Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 00:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 17:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

1 Involved parties
- 1.1 Requests for comment
2 Statement by Rollosmokes (talk • contribs)
3 Statement by Kramden4700
4 Statement by Crossmr (talk • contribs)
- 4.1 Addendum
5 Statement by CFIF (talk • contribs)
6 Statement by CoolKatt number 99999 (talk • contribs)
- 6.1 part 2
- 6.2 part 3
7 Statement by Lambertman (talk • contribs)
8 Statement by Minun (talk • contribs)
9 Preliminary decisions
- 9.1 Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)
- 9.2 Temporary injunction
  - 9.2.1 CoolKatt number 99999 restricted from editing
  - 9.2.2 Final decision

[edit] Involved parties

Rollosmokes (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
CoolKatt_number_99999 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
CFIF (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
Crossmr (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
Lambertman (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
Kramden4700 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
Minun (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

[edit] Requests for comment

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CoolKatt number 99999 was opened on May 15.

[edit] Statement by Rollosmokes (talk • contribs)

I have been engaged in a dispute against CoolKatt for nearly three months. Those I listed as additional parties in this request, and a few others, are quite aware of what has transpired since then. He has engaged with myself in edit wars on WWOR-TV, WTNH, WCTX, WTXX, WVIT, WPHL-TV, KYW-TV, WCAU, WPSG, WLFL-TV, WTXF-TV, Westinghouse Broadcasting, and TVX Broadcast Group (among others), as he added irrelevant information or made unnecessary changes to these articles which, I thought, constitued as being unencyclopedic, or simply of poor quality. I reverted his changes and, in most cases, explained why through either talk pages or the edit summary. But CoolKatt immediately reverted back to his versions and immediately accused me of committing vandalism as well as claiming ownership of these articles, as he has done to others (eg. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]).

In addition, CoolKatt has also ignored requests from the Wikiproject Television Stations group to join a consensus on the inclusion of several out-of-market (foreign) television stations on templates {{Springfield MA TV}} and {{Susquehanna Valley TV}}, which he has repeatedly to his liking. I personally reverted both templates back several times, and he reverted each time, accusing me of WP:OWN and trying to make a point. He himself violates WP:OWN and WP:POINT when he adds tags such as "!-- Please do NOT remove the Hartford stations" in the Springfield template, or "!-- Do not remove the merge tag. Doing so is considered vandalism!", as he did during his effort to re-merge WGTW-TV and WKBS-TV (Philadelphia) after another user split the articles.

CoolKatt has also accused myself and others of Wikistalking for constantly going over his work. But his beef with me became more personal: he filed a RfC against me, which was deleted within 48 hours (he as also done the same to others, which are mentioned in statements below), and on July 1 he filed a Request for Investigation against me without my knowledge. As of this revision, he is under investigaton for adding unsubstantiated information to television station articles, which have resulted in his being blocked on at least two separate occasions. Blocks, I may add, he has attempted to evade ([11]).

With words and phrases that end up sounding hollow (eg. [12], [13], [14]), CoolKatt has pleaded and promised to reform and behave in a civil, mature manner. But the results he has produced are quite the opposite. He is arrogant, pompous, and believes that he is the end-all, be-all when it comes to opinions on articles he contributes to. He must be put in his place. Rollosmokes 18:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Kramden4700

I had the misfortune of opposing his needless propsed merger of WPVI-TV and after a bit of investigation noticed he had plans for splitting KYW-TV as well, something which also was not needed. I also opposed his proposed re-merger of WKBS-TV (Philadelphia) