk page of an article, when I have justified my edits with a hundred page(not jocking) justification. Coolcat then asked a problematic user, the author of a racist website to read my changes and participate, which led to the abuses of archived texts, where the problematic user answered again with his racistic tones all over the place. Coolcat edits in the Murder articles followed his POV of not accepting the term murder in another article, and later deciding to participate in Japanese crimes of World War two,... and from experience I could not anymore assume good faith, assuming good faith after this, was against common sense. If users have harassed Coolcat, if I did harass him, I expect this being based on evidences rather than users comming here and supporting Coolcat, when the evidences shows otherwise. And from experience I know how Coolcat lobby against members, I can bring here about ten or a dozen of example, when Coolcat wrote to various members talkpage lobbying against my person. I would call this too, harassement. Fadix 18:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You fail to realise this isnt filed against you. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I do see my alias mentioned in the cases. Don't you? And what would it change... I am free to give my opinion. Oh and, as you can see, I am giving you another chance at the Armenian genocide talk page, but don't EVER EDIT my answers with your templates. Fadix 21:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You chose to be a part of it. I didn't invite you here, nor has Tony filled this against you. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Coolcat is responsible for a lot of harassement against users such as Fadix, through his extensive lobbying (read: mud throwing) campaigns on other users talkpages, and IRC. -- Karl Meier 19:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Cute, he reverted edits that were spelling corrections. And declared I was pov pushing. In fact I do not believe he even reads the nature of my edits before reverting (at least for a while). You are the group pursuing me so how the heck am I harrasing you? --Cool Cat My Talk 13:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

*Monitoring* User:Coolcat
Words like harass, hound and stalk all have pejorative connotations and the implication that it is unwarranted and establish by their usage who the victim is and who the miscreant is. It is my view that these words do not apply to the monitoring of User:Coolcat's editing by myself and others. The proposed decision regarding our monitoring (which I look forward to passing) points out that there are other editors and administrators ready to take the lead in monitoring User:Coolcat, so by implication monitoring problem users is perfectly acceptable and normal (and we all know this). This is the primary reason the "User Contribution" feature exists.

User:Coolcat has wielded the "stalking" accusation all over the talk pages involved in this case and has even requested that the proposed counsel be enforced during this arbitration. While this case proceeds I and the others involved need to be free to review his edits and take whatever action our consciences deem appropriate; whether that be to present evidence, vote against some poor idea, or ignore it.

User:Coolcat has made over 10,000 edits to date and I feel that many of them are very wrong in some way. Some have been presented as evidence, some reverted; most have not. If I and others were truly out to run him off, we would be after all the star trek cruft, the infinite collection of stinking badges that are all alike, and the video game screen captures. Instead, we choose to oppose his POV editing of articles, vote against bad proposals, and present evidence of his conduct; the other stuff may be just so much dross, but it is not overtly harmful.

User:Coolcat's opponents have presented considerable evidence of his misdeeds; User:Coolcat has offered personal attacks, general mis-characterizations of our actions and extensive original research as to our motives &mdash; but little hard evidence.

&mdash; Davenbelle 03:24, September 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * also: You're encouraged to create, expand, and improve upon articles; however, bad edits to articles are watched for and will be quickly removed. &mdash; Davenbelle 09:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes then please blank Ranks and insignia of Starfleet, since it is star trek cruft and watch how fast you get blocked for vandalism. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Cute, you're just pissed you cant revert those right? --Cool Cat My Talk 04:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * ...extensive original research as to our motives + Assume good faith. &mdash; Davenbelle 09:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actualy WP:NOR explains original research should be evaded. Realise that Starfleet ranks survived a VfD with an overwhelming majority. And you see NATO ranks as an "abuse of templates". And instead of talking to me you send another person to deal with me. Like I said you dont discuss matters. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Umm btw. Have a read of Wikiquette. 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. You do not like my fine work, you should have personal issues with me. Is that in acurate? Why are you bargining with arbcom on how much you can annoy me? They already told you to leave me alone. --Cool Cat My Talk 04:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * ...when due. &mdash; Davenbelle 09:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is overdue. DavidGerard is among the peole who found infinite collection of stinking badges that are all alike fascinating... I dare you to blank that "garbage" as well if as you claim it is bad, if it isn't bad that makes it good! (Boolean logic) --Cool Cat My Talk 12:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Then I suggest that you seek praise from him &mdash; I do not find it fascinating and consider it just so much dross. This, of course, is not a reason to oppose its presence on Wikipedia. The specific implemention does involve issues such as page widening and Template namespace: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." See British Army and Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/United Kingdom, for example; and see User:Xiong's comments where he advised you that (among other things): Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Officers has no value to this encyclopedia and: Existing templates serve no encyclopedic goal and should be orphaned -- removed from use -- then deleted. &mdash; Davenbelle 08:38, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you know the access level of David Gerard? He is entrusted to ip check. I just hope he knows what is encyclopedic and what isn't. You sent Xiong after me for a matter no concern to you, you did not talk to me about it either. How is this NOT trolling? Just because one individual thinks something is not encyclopedic, doesn't make it unencyclopedic. Certainly we have articles covering rank insignias. Limited to selective nations. Before I created that list of templates only the UK and US had rank insignia bages. Now greece and Turkey also has their rank insignias on wikipedia. Why does rank insignias bother you? Why not AfD the page if you think it doesnt belong to wikipedia, why did not Xiong did that either? --Cool Cat Talk 10:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course I know who David Gerard is. Have you noticed that no one has supported your sockpuppet allegations?


 * re "bages" &mdash; do you mean badges?


 * &mdash; Davenbelle 04:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Insulting someones hard-work is quite uncivil. You suggested "infinite collection of stinking badges that are all alike" to refer to Ranks and insignia of NATO armies officers. Quite a number of wikipedia users find that article to be not so stinking. David Gerard is one of them and I feel David Gerard knows what is encyclopedic and what isnt, or else he would have vfded the page. Just curious what don't you like about them? Aside from the fact that I created them of course. --Cool Cat Talk 16:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting having a high edit count is a bad thing? What you are suggesting is you want to dictate what I can edit and cannot. --Cool Cat My Talk 04:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You view everything as a personal attack. I am sorry. But the Wiki-politics page contained no personal attacks according to an arbcom member at least (which was here unofficialy). You moved that away from my name space without asking me. Then complained about me moving your poorly formated comment into a proper place. I am actualy suprised why arbcom isnt raining warnings on you like they did to me. I really have no time to waste on you Davenbelle, I'd rather upload Anime screen caps, or rewrite Willy detection rules. --Cool Cat My Talk 04:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Coolcat, I think, of all Davenbelle answers, this above is the most relevant and important, this one, you should have answered. If it is true that we are stalking you, why on Earth, out of your over 10,000 edits, the majority were left untouched by us? Why? This beg to question, and worth at least an answer. Fadix 04:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You claim thier stalking is justified, ArbCom says stop it. Right or Wrong. Can you please READ the dictionary definition of STALKING. If you do not know what wiki-stalking is, just do not defend peole doing it. 3 Admins confirm that they are stalking. Make that 4 with Mirv, note that I hardly know Mirv and the last time (which was the first time) we met things werent going smoothly. 5 Arcom members also see it as stalking/monitoring that needs to be stopped. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Your "grab a dictionary" argument is outdated now Coolcat, stop using it. I have concluded nothing, what i said was that this statment by Davenbelle above is the most important, in my opinion. If stalking there is, how come from your over 10,000 edits, a minority, a little insignificant minority were touched. Stalking means abused, repeated, hunting someone as a pray, waiting him to do something to than jump on him. Yet, you have over 10,000 edits, how many from them were touched by the three of us, few dozens? From over TEN THOUSAND of edit. I expected for you to raise that up, and answer Davenbelle about this, but all you did is to talk about irrelevant things that in no way are important with the arbitration cases. Fadix 14:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by Coolcat
I request that the members of the ArbCom should also consider the evidence, that has been brought forward regarding Coolcat's violation of Wikipedias policies, regarding civility and no personal attacks. The most recent developments, where Coolcat has been harrasing 5 named Wikipedians, with rude and unreasonable accusations on his userspace, has to me made it clear that his behavior has not changed to the better, regarding these matters. (Most recently he even moved a page related to this matter to a new - and rather incivil- title called "Fuck" . I am not too familiar with how these ArbCom procedings actually work, but it surprise me that these issues has not been mentioned in such places as the "findings of fact" section of this case, as the material regarding these issues, has been a major part of the evidence that has been brought forward against him. I request that the ArbCom consider, and (if possible) make some kind of decision regarding the evidence that has been brought forward regarding these matters, as I believe that Coolcat's incivil behavior towards many users (not just me, Davenbelle and Fadix) and personal attacks, has been a major part of the problems regarding Coolcat. -- Karl Meier 19:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I second this request. User:Coolcat is often uncivil and attacks and maligns other users; Requiring a change of this behavior will serve wikipedia well. &mdash; Davenbelle 02:26, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement Request
2) Davenbelle (talk • contribs), Stereotek (talk • contribs), and Fadix (talk • contribs) are counseled to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Coolcat (talk • contribs). If subsequent proceedings which involve Coolcat show that he has been hounded by them substantial penalties may be imposed.
 * Fred Bauder 13:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 22:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * ➥the Epopt 21:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 


 * Since 21:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)...


 * User:Davenbelle "monitored" and "hounded" me.
 * Special:Undelete/User:Coolcat/Fuck Opposed the quick delete request of something inside my namespace (that he created without bothering to ask me (as he moved a page off of my userspace)). Now this guy complains about me moving his comments. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Non-main_namespace_pages_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiDefcon, User have not participated in any other Non-main_namespace_pages_for_deletion vote as far as I know.
 * Wikipedia:Changing_username, User have not participated in any other Wikipedia:Changing_username issue as far as I know.
 * User_talk%3ABlankfaze Users are stirring things up regarding me.
 * I already atempted to talk to Blankfaze why he wishes to leave wikipedia if I become an admin (as that was what he proposed doing if I became an admin on my RfA)
 * Got a rather rude response: reverting. try leaving a message with a less stupid title if you want to some consideration . This prompted me to start the Wiki-politics page in my userspace.


