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

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in on the proposed decision sub-page.

User:Cool Cat's incivility and personal attacks

1) I'd like to have a discussion concerning User:Cool Cat's incivility and personal attacks. — Davenbelle 11:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Just a few of the many, many examples:

   On Nanking Massacre: "Stop being silly, do you have some sort of sick wet dream to stare at a dead naked woman? Or do you enjoy staring at dead chineese? [sic] Not everyone likes to see the pictures, but people can read."

   On his talk page: "User:Stereotek and User:Davenbelle are no longer welcome to post anything in my userspace. Any of their posts regardless of their content will be deleted. If they ever insist. I will take more drastic mesures. Since arbcom is a joke. I'll do things my way. So please dont waiste my time User:Stereotek and User:Davenbelle just SHUT UP and GO SCREW yourselves."

   This was repeatedly reposted after we removed it.

    — Davenbelle 11:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. Eeto, you guys stalking me and commiting the behavior best described at
   WP:HA
   .
   1. At least 6 admins have made remarks that your behaviour as unacceptable.
   2. You just want people that you see as a "threat to wikipedia" off of wikipedia.
      1. You are in dispute with 4 other users (that I know from one of your posts) regarding pov disputes. I do not know or care of the nature of your disputes but I do not believe you are doing anything to resolve them judging from my interraction (or a lack of it) with you.
      2. Arbitrator Fred Bauder does not have the authroity you see in yourself. Infact 4 people (assuming no one is opposing) is necesarry to make any Arbcom ruling. And even then arbcom rulings are generally limmited for a short period of time (generaly no more than 1 year).
      3. People threat to wikipedia did exist and have been blocked indefinately. Infact I am writing code pursuing two of them:
         User:Willy on Wheels and User:MARMOT
         in a joint effort with a large number of admins most notably Linuxbeak. I do not like braging about my work but if I dont at this point my work against Willy on Wheels and MARMOT is in risk of being comprimised.
   3. You are banned to contribute to articles regarding politics (for one year) and have been established as a "POV Warrior" on an eariler arbcom ruling, yet you were on Kemal Ataturk reverting me completely disregarding the arbcom ruling. I believe you still disagre with the ruling and hence do nothing to improve yourself. The point of limited ban from articles is that people chill down and develope skills to better contribute. In other words learning how to coexist.
   4. You prefer to create disputes between parties (like sending people after me on NATO insignia page). Certainly you did not contribute to Greko-Turkish relations either since you did not discuss anything regarding content but instead a contributor, me.
   5. Davenbelle and Stereotek's behaviour (stalking/harrasment) is the primary reason for my frustration on wikipedia leading to a great deal of stress leading to a number of regretable personal attacks from me (often regretably misguided as well). While regreting everey personal attack I make, I do not believe the person kicking the lion is any more innocent if not more guilty than the lion biting back.

   --Cool Cat ^Talk 12:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Anything to say about your incivility and personal attacks? (besides they made me do it!? — at least you're sorry you regret it, but will you cease...) — Davenbelle 12:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Do you regret making personal attacks because you are now being held accountable for them? Are you sorry in an apologetic sense? — Davenbelle 04:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I just regret making them. While two wrongs (your stalking + my direct personal attacks (infered ones were not intend to be personal attacks)) dont make one right. I am not going to "apologise" from a person who angered me with his unacceptable behaviour. I do not see why this case isn't treated simmilar to WP:RfAr/David_Gerard%2C_Neutrality%2C_Cyrius personaly. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   It isnt like this is an overwhelming problem. Throughout my wiki experience I only have 3,4 cases of getting over-frustrated, 2 involving you trigered by you. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, incivility leads to incivility. If the initial incivility was not there I wouldn't be dragged down to that level. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   While we have opposed you, we have been civil. Please post a diff where I have attacked you in anything like the manner you have attacked me. — Davenbelle 13:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Harassment even when done politely is uncivil. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Lion? (giggles and logs out...) — Davenbelle 13:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Hey, it was a random animal I could think of :) --Cool Cat ^Talk 14:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Ok, Singaraja. — Davenbelle 02:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Mediation

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Competence

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Clarification of issues

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The hope is that if Coolcat will quit attempting to mediate the situation may improve or least be clearer. Fred Bauder 13:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Dont have high hopes. I dont intend to mediate any time soon, since the community doesnt want, I will mediate if asked. Do realise if it weren't for Davenbelle and Stereotek several of those mediations would have succeeded since they interfered with ALL. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Monitoring of problem users

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Focusing of attention on Coolcat by Davenbelle and Stereotck may be part of the problems. Monitoring Coolcat, to the extent it is necessary, can be accomplished by other users and administrators.

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Problem users

5) Users who engage in diverse objectionable behavior which affects many aspects of their editing and other behavior may be banned due to their disruptive affect on the Wikipedia community. Partial remedies such as banning from a particular area of editing are appropriate only for users whose other behavior is generally acceptable. While not an accepted part of Wikipedia policy this concept has been expressd on Meta as "don't be a dick".

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. It has taken a long time to come to this conclusion, but the shit goes on and on. Fred Bauder 16:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

1. I really cannot comprihend how am I being a "dick" by GETTING reverted. Karl had no edits on that
   article and he rvereted me to keep uncited statistics which I commented out untill citation innitialy and when cited kept the statistics. They are PURSUING me and I am being a DICK. This is crazy. --Cool Cat ^Talk 17:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Yes it does, Fred. This is why I have bothered. — Davenbelle 07:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I really think there is a lack of analyzing evidence here. Your behaviour was unacceptable, I couldnt not have been a dick BY NATURE if it is you arriving to the articles after my edit on them and revert me or make comments generating ot attemt to generate a concensus against me as I posted on my evidence page. --Cool Cat ^Talk 09:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Davenbelle's position

1) Davenbelle (talk · contribs) has accused Coolcat (talk · contribs) of being a POV pusher [1] [2] and Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archives/2005#Current 'neutraliser' is not neutral!!.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. 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. — Davenbelle 07:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
2. First they declare me as "Turkish", lets just assume that is true. Why the hell would I want to push japaneese POV? As the Nanking Massacre has nothing to do with Turkey. Heck Turkey was neutral in WW2. Davenbelle's contibution falls under trolling at best as he had only discussed my evil. The very basis of NPA is that people dicsuss the material not the contributer(s) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. Coolcat decided to participate at the Nanking massacre entry to try to show others that his participation at the Armenian genocide entry was not specific to his Turkish nationalist edits. Not only he was declared to be a Turk, but Coolcat actually admitted being one when he called the Ottoman Turks as his encestors, and used the term Armanian in various occasions. Fadix 17:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Interesting hypotesis, you still are insisting typos define nationalism. Lets say I am Turkish, what difference does that make? You declared yourself as Armenian and hence you shouldn't be alowed to edit Armenian Genocide either with your logic. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Some of my ancestors were Greek actualy, my family tree has a lot of mixed races. And Greeks at a point of history were Ottoman yes. I don't see why I have to explain my family tree here in order to edit

