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

This page is intended for mentors and Cool Cat to communicate. Please help to keep it uncluttered by using the talk page for other communications related to this mentorship.

• Cool Cat (talk · contribs)

• Mark (talk · contribs) (Mark Ryan)
• MacGyverMagic (talk · contribs)
• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs)

Mentors and Cool Cat can raise a new issue here by starting a new subsection

The arbitrators have made the following comments when asked to clarify the decision:

• James F on Mediation:
  • On the first point, it refers to mediation, not Mediation. Cool Cat is prohibited from acting as an informal mediator. If the Mediation Committee is satisfied that he is sufficiently able to mediate that he can Mediate, if you see what I mean, then we defer to their judgement on that. James F. (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Fred Bauder on Mediation and on Refactoring:
  • Regarding mediation: you can take some classes in mediation, workshops, practice mediation outside the context of Wikipedia; get good at it. Learn how to do it well first, then approach the mediation committee. What you cannot do is set yourself up as The mediator with respect to an article when the other editors have neither asked nor accepted you as a mediator. Fred Bauder 12:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding refactoring: voting in a poll is not refactoring. Other actions ought to be interpreted in light of the purpose of the restriction, avoiding re-arranging of talk pages to the point where by what you do you make others comments incomprehensible. Basically, don't move other folks' comments around. Fred Bauder 12:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat has place an edit that appears to be a crude personal attack on Davenbelle, Fadix and co:

• User_talk:Coolcat/User_History 02:46, 15 October 2005: (new diff) "Note: I haven't been making major edits for quite some time. I do not intend to do so for quite a while since several disturbed individuals have been actively annoying me. I am instead focusing on coding my vandal detection bot and managing the Counter Vandalism Unit. As User:RickK suggested Vandals, trolls and malactors are given respect, whereas those who are here to actually create an encyclopedia, and to do meaningful work, are slapped in the face and not given the support needed to do the work they need to do."

I've removed it for now. I'd like to ask Cool Cat to explain what he meant by the edit. I'm also asking the other mentors to review my actions and add their comments. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "disturbed individuals"-bit that's causing problems. If Cool Cat could reword it without the attack, there'd be no problem. So pending such a change, I support removal. Does this warrant some sort of penalty? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're probably all agreed that the language was grossly inappropriate, whatever the motivation. I'm inclined to take a broad view of the mentorship; we're here to ensure that Cool Cat is able to work with the Wikipedia community in a productive way, and he will not be able to do that if he lashes out like this. Cool Cat cannot use the mentorship as a shelter from which to get back at those whom he views as his enemies.

A warning should be issued, I think, and displayed at the top of this mentorship page for as long we think it necessary. Further violations of

No personal attacks

are likely to result in penalties. Leave it at that for now, I'd say.

I agree with your view that it's the use of language that is the problem. Cool Cat should be able to express his frustration at feeling that he has been hounded--arbcom agreed with him on that. But he shouldn't refer to those who hounded him in derogatory terms such as "disturbed individuals". --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I am complaining about. Vandals are given respect (or likely this is a misunderstanding) :(. I will replace the word with another as you ask tho. I still think that statement "disturbed" [1] was light in describing Marmots contributions. --Cool Cat ^Talk 10:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with this response. You've restored the offending wording, and I'm pretty sure everybody thinks you're being disingenuous by saying you were referring to MARMOT. No matter what you may have meant, it looks like you were attacking, and are still attacking, Davenbelle and co, but now doing so in an underhand way. So as to allay such nasty suspicions, please just remove the attack altogether. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative wording

I have negotiated an alternative wording with Cool Cat. It goes into more detail and, while it does criticise some named individuals for their actions that were determined by the arbitration committee to be a breach of civility, dwells largely on the consequences of this activity for Cool Cat, and does not in my opinion come close to being a personal attack. Subject to the agreement of the other mentors, I'm happy with it.

Cool Cat is not on personal attack parole; his behavior in this regard was not singled out by arbcom in the recently concluded case. I'm still considering the appropriateness of placing a personal attack warning to Cool Cat on this page, and invite the comments of my fellow mentors on this. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks all right. While I was the first to suggest it, I'm leaning towards not blocking Cool Cat right now. Apparently Davenbelle still isn't letting others keeping an eye on Cool Cat as determined in the Arbcom decision. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cool Cat is okay with the fact that he is allowed to criticise people for actions that are not in the interests of Wikipedia, as long as he doesn't step over the line of personal abuse.

We're not arbitrators, but we should use commonsense in distinguishing reasonable complaints from unreasonable ones. We have to balance the current involvement of Davenbelle with the fact that Cool Cat's edit would undoubtedly have been interpreted by nearly everyone familiar with the arbitration case as a personal attack on him. He wasn't intruding in any way, in my opinion, but rather responding to the provocation in an appropriate manner, by taking it to the mentors instead of letting it fester. It's what we're here for. Had he made a fuss about an edit by Cool Cat on the Turkey article, say, that would probably have been inappropriate in my opinion as a fellow editor, but we're not arbitrators, nor are we Davenbelle's mentors, and it isn't for us to tell him what he can and cannot do. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

(now archived)

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

To me it would seem like opposing an RFA for Cool Cat within ten minutes of its creation and notice on Cool Cat's page, is ... well, somewhat hounding behavior. I think it would be obvious to most that Cool Cat would turn down the RFA, and that if he didn't he wouldn't come near passing at this time. The impression Davenbelle's action gave me is that he was just looking for a chance to give Cool Cat another kick. Regardless of his intentions I think he should avoid giving such an impression. Is this acceptable behavior in light of the Arbcom decision? --Gmaxwell 17:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I state though that Fadix never opposed, but Davenbelle and Karl Meier (a.k.a. Stereotek) did, and pretty damn fast too. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have already commented on this. (also) — Davenbelle 11:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Davenbelle and Karl Meier need to realise it's a really, really big wide Wikipedia out there and spend time on the bits that don't have Cool Cat on them. I realise it's difficult to let go of a long-standing obsession, but doing so is necessary to not ending up at RFAr over the matter again. It's not clear what part of "let off with a caution" is ambiguous to them - David Gerard 10:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat is banned from editing the abovementioned two articles from 1000 UTC December 5, 2005 to 1000 UTC December 12, 2005. The ban is enforceable by blocking by any administrator, subject to review and possible adjustment or annulment by the mentors, under the terms of the Mentorship set up by the Arbitration Committee:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat,_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/mentorship

This is not a punishment, but is a preventive measure taken to prevent possible further disruption on those articles due to his actions or those of third parties. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This notice has been placed on Cool Cat's talk page by me:

Your edit in this diff shows that you have breached the arbitration decision by restructuring a talk page (

WP:AN/I

where action may be taken, including a block. If you persist, you will certainly be blocked, possibly by me. If things get out of hand I will completely ban you from editing the article and its talk page.

Please reconsider your obstructive and hostile approach toward others in the discussion on this page. I am patient, but I won't suffer any nonsense. --Tony Sidaway 19:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Tony Sidaway 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have banned Cool Cat from editing, creating or nominating for deletion any articles, templates or categories related to the kurds [2] [3]. This is for an initial seven day period, to be extended indefinitely subject to the agreement of the other two mentors. --Tony Sidaway 05:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rescinded pending further discussion [4]. --Tony Sidaway 15:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]