 * You know you are manipulating facts here, he already answered you, and this was his explanation: No threats here. A simple statement of act is all. I believe you to be wildly, wildly, wildly unsuitable for adminship. You have lied about things, namely copyright statuses, on a number of occasions, one of which caused a very, very good Wikipedian to leave the project. We should not reward such conduct with the tools and aura of trustworthiness of adminship. Beside, I do agree the title of your message was stupid. Fadix 22:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Fadix got involved:


 * How? By simply warning a user that another got a list which included him? I would sure want to be warned by another if I am included in a list. Would you not? Fadix 22:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I asked them to explain themselves and they did not. So I noted it down on a place everyone can see. Anyone interested is aware of a dispute, I just keep note of "threats to leave wikipedia if Coolcat becomes an admin" for practical purposes. If I want to create a concensus against blankfaze why would I post it in a discrete page in my userspace rather than a RfC? --Cool Cat My Talk 15:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Davenbelle got involved:


 * User:Karl Meier "monitored" and "hounded" me.
 * Opposed the quick delete request of something inside my namespace (that Davenbelle created without bothering to ask me (as he moved a page off of my userspace)). Now this guy also complains about me moving his comments. User_talk:Coolcat/Fuck
 * Oh and please delete the leftover talk page after reviewing/

I feel substantial penalties should be imposed. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am included: Davenbelle (talk • contribs), Stereotek (talk • contribs), and Fadix (talk • contribs) are counseled... yet, I wait any evidences showing I did anything that should be followed by penalities. And here, I could not comment about the new page created in your talk page that was deleted, I had no clue about this, and have no clue of what the content was. Fadix 22:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Fadix it is exteremely rude to BUG into a list of evidence provided by someone. Fadix your warning on Blankfaze's page serves to what purpos may I ask? --Cool Cat My Talk 04:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred this is the stuff I hate dealing. I post a list of items and people make it unreadable. The beulty of the symetry is also gone!!! --Cool Cat My Talk 04:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Consider, that this is not an official evidence page, but rather a talk page. As for my "warning," I thought that he should know that he was included in a list... like I would want to know in his place. Fadix 04:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Civility is not extablished in books. You are welcome to make my comments unreadable as there is no policy preventing you, however I prefer you dont. --Cool Cat My Talk 05:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * My comment is unreadable according to you... every bit were signed by my alias that followed it, and it was written in English, and also, writen with a civil language. The rest is your taste, and you should accept others "estetic" tastes. Fadix 20:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: *Monitoring* User:CoolCat
I think that Davenbelle raised a very important fact for the arbitration commitee to consider. If in fact Coolcat was stalked by them(and me, since I am included in the list), HOW COME, from the over 10,000 of edit he made in Wikipedia, only dozens, or at most, in the range under 0.5% of his edits were edited or touched etc. This is a very important argument to consider. If in fact Coolcat is stalked, how come our edits against his, is far from reaching 1/10 of his edits, very far from it. I hoped Coolcat to answer this, he did not. Fadix 14:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. So its ok to stalk a bit rather than every edit. Davenbelle would revert every edit I make if he could, though that would get him blocked fast. He just reverts things to irritate me quite often. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh and he is no match to the speed I make edits. I edit a variety of topics and make a hundered edits per day at times, or more. That shows I am active and he is not as active. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The revert war they and I were involved for image sizes in Nanking Massacre is a CLEAR example not every revert they make is right. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You still don't address the issue. Most edits untouched... Yes or not? Fadix 22:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, most of my edits are on topics no one can argue as "contraversial" majority of my edits have been on rank insignias and multimedia. If Davenbelle did revert those this RfAr would be much easier. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Coolcat, I will repeat once more. You claim we are Stalking you. I asked you, why most of your edits were untouched, you still have not answered. You claim that if your other works were to be touched, the RfAr would be much easier. But this is an "if that..." the fact is that most of your edits were untouched. You claim having been stalked... and I repeat, how come most of your edits were untouched? How come? If we as members are after you, how come reverts or edits of your edits only happen in certain conditions? Isen't it right to say, that if we had against you, and our intention was to stalk you, we would edit you no matter what? So again, you have to provide any valide evidences that you were stalked..., and the fact that most of your edits were left untouched is a very important element which the Arbcom should consider. Fadix 00:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK Ill enlighten you a bit, according to Kate, my contributions --Cool Cat My Talk 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Articles 3099
 * Talk 1436
 * User 1157
 * User talk 1505
 * Wikipedia 863
 * Wikipedia talk 184
 * Image 603
 * Image talk 1
 * Template 960
 * Template talk 11
 * Help 1
 * Category 3
 * Total edits for Coolcat: 9823
 * Coolcat has edited a total of 1996 distinct pages.
 * 3099 edits that are on actual articles. lets say they reverted me only 100 times. Thats 3.2% of my edits getting reverted (I know I got reverted more that 100 times but anyways). Then we subtreact edits prior to Davenbelle and Stereotek's involvement with me and you get a very high percentage. Then you subtract my experimenting on Starfleet ranks and insignia (at which I think I have around 100 edits plus). And you get a rather scary percentage. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * From this you can also understand that for every 2 edits I make in articles I leave a comment once on articles talk page (statisticaly as 3099 / 1436 ~ 2.15). I generally do not like explaining myself unless I have to. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fadix, you on the other hand only reverted me in Armenian Genocide so that does not qualify as stalking, although some of your reverts were very questionable. I am not bothering to push evidence agaist you since this RfAr is not filed against you. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Curious, lets investigate Davenbelle
 * Articles 1377
 * Talk 216
 * User 70
 * User talk 479
 * Wikipedia 391
 * Wikipedia talk 87
 * Image 40
 * Template 17
 * Template talk 2
 * Total edits for Davenbelle: 2679
 * Davenbelle has edited a total of 956 distinct pages.
 * From this you can understand that for every 6 edits he makes in articles he leaves a comment once on the articles talk page (statisticaly as 1377 / 216 ~ 6.37). --Cool Cat My Talk 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am curious on how many of the 956 distinct pages matches with mine. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Davenbelle didnt bother me much, reasons "could" be that he is a sockpuppet, does not much time, this is not in gape plan, etc.. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Davenbelle's usage of talk pages is inadequate. He prefers to revert till other side goves up rather than discussing things, at least that has been my experience.


 * Curious, lets investigate Stereotek
 * Articles 2002
 * Talk 86
 * User 44
 * User talk 98
 * Wikipedia 87
 * Wikipedia talk 1
 * Image 10
 * Template 13
 * Template talk 3
 * Help 1
 * Total edits for Stereotek: 2345
 * Stereotek has edited a total of 1119 distinct pages.
 * From this you can understand that for every 23 edits he makes in articles he leaves a comment once on the articles talk page (statisticaly as 2002 / 86 ~ 23.27). --Cool Cat My Talk 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The sheer ratio should be alarming enough, while he did make occasional minor edits he did not (if ever) explain his reverts to me as he came and interfered with my edits on articles he had no edits prior. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Stereotek seems to be alergic to discussing matters... --Cool Cat My Talk 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Curious, lets investigate Stereotek's newer account.
 * Articles 255
 * Talk 70
 * User 25
 * User talk 38
 * Wikipedia 35
 * Wikipedia talk 55
 * Image 4
 * Template 11
 * Template talk 13
 * Total edits for Karl Meier: 506
 * Karl Meier has edited a total of 168 distinct pages
 * From this you can understand that for every 3 edits he makes in articles he leaves a comment once on the articles talk page (statisticaly as 225 / 70 ~ 3.21). --Cool Cat My Talk 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not bad given past history. And since changing account user did not stalk me much aside from in Kemal Ataturk (IIRC). There may be others, but at least I dont care. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * However a number of users one being Tznkai and other I can't recall (nor care at this point) complained about being the new target, though Tznkai has been left alone as far as I know. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Frankly, Coolcat, I am sick of you making untrue statements straight to my and other peoples face. It's highly incivil, and disrespectful. You are doing it several times a day now. Why can't you just stick to the truth, and stop making things up to trow mud at me and other users? Tznkai has not complained about my editing, and actually on one occation he even asked me to act as an intermediary, in a discission about an article. Take a look at my talkpage. I rejected the suggestion though, as I felt that the discussion was making progress already, and that no such special arrangements was needed at that point. -- Karl Meier 07:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, he was complaining on IRC. Also check my archives for the last few weeks. You'll see the second complaint. So if you accuse me of "type here" thats civil, you revert me without even bothering to discuss the content of your revert and keep on revert waring till I give up. After your third revert call Davenbelle to keep on reverting in hopes to force me into a 3rr. All this is civil? He agrees that your reverts of me in Abortion were not necesarry. I was reformating the page, correct course of action is to discuss thing in talk, but what you did was a revert war. I already presented evidence to this end. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Absurd; I do not agree that your edits to the Abortion article should not have been reverted &mdash; I simply chose to not get involved with you on yet another front. Your logic is faulty, User:Coolcat; you are in error, you are imperfect. ArbCom, beam User:Coolcat in to deep space. Error! &mdash; Faulty! &mdash; Faulty! POOF &mdash; Davenbelle 03:40, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Curious, lets investigate Fadix, not that this is evidence but for the hell of it.
 * Articles 218
 * Talk 670
 * User 219
 * User talk 252
 * Wikipedia 72
 * Wikipedia talk 69
 * Image 1
 * Template 6
 * Template talk 12
 * Total edits for Fadix: 1519
 * Fadix has edited a total of 148 distinct pages.
 * From this you can understand that for every edits he makes in articles he leaves 3 comments on the articles talk page (statisticaly as 218 / 670 ~ .325). (1/.325 ~ 3) --Cool Cat My Talk 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I can only complain about you talking too much, your oaverage post is well over 3000 bytes and is unreadable. The archive of Talk:Armenian Genocide is aproaching 2 megs which wouldnt fit in a flopy unless compressed. It is more than any other article I know of. But with 218 edits (about 30 being you reverting me (IIRC) which were limmited to one article anyways) I do not see a "stalking" --Cool Cat My Talk 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Totally and absolutely irrelevant. First of, it’s simplistic to present a per edit user page uses to support any points. So, now let repeat Coolcat, stalking is to abusively follow someone that wait to jump on him, 100 edit, out of thousands of edits is not stalking. This was your own argument, but your own statistic contradict you. Fadix 04:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, if you are folowing me around on a number of articles and are reverting just because I am editing and mark "RANDOM" things as pov pushing even if it is surced, that is pov pushing. PKK's drug ties are well known. US gove is confirming. Extortion activity is also well known, at least inside the United Kingdom. But these were reverted. I acctualy coppied the data from a website which was official turkish gov data (according to the web site). Never the less it was NPOVised/Butchered. I also presented evidence to this end.
 * The behavior of Davenbelle and Stereotek is how I definde disruptive. Stereotek's revert war in Abortion was definately disruptive. I was asked to improve article quality, I was invited tot the topic. My edits were not contraversial in nature. I do not care about abortion, I am a GUY. You are welcome to dislike what I have done, but not all the time. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Coolcat, you are diverting the point, you claim that you are stalked. I ask you again, why were the large majority of your edits untouched? Again, I repeat, stalking is obsessivly following someone, a pray, than jump on him. But yet, the majority of your edits were untouched. How come? And besides, you said above that I am not stalking you, but mind you here that you lunched an Arbcom cases against me in the past. Isen't this true? Fadix 16:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * More WikiProject Penis Measuring. &mdash; Davenbelle 08:50, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes... If I recall corectly Mirv suggested that and that suggestion does not count to the main article namespace nor do I see why you are bringing it up. Your trollish behavior there was as bad as Mirvs :P --Cool Cat My Talk 12:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Coolcats disruption of the Armenian Genocide entry
While Coolcat stopped interrupting progresses of that article a while ago, in the last few days, he decided to disrupt the article again by reintroducing bogus demands by threats of: “I will post suggestions and apply them to the article 24 hrs later if no objection is posted.” When he brought the same subject and had no consensus in his demands previously. Coolcat, still repeat this demand of his, repeat, repeat, repeat, when it has already been addressed.