   Armenian Genocide. Why do you need my identity/nationality? If you have problems against a nation that doesnt quite concern me. I am fascinated with history, it isnt my profession but I tune in to the history channel, national geographics channel (ocasionaly the cover ancient hisory of ancient egiptians) or discoverry channel for example on every opertunity. Wikipeida editors do not need to be historians to edit history articles. And I highly doubt your profession is history since you arent inclined to provide "archive" links to your claims. I havent made many claims in the article if at all. I just removed statements such as "The majority accepts this" statements which honestly do not have a basis. Historians do not (according to the article you created) agree on how many people died. Turkish side makes some calims Armenian side makes claims, neutrals make claims, archives dont agree. I mean come on. You do not allow people you dont like edit the article att all, you revert without bothering to read the change. You reverted me just because I was editing. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Also I checked the spelling of the translation of the word "Armenian" in Turkish. For my suprise you are also flawed. That would be "Ermeni" in other words no usage of the letter A. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Had you admitted to be a Turk, I would not have cared a bit of your ethnicity. This is about respect and trust. And here, you well know that your intend about using the Ottomans as your ancestors was not about Greeks, but rather Turks, because what you called as an accusation against your ancestors could only have been about Ottoman Turks. As for “Armanian.” I know enough Turkish to know how Armenian is written in Turkish. Your mistake was about the pronunciation of the word(and you sure know it, and this regardless of the way you're playing the innocent here). “Arman” is the semitic/Arabic pronunciation of the term, which is the same for Turkish, the reason why it is written Ermeni in Turkish is because the letter E is not pronounced as in English in Turkish, but rather as the more latin language, such as the ë, é, è etc. In fact, the only letter in English that could have the same pronunciation is of course the A. The thing is that you have used the same letter for the beginning of the term, and for the forth letter, a mistake that I have seen common among Arabs, Jews AND Turks. The fact that you have repeated countless numbers of time the same mistake was clearly indicative that it was sure not a mistyping. Why after all one whom get involved in Turkish affairs entry in Wikipedia will try to dissolve the entry of the genocide of a people that he will repeatedly name with a semitic tendency, by a term that is not so rare for a Turk, and above all from someone that justified it by claiming that his ancestors in this cases were accused unjustifiably? I mean, either you know the people from another language than English(Turkish, Arabic or Hebraic), or either you didn't knew nothing about Armenians and the genocide before you edited, to a point you couldn't spell the term. The second possibility has been rejected by yourself, when you claimed to Raffi at the talk page, of having lied about your knowledge, and that you know more about the subject than you claimed to know, in which cases, your knowledge of the subject could not have been through the English language but rather another language, and the term you used is indicative that it was probably Turkish. More so, when you have presented stuff that were only published in Turkish newspapers. I am sure that you know mathematic well, right? So tell me, what are the chances in those circumstances that you are not a Turk? And before you start again claiming regarding why your ethnicity should make a differences, I will repeat for the Xnt time. That you are a Turk, a Marsian, an alien from another galaxy, it doesn't change anything here, what changes thing, is when you lie on peoples face repeatedly, and here another example, is your claim that I have called Tony a revisionist, I have yet to see where I have done that. You can not expect to be respected when you don't want to respect others. Fadix 19:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for my ethnicity, I have come here as an Armenian, and I have never denied of being one, this is a question of honesty, I will contribute, by knowing that what is important is the material I present, and if it is Wiki or not, and not my Armenianess, on the other hand, you have come in Wikipedia and presented yourself as an uninvolved party to allegedly moderate, every critical issues directly or indirectly involving Turkey, and while you have admitted the Ottoman Turks to be your ancestors, and even used terms proper to Turkish nationals, you have lied on peoples face. The wrong here is not your Turkishness, but, you lying on peoples face, and above all, your POV pushing. Fadix 19:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And for the rest, those have been debated, and your claims ended up being unsupported. Don't forget that the reason why the Armenian genocide entry has no footnoting is because of you and your attempt to revert and edit. I won't give dozens of hours to source articles and add materials, to then have a POV pusher deleting informations. Fadix 19:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. You still havent learned to summarise your cases. I don't enjoy reading essays. This isnt a f***ing forum. I am honest, I dont like revealing my identity. I just told you I had greek ancestors. Not all greeks "hate" ottomans. Since Arman is the arabic prononciation and since I am not beeing acused of being arabic I really cannot follow your reasoning. I am sorry I will not read your eassay. I am not Turkish. If you argue that I am you will be trolling. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   This RfC isnt filed against you, I do not understand why are you trying to get involved this actively. You are making my job a lot easier. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't knew that answers of more than a hundred words were restricted here, and only proper to forums. Beside Coolcat, I am not the one saying you were a Turk, you have admitted that yourself by telling that your encestors were accused unjustably(and I was not the first one showing the diff. of your admission). As for Arman, yes, it is in fact Arabic, but the Turkish term reffering to the Armenians IS Arabic, and the same; and I am sure that you CAN follow my reasoning. Fadix 21:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your uncivil use of rough language haven't changed one bit Coolcat. I hope that this ArbCom will also consider the evidence, that has been made available regarding Coolcat's violations regarding civility and no personal attacks. -- Karl Meier 21:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of POV editing by Coolcat

1.1) Coolcat has a history of POV editing which minimizes ethnic issues which affect Turkey [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_4#PKK_page, [11], [12].

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. These edits show Coolcat's behavior when he first edited; he claims he does better now; the question remains as to his recent editing. He also claims that these matters are not relevant to this arbitration. However they seem to be as his POV editing is transparently the reason why others monitor his edits. Fred Bauder 11:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Coolcat's position

2) Coolcat (talk · contribs) has expressed his feelings that Davenbelle's accusations are unfair and interfere with his good faith efforts, for example to mediate [13]. He has expressed his distress [14]. Coolcat cites this edit by Davenbelle [15] as showing prejudice against both him and Turkey.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I edit an article it gets reverted, I place an article for VfD it gets opposed, I create a category, it gets placed on deletation. By who? Davenbelle and/or Stereotek! --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mediation and opposition

3)

Comment by parties:

1. Firstly I was not given the opertunity to even practice mediation, before a conversation started, my effort was comrimised by the contribution of one or several of the same parties (Fadix, Davenbelle or Stereotek). This generaly is viewed as trolling or stalking. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Coolcat's status as a mediator

3.1) Coolcat (talk · contribs) is not a Mediator. His nomination as a Mediator had no support Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#Removed_nominations. Self-nomination [17]; opposition by El C (talk · contribs) [18]; opposition by Davenbelle (talk · contribs) [19] citing attempts to mediate disputes where he had a strong POV. Coolcat responds to opposition [20]. El C reinforces his point [21]. Having gained no support after several months nomination removed by Angela (talk · contribs) [22]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I am not an offical mediator, I don't have to have an offical status to be a mediator. Everybody is encoureged to assist others resolve their disputes. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Cool Cat has acted in an unseemly and disruptive manner

4) Cool Cat (talk · contribs) has engaged in a wide variety of objectionable behavior that could be grossly described as acting like a dick. See User talk:Cool Cat.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. While certainly not policy I think it is a reasonable guide to what to do in an instance where there is a great deal of disruptive behavior that is not specifically focused.

Comment by parties:

1. I really cannot comprihend how am I being a "dick" by GETTING reverted. Karl had no edits on that
   article and he rvereted me to keep uncited statistics which I commented out untill citation innitialy and when cited kept the statistics. They are PURSUING me and I am being a DICK. This is crazy. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. I wholeheartedly support this finding of fact. In his comment above User:Coolcat confuses cause and effect. FWIW, in the evidence User:Coolcat has presented, he documents many instances of his own misconduct (read the diffs, not his mischaracterisations of events). — Davenbelle 07:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I really think there is a great level of disconnection from the realities of at least the evidence I collected, and the RfAr workshop cases. It looks quite one sided especialy the coverage of

   Kurdish people which even the person blocking me for 3rr agreed. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

   ]

1) Due to lack of community support Coolcat (talk · contribs) is prohibited from holding himself out as a mediator or attempting to serve as a mediator of any dispute, see
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Workshop#Mediation and opposition,
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Workshop#Coolcat's status as a mediator,
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Workshop#Coolcat's mediation efforts at Greco-Turkish relations, and
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Workshop#Nanking Massacre.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I can mediate just fine. If (as mentioned earlier) my mediation attemts were not "trolled" by the comunity created by 3 inidivuals, Davenbelle, Stereotek, and occasionaly Fadix, I would have practiced my skills beter. If a group of users create a concensus against you (anyone) all the time you (anyone) would not be able to mediate anything --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Recent edits to Kemal Atatürk

Analysis of recent edits to

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Kemal_Atatürk#Criticism contains some sharply POV material and can be fairly described as being in an immature state. Perhaps the strongest criticism that could be made about Coolcat's editing is that he did little about the grave defects found in this article. Whether his current editing style would justify restrictions on editing is an open question. Fred Bauder
   13:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
2. The archiving of the talk page thus removing relevant material which was the subject of a RfC was improper. Fred Bauder 17:47, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I added about 100kb of data merely reworded existing text. Criticism of course will contain pov. But since it has couner pov, which already existed there just poorly organised. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 19:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Any archived material if people are still willing to discuss can be readded. Since no one is discussing anything other than recent change to the criticism section, which is a recent change, I do not see my wrong. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 19:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Coolcat's mediation efforts at Greco-Turkish relations

1)

Comment by parties:

1. Generaly, if not always, Fadix, Davenbelle, and Stereotek have discussed me (contributor) rather than the actual article --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Nanking Massacre

2)

Comment by parties:

1. I reduce the size of a few images and guess what Davenbelle and Stereotek revert it. Please bear in mind Stereotek a.k.a. Karl Meier was blocked due to 3rr. Since he was reverting me I was also blocked. The users in opposition (Fadix, Davenbelle and Stereotek) were not involved in this article prior to my involvement. Davenbelle reverted my edits 3 times and Stereotek more than 3 times. I am not offended by seeing pictures of corpses but I fail to see the reason for them occupying 1/2 of the page. I resized images to the size they apear on
   Holocaust. Users were opposing me just to oppose me. On the internet you generaly find sites that show "images may be disturbing to some viewers" warning prior to showing such images. Since I cant do that best I can do is make them smaller. Images are avalible full screen if anyone clicks on them after all. Even then the images are irrelevant, what matters is the text. I was tring to do edits that would be example to the parties involved in the discussion. Fadix, Davenbelle, and Stereotek were not a part of this discussion prior to my arivle. All they do is oppose me. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Mediators are frequently accused of POV pushing. I accused
   Armenian Genocide article. User:Tony Sidaway is not a POV pusher, on the contrary he just wants parties to discuss matters and material be presented in a NPoV manner. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Comment by others:

1. I would like that Coolcat, either present the diff. to show where I have accused Toney of revisionism, or either stop claiming this endlessly. I for don't remember accusing him of such, and if in fact i did not accuse him of such, I would consider Coolcat accusation against my person of defamation by a user against another one. Fadix 17:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Just ask Tony himself. You declared him a revisionist on his talk page after he locked the page. Infact I actualy did not bothered to check what "revisionist" meant. I just thought it was an isult (the way you used it made the word looked like revisionsts are Nazis or some other group of "evil" people since you dont want "revisionist pov". According to wikipedia Historical revisionism, a revisionist is:

   "Historical revisionism is the reexamination of the accepted "facts" and interpretations of history, with an eye towards updating it with newly discovered, more accurate, and less biased information."