Coolcat request to delete in the lead section(among many things, even adding the term “Armenian relocation” used by a fringe (mostly ultra nationalist Turkish scholars)) that most Western scholars believe the genocide happened. Because in his opinion, it mislead the reader into believing that it happened. He was over this for a very long time, and had no support to do it. I brought evidences such as “The Association of Genocide Scholars" which is the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe, and which unanimously support that thesis. I also have referred to the fact that most books or abstracts published about the topic in the West support that position(and even brought evidences). When this same discussion was brought in the past Coolcat has affirmed that we can not base ourselves on what has been published. How on Earth does a scholar take a position, besides writing(even when lecturing, it is based on their own written research)?

Coolcat decided to bring that back again, as an attempt to make me lose control and bring that as evidence, like he has done in the past, when he changed, changed, changed the article after getting reverted, and when he finally made so-called grammatical corrections knowing well that I will fell in the trap, and then has gone writing in the talk page of other users saying how I have reverted grammatical corrections just because they were made by him.

He also wants to be permitted to use tallarmeniantale website as reference to modify the article. When that website uses reported fabricated quotes copypasted from Multu(the legendary newsgroups spammer) and his various other aliases over the newsgroups. The website in question is build and run, by a member not active anymore here in Wikipedia who registered by the name “Torque.” The same website that contains racistic statements, such as comparing Armenians to cockroaches. Here few quotes from the website: "You Armenians claim that you are the direct descendents of Prophet Noah. What a self-serving braggadocio! According to your 'fable' you were saved from the deluge by prophet Noah taking you the Armenians into his wooden barge. It is reported in the Bible that he took two of every kind of creature, at the height of those terrible floods, those who would otherwise be destined to drown. He must have taken at least two of your kind into his ship also."

"But let us not forget that he also took in among other creatures, Hyenas, snakes, leeches and scorpions too. I got a hunch that he was not very happy that he had given the Armenians a ride. He is heard afterwards saying the following: "What a mistake have I committed? What a wonderful place this GOD's earth could have been If I had not taken them in with us to be transported to dry lands."

"Those are pretty sad words, Mr. Gasparian, but not mine. Mine would be: "Let even the Armenians live among us. There is still hope that they may be transformed eventually into some acceptable creatures. There is still hope for them even, because look at history! It is replete with primitive mortals who were the most uncivilized, the most cruel, the most boodthirsty people of their times: the "Vikings." Since we can count all Scandinavians, the descendents of the Vikings nowadays amongst the most civilized, most humane, most peaceful members of wordly society of human beings, who knows, Mr. Gasparian, your kind also, one day, will see the light and emulate the Vikings. At least that is my fervent wish for you and for your people.""

The website slanders authors like Israel Charny, and the author is to coward to register the domain directly with his name (he uses a proxy). It also contains heavy slanders against various people, defamation and lies. Mike Joseph is one of those that complained about the slanders against his person contained in the site during his speech for the Holocaust Memorial Day 2005.

Also note that when the Mediation committee requested someone to get mediate the Armenian Genocide article, because my request there was ignored for a long time, it was calm, Coolcat stopped interrupting. But now, he decided to do that again.