   "All writings of history are in some way revisionist. If there was a universially accepted view of history there would be no need to research it. Many historians who write revisionist exposés are motivated by a genuine desire to educate and to correct history. Many great discoveries have come as a result of the research of men and women who have been curious enough to revisit certain historical events and explore them again in depth from a new perspective."

   Which is the basis of wikipedia NPOV, lack of bias. So by your accusation (of me being a revisionsit) I was doing the right thing. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty well know what revisionism is, but it is as well generally agreed and used, the term revisionism in association with the Holocaust and Armenian genocide is to revise the history of war crimes by twisting, distortion and manipulation. And if you pay a closer look at the entry from where you took that quote, you will see this title: “A second common usage of the phrase "historical revisionism."” and a link to a main article. Oh and, I still want you to present me the diff. Where I call Tony a revisionist. User_talk:Tony_Sidaway/Archive_2005_04_22#Why_locked_on_his_edits. I don't see me calling him that. Please show me where I have called him that. Fadix 19:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am sorry I dont understand what you are trying to achive here. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Was it not I, that asked you to show me the Diff, where I have called Tony a revisionist? I don't remember of having done that. I want to see that from my own wordings. But you have changed the subject and posted a definition of the word revisionist. Fadix 21:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stereotek

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. It is simply amusing to declare me dening every genocide (not that nanking was a genocide but instead a massacre and there is a diference yes) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Coolcat has frequently violated Wikipedias policies regarding No personal attacks, and has exposed several users to extreme personal attack across several pages. Examples include: User:Stereotek and User:Davenbelle just SHUT UP and GO SCREW yourselves. [32] and Stereotek + Fadix = Death [33]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. My talk page is my responsibility. This evidence is invalid. Though they did revert war against me on my own talk page. I am more that frustrated with the level of reverts I am dealing with, even on my own talk page. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Coolcat has shown complete discontempt for the opinion of other editors and Wikipedias rules regarding concensus. Examples include insisting on redirecting the

Comment by parties:

1. I object and oppose any and every concensus levied on me by the community made out of 3 users: Davenbelle, Stereotek, and/or Fadix. I was being bold to unite
   PKK. I can be bold and do that. Other editors aside from Davenbelle, Stereotek have made comments and convinced me that this was indeed a bad idea, I would oppose such a move if asked now. Davenbelle, Stereotek on the other hand just annoyed me with reverts. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Coolcat has also been a frequent violator of wikipedias policies regarding civility, and has among other things used edit summaries such as: "Stop being silly, do you have some sort of sick wet dream to stare at a dead naked woman? Or do you enjoy staring at dead chineese?..." [37] and comments such as: "You cant read either, the color format is discussed above" [38]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I serriously was and still am getting annoyed because of the level of reverts I am dealing with. That there was a revert war in resizing images. I was thumbnail sizing images ocuping 1/2 of the screen. If resizing images is indeed POV pushing, execute me. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Coolcat has frequently been violating wikipedias policies regaring copyright. Examples include the

Comment by parties:

1. "Please dont bite newbies who are new to wikipedia" applies. No one informed me on how copyrights were processed in Diagnosis_Murder. Thanks to the assistance of parties not involved in this conflict directly on IRC I have a better understanding. GAP Project thing was not a copy vio. It was from a PD source however proving its PD status will comprimise my idenity, something I want to keep annonymous. Hence I cannot prove it, but I did rewrite that page in greater detal. Frequent violations means more than 2 I assusme, which would be false. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. True. Only because of Davenbelle and Stereotek's reverts. Stereotek was also blocked due to 3rr because he apperantly lost count of the number of times he was reverting me. He later made Davenbelle revert. They team up to revert me constantly. The nature of reverts quite often dispute scientific facts such as that helicopters dont work well in hights of soulth eastern Turkey. All of the 3 blocks I recieved was from Stereotek's complaining and reverts by Stereotek himself and Davenbelle. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Apart from these violations of Wikipedia policies, Coolcat has been disrupting Wikipedia by aggressively promoting a some odd ideas. These include insisting on using a very unusual colorsheme when 'mediating' in articles such as

Comment by parties:

1. I was ASKED to mediate Javier Solana, meaning I was requested to push odd ideas if necesarry to end the revert war on going. Guess what, I did end the revert war. People started talking. I was doing a great job untill Davenbelle came and trolled the mediation process to a complete halt. He complained about me modifying the talk page and later removed my mediation template. If you see archives you will see that partes had started using my "odd" idea (as several posts were in colour). It is called being bold, nothing is against that. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 13:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Davenbelle's Evidence re User:Coolcat

• original version at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence/Davenbelle's Evidence re Coolcat
• nb: I've added this section heading, adjusted the dated sections to fourth-level, and fixed one broken link. — Davenbelle 07:06, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Feb 4, 2005

• 08:07, Feb 4, 2005
  • Cc's very first edit:
    Kurdistan Workers Party; removes [http://www.freedom-for-ocalan.com/ Freedom For Öcalan] from External links. link

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Yes, seems a POV edit made from a Turkish nationalist position. Information in the link removed [41] seems appropriate as an external link. Despite its obvious Kurdish nationalist POV it contains useful links. Fred Bauder 13:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I admit that wasn't a very smart move, still the link promotes amnesty to a jailed individual who is accused of being a terrorist by all NATO member States, EU member states, and independently by United States. I just think a propoganda link is inaproporate, but I wouldnt bother removing that link now. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • It does not represent the "Kurdish" pov, there is no uniformal kurdish pov. It just does not contribute to the article IMHO. I wouldnt remove it now. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

nb: Cc's current editcount

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. One good thing is that Coolcat does a lot of talking about his edits. Fred Bauder 13:53, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Firstly I do not like my nick to be abriviated or a formal Mr. added infront of my nick. It is just confusing and unnecesary. I informed Davenbelle and Stereotek for this and they failed to honor such a simple request. Yes I have over 9000 edits now. I meet the edit count requirement to be an Admin and even an Arbcom member IIRC. I do not see this in anyway as something "bad" --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • I'll stay quiet if you ask. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 08:37, Feb 4, 2005
  • Cc's fourth edit: Turkey; removes several blocks of text related to Kurds, EU Minority Rights requirements, religion, and changes Kurdish population percentages to much lower numbers.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Coolcat rids Turkey of its Kurdish problems. Fred Bauder 13:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Several people have introduced baseless statistics to wikipedia, that is called sneaky vandalism. Overnight half a million Kurds were born in europe. The statistics on Turkey is based on a high and a low source. 20% kurds is from the CIA factbook and is an "unoffical estimate" the 3% was from britanica IIRC. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • Right... The "Kurdish problem" is Kurdish pov. Establishing it as a fact is still pov. Introducing baselsess statustics is still wrong. You convinced yourself that I am the wrong party which is rather unfair. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Feb 10, 2005

• 10:06, Feb 10, 2005 -- no edits since Feb 4
  • Edits
    Armenian Genocide and Kurdish independence movement to simply state: "The allegations of so called Armenian Genocide in Ottoman
    era has ceased."

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Coolcat eliminates
   Armenian Genocide as well as Kurdish separatism Fred Bauder
   14:01, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. You call it a kurdish independence movement, which is POV. I see it as terrorism. WHen I claimed "The allegations of so called Armenian Genocide in
   Armenian Genocide for over several years. Guess I started the debate diplomaticaly O_o; --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]
   • False. Establishing Armenian Genocide as a fact conflicts NPOV. It is an international dispute and wikipedia NPOV suggests we cannot establish Armenian Genocide as a fact, nor can we deny it. The reader should be allowed to decide. See how I discuss my case in
     Talk:Armenian people
     and see how the convo was going prior to Fadix's involvement.