Either something is done about this, or I’ll kick Coolcat out of the Armenian Genocide entry myself and will assume the consequences. Fadix 19:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Cute. I have used tallarmeniantale only once to point out the alternative name to the Armenian Genocide is Armenian Relocation, as that was the formal order at the time. Your overreaction is stunning. I am asking you to cite sources for your claims. If you cant, well... --Cool Cat My Talk 19:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No, Coolcat, what you have very doing is not very "cute" (for some reason you seems to call an awful lot of things "cute" these days.) What you have been doing right now, is just to make another  plain untrue statement straight to the members of the ArbComs face. This is what you said about the anti-armenian racist website, that you are currently recommending the talkpage: "www.tallarmeniantale.com is a highly notable source." Fadix might for good reasons not like that you are so strongly recommending a website, that make claims such as that the armenian people should be having a "muderous nature", and was themself responsible for the genocide commited against them. Frankly, I think that his anger against the racist accusations made on this website, that you are currently recommending, is entirely reasonable and understandable. I wonder how the reaction would be if Coolcat went to the Holocaust website, and recommended Jewwatch.com as a reference there. I am sure editors there would also respond angrily to such a outrageous suggestion. -- Karl Meier 23:21, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a serious thing here, stop acting like in kindergarten, there is nothing cute. Be others witnesses. You have used Tallarmeniantale(which is NOT the first time), and now request that I prove it uses forgeries, when its author was here in Wikipedia, and that I have answered over a hundred page of documentations, which was a continuation of what went in genocide.com before Turkish nationalist hacked the website and the administrator had to reinstall a new fresh forum(and I proposed you to search in googles archive). You bring back entire discussions, subjects that were covered (SEE THE ARCHIVES), and you had absolutely no supports. You still don't want to accept that consensus should be reached. You ask me to prove that it is most scholars, while I have provided an online library, the major body of Holocaust and Genocide scholars and the fact that the very large majority of publications about the topic in the West do maintain that position. This is recognized by revisionists like McCarthy, that during an ATAA conference said he will be trying to change this and rewrite Turkeys image. And this, also, I have already documented. But documentations after documentations, you refuse to read the evidences you yourself ask, and still maintain your POV pushing to get what you want to be deleted, to be deleted. "Relocation" is not a word used in ANY non-Turkish encyclopedia, and even in Turkish, when the Ottoman term Tehcir is used; this word doesn't even mean relocation. I have referred to the official foreign ministry translation. And no, you are lying here, you did not present Armenian relocation as an alternative, you claimed it was the OFFICIAL thing. It is unacceptable to get that word in the lead... why not placing in the Holocaust lead what hate mongering Rudolf or Zundel have to say? And even if supposing that it was relocation, still it could not be used in the lead, because as I repeated the billionenth time, relocation is not inclusive of what went wrong during it... the article is about much more than the movement of population through the empire. I repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, REPEAT, REPEAT, REPEAT... And you still bring the same fking thing back, over and over, like the bunny. Any reasonable contributor in Wikipedia will simply lose control over your behavior. Patience has limits. Now, how many more times do I need to load references the "proves" you ask, to then, bring back the same stinking point and ask me to bring them back, repeating, repeating, REPEEEEAAAAAATTTTIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNGGGGG!!!!! ... I can hardly see any articles written in Wikipedia that requires the references I have provided. It is a matter of fact, that had I not footnoted my two articles with over 20 footnotes, they would have gotten edited by this same you..., this same you that is the causes of the lack of footnotes in the Armenian Genocide entry, because no SANE person would waste dozens of hours footnoting an article to then get a parasite(and if I get a warning here from an Administrator, as I said, I will assume the consequences) requesting changes and giving 24 hours to edit, when no one besides you want those changes, and that you TOTALLY ignore the answers you receive. And now, people are even talking about punishing us(Davenbelle, Streotek and me), because we are supposedly hounding you. Spare us, and go play, with what you do best(Start Trek etc.) And beside, why the fact that I am kicking Coolcat out of the article is highline by him in various occasions, when he has been kicked out from other members from other articles. And as I have given examples, others were more rude than I. Starting with Adam that wanted to get him out because he was disturbing another article. Fadix 20:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Here here here, why are you screeming and ranting. All I am asking is that we referance to Armenian genocide, a.k.a Armenian holocaust a.k.a. armenian massacre as another a.k.a, armenian relocation. I really dont see the reason for all this nonsense. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, what you want is to play with the lead of the article by deleting important elements, and adding a word that doesn't fit there, and to support your point you use a known racist website which is known to fabricate..., and you bring back this, after that it has been addressed and you got no support. PERIOD!!! But of course, Coolcat has decided to mess with the article again during the arbitration, to find elements to present as evidences here... Fadix 20:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Right... Since it is on Turkish encyclopedia (according to your post), I can use it on wikipedia according to NPOV. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, you are manipulating what I have written. What I said, was that EVEN WHEN USING revisionist materials, the term relocation was not inclusive, and therefor could NOT be used there. Fadix 22:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Coolcat still have to learn the meaning of scholary sources. To insist on using a trashy, racist website like Tallarmeniantale.com as a reference in the Armenian Genocide, is no different from insisting on using a site like Jewwatch.com, as a reference at the holocaust article. It doesn't make any sense, and Coolcat's most recent behavior at the Armenian Genocide articles talkpage, is another very good reason to ban him from articles regarding Turkey. In all the months Coolcat has "worked" on articles regarding Turkey, he has provided nothing of real value, and no encyclopedic materials to these articles. What he has done in these articles is just to create controversy and waste the time of other, better editors in these articles. In my opinion it's about time that the ArbCom end the chaos that Coolcat create in these articles, so that the editors that is able to, (and is insterested in) contributing encyclopedic material, that is NPoV and up to Wikipedias standarts, can start working without his endless disruptions. -- Karl Meier 21:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am trying to have a civilised debate and in return I get accused of being a racist. I haven't made a single edit in the article recently. Ok thats a lie I did add 1 byte (a period). What you call distuptions is apperanly the opposing POV, which isnt illegal on a free encyclopedia. --Cool Cat My Talk 21:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not calling you anything Coolcat, so please don't make any such false accusations. You are the only one that are doing the personal attacks and name-calling around here. The only thing I did, was to point out that you (on the articles talkpage) have been insisting on using a trashy website, as a "reference" to support the content, that you plan to add to that article. -- Karl Meier 22:38, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No I am accusing Fadix of name calling me as racist. 10/10 people on IRC said they would feel offended (or count it as a personal attack) if they recieved a comment from anyone like the one I recieved from fadix. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't care what conversations you had on IRC or elsewhere outside Wikipedia. If IRC conversations should count for anything I still remember you making a personal attacks by calling me an "idiot" there. I on the other hand, has never called you anything. Also when and where has Fadix called you a racist? He comment on you promoting the usage of a racist anti-armenian website, as a reference in the Armenian Genocide article, and that is something compleatly different from calling you a racist. I believe you IRC efforts is just another exampel on your mud throwing campain against named Wikipedians in your userspace, on other users talkpages, on IRC and so on. Your incivility and personal attacks needs to stop. -- Karl Meier 07:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Incivility? Cute. See talk armenian genocide "The fact you you will still be using a racist website, tells a lot about you Coolcat. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and uses only reputable sources, not what a racist has to say. This like it or not. Fadix 02:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)". 10/10 people would not like that comment. Besides fadix is discussing the contributor, not the contribution, thats a very nice example of what not to do. #Wikipedia is not subject to WP:NPA. If you are easily offended, I reccomend never visiting IRC as F word is frequently used (Example: WTF). --Cool Cat My Talk 12:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you have to point out that you find our messages "cute" all the time. I don't mind that you appriciate them, but at the same time I don't believe it should be nessecary to mention it all the time, Coolcat. Also, what Fadix did was to critize your choice of a racist website, as a reference for the information that you want to include. There is nothing wrong with that. He then claim that the choice of a obviously useless/racist website says a lot about the editor. But that doesn't mean that he call you a racist, that is only your interpretation. It most likely mean, that he think it says a lot about a users commitment to reliable sources, to insist on using such a website as a reference. Also when Fadix said: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and uses only reputable sources, not what a racist has to say. he is absolutely correct, and it doesn't matter if it offend you or not. IRC might not be subject to Wikipedias rules regarding NPA, but your rude attack is the first and only time someone has called me something like an idiot there, and I even remember that there was another user that asked you to back down there and watch your language. Namecalling is not acceptable here or there. You may not like that, but you'll just have to accept it. -- Karl Meier 14:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Kawaii, tells a lot about you Coolcat, come on. IRC cannot be presented as direct evidence, so please don't. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Lets talk about the suggestion I made. According to Kultur.gov.tr, just like tallarmeniantale.com "Armenian Relocation" is an aproporate term. For the suggestion of adding two words to an article you (plural) have generated well over 10,000 bytes of nonsense. Ever read WP:POINT? Why are you disrupting this arbcom hearing? --Cool Cat My Talk 14:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Spare us the IRC..., do you really think that what those in IRC believe will influence the Arbcom? Fadix 00:24, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, people I am discussing are often arbcom members and admins so I am inclined to believe they know wiki policy. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are NOT. You are again getting involved there because you know that it will anger me if you start bringing back something that was rejected and you had no support into changing, and this in various occasions. And look who's talking about opposing POV. As for your one byte change, you were expecting that I would revert your change without reading it so that you can bring that to the Arbcom attention as evidence of me stalking you. Fadix 22:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is pov pushing when you refuse to acknowlege the opposing pov. IIRC --Cool Cat My Talk 23:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Are those accusations? Fadix 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you think? --Cool Cat My Talk 00:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don’t want to think. I repeat. Are those accusations? Fadix 01:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The contrast of this is I am trying to discuss things, you are choosing not to. All you want to do is push pov, or else why would you decline to discuss? You cannot EVEN tolerate how the opposing POV refers to the incident let alone even begin discussing issues. Saying that I am empathic towards the horrors that happened to armenians, I just feel it is unjust to classify it as a "genocide", thats my pov and is irrelevant as far as the article is concerned. I am not "making" things up. I made a few sugestions, while I don't hope everything I suggest gets through, it is in everyones best interest to come up with something that has less bias. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You are lying, and you know it. You claimed discussing but instead(like you’ve done previously)are talking about what you believe about the issue while the article is about what it is believed about an issue and the different positions. You have decided to reintroduce your request back in the talk page, when it was refused in various occasions. If you pay attention User: El_C who is a historian and administrator wrote this to you: “That looks like original reserach to me. Our purpose here isn't to engage in such an analyses and syntheses ourselves, but depict the analyeses and syntheses of notable individuals, governments and organizations.” But your implication is totally worthless for the article progress, which Tony himself admitted in the past. You come in and talk about what you believe about the topic and waste my precious time answering irrelevancy. Either it is this, or you want to delete information or add nonsense like the term “relocation” in the lead. You claim that you will be editing if you have no opposing, when you got full load opposition everytime you suggested the same thing. Fadix 01:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Infliated and "loaded" statistics do not serve to that purpose that imposes. An article that starts by establishing that the majority of scholars believes in something cannot escape bias. I am also dispute this majority of scholars you talk about, you cant base on it on anything since you so far eefused to cite a source for this. You did paste a mail, but that only provides a list of prople, not a majority. I want to have both views presented equaliy, you still have a problem with that? --Cool Cat My Talk 00:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * For the billionianth + 1 time. Presenting two positions as equally valid when it is not the cases is POV, because giving equal places to a position that is not equally maintained by the academia, is misleading. You still fail to understand what NPOV means(and I am really tired of trying to make you understand this), it DOES NOT MEAN, two positions as equally valid. And the fact that most scholars believe one position against another, IS VERY RELEVANT, people ought to know, those that maintain a position, and how this proposition is maintained in the academia. And even your tallarmeniantale favoured website says the exact same thing(that most support that position in the West), since you consider it credible, this is what it has to say: “For nearly a century, the Western World has wholeheartedly accepted that there has been an attempt by the Ottoman Turks to systematically destroy the Armenian people, comparable to what the Nazis committed upon the Jews during World War II.” This is on the introduction page of the site. The LEAD, and this coming from your favoured website regarding the topic. But it is expected that you will repeat your same crap about equality and telling me that it is not established that most Western scholars support that position, when the large majority of the published works and this coupled with the fact that the largest body of Holocaust and Genocide scholars recognize it as such. And even deniers like Kamuran Gurun, Ataov, Halacoglu, McCarthy etc. recognize that most scholars accept the genocide theses. Why on Earth, if that was not the cases, various Turkish scholars and politicians would call that cases an “Internationa lie” why would Dogu Perinçek openly affirm that the Armenian genocide is an International Lie, since it is those same words that resulted with the Swiss opening a court cases against him. This is established, and alone the Holocaust Museum has 200 books about the event, which represent a little fraction of the body of works and books published in the subject. This little fraction alone is way over the number of books published in the West rejecting the theses of genocide. I really like to kick myself; I don’t even believe I am still repeating those things over and over again. Fadix 01:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Umm I am not going to read anything indetail you post that starts with "for the nth time" (impling repeat) and exeed 3000 bytes (impling rant). You have threatened to kick me out of the Armenian Genocide article if arbcom does not. You lack the aouthority and right to do so also I am curious how. It is POV pushing to not allow the opposing pov. Phroziac agrees with me. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[04:23:11]  is it pov pushing to not allow the opposing pov. [04:24:02]  lol [04:24:07]  Cool_Cat: yes. [04:24:17]  Cool_Cat: you should write neutrally and mention both povs