Comment by others:

1. This is false, what you've been doing is to delete informations, and I agree saying that the genocide happened as fact is not NPOV, but if you pay attention to my created pages,(Casualties figures), an administrator actually edited the tone and added the term genocide, in a place where I decided to not use it. And even my neutralization edits are opposed because they are considered as supporting the revisionist position more than it worth. So your claims about my person in my implication regarding the Armenian genocide are simply wrong. Besides, you don't need to point to pages where I have been harsh with you, I have never denied being harsh with you, and I also said that I was ready to pay for that. When I do something wrong, I am ready to admit and pay for it, I won't deny and start accusing others, like you've done. Also, as I said, and even repeat in my Wikipedia page, I've done mistakes too, there is a reason why in my pages, I don't include two other pages I have created(Hamidian massacres and Adana Holocaust), because they are not up to the standards of Wikipedia and should be completely rewritten, and those are in my priority lists to do it, because I have created them soon, and they were done during Torque implication, and am really not proud of those two entries. You want people on my back, like there are on yours? I don't really care, in fact, I would like to have good intentioned people on my back tracking possible POV and possible biases, because it will be for the good of Wikipedia, and be sure that I won't go cry if those people adhere to Wikipedia principle. Fadix 02:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• 10:43, Feb 10, 2005
  • Edits
    Kurdistan Workers Party again; adds "This article belongs to "Leftist terrorist organizations" category and is constantly beeing abused by supporters of this terorist organisation." as the first line of the article and removes three links from External links: Kurdish Info, PKK Guerillas I, PKK Guerillas II
    .

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Yes, an inappropriate editorial comment, but similar to the usual NPOV template. Removed Kurdish nationalist links. Fred Bauder 14:08, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. The two URL's (PKK Guerillas I, PKK Guerillas II) do not contribute to the understanding of PKK. If I cannot keep a pov link showing pictures of people "murdered" by PKK, I dont see why anyone can provide links to Images showing the counter POV. I wouldnt bother removing kurdishmedia now, though I do not see the relevance of a website giving kurdish news that isnt officialy affiliated with
   PKK. If we are going to place every link relating to Kurds articles would exceed 32kb limit rather too easily. I would remove the URLS: PKK Guerillas I, PKK Guerillas II as they are irrelevant, I wouldn't do so if someone explained me to their relevance in talk. If someone reverts me in the most irritating manner, with no talk and with an edit summary "POV Vandalism", I will definately revert it back since 1)POV edits cannot be vandalism 2) I am not told why. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]
   • I don't see any problem with links to victims of PKK terrorism, NPOV contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. The problem is that this evidence shows you removing an opposing point of view, and replacing it with your own, not adding your point of view to the nationalist point of view. The 32k limit is deprecated.Fred Bauder 14:59, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
     • I was told the images of victims were inaproporate in talk as it doesnt contribute to the article, which I now believe is accurate. Same goes of images of millitants. People can google.
       PKK already has way too many links. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
       ]

• 16:14, Feb 10, 2005
  • Assorted Anti-Kurdish POV-Editing to
    Kurdish people
    . No edit summary; edit marked as 'minor'.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Sanitized the article, inappropriately removing Kurdish point of view. Fred Bauder 14:12, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Sure, I accidentaly click the minor check-box right above save. Anti-Kurdish is a loaded term. Anti-Kurdish means I want to remove all referances to a group of people. I only remove unverifiable and unsourced nonsesne such as statistics on how many kurds live in europe/country which was introduced without any sources. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • Unless something is sourced, it is original research. If an annon comes makes random claims and vanishes, Ill gladly revert it unless it isnt based.

Comment by others:

• 16:27, Feb 10, 2005
  • Removes the last two External links from
    Kurdistan Workers Party with edit summary: "Broken, both links dont work. DUH!"; links: PKK, KONGRA-GEL
    ; they worked for me.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Work for me too and seem appropriate although not much there in English. Fred Bauder 14:16, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. When I was edit for over a week the links did not work. Also Kongra-gel no longer exists, the organsiation changed that name long ago, so it is logical to assume a non existant organisation lacks a web page. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 17:10, Feb 10, 2005
  • Extensive Anti-Kurdish POV-Editing to Kurdistan; large removals of text.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Removed large blocks of Kurdish nationalist POV material, added original research from anti-Kurdish POV, "The plans of a Federal Iraq will not work as there are 3 different ethical groups that needs to be unified and at best will trigger a greater war." Fred Bauder 14:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Again define anti-kurdish. Granted, I would not edit that article the way I did about 5 mounths ago as I have a better understanding of NPOV now, I just dont see why neither Davenbelle or Stereotek tried using article talk. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 17:12, Feb 10, 2005
  • Removes Image:Flag of Kurdistan.png from Kurdistan with Edit Summary: "There is no such thing as a kurdish flag as there is no kurdish state"

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Yes removed generally accepted flag. There may be a nation even if there is no state. Fred Bauder 15:05, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Yah. I was explained later we had the flag of United Federation of Planets hence even fictional flags can stay. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • I dont object the existance of the flag now. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Feb 13, 2005

• 08:35, Feb 13, 2005
  • Edits Turkey again; removes paragraph referring to Arminian Genocide with Edit Summary: "This article contains information on the Republic of Turkey not Ottoman empier. Please post them elsewhere." No sign that the text was posted anywhere else.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Coolcat rids Turkey of it historic Greek and Armenian minorities. Fred Bauder 15:11, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Hmm.. That is interesting. I also reverted people removing the statement from the article later on. It wasn't a wise move nor was the statement NPOV). It still is my honest opinion no referance to Armenian Genocide should establish facts as almost any fact has a counter. It just exeeds a paragraph unnecesarily. I do not see why referances to Armenian genocide should occupy 1/5th of every article it is referenced. Just say "
   Armenian Genocide." No more details, since we dont even know how many people perished. Don't believe me? Ask Fadix. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]
   • You seem to be learning, but consult [42]. Fred Bauder 15:11, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
     • I dont like poems ;) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Feb 14, 2005

• 14:09, Feb 14, 2005
  • Posts (also) to
    Kurdistan Workers Party
    : "I do not understand why you had a restore to that page as the information was shifted around. No infomation was deleted, terror network propoganda was filtered. It is a terrorist organisation and I will not tolerate its propoganda. Call me a close minded fool but I will not be declared a cold blooded killer by them." unsigned

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This is at User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_4#PKK_page Fred Bauder 15:19, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Hmm.. I was new to wikipedia at that time (and you weren't even reverting me back then). My relation to Jayjg is much much different now. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • Like I said I have a learning curve. I had a rough start and made some pretty stupid mistakes. This doesnt however give anyone any right to stalk me. Lots of users including some current admins (and maybe even arbcom members, no offense its not a claim) had a less than perfect start to wikipedia. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 14:37, Feb 14, 2005
  • edits Turkey again; removes same material as 10:06, Feb 10, 2005 without adding new sentence (had been reverted by User:Jayjg). Reverted by User:Tony Sidaway with Edit Summary: "Revert POV pushing by Coolcat. See talk page".

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The question does arise as to the extent these are current subject of debate in Turkey. That these issues belong somewhere in Turkey is obvious. Fred Bauder 15:24, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Yes! User:Tony Sidaway also started this RfAr against Davenbelle and Stereotek. I have a learning curve. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • No, it is unnecesary to discuss
     US Army --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
     ]

• 15:47, Feb 14, 2005
  • User:Tony Sidaway posts to Talk:Turkey a request to User:Coolcat to "Please stop POV pushing."

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Discussion regarding POV editing by Coolcat. Fred Bauder 03:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. See above. Repeted argument. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 17:59, Feb 14, 2005
  • removes all External links, Interwiki links, and Catagories from
    Kurdistan Workers Party with Edit Summary: "LINKS DONT WORK 404 NOT FOUND :P". Reverted by User:Tony Sidaway with Edit Summary: "Revert last edit (simple vandalism
    )".

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Edit seems rather destructive. Fred Bauder 03:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. See above, and previous statements regarding links. Repeted argument. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 18:29, Feb 14, 2005
  • Edits
    Kurdistan Workers Party; removes [http://www.freedom-for-ocalan.com/ Freedom For Öcalan] again. Reverted by User:Tony Sidaway with Edit Summary: "Revert (appears to be simple vandalism
    again)".

Comment by parties:

1. Mentioned earlier on. Repeted argument. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 22:24, Feb 14, 2005
  • Removes
    Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq and in Turkey
    ".