 * Why am I not surprised, the same Coolcat who refuse to read, and repeat himself without bothering to read ones answer(why would he care what others say). As for what someone agrees, you are shouting on your own feet there. Because your premise is wrong, and you know you are distorting and lying, like you’ve been lying all over the place. And you lying is not simply an attack, it has already been established in various occasions, and you yourself have already admitted having lied at least once. Again, I repeat, this time answer. Are you accusing me of not allowing the opposing view? Fadix 04:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Because I told you that I wont be reading your rant earlier on as this is not a f***ing forum. See Tony Sideaway's comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide. There really is nothing you should be suprised of. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If you pay attention, Tony deleted sections in the talk page that had nothing to do with the article, none of those sections were created by me. Your discussion for instance led to something that had nothing to do with the article. Besides, it is understandble that one that would use chat as nearly sole way of communication with members, would find anything above 4 lines as long. Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious place, and it is understandble that some talk pages that get opposition from few nationalists will get more longer than others, because people are traped in worthless discussions that have nothing to do with the article in question. And, again, you have not answered me. I told you, are you accusing me of suppressing another POV? When I say POV, I mean official POV, not your personal POV, because placing the term relocation there as alternative is your POV. It is like placing an alternative to the Big Bang article, with a "also called God created Earth." Those that deny it call it the "so-called Armenian genocide," but the article is about what is called "Armenian Genocide." So again, I want to make that clear. Are you accusing me of supressing the other POV? Yes or no? Is this a hard question to answer? Fadix 16:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This creates some real problems for me. I am of German ethnicity and many of our relatives remained in the Soviet Union so I can recognize holocaust denial when I see it and also soft-pedaling of Soviet atrocities, but I really don't know the facts of the Armenian Genocide. I have always assumed it was both real and substantial, but I have no touchstone. So I assume Coolcat is functioning as an apologist but there is doubt. However the Arbitration Committee generally shuns content disputes, the question comes down to behavior and disruption as well as credible sources. I usually accept books published by Oxford or Cambridge University or Harvard or Yale as credible. I'll look up sources from that perspective and get back to you. Fred Bauder 18:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah books do wonders, though I do think a website or two is adequate to define how some people refer to the incident. For the rest of the article I was goinf to use books anyways. I may use a few statements from tallarmeniantale if I see something similar in books for easier eferance, but I am in doubt if I will. I would prefer apologies from several users that agressively discussed me, the contributor (me bing racist/revisionsist/whatever), rather than the cobtribution. On one occasion my spelling correction was reverted with the edit summary: "Reverting Coolcat vandalism.". --Cool Cat My Talk 19:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Dude, what book? You were even not been able to give ONE title of a book you have read about the topic and now you claim that you will bring books. Do you think that others are that dumb? Besides? No, websites are not adequate, and tallarmeniantale is a worthless trash. And I have not only claimed this, but documented it in the articles talk page, and the author of the website was there defending the trash there. As for the speeling correction that you bring. Had you pied attention to what others have to say, you will see that I brought that DOWN HERE..., and beside you are very badly placed to claim I am misusing the term vandalism when you have been warned yourself by administrators to misuse it. But here, I am not you, I won't justify my mistakes by trying to relativize it(by fiding similar mistakes made by others)..., but at least, I have addressed that issue and explained the cases to one administrator and you were there. But of course since you have not much materials against me, you will rather bring that "vandalism" accusation again and again. But it is amazing how you are irresponsable, because you know perfectly that you were vanadlizing the article prior to that pseudo-grammer correction, and have used that just to make me react and for you to go cry that you were reverted. You did that in another Armenian related article. Do you really want me to bring those up too or what? Don't you think that your cases is bad enough? Fadix 20:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I learn from my mistakes and am seeking assistance from a number of admins to npovise this article (so that I do not get carried away). I am not too terribly concerned with the restrictions levied on me since I grew beyond the newbie. ;) --Cool Cat My Talk 19:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is absolutly wrong, while you repeat your claim that you learn from your mistakes, the evidences show else, you still mess up..., but now, you hide beyond your anti-vandal units and think that people will just ignore your wrongdoings just because you are contributing by fighting vanadlism. and here, I will remind you that the most important things in Wikipedia are articles, those are what makes of it an encyclopedia, and your actions directly affect the quality of those articles and no matter how many anti-vandlism unit you creat, trophies or rankings, it can just not undo the harm you are doing to the project. Fadix 20:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As for content, in the Holocaust people were gassed to death. The intention in gassing people was to kill them (in any sane logic). In the Armenian genocide people were "walked" to death, which opens the window for discussion to say the least. according to Armenian Genocide (one of the earlier versions I read). There were several relocation camps which the people who were unlikely to make it were sent to. This way one can argue that if the intention was to kill armenians, a few sick people would cause widespread disease and isnuring no one makes it. The incident of course wasnt cute, but I do not believe it qualifies to be a "Genocide" as per UN definition of a genocide you need to establish that the real intention was to kill a group of people, as far as I know the central goverment did not issue a "kill" order but a "relocation" order (not uncommon in ww1 or 2). Officialy armenians were relocating, in the process many were dieing but still, they were relocating. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Personal research, what you think happened is irrelevant for the article. The positions there are not yours. You have not published anything peer reviewed in the subject, you have even not publish anything at all. Wikipedia is clear there, you can not use Wikipedia to advance what you believe, articles represent positions, POSITIONS OF OTHERS, others include, organizations, authors, scholars. researchers, governments, institutions etc. NOT WHAT YOU THINK. What you think is worthless. Will you finally get that? Fadix 20:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521829585 This is a recent one published by Cambridge university press, and I exclude here the various abstracts like "Documentation of the World War I Armenian Massacres In the Proceedings of the Turkish Military Tribunal." published in the Cambridge University Press. (Vol 23. November 1991 No. 4) etc. Oxford also has published about the issue. Example: The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians by Donald Bloxham. Yale published works extensivaly including the Armenian cases, example: Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century by Leo Kuper. The Genocide As a Problem of National & International Law was reprinted in the Yale Journal of International Law etc. Here, I gave few examples. But my point is not there. What was my problem with Coolcat, is that he want to get important elements of the article to be deleted, and he push that even after it has been raised in various occasions. He is wasting my time with this thing, after, not only me, he was reminded to stop doing that. He want the article to include his POV, while articles should include POV from others, like organizations, governments, institutions etc. And then, to support his point he uses a racist website as sole reference. Fadix 19:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Fred, I also in the future want to process every claim made by either side. I am non conviced of the factuality of some material claimed. I just want to make sure its not original research. There is a serious lach of primary (or secondary for that matter) source citiong on a historic article. --Cool Cat My Talk 19:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You are obviously lying, Coolcat, and both of us know this. While I have documented the large, very large majority of every single bit of information in that article in the talk page, from abstracts, journals, books... you have answered by using a racist website. Your BS about claims from either side is only an attempt your own credibility, considering that you refuse books, abstracts etc. and rather use a racist website, as sole source. When I think that few months ago, you didn't even knew whom was Justin McCarthy, who is the most famous (and one of the very few) Western historian who deny the Armenian genocide. As for original research, that is kind of weird, since an administrator who recently answered you on the article talk page, who is also a historian, told your answer to be just that. Why don't you ask him, if in fact it is personal research? Fadix 19:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred, Expecting readers to accept it as a "Genocide" (accept bias) in my view is a breech of the point of NPOV. There are quite a numer of books supporting the opposite view. I also encourage you to read Talk:Armenian Genocide. Several earlier comments suggest a BBC like coverage (NPOV). An initial and continuing bias supporting the Genocide thesis will violate NPOV. Wikipedia does not take sides. Untill very recently there was a section in Armenian Genocide titiled "Turkish goverment denial" I ask of you to tell me if that would be neutral? Azerbaijan (IIRC) is also denying the alogations. Justin McCarthy believes that an "Armenian Genocide: did not happen. Do realise that there is also an ASALA dimention. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I found:
 * J.M. Winter, professor at Yale, America and the Armenian Genocide of 1915, Cambridge University Press (January, 2004), hardcover, ISBN: 0521829585
 * Merrill D. Peterson, Starving Armenians: America and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1930 and After, University of Virginia Press (March, 2004), hardcover, 216 pages, ISBN 0813922674
 * Donald E. Miller, Lorna Touryan Miller, Survivors: An Oral History of the Armenian Genocide, University of California Press (1999), trade paperback, 274 pages, ISBN 0520219562

This is enough for me to consider the viewpoint that there was no Armenian Genocide not credible; the obvious response is to produce sources of similar reputation for alternative points of view. The Turkish equivalent of Holocaust Denial is not sufficient to balance the many books from the academic press which tend to establish that the Armenian Genocide happened. Fred Bauder 19:53, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * To add, http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/facts/gen_bib1.html This is what the Holocaust Museum has about the Armenian genocide, even when excluding those that are not there, it is well above the numbers of works that have been published opposing the theses of genocide. So, regardless of Coolcat refusal to include in the article that Most Western scholars recognize it, it is established. Fadix 20:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Coolcat, the Turkish government continues to deny, see http://www.kulturturizm.gov.tr/portal/default_en.asp?belgeno=3364 Fred Bauder 21:03, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hola! That's what I would call cute. Coolcat, you are exposing yourself more and more. ASALA? Azerbaijan? Just recently, in the Armenian genocide entry, you have claimed supporting Azerbaijan(I still wonder what this means, go figure). Isen't the cat picture on your userpage a Van cat? :) Is it not? Van, like the Van cats found in Van(Turkey)? Coolcat, what the hell ASALA has to do with what happened in 1915? ASALA dimention? How come, I thought that ASALA was created in the 70s, 80s etc? So, Justin McCarthy believes that the Armenian genocide did not happen. Do you even know how mcCarthy was able to get his book published? On page xii, he had to warn the reader with this: "In any book of demography it is easy to view the statistics as an end in themselves, to try to find the perfect number. Even had such an approach been desirable, the data upon which this book is based are too imperfect to support such an excursion into the calculus of demography. No perfect numbers will be found here. The reader should be aware that each population number presented in this book, whether raw data from Ottoman population registers or analyzed and corrected figures, is approximate." McCarthy is covered Ottoman Armenian casualties and Ottoman Armenian Population I even gave him a section in the first article. But if you pay attention, McCarthy is criticized by various specialists in the field. Dr. Ton Zwaan of the Institute of Holocaust and Genocide Studies in Amsterdam wrote about McCarthy: "McCarthy is a professional denier." Professor Jos Weitenberg writes: "McCarthy belongs to the few non-Turkish scholars who deny the existence of the Armenian genocide. His arguments have been the same for years. He shows no inclination to seriously consider the refutal of his fellow colleagues." I can provide a list of various specialists rebutting McCarthy, Dr. Frederic Paulin has entirly "destroyed" McCarthys manipulated figures in an abstract, where he compares McCarthys methodology with those of Rassinier, the famous Holocaust revisionist. McCarthys arguments have been addressed one by one in various scholarly publications. As for Azerbaijan denial, it isen't even official, I have yet to read any Azerbaijani diplomatic publication regarding the topic, any research. Even Tabib(the member here), who has contact with Azerbaini diplomats and who is close to Azerbaijani political parties, in his website present official Turkish foreign ministry links. "Turkish goverment denial" was encyclopedic, and I even provided refference from other encylcopedias using that term. The position: "Turkish government denial" do exist, and I have presented and even supported my words by reffering to the official Genocide Encyclopedia published by Israel charny, that has such a section. So again, I will keep telling you this, go learn what NPOV means, or DON'T TOUCH articles. Fadix 00:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I also ask to take this discussion in a sub page or in Talk:Armenian Genocide or IRC. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * IRC is NOT the place to work on articles. I would consider those using chat to work on articles as either dumbs, or working on simple non-coplex simple layered subjects. To think that a serious discussion about an article in Wikipedia could happen by chat, one should be naive. Fadix 00:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not in the mood of listing random books, because I havent started discussing content yet. I am trying to properly reorganise the lead. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And when have you ever really discussed the content, in various occasions I have requested you to submit a list of works you have read about the topic, you were even not able to provide one. For cows sake, you didn't even knew who was Justin McCarthy few months ago, when he is the leading figure who support that there was no genocide(your argument.) As for the lead. DON'T TOUCH IT!!! Fadix 00:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The Turkish side argues that Armenians breeding their children in hate for 3 generations (as discussed in Talk:Armenian Genocide) and went to the extent of killing (ASALA) to exterminate people opposing their POV. Lots of historians who do not view this as "Genocide" recieved death threans and on ocasions there were assasination attempts. (based on "Sari Gelin documentary" released with Time magazine (on a DVD) this summer)--Cool Cat My Talk 23:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What sort of BS is this? Can you please name those historians? Shall we then compare how many historians were threatned to death that were affirming that there was a genocide? The less one has, the more he expend it. From the story of Shaw having a bomb placed in his office has grown out of proportion, as to become "lots of historians." But again, I am not the one pointing to serious death threats and attempt to life, like K-Blair that was threatned to death because of her discovery in the US archives of Leslie Davis reports regarding the Armenian massacres, she had to change her name and leave her hometown. And I can name various such cases, your friend Torque had to shut up trying this BS. And mind you that he's the author of your favoured website about the issue. Beside, do you even know how the ASALA was founded? The first assasination was by a lonely man who was orphaned during 1915, he lost his entire family, when I say family, I mean not only brothers, sisters, parents, but also the rest. The killings started after that the Turkish government sent diplomats around the world to allegedly teaching "the other side of the story" they started founding and funding chairs in the Middle East departement of universities, this is covered in the cronical of higher education, and there was various other publications reporting this. For instance, Shaw and his turkish wife Ezel Kural were the initiator of the denial machine. Shaw plagiated his major work from a Turkish "specialist" Uzun Jarsoglu... to bring the Turkish government position in the US. As for the DVD, the Time magazine was duped by this attempt by the Turkish government yet again... they have hidded this BS in the DVD that was supposed to be touristic publicity... now thanks to your body(Turkish government), the Times Magazine will maybe be sued for what happened. Fadix 00:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to have a look at and . I am sorry I am not offrting a grand list of authors but Dr. McCarthy is the most well known historian that does not see the events as a "genocide". --Cool Cat My Talk 23:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I also ask you to warn fadix to drop his less than admirable tone. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, true, the most well known, also one of the very few Western historians..., again, all this worthless discussion in no way concerns the article. Fadix 00:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I know, and the article has a section covering the Turkish government position, and in the lead it is also presented. Now I guess you will understand what I mean by Coolcat abusing the system, because what he is after is to delete informations. Example, Coolcat want to get the mention that most Western scholars agree it was a genocide to be deleted, he want to delete who believes what, because according to him saying who believes what will lead people to believe it was a genocide. He want to present both positions as equaly valid. I have tried to teach him that this is not what is NPOV, but he still refuse and refuse to accept. I've wasted considerable amount of time on worthless discussions engaged with him. Fadix 21:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Amendment
Odd. Fred, I think that amendment requires a revote. Since you are ordering me to have a uneque talk page posting. I also recomend same restrictions be levied on Fadix since he seems to enjoy butting in to paragraphs making them unreadable. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