Comment by parties:

1. Repeted argument. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 23:46, Feb 14, 2005
  • Removes "and in Turkey" from caption of Image:Flag of Kurdistan.png in Kurdistan with Edit Summary: "There is no Kurdish autonomous region in turkey nor is the flag flown. Caption ok else than that. Though its not the flag of kurdistan so I dont think it relly belongs here".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. The flag is simply not flown in Turkey. If it were I wouldn't object to that. If a flag is legaly flown that means ownership of territory, which is false by all standards. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 23:50, Feb 14, 2005
  • Adds "These boundaries were drawn with more concern for the division of oil resources and influence between different colonial powers and for rewarding pro-Allied Arab leaders than for ethnic distributions. Turkey did request northern Iraq but the allies were more concerned with oil than stability. The major reason of conflicts in Arica and the Middle east is rather random border drawing." to Kurdistan.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. According to the innitial phase of Laussane treaty Kirkuk and norther Iraq was supposed to be Turkish territory. Covering all of the region shown on the map of Kurdistan I think and kurds would be united and hence wouldnt need to fight in 2,3 nations to "unite". Thats my pov tho. I havent introduced that. Colonial powers did draw random borders. Why else was countries like Jordan, Kuwait established? Of course this discussion should have taken in articles talk page but that never happened. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 23:51, Feb 14, 2005
  • User:Tony Sidaway changes caption of Image:Flag of Kurdistan.png in Kurdistan to end w/ "and by Turkish Kurds" with Edit Summary: "Fix ambiguous wording. By Kurds in Turkey, not Kurds in some non-existent autonomous region (my bad)".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Repeted argument. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Feb 15, 2005

• 08:00, Feb 15, 2005
  • Changes caption of
    Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq" with Edit Summary: "Never seen the flag in turkey. Would not right as its not the Kurdish flag. it is a kurdish flag". Reverted by User:Tony Sidaway with Edit Summary: "Revert. See Flag of Kurdistan
    ".

Comment by parties:

1. Repeted argument. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 20:17, Feb 15, 2005
  • User:Uriber Removes "The major reason of conflicts in Arica and the Middle east is rather random border drawing." from Kurdistan with Edit Summary: "removed off-topic, POV, commentary"; sentence had been added by Cc as part of this edit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Repeted argument. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Feb 16, 2005

• 22:18, Feb 16, 2005
  • Removes redlink to
    Kurdish Republic of Mahabad from Flag of Kurdistan
    with Edit Summary: "fixed broken link"

Comment by parties:

1. I wouldnt do that now, but the republic in question is hardly worth a stub. Since the naion never officaly existed or will exist. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 22:18, Feb 16, 2005
  • Removes redlink to Xoybûn from Flag of Kurdistan with Edit Summary: "fixed another broken link"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I wouldnt do that now, I dont see how much about that could be written. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 23:19, Feb 16, 2005
  • Reverted on Flag of Kurdistan by User:Iota who wrote "They're not broken links. They're links for someone to create articles in future."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Yah. Apperantly broken links are fine on wikipedia, I learnt that rather quicly. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 22:21, Feb 16, 2005
  • Changes caption of
    Kurdish Autonomous Region of Iraq" with Edit Summary: "It is not the Kurdish flag it is A kurdish flag. Clarified phrase.". Reverted by User:Tony Sidaway with Edit Summary: "Revert. See Flag of Kurdistan
    ".

Comment by parties:

1. Repeted argument. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 22:23, Feb 16, 2005
  • Changes "Since that time Kurdish nationalists have continued to seek independence in an area approximating that identified at Sevres." to "Since that time some Kurds have continued to seek independence in an area approximating that identified at the long revoked
    Sevres." in Kurdistan
    with no Edit Summary; marked as minor.

Comment by parties:

1. Clicked minor edit by accident. Was too late when I noticed, spoils of brodband. Serves was revoked. I was clarifying what was proposed to establish the region. Which never happened. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 22:33, Feb 16, 2005
  • Deletes talk by User:Tony Sidaway plus his own reply from Talk:Kurdistan with Edit Summary: "Not a part of the discussion"; talk was about Tony's revert of deletions by Cc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. IRC does wonders. A discussion did take place. Just you cant view it. Ask Tony. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

// continues; and there's stuff in talk...
// 465 edits in a 15 hour strech is an edit every 1.9 minutes
// 3870 edits in 47 days is an edit every 17.5 minutes;
// assuming a 16 hour day gives an edit every 11.5 minutes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I am hyperactive yes. No more though since I get hyper reverted by you two. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Feb 17, 2005

• 00:54, Feb 17, 2005
  • Removes redlinks again from Flag of Kurdistan with Edit Summary: "Simple Vandalism. They will be added when those articles are created." (so anti-wiki)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Repeted argument. See above. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 01:07, Feb 17, 2005
  • Removes redlink to
    Kurdish people
    with Edit Summary "Removed broken link". nb: most of this section has subsequently been removed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Repeted argument. I later learned broken links were fine. It takes time for newbies to get used to wikiway. This is not related to my conflict with Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Feb 18, 2005

• 02:00, Feb 18, 2005
  • CC's first edit of
    Armenian Genocide
    . Adds {{NPOV}} tag. Does not state a reason on the talk page.

Adds insult to injury.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Oh and is there any soul suggesting it is neutral? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. They were not neutral, true, those were my first days implication in Wikipedia, but not yours, while what you were doing with your edits was even more POV, and haven't justified any of your changes. The articles neutrality has improved a lot since that day(from the level of trash, to an OK article). Actually, I was the one initiating the neutralization of the article, and putting an end to this revert and ball game between the two sides, and I challenge anyone to read the history of that entry and show me else. And besides, I was the one re-adding the POV tag the last few days back, even if, besides the chronology sections language in some cases, there isn't really anything I could see as POV, because I believe that the article need a lot of work, and new sections too, and above all, I wasn't really interested to start a revert war, with some that still don't really understand why those tags are used. Fadix 03:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feb 19, 2005

• 10:19, Feb 19, 2005
  • Tries to speedy Flag of Kurdistan with Edit Summary: "{{db|It is not a country how can it be a national flag? Also falls under Propoganda as the flag has no legal legitaicy and often is used by terrorist and seperatist groops.}}". Reverted by User:Szyslak with Edit Summary: "This is not a speedy candidate b/c it doesn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion; . Anyone who wants it deleted can put it on VfD".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Fictional flags are ok on wikipedia, see above post. Repetive statement (5th time I think). If you are listing every revert This arbcom hearing will exeed gigabytes. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 20:01, Feb 19, 2005
  • Redirects
    Kurdistan Workers Party
    ; no Edit Summary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. If you actualy read PKK you'll realise that
   Kurdistan Workers Party represent the same group of people according to PKK by the way. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]

• 20:09, Feb 19, 2005
  • Cc's first edit of Young Turks. Adds {{disputed}} tag. Does not state a reason on the talk page. Reverted by User:Wetman with Edit Summary: "rv a "factual accuracy disputed tag added by a non-contributor to the article or discussion".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I dont see baseless accusations as NPOV. I cant discuss it since Fadix will just revert without even seeing the diff. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 21:08, Feb 19, 2005
  • Tags Flag of Kurdistan with Vote for Deletion.

See:

Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Yes. Fictional flags are fine. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Feb 21, 2005

• 16:46, Feb 21, 2005
  • Adds {{disputed}} tag to
    Armenian Genocide article, either should be merged with it as the alligations are an international dispute. Its full of opinions than facts. <!--I can't fix it as I am not knowlegable enough to fix it.-->". Both edits reverted by User:Mirv
    with Edit Summary: "hooey".

Comment by parties:

1. Ah yes. Mirv also suggests you guys leaned on me too much. I was too buys reverting Davenbelle and Stereotek and probably forgot about it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 16:54, Feb 21, 2005
  • Removes half of "major regional schisms" sentence from Turkey with Edit Summary: "Incorrect info. Propoganda material. Falls under Sneaky Vandalism at best".

Major regional schisms depend on

littoral, where summer drought

is unknown).

Comment by parties:

1. Firsltly its gramaticly incorrect. "Major regional schisms depend on ethnicity" is POV since a) unsourced b) biased. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 17:07, Feb 21, 2005
  • User:Dabbler removes rest of "major regional schisms" sentence with Edit Summary: "Deleted a sentence made meaningless by previous deletions".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. See past argument. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Feb 23, 2005

• 10:16, Feb 23, 2005
  • User:195.175.37.11 restores "major regional schisms" sentence to Turkey with Edit Summary: "Don't mess with this sentence again, retard".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. And I start getting pissed of with the number of reverts. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Feb 25, 2005

• 00:12, Feb 25, 2005
  • Kurdish people to add info on Turkish Government's treatment of Kurds; edit reverted by User:Coolcat with Edit Summary: "POV reverted back to IOTAs edit. Author warned...". "warning" at User talk:81.1.77.131: "Neutrality on Wikipedia" -- "You are hereby warned to refrain from POV please read wikipedia articles: Neutral point of viewand the What Wikipedia is not
    article".

Comment by parties:

1. I refrain from comment. Davenbelle and Stereotek was not involved. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 04:26, Feb 25, 2005
  • Removes references to North Kurdistan and Kurdistan from Turkey and removes "major regional schisms" sentence again with Edit Summary: "Why are people insisting on POV material that stuff is pure propoganda... Also fixed a sentence, its more meaning full now I believe" (I disagree)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Yah. See above. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 10:11, Feb 25, 2005
  • User:195.175.37.11 restores "major regional schisms" sentence to Turkey with Edit Summary: "Supplying relevant geographical data is not a POV but being anti-Kurd is one."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I removed obvious and unsourced POV. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Feb 26, 2005

• 11:08, Feb 26, 2005
  • Removes "major regional schisms" sentence from Turkey again with Edit Summary: "1) Information is false. I lived trhough out the place. 2) I am not anti Kurd 3) Thats propoganda and POV."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. 1) Information is false. I lived trhough out the place. 2) I am not anti Kurd 3) Thats propoganda and POV. Still applies. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Feb 27, 2005

• 10:40, Feb 27, 2005
  • Removes "Conflict in the southeastern region of the country between secessionist Kurdish rebels and the government calmed in 1999 but re-emerged in 2004 and is one of the main internal disputes." from Turkey with Edit Summary: "Dispute is historic, added it to recent history where it belongs, conflict did not restart." false edit summary

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Conflict did start, at the time there was only 1 incident. The conflict never completely ceased, there were 1, or 2 skirmishes per year... This sentence belongs to article talk and would have been presented if people were using talk. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 11:34, Feb 27, 2005
  • Listed Image:Flag of Kurdistan.png at Wikipedia:Requested moves for Image:Flag of Kurdistan.png → Image:Flag of Kurdish Autonomous Region.png or Image:Flag of the Kingdom of Kurdistan.png

See: Consensus against.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Discussed to death already. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mar 1, 2005

• 08:51, Mar 1, 2005
  • User:195.175.37.8 restores "major regional schisms" sentence to Turkey again (slightly reworded) with Edit Summary: "1- The word "precipitation" is more appropriate, 2- You are anti-Kurd"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Discussed to death already. Other party was pov pushing. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 16:57, Mar 1, 2005
  • Reverts User:195.175.37.8 on Turkey (which also removed this) with Edit Summary: "Reverted, POV is uncacceptable.. Your accusations itself is a POV, your facts are baseless your statements are offensive and are gramaticaly incorrect. READ WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS NOT".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I suspect those ips had some sort of sockpuppetary. Just because someone is opposing doesnt make them automaticaly right. Geeez. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mar 2, 2005

• 07:04, Mar 2, 2005
  • User:195.175.37.8 restores "major regional schisms" sentence to Turkey yet again with Edit Summary: "Wikipedia is not a tool of propaganda, including yours of ethnic hatred".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Discussed to death already. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 08:37, Mar 2, 2005
  • User:195.175.37.8 revises sentence in Turkey to read "major regional diversities" with Edit Summary: "employed a more "POV-free" word".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Discussed to death already. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 08:43, Mar 2, 2005
  • User:195.175.37.8 corrects demographics percentages (90%-97%→80%-85%) with Edit Summary: "the percentage figures are false".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Discussed to death already. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 09:22, Mar 2, 2005
  • User:195.175.37.8 posts (also) to Talk:Turkey: Section "Coolcat's Lack of Neutral POV": "User Coolcat constantly assaults each article he sees the word "Kurd" in." (rest omitted; see diffs).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Discussed to death already. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mar 4, 2005

• 07:09, Mar 4, 2005
  • Removes "major regional diversities" sentence from Turkey with Edit Summary: "That information does not belong here. THIS IS NOT A PROPOGANDA TOOL".

"The major regional diversities depend on ethnicity (mainly Kurdish-inhabited southeast), economy (industry and cash crops in coastal regions), and precipitation (Black Sea littoral where summer drought is unknown)."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Discussed to death already. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 08:06, Mar 4, 2005
  • Removes a characterization of Iraqi Ba'athist regime as "the greatest ruling party in world history" with Edit Summary: "Someone was smoking too much weed or whatever...", but also rewrites "The American-sponsored idea of a Federal Republic, with a relatively high level of autonomy for the Kurds, currently appears to be the most popular." to read: "The American-sponsored idea of a Federal Republic, with a relatively high level of autonomy for the Kurds, which is opossed by the surrounding nations as it will desitablise the already trobbled region."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Ba'athist part was not the greatest ruling party on the world. Good lord. The american sponsored idea didnt get acceptance yet. Please follow the news. Its pov to suggest either way as you cant cite a source. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 08:20, Mar 4, 2005
  • Anti-Kurdish rewording of
    Kurdish people. Removes characterization that "the Kurds are the world's largest ethnic group without their own state"; importunes that an independent Kurdistan
    "would significantly destabilise the region."

Comment by parties:

1. POV, unsourced, and nations do agree a free kurdistan will mean war. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 07:21, Mar 5, 2005
  • Reverts vandalism by User:LadiesLoveCoolJames diff with Edit Summary: "Vandalism detected, all vandalism is done by various annonymous users, I had taken the time and put up a trace. All vandalism is from internet cafes. This must be stopped." — right.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Hmmm... I actualy cracked the password of the router of that IP. Using the info I found in the router, I managed to identfy the bandwith usage, bandwith speed and owners personal info. Only internet cafes and dedicated servers use over 60GB of upload and download and a 1mb/sec link. An internet cafe is the plausable choice. Oh I did also used the phone number of the owner and checked a phone book. It was an internet cafe. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mar 5, 2005

• 08:00, Mar 5, 2005
  • Tags
    Template:Pan-Turkism
    (which he didn't create until 5 minutes later) to insert his own message into the VFD notice; see below.

See:

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pan-Turkism

. Article was kept, of course.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Course. Article still is pov. What was the last time I even bothered editing that? Forever ago. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 08:05, Mar 5, 2005
  • Creates
    Template:Pan-Turkism
    which states:

In my opinion this article is 99.81% POV and doesn't look salvagible, should either be competely rewriten (which not much would be left) as I opose the article and dispute its factuality. I am a bad cadinadte to do the work myself, I will check the article left and if it is neutral should not bug me. In my opinion this information is a political discussion and wikipedia is not a soapbox for those.

• Delete or completely rewrite --Cool Cat| My Talk 08:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(template is not currently used; another bit o' shite that someone will have to clean-up)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. See above. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mar 6, 2005

• 01:03, Mar 6, 2005
  • Edits Turkey to change high end of population percentage range from 90% to 97% with Edit Summary: "sneaky vandalism"

nb:lots of edits of the figure...

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Discussed to death. Ill stop here since this is just repetive statements. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. I was reverting an annons. Messing with the statistics without citing sources. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 15:49, Mar 6, 2005
  • Posts following to
    Kurdistan Workers Party
    :

Your edit removed significant amount of material (that I added prior). I strongly believe that wasn't your intention. As you reverted the material back before deleting it. :) Fix this whenever you are done playing with pocket knife and blowing things up. :P --Cool Cat| ^{My Talk} 15:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Has the temerity to add this: "And can you please archive your talk?"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I really THINK anyone should know what MacGyver is known famous for (pocket knifes and blowing things up). I know MGM i have no disputes with him. I do not bellive he is a terrorist. He is a mentor of mine. So please I ask someone to explain what this peice of evidence suggests. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 16:07, Mar 6, 2005
  • Posts to
    Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
    .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Yes it is "My Article" in a sense that i wrote it. I do not write articles so Davenbelle and Stereotek can revert me without even bothering to discuss things. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, Turkey entering iraq is vied generaly as a "disaster" while americans are there. I do not think many medians dispute this. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 16:39, Mar 6, 2005
  • Tags KurdishMedia.com for Vote for Deletion without Edit Summary or talk.