"Coolcat may make no edit to a talk page which is not at the end of a section unless he begins a new section at the bottom of the page"??? Come on! --Cool Cat My Talk 00:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No you come on. All edits to a talk page should preserve the sense of others comments. Fred Bauder 00:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I kindly request a revote for that change. Can you please honor this request? --Cool Cat My Talk 00:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Fadix Issue
7 posts 4107 + 4468 + 4899 + 3816 + 3614 + 3213 + 4095 = 28,212 Bytes =~ 28 KB [20:36:36]  Whitelisted user added significant material, likely reverting vandalism: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:Fadix Change: +7263 bytes Excuse: Section reserved for User:Coolcat an arbitrators and admins (sysops Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22707398 8 posts 28,212 + 7263 = 35,475 Bytes =~ 35 KB (His 8 posts qualify the 32 kb limit that is normaly observed for archiving)
 * 1) en.wikipedia.vandalism [01/09/2005, 01:35:20]  Possible "gibberish" problem: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:Fadix Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22282091 Change: +4107 bytes Excuse: Coolcat has done it again -
 * 2) en.wikipedia.vandalism [01/09/2005, 20:39:50]  Possible "gibberish" problem: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:Fadix Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22338717 Change: +4468 bytes Excuse: Coolcat has done it again -
 * 3) en.wikipedia.vandalism [04/09/2005, 22:37:00]  Possible "gibberish" problem: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:Fadix Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22549249 Change: +4899 bytes Excuse: RE:
 * 4) en.wikipedia.vandalism [04/09/2005, 23:33:38]  Possible anon "gibberish" problem: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:24.201.46.149 Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22567261 Change: +3816 bytes Excuse: Coolcats disruption of the Armenian Genocide entry -
 * 5) en.wikipedia.vandalism [05/09/2005, 04:10:40]  Possible "gibberish" problem: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:Fadix Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22583277 Change: +3614 bytes Excuse: Coolcats disruption of the Armenian Genocide entry -
 * 6) en.wikipedia.vandalism [05/09/2005, 23:14:52]  Possible "gibberish" problem: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:Fadix Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22641742 Change: +3213 bytes Excuse: Coolcats disruption of the Armenian Genocide entry -
 * 7) en.wikipedia.vandalism [06/09/2005, 03:17:38]  Whitelisted user added significant material, likely reverting vandalism: Page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision By: User:Fadix Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Proposed_decision&diff=0&oldid=22658299 Change: +4095 bytes Excuse: edit point -

User:Fadix should be lectured on how to summerise responses. I was asked to "whitelist" him on my vandal bot. No other user on wikipedia posts as long as he does this frequently. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no rules on the size of answers, on the other hand, the NPOV policy should be respected by any members. Fadix 01:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

In an asume good faith enviorment should be an honest mistake by fadix to remove your comments. If I am making a false acusation my apologies in advance. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Why would I intentionaly delete those?(deleting intentionaly is your type not mine) You were editing this page in a short period of time, to add your answers... when I had my answers screwed out because I got answers that while I was answering another answered, this happened three times. I copypasted my stuff, the deleting probably happened during it. Fadix 01:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I kindly ask you to not to repsond to my posts unless you are adressed. (as per arbcom ruling I cant post this where it wouild be aproporate which would be the "There is no rules on the size of answers, on the other hand, the NPOV policy should be respected by any members. Fadix 01:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)" line) --Cool Cat My Talk 01:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * How conviniant Coolcat, I addressed various times to the Arbcom, and if I remember correctly, you answered all of them. Have you not? It is a talk page, and I can answer without restriction. Fadix 01:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I ask you AGAIN not to respond to anything I post unless I spesificaly address you. It is a civilised request, can you please honor it? --Cool Cat My Talk 01:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No ! Fadix 01:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I give up
I have been trying for about a month to get CoolCat to calm down and behave more civilly. I give up. He tells me that he will do as I recommend, then a day later flies off the handle again. There is a limit to how many times I can put up with that, and he's exceeded it. Sorry, but I tried. At this point I think there that ArbCom has little option but throw the book at him. Kelly Martin 06:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, Coolcat's violations regarding personal attacks and incivility doesn't seems to be improving at all, even though several users has made very genuine efforts to make him calm down, and change his behavior. A most recent example is from today, where he on a users talkpage call us a "mob" and make the, I must say rather bold accusation, that I and Davenbelle might be sockpuppets of each other. He even got the nerve to make an attempt, to single out Fred Bauder in some way: "Majority of the evidence against me was filed by Arbitrator Fred Bauder."  Another most recent (I admit more indirect) example of his ways to interact with other editors here, is from Wikipedias IRC room, which I made a short visit to yesterday:


 * Cool_Cat	Gdrr who are you
 * Gdrr	       Karl
 * Cool_Cat	oh
 * Cool_Cat	HI idiot
 * Cool_Cat	ignores


 * Again, I request that the ArbCom should make some kind of decision, regarding the violations of civility and personal attacks by Coolcat. -- Karl Meier 09:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Kelly, thanks for trying. You are not the only one who has tried and has given up. Others, and not just those involved on this page, have given up on working with (the newly renamed) "User:Cool_Cat". For my part, you may want to review the history of Talk:Armenian Genocide during the last half of March '05.