See:

Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I see that website article or any website article as a complete waiste of wikipedia userspace. Websites should apear as external links whenever relevant.
   WP:POINT is not violated. I just feel something is unencyclopedic and I am VfDing it. If community disagrees I am cool with that. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. Such articles are encyclopedic and the wikipedia community reaffirmed it in this case. — Davenbelle 08:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I think they are not. Hence I VfD them. I may re VfD them later if I want later on with perhaps better arguments. You have no reason nor right to monitor me and oppose me on practicaly every move and delete I suggest. Thats being a dick. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mar 17, 2005

• 22:56, Mar 17, 2005
  • Uncivil comment to
    Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View
    ".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Fadix was and still is giving me and a lot of people a very hard time in
   Armenian Genocide by not even allowing us to make edits, even spelling corrections, check the talk pages and archives if you really like. Fadix was beeing extremely uncivil back then prompting stress not just on me and many others. Actualy why not read several of his comments on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Proposed decision. And explain him "ownership of articles" and "civility"? --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Comment by others:

1. If one actualy pay a closer look at the history of edits, it will be highlined that Coolcat, simply speaking, is lying. Most of the edits are untouched by me. Coolcat also lie when he claims I oppose to spelling corrections, he repeat opne single incidence that happened, after he had vandalised the article and to then make so-called spelling corrections wishing that it would get reverted so that he can go cry telling how I reverted his spelling corrections. He has repeated this single event again, again and over again... Coolcat claims that my [what he precieve as] wrongdoings don't end up with him, but also on other users. He is lying again, another Turkish member said that he'd prefer me editing and writing the article than another participant. On the other hand, i admit not wanting the edits Coolcat propose, but for the sole reasons that, it is against Neutrality principle, and that Coolcat still request them after he wasn't even able to get a support of them, but regardless he still bring them back, again, again, again, again, again and again. Another thing I would add, is that the only other member I have been very harsh, is a racist who compared Armenians with instects, and who has a racist website registered under a proxy, that not only Coolcat supported, but even asked his helpFadix 04:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mar 18, 2005

• 00:36, Mar 18, 2005
  • Personal Attack against
    Talk:Armenian Genocide
    ; "I think you should cut back on crack".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. My conversation with fadix have generaly beenf rustrating esspecialy with the level of personal attacks I recieve from him. He did not allow me to make edits to
   Armenian Genocide and actualy said this too. I was frustrated and was being stupid. Also I fail to reate this to Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^Talk 17:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. It relates to your conduct:
   WP:NPA. — Davenbelle 08:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I think it is only normal of one to get enraged ehen by two people stalk and troll him and also he recives "rant" from fadix. Posts of Fadix to me generally does violate personal attacks as well. After the level of annoyance I recieve from you and him, I think its only normal. You cannot complain about the lion biting if you are kicking it. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mar 19, 2005

• 22:08, Mar 19, 2005
  • Bizarre personal attack on
    Talk:Armenian Genocide. Presumes authority and alludes to destruction; "recognise my authority" a la Cartman
    ; "This article is more than simple history discussion but is a diplomatic dispute between Turkey and Armenia".

Comment by parties:

1. Yes, a bizarre i response to fadix claiming he does not recognise my authority and will go on with his nonsense reverting of even spelling corrections, please dont omit what that was responding to. --Cool Cat ^Talk 17:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mar 21, 2005

• 04:30, Mar 21, 2005
  • Explicit denial historic factuality of
    Talk:Armenian Genocide
    : "I deny the holocoust, so does a lot of scholars".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. As I explained this a number of times. I was refering to the need of citing sources. An united claim of "The majority of scholars believes this" means nothing. No one sane denies the Holocaust so I was trying to express that. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. So from your statement above, it is correct to assume that the "holocoust" [sic] you're referring to in the above diff is the
   Armenian Genocide? — Davenbelle 07:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   In the context it is presented, only if you are assuming bad failth. It is a sarcastic comment. If fadix is as knowlegeable as he claims, I was hoping he would notice the problem arising for comments that go on as "The majority of scholars". It is uncited, and uncitable. It is also unnecesary. If there is so overhwelming accpetance, fadix should have no difficulty in citing sources. I think everybody agrees that there is a great lack of source citing in

   Armenian Genocide. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

   ]

Comment by others:

1. Coolcat again is lying. I have cited a recognition by the largest bodies of scholars that research are write about genocides, I have for example just recently, given an example, by the numbers of articles in the major Holocaust and Genocide Journal, and I have given the result, from Oxford database, which is that the Armenian cases is used more than any other cases besides the Holocaust. I also have presented various Journals, in which, everytime the Armenian cases is used, it is to be considered as a genocide, which clearly shows the disproportion. Reputable and notable credible historians like Gilbert(who wrote in my opinion, the best Volume covering World War I), who considers the Armenian genocide as "undeniable" or that ethnic Jewish Holocaust researchers that for years maintained the theses of Uniqueness of the Holocaust, like Yahuda Bauer, saying that the Armenian cases is the event that has the cloest parallel with the Holocaust.(and I have cited that too). But Coolcat will still keep repeating that nothing is sourced, while I have sourced that article, and presented documentations, that I hardly believe any articles have been sourced in that way. Fadix 04:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mar 24, 2005

• 08:18, Mar 24, 2005
• Threatening section heading on User talk:MacGyverMagic "==Stereotek + Fadix = Death==" while seeking assistance with users opposing him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. "Stereotek + Fadix = Death" ment their combined effort is killing me. PLEASE dont misinterprete my posts. --Cool Cat ^Talk 17:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Please do not make posts that can be easily interpreted as threats. While you're at it, please remove the obviously mendacious assertion on your user page that you are a native speaker of English. — Davenbelle 08:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Please dont stalk me so I do not get frustrated, that would prevent me from psoting simmilar nonsense. Please do not make claims regarding my native language, thank you! --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mar 26, 2005

• 19:50, Mar 26, 2005
  • Adds {{history-stub}} to Young Turks; then adds {{disputed}}, too (again); on talk says: "Do not ask me to leave." plus his previous reason from Feb 21. Reverted by User:Davenbelle with Edit Summary: "rv User:Coolcat hooey".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Exactly what are you suggesting? A one sided article covering something should be {{disputed}}. --Cool Cat ^Talk 17:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mar 27, 2005

• 01:23, Mar 27, 2005
  • Personal Attack against
    Talk:Armenian Genocide
    ; "You cant read either, the color format is discussed above".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I was trying to force my color sceme. While I agree it is not the wisest desicion of mine. It saddens me for it to bee seen as a personal attack. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree, Cc was trying to force his Kolour Skheme. — Davenbelle 07:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Please do NOT abriviate my nickname to Cc or to Kewl Kat or anything similar. It is "Cool Cat" and I want to be referanced as such. Dont be a dick. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 07:30, Mar 27, 2005
  • User:Stereotek posts to Talk:Turkey:

"Coolcat: 'I will be soon reproting your HUNT for coolcat posts'. Good luck! 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"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• 07:59, Mar 27, 2005
  • Asks User:Netoholic: "Why the hell did you move my template registered under my user name. What is your problem?"; User:Netoholic's reply: "While I should just ignore that, for it's purely hostile tone, I'll explain." (rest omitted; see diff)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. The incident is the moving of "User:Coolcat talk template" to "User:Coolcat/talk template". Back then I was unaware of the rpocedure of sub pages. I also fail to see how this relates to Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wikipedia:Civility — Davenbelle 09:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   This was about User:Coolcat/mediat (which was once at Template:User:Coolcat/mediat) — Neto moved it. See also: Talk:Greco-Turkish relations diff, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh diff, Talk:Armenian Genocide diff; User:Coolcat was attempting to force his color scheme on these talk pages by transcluding a template that Neoholic userfied. Inserting a bit of userspace into article talk pages is unacceptable because it is out of reach of the other participants on the talk page. — Davenbelle 07:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Firstly dont move my coments. Secondly explain why have you interfered with my mediation efort in

   Greco-Turkish relations and a few other articles? Even if there was a 1% chance of sucessful mediation why did you interfered? You realise you only made things worse. You kept topics locked sides argue on. I am not sure why Arbcom does not see your interference as inaproporate. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

   ]

• 08:19, Mar 27, 2005
  • Threatens User:Fadix, User:Stereotek, and User:Davenbelle on his user page: "If you annoy me like this, I will be forced to disrupt your wiki bond" (whatever that is)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Wikipedia:Harassment#Types of harassment:

   Threatening another person is considered harassment. This may include threats to harm another person, to disrupt their work on Wikipedia, or to otherwise hurt them.

   — Davenbelle 09:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. It was me asking you to leave me alone or I will be forced to take mesures to keep you away from me. Such as THIS arbcom case. It was a warning for YOU to stop Harrasing me. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Mar 28, 2005

• 06:57, Mar 28, 2005
  • Personal Attack against
    Greco-Turkish relations
    : "I know some of their facts better than people who sit in an office and make smart talk". Adam has a PhD in history.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. The comment was not directed on Adam Carr but to a bunch of politicians in Europe. Thats my view and is by NO MEANS directed at adam carr. I protest this missinterpretation of my comment. --Cool Cat ^Talk 15:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. How about your preceding edit to the talk page where you state: People who suspect me of things can either shoot themselves or talk to me. ??? — Davenbelle 06:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah if you are accusing me for being things, you can shoot yourself. I do not mind. Alternatively you can post comments on article talk page discussing the article content. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 09:52, Mar 28, 2005
  • Personal Attack against
    Kemal Atatürk
    ; "User lacks ability to read discussion, seeking help".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. User does lack the ability. Why else would he have been ignore talk at the time? That revert is removing original research from wikipedia (on how one interpretes a discrete comment). Discussed to death on the evidence page and in the articles talk page. --Cool Cat ^Talk 15:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. I hereby assert that I have the ability to read (and write) English at an advanced level. — Davenbelle 06:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Thats nice, but I do not want to keep learning about you discovering your newer abilities. Please focus on the arbcom case. Thanks. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Apr 7, 2005

• 01:05, Apr 7, 2005
  • Removes
    Death of a thousand cuts
    .