 * ArbCom, I agree with Karl that User:Cool_Cat needs to be sanctioned for his incivility and personal attacks, and I again request that he be barred from articles related to Turkey's relations with neighbors such as Armenia, Greece and Cyprus, Turkey's Kurds, the Kurdistan Workers Party and Kurds in general, Abdullah Öcalan, Armenian Genocide and genocide in general, the Nanking Massacre, and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. I also support all of the proposed remedies currently proposed or in the "Workshop". And, as I have said all along, I will be more than glad to leave the monitoring of User:Cool_Cat to others (assuming he has any future activity to monitor). &mdash; Davenbelle 09:52, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I should add that this is not to say that I feel that the behavior of Karl Meier, Davenbelle, or Fadix is in any way justified. Two wrongs do not make a right.  Kelly Martin 11:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, two wrongs doesn't make a right, but as I have already mentioned, I don't believe that any of us has done anything wrong by monitoring the edits of Coolcat, that has caused so many problems, in so many articles. I believe we had very good reasons to do so, and that we did nothing wrong by doing it. -- Karl Meier 12:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I recommend a lifelong block to User:Cool Cat --Cool Cat Talk 11:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You may yet get your wish. &mdash; Davenbelle 07:36, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Give it a rest Davenbelle, stop monitoring my communication for advocacy. Stop monitoring me as per arbcom ruling. --Cool Cat Talk 12:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * At this point fadix says he is going to prevent me from contrubuting to the Armenian Genocide artocle, with or without arbocm (on this page). Thats a threat, arbcom apears to be fine with that. Fadix also name-calls me racist (see Talk:Armenian Genocide. Yet I am the one pumping personal atacks. --Cool Cat Talk 12:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * When and where did he call you a racist Coolcat? He critizised your choice of a obviously racist website, as a reference in the Armenian Genocide article, and that not the same as calling you a racist. Also, you have been calling me a lot of names like "idiot", when I have never called you anything like that. -- Karl Meier 12:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been stalked to death by Davenbelle and Stereotek they have had lots of lame revert wars, such as the ones for image sizes in Nanking Massacre. Yet Arbcom chooses to levy restrictions for my activities prior to Davenbelle and Stereotek's stalking. Stunning. --Cool Cat Talk 12:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You didn't just reduced the size of the pictures. You also moved them down, to a less prominent section of the article, in what I believe was a broader attempt to maliciously advance the Japanese ultra-nationalistic PoV regarding this event. -- Karl Meier 12:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I presented several case of their lame reverts but this seems to be ignored. I am not presenting every case as I do not have the talent Fred has in gathering evidence. --Cool Cat Talk 12:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Back to left margin I am retired so have a bit more time than the other arbitrators so I do a bit more. However they have always felt free to reject whatever I propose and frequently do. I know you have made your points Coolcat, and I know others can also be point of view, but frankly I think many of the problems originate with you. I have tried to craft proposals which allow you to continue editing. We have been trying to find solutions other than meat axe bans of a year. Please try to appreciate our effort to both deal with troublesome behavior and allow you to continue to edit. I know it seems hard but try to listen to others and work with them. The Turkish perspective on ethnic matters ought to be included in articles, but it has to be identified as the Turkish perspective and sometimes when most scholars are saying something quite different it has to be identified as a distinctly minority viewpoint. Fred Bauder 13:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting my views are right/wrong. The point is I get reverted and no one bothers to read the talk page on what I have to say. You do agree for every pov revert at least a mention should be made on why it is bad in talk? --Cool Cat Talk 13:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As for the majority view, surely you arent suggesting Armenian Genocide is remotely neutral? I ask people to cite sorces for the material they are posting there and for that I have been namecalled being a "revisionst", etc... Not once has primary source have been used in that article. This rises serious skeptisicim on how factual the information presented is. The article should neither deny ot accept the incident as a genocide so as not to take sides. --Cool Cat Talk 13:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred, I kindly request that you please also collect evidence for inaproporate reverts by Davenbelle and Stereotek. I already pointed out some, most notably on Nanking Massacre. --Cool Cat Talk 13:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * They are reverting my edits. By nature they cannot revert an edit I made prior to me making it so they are always "responding" to my actions since I am not stalking them back. I feel the arbcom desicion is a bit unjust, while not objecting to the restrictions beeing levied on me since I cannot question ArbCom's authority, I do feel arbcom should consider leving restrictions on Davenbelle and Stereotek as well. --Cool Cat Talk 13:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you check the previously posted statistic of Stereotek, you'll see that he wasn't using talk enough. He enjoy's (as I see it) to revert people untill they violate the 3rr. Quite often Davenbelle will make the 4th revert and the "other" guy will violate 3rr. We should be discourageing revert wars on wikipedia and from my dealings with Davenbelle and Stereotek they revert you to death. --Cool Cat Talk 13:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * From where do you get the idea that your statistics is useful as any kind of "evidence" in a ArbCom case? Frankly, it's plain ridicules. It is a problem if there is editors that monitor and oppose you, if they have no good reasons to do so. We have had some very good reasons, and we have provided evidence for that. -- Karl Meier 14:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am the kind of a guy who folows the star trek ideology of bettering self, I cannot do that unless I am told what I am doing is wrong and why. I also cannot grow so long as Davenbelle and Stereotek pursue me since their "senseless" reverts only achieve to upset me. As far as I care both of them are nothing more that trolls. --Cool Cat Talk 13:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the "star trek ideology" that you follow is about, and frankly I am not too interested, but there has been several editors that has made very extensive efforts to explain what was wrong with your behavior, and there has been several editors that has given up on doing just that now. The ArbCom should now end this circus. Too many good editors, has wasted too much time already, on an editor that has not provided any encyclopedic material that has been up to Wikipedias standarts, in articles such as those regarding Turkey. We are supposed to be writing a serious encyclopedia, and Coolcats efforts in these articles is obiviously not helping the community to do that. All he is doing is just to cause distraction and controversy with his PoV editing, and make good editors waste their time. Time that could have been used on making this a better encyclopedia.

-- Karl Meier 14:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you see fadix's atitude in Armenian Genocide admirable? He is name calling me (not that it matters I am not really offended but I dont believe personal insults contribute to article discussion), he is declaring the discussion over, certanly you can also see he had been oposing almost everyone and every suggestion. If I am bad, he is worse as I see it. --Cool Cat Talk 13:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, I ask you, what is he calling you there Coolcat? Your claim that he is calling you a racist, is obviolusly false, because as I explained to you he is just criticising your choice of a racist website as a reference. Try to push jewwatch.com at the holocaust entry, and I can guarantee you that you will also be critized for wanting to use such a racist website there. Regarding your personal attacks, you have among other things called me and "idiot" and asked me to "go screw myself". -- Karl Meier 14:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I also would like this to be reviewed at this point: Requests_for_comment/Davenbelle_and_Stereotek --Cool Cat Talk 14:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the RfC is an interesting site, that among other things expose your false allegations about my editing, at the abortion article. I asked you to participate on the talkpage, and explain your edits, but all you did was to revert with malicious summaries such as "sockpuppet edits". My response to that allegation that Coolcat has repeated here on this page, from the RfC: Coolcats comments regarding my edits in the abortion article are simply not true. The conflict started when he replaced the previously well written prose in several sections with a unorganized collection of bullets. I started my work restoring the prose with this edit using the edit summary "see talk". I mentioned my concerns about his actions on the articles talkpage, and the other editors that commented there mostly agreed with my concerns. However, Coolcat refused to discusse his edit, and didn't leave any messages on the talkpage, regarding this issue. Coolcat's only response to the concerns that I raised on the articles talk page was a revert with the editsummary "sockpuppet edits..." .  -- Karl Meier 14:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Fred please read section below, Karl has made my post unreadable again so I copied the version before his interference. --Cool Cat Talk 14:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am responding to your allegations Coolcat, maybe you don't like that, but there is nothing wrong with it. I am not moving your things out of context, or archiving them in order to hide them. That is what you have been doing, not what I have been doing. It just like the personal attacks. -- Karl Meier 14:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to hide anything. Arbcom has a brain to decide, ALLOW me make my poits. --Cool Cat Talk 14:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Section reserved for User:Coolcat an arbitrators and admins (sysops)
I just feel I need a seperate section so I can talk to the arbcom without being interrupted. Coping my comments above. --Cool Cat Talk 14:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not suggesting my views are right/wrong. The point is I get reverted and no one bothers to read the talk page on what I have to say. You do agree for every pov revert at least a mention should be made on why it is bad in talk? --Cool Cat Talk 13:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As for the majority view, surely you arent suggesting Armenian Genocide is remotely neutral? I ask people to cite sorces for the material they are posting there and for that I have been namecalled being a "revisionst", etc... Not once has primary source have been used in that article. This rises serious skeptisicim on how factual the information presented is. The article should neither deny ot accept the incident as a genocide so as not to take sides. --Cool Cat Talk 13:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred, I kindly request that you please also collect evidence for inaproporate reverts by Davenbelle and Stereotek. I already pointed out some, most notably on Nanking Massacre. --Cool Cat Talk 13:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * They are reverting my edits. By nature they cannot revert an edit I made prior to me making it so they are always "responding" to my actions since I am not stalking them back. I feel the arbcom desicion is a bit unjust, while not objecting to the restrictions beeing levied on me since I cannot question ArbCom's authority, I do feel arbcom should consider leving restrictions on Davenbelle and Stereotek as well. --Cool Cat Talk 13:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you check the previously posted statistic of Stereotek, you'll see that he wasn't using talk enough. He enjoy's (as I see it) to revert people untill they violate the 3rr. Quite often Davenbelle will make the 4th revert and the "other" guy will violate 3rr. We should be discourageing revert wars on wikipedia and from my dealings with Davenbelle and Stereotek they revert you to death. --Cool Cat Talk 13:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am the kind of a guy who folows the star trek ideology of bettering self, I cannot do that unless I am told what I am doing is wrong and why. I also cannot grow so long as Davenbelle and Stereotek pursue me since their "senseless" reverts only achieve to upset me. As far as I care both of them are nothing more that trolls. --Cool Cat Talk 13:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you see fadix's atitude in Armenian Genocide admirable? He is name calling me (not that it matters I am not really offended but I dont believe personal insults contribute to article discussion), he is declaring the discussion over, certanly you can also see he had been oposing almost everyone and every suggestion. If I am bad, he is worse as I see it. --Cool Cat Talk 13:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I also would like this to be reviewed at this point: Requests_for_comment/Davenbelle_and_Stereotek --Cool Cat Talk 14:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The evidence that CoolCat has a wealth of problematic behaviors is quite clear. But I think the evidence that the threesome of Karl Meier, Davenbelle, and Fadix are hounding CoolCat is also pretty clear, and I think it's pretty obvious that their activities in relation to CoolCat go beyond "monitoring a potentially problematic user" and are definitely making the situation worse rather than better. The fact that the two parties are on opposite sides of a very contentious and emotional issue (the Armenian Genocide) probably has a lot to do with this. In my opinion, no Wikipedia editor is entitled to appoint himself or herself as a "designated watchdog" for another Wikipedia editor without the consent of the second editor. If an editor is making problematic edits it is the obligation of the other editor to bring those edits to the attention of the community rather than to stalk the problematic editor, reverting any edit that the monitoring editors find "unacceptable", if for no other reason that the reverting editors may not be reflecting the community consensus in so doing. I would appreciate it if the ArbCom were to endorse this statement, or one like it, as one of its deciding principles in this case. Kelly Martin 14:53, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Kelly, I have made many efforts to bring this to the attention of the Wikipedia Community. For example, I posted this to wp:an/i &mdash; it's not in the archives because Tony Sidaway deleted it. (See also: Disruptive users, User:Coolcat's new trick and Tony's deletions of these too: and, and this comment from Tony where Cc and I were advised to "resolve your personal disputes without trying to get others involved.")
 * One of Tony's bits of advice here was for User:Cool Cat's opponents to file an RfC; which we were considering when User:Cool Cat filed an arbitration request against Fadix. We chose to present our case against him there in an attempt to get the arbitration case accepted, which it was not. After that, I decided that User:Cool Cat was not my problem anymore and pretty much ceased opposing him after late April. Now that I am on vacation, User:Cool Cat has twice filed RfC's that include me and Tony has now brought this case on User:Cool Cat's behalf, so I am again focusing on his misconduct.


 * &mdash; Davenbelle 07:22, September 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * I also asked the Association of Member Investigations to have a look-see at Mr. Cool Cat's edits: Users for consideration. &mdash; Davenbelle 09:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, could you please point out the "pretty clear evidence" that I, Davenbelle and Fadix has been maliciously "hounding" - as you continue to call it - Coolcat? Also, I would like you to point out the policy that says that it according to wikipedias policies, is not acceptable to monitor an editor that (like Coolcat) continue to cause disruption on a vast amount of articles, in order to limit the damage that such a user cause to Wikipedias content. -- Karl Meier 15:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The evidence is in your own words on this rather lengthy talk page. Rather than once again trying to divert the issue away from your own conduct, please instead tell me (and the ArbCom) what steps you took to bring Coolcat's problematic edits to the attention of the community.  It seems to me that instead of invoking the community processes that Wikipedia relies on, you embarked on a personal mission to protect Wikipedia from someone that you perceived as a threat.  That's contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and destructive of the Wikipedia community.  Kelly Martin 16:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to divert any attention away from my own conduct. I am asking you to point out specifically where I (and the other editors) have been doing something wrong, and of course explain why it is wrong. That can hardly be called an attempt, to divert any attention away from my own conduct. Also, I have indeed been trying to bring, what I believe has been Coolcats questionable behavior, to the attention of the community. One thing that I have done was (among other things) to participate as a interested third party, in the previous ArbCom case Fadix vs Coolcat. I tried to explain to the ArbCom/community what I believed was the problem with Coolcat's conduct, and why I believed that the case should be accepted. You might think that I and other editors has been monitoring Coolcat, and spend so many hours of our sparetime, just because we are some nasty people that are "destructive of the Wikipedia community", but that is of course not the case. I have been doing (to the best of my ability) what I believe had to be done, in order to limit the damage that Coolcat has been responsible of. -- Karl Meier 19:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Another thing is that we, acccording to Coolcat, are apparently not allowed to post here, unless we are admins, members of the ArbCom or Coolcat himself... -- Karl Meier 15:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I shouldn't put too much stock in that. CoolCat is not entitled to limit who may comment on a talk page.  If he wishes a private conversation with the ArbCom, or members thereof, he may email them.  Kelly Martin 16:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Kelly, even if my answer is to long, please read this one in full. I think that you are judging me quite unfairly. Just in this same page, Coolcat short of any evidences was forced to say that I am not stalking him. I am not hounding him neither(the same Coolcat that has lunched in the past an Arbcom cases against me for those reasons, when he now affirm I am not doing that). My anger against him is not because the Armenian genocide topic is emotional, it has nothing to do with that. Aozan is a Turk, and deny the genocide, but still, I did not get angered by him on the talk page of the article. Having opposing views is not the point. I have given much of my time to work in this article, I have myself created two articles on the subject. Ottoman Armenian Population and Ottoman Armenian casualties. My anger against him has everything to do with disruption of the progress of the article. Just try to picture yourself in my place. Imagine that you read about a topic for over 5 years, and that you’ve been reading over 100 works about the topic in various languages. I have even OCDized works in German few years ago, because I don’t know the language, and translated them with a language translator to know what is in some books. I even in time asked a Turkish friend to translate some sentences because my Turkish is too basic. I have read various materials, and all major works(beside a last one covering German records that will be translated in English soon). How would YOU react, if a Wikipedian comes in, and want to get things deleted from the article and start telling what he believes on the subject and want his own believes being included in the article, when asking this same wikipedian, to provide one book he has read about the topic, he isn’t even able to cite ONE. Patience has limits. I agree that when I came here, during my first month, at that time I could not really comprehend what NPOV really was, and I think here that administrators should have as tasks to follow new members and teach them what is really NPOV, because I also made mistakes, I have created two other articles that I am not really proud of during those days. What I am trying to say, is that, people, everyone… should be reminded that every articles should be NPOV… articles should not be what one believes about a subject, but what is said about this particular subject. If you visit the talk page of the Armenian genocide and read the new eaves of Coolcat answers, perhaps you will understand why I am angry. He is wasting my precious time and dragging me in a worthless confrontation that in the history of the article has stopping any progress, it has even not contributed a bit on the evolution of the article. Coolcat, that is even not able to cite one book he has read about the topic, want to be permitted to use as reference a racist website, who the author more than ones has called Armenians, cockroaches. The website fabricate quotes that do not exist, in the books and works they are said to exist. And the author of the site himself was a member here in Wikipedia, and he wasted much of my early days in Wikipedia answering him, and I lost my control and started slandering him, when he started making racistic comments. I admit this, but Tony was there and witnessed, and I am sure that he will be the first to affirm that I can not be blamed for this.

When that racist guy left, Coolcat asked him to read and answer me…, which lead to the abuses of archives…, and finally that guy left Wikipedia,… and when Coolcat realised this, he started vandalizing the article(and I can give example of deletion of materials in the article without using the talk page)…, while I was justifying my changes, he was just continuously reverting them back without having to justify what he was doing. And then, he started requesting equal coverage of the two positions, I have decided to include a Turkish government section, but he didn’t wanted that, he deleted it and wanted the Turkish government position to represent the entire article. He wants his POV to be the official position of the article, he requested and still request the reference regarding what most scholars believe to be deleted…, and then, he slightly changed and he requested an half and half covering of two position equally valid, by claiming that this is what NPOV is. Look Kelly, it is true that I maintain that the genocide happened, but this in no way affected the creation of my two articles, in fact, in one of my two created pages, I have given Justin McCarthy the most famous denier a section. Because I do accept the NPOV policy, Coolcat on the other hand does not… he still maintain that two positions as equally valid is what is NPOV, according to his argument we shall screw up the natural selection entry and give half space to creationist theories. Coolcat request every points mentioned in the article that will show who believes what, and what most believe to be deleted,… because according to him referring that most scholars believe one position against another will lead others to believe one position against another. He has lunched a war to get who believes what to be deleted, this was also the reason why he refused that the Turkish government get its section, because according to him, if others know that that position is the position of the Turkish government, and that the other is the one of most Western scholars, people will tend to believe that the Turkish government is lying.

I just want to remind you that I already in the past asked mediation, I know that anyone reading Coolcat contribution, if he has no biases affection his sense, will obviously see that his implication in the Armenian genocide entry to be against Wikipedia policies and disruption. But by then, when the mediation committee asked a volunteer to see what was going on, Coolcat had already quit with his unacceptable behaviour, and they saw the discussion being civilized and they possibly thought that the issue was settled. But by now, he decided to do that again; he started by a minor edit, thinking that I will revert it back so that he can come here and to say how his minor edit was changed. He did the same thing in the past, when he vandalized the article, and later he made so-called grammar correction and knew that I will revert back… and then he has gone on peoples talk page reporting how I have called a grammar correction a vandalism and probably did this same thing over the IRC. Coolcat recent disruption is again the same crap he has been doing in the past. El_C answered this to him: “What purpose does this diatribe serve? These questions go beyond the scope of Wikipedia to answer in isolation, in so far as it remains ungrounded and unreferenced in accordance with WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:RS. Turn to the shcolarship, collect, synthesize, and present your findings. Thus far, they are insufficient due to their anectodal, unsourced nature.” This is what Coolcat has done over and over again. I requested various time that administrators take action to stop this disruption. Patience have limits.

Now, what would you do in my place? Everything was attempted. Fadix 17:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Fresh section away from fadix rant
3.1) Coolcat (talk • contribs) is prohibited from editing any articles related or referring to Turks, Kurds, or Armenians for a period of 3 months, and is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. The latter means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban Coolcat from any article he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Coolcat must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.


 * What does this mean? I can't work on complete Ranks and Insignia of NATO? You mean I can't edit wikipedia since it can be argued that United States is related to Turks. Heck I am in Turkey right now. What does this mean? --Cool Cat Talk 18:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why isnt fadix blocked from editing Armenian Genocide, if I am pov pushing exactly what is he doing? --Cool Cat Talk 18:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Simple, because I conform to NPOV while you disturb articles. You POV push, I do not. I have provided evidences to support my point, that you indeed POV push, I provided evidences that you have lied on members faces in various occasions, I have shown that you do not respect other members. What you did on the other hand, is telling how long my answers are, you have claimed that my edits in the Armenian genocide article were not NPOV, while not only one administrator has told that your interpretation of NPOV was wrong and not mine. So spare me all this worthless waste of time, and get hell out of the Armenian genocide article and everything involving directly or indirectly Turkey. I think this would be a good thing for arbitrators to vote on,... because the majority of your disruption happens in those articles. Fadix 18:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh and, another IMPORTANT thing, your claim about me regarding the Armenian genocide fall short. And had you known me from forums, and some that know me here could confirm, or I could even email you links of some of those forums. I also fought against Holocaust denial and documented two other cases of war crimes. Had my implication in the research of war crimes been only, ethnicity based, the study of other cases would not have been explained. Fadix 18:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Can arbcom please CONSIDER any restriction on people actively stalking me, harrasing me, and violating NPA. Source: This page. --Cool Cat Talk 18:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Just mind you that in this same page, you have claimed that I have not stalked you. I claim, you are disrupting Wikipedia, that you are wasting my precious time in endless worthless debates, as someone that was even not able to cite one work he has read about the article he is trying to disrupt. Fadix 18:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What does this mean? I can't work on complete Ranks and Insignia of NATO? You mean I can't edit wikipedia since it can be argued that United States is related to Turks. Heck I am in Turkey right now. What does this mean? --Cool Cat Talk 18:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why isnt fadix blocked from editing Armenian Genocide, if I am pov pushing exactly what is he doing? --Cool Cat Talk 18:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Can arbcom please CONSIDER any restriction on people actively stalking me, harrasing me, and violating NPA. Source: This page. --Cool Cat Talk 18:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Southeastern Anatolia Project is about Kurds and Turks (also since Armenians live nearby about them too), Will I be restrict to edit that. Notice the contraversy added later regarding GAP existing to destroy the Kurds, or some similar nonsense. --Cool Cat Talk 18:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)