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. Firstly I cannot comprihend how
   Death of a thousand cuts relates. Secondly I was being stupid yes. I have not made edits in that nature ever since. --Cool Cat ^Talk 17:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. re:
   Death of a thousand cuts: I see you making edit after edit in an attempt to remove material that does not agree with your POV. The victim is wikipedia and you're wielding the knife. — Davenbelle 08:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I really do not remember editing that article aside from me unifing templates recently. I really do not care about chineese history, I carry no POV on something I have no knowlege of. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Apr 10, 2005

• 02:44, Apr 10, 2005
  • Complains at User talk:Tony Sidaway that "Stereotek and Davenbelle, are still reverting my edits", to which Tony replies: "Well I looked at what you're doing on Kurdistan Workers Party and I'm not surprised. If I were editing that page I'd do the same myself, because you're removing external links for bogus reasons..." && " I don't think you yet fully understand NPOV" (for full reply see diff).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I grew way beyond that. Tony Sidaway filed this RfA for me against them. --Cool Cat ^Talk 17:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Thank you, Tony. — Davenbelle 08:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   You fail to realise, with my discussions with Tony Sideaway, he really sees you being a problematic party as well, while he agrees that several of my odler edits were POV in nature, you know... till early april. If you wish to thank people, do so in the proper place their talk page where they can see. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• 10:19, Apr 10, 2005
  • Implied threat to User:Fadix (or possibly User:Stereotek and User:Davenbelle) on User talk:Mel Etitis: "I dont want user to die, I want him to be hurt so he stops". Mel Etitis comments on this on User talk:Coolcat: "You're getting over-heated again; talk of hurting other editors, even if meant metaphorically, is not advisable. I note that there's already a request for arbitration, incidentally. Do you really want another?".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. What I ment was I dont want them to be levied restrictions. I was angry at the time and was being stupid. --Cool Cat ^Talk 17:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. I've noted that you've gotten too angry at times and that many of your posts have been ... ah, agreed. — Davenbelle 08:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   You are the reason why half of the time I am angry. Other half is because of Stereotek. I do not get angry when I am in good communication with people and they dont randomly make rather inaproporate comments on article talk pages or go on silly revert wars over image sizes etc. Kick the lion in his cage and sue him for biting. --Cool Cat ^Talk 09:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Cool_Cat's Evidence

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence/Coolcat

It has been pointed out at

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I do not believe it is fair to acuse me of pov pushing when I am demanding sourcing and other party insisting on uncited statistics. I do not need to look for the statistics for karl, you dont monopolise an article and get people to find sources for you. This was bad practice by karl and it is imperative that it should be mentioned as such, --Cool Cat ^Talk 22:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Population table

There was a table in the article which purports to show the worldwide population of Kurds. It was Cool Cat's contention that he was justified in removing this table on the basis that it was unsourced Commenting "Demographics - I am comenting out the baseless statistics again, I am also placing a notice on ANB" and "No sources I can comment it out for ages. Cool Cat". This diff does not show the full content of the table which is:

Unofficial estimate of the number of Kurdish people in the 21st century by country.

This is the content from

Kurdish people

People are keeping on restoring baseless statistics. Can you interfere? --Cool Cat ^Talk 00:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just interfered by adding a lot of references for these statistics. Could you on the other hand, stop deleting important information, just because they doesn't suite you personal PoV, Coolcat? -- Karl Meier 09:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats false not one mentions numbers you posted regarding at least europe. It is baseless and unsourced. --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics should be discussed on the article's talk page. I have half the mind of zapping it there right now. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 00:12, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree but Karl Meier prefers senseless reverting and avoids all discussion. --Cool Cat ^Talk 02:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. An easily found source is found at http://www.minorityrights.org/Profiles/profile.asp?ID=11 But, as pointed out this is out of date. Viewing the table in the current article it shows a source for each estimate. Perhaps all the struggle resulted in progress. Fred Bauder 13:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

1. Eeto,
   • Based on the uncited table:

Iran 8,000,000 - 9,000,000

Iraq 5,000,000 - 6,000,000

Syria 1,500,000 – 2,000,000

Turkey 15,000,000 - 20,000,000

Total of just these 4 countries: 29,500,000 - 37,000,000

1. • Well.. based on the linked you posted

Iran 6,100,000

Iraq 4,400,000

Syria 1,100,000

Turkey 13,200,000

Former Soviet Union 500,000

Elsewhere 700,000

Total 26,000,000

1. • The numbers from the site are much much lower than the ones on the wiki table.
   • The point is Karl refused to cite sources and kept on reverting me. he was not involved with the article since may and back then all he did was revert me.

   Cool Cat ^Talk 18:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I am all for citing sources and if sources can be found for uncited statistics they should be updated and cited. User:Coolcat seems to think that anything that is uncited can be deleted and he is quite selective about what he chooses to apply this view to. NB: the MRG site that Fred gives is 12 years out of date, so I expect that the numbers are a bit low — unless Kurds have been killed faster than they can breed... — Davenbelle 03:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it should also be noted that I actually worked on getting things referenced there, while Coolcat provided nothing but reverts and disruptions. He even listed me at the vandalism in progress page: [43] -- Karl Meier 10:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The content from the vandalism in progress page:

• Karl Meier (
  Kurdish people refuses to cite material for changes. Please handle with care. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have refused to accept your use of an outdated Wikipedia mirror site (nationmaster.com) as a reference for statistical information. That can't be called vandalism by any means so please stop abusing this page, and instead use the talkpage and discuss these issues with me there. -- Karl Meier 10:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you read my evidence page I covered this in great detail. Take a look. --Cool Cat ^Talk 15:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

"Don't exist"

1. Kurds are not living anywhere if not cited as far as wikipedia is concerned. --Cool Cat ^Talk 09:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)^diff[reply]
2. Thats unacceptable/[not negotiable]. Cite sources or it will not exist in the article. Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox where you get to make up statistics. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)^diff[reply]
3. This problem is expressed in editing in the article where regions of the world such as countries of the former Soviet Union were blanked by Cool Cat's edits [44]. This results in a false representation of no Kurds.

Comment by arbitrators:

1. There is a paradox here: while material that is not cited may be removed, there is also no authority for the negative position. The table removed contained information that some Kurds lived in Turkey. That information was removed as well as more questionable data. This represents a gaming of the policy resulting in an absurd edit. Fred Bauder 13:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. No, Wikipedia is not a soapbox but there is a pattern here of citing policy to justify breaking policy. Fred Bauder 15:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

1. False, at the time they were not cited. When CIA factbook was cited I did NOT remove the statistics me reverting karl. Also realise when CIA factbook was cited millions of kurds vanished. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • Please read the evidence I posted regarding the incident on the evidence page. --Cool Cat ^Talk 14:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   • Fred, you suggest several ediotrs are entitled to break policy? karl was dead wrong in insisting on keeping several uncited statistics, I have got tens of people agreeing with me. It was NOT a pov edit by me. It was me commeting out statistics untill cited, I was going to cite them myself later if someone didnt in 24hrs (I really hate citing sources for other people and I evade it unless I have to) but karl reverted and revert warred on. At a point he cited sources and I did NOT revert him. He had about 2 million kurds in the table uncited on two entries which I removed. --Cool Cat ^Talk 19:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is another example of User:Cool Cat carving-away information at odds with his POV; i.e. a
   Kurds in such a manner is to metaphorically kill them by denying their existence. User:Cool Cat often "cites" policy in absurd ways. — Davenbelle 10:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   If it isnt cited I have every right to comenti it out untill there is citation. Are you accusing me of a metaporical genocide against kurds for editing a wikipedia article? This is hilarious! --Cool Cat ^Talk 11:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   You are free to laugh all the way to the block. — Davenbelle 12:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   

   Rises a question. Why would I commit a "virtual genocide" against people that I worked basicaly for to build a dam? GAP creates better irrigation which means more cash to people living there. Since we trust the American Gov for kurdish statistics, we can trust them for the graph presented on the right. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Your "benevolent work" to better the lives of the

   Kurds is belied by the animus shown in your edits. — Davenbelle 13:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Those are harsh words, all I want is accuracy in statistics. Speaking of which, here is a cited statistic. My work is still bettering the lives of the kurds long after I left being part of the project. Showing that there are more kurds than there actualy are serves to no good purpose for the kurds. One claim suggests there are way over 60 million Kurds. In reallity it is very hard to distinguish Kurds and Non-kurds (culturally or geneticaly) from other folks in the region. --Cool Cat ^Talk 13:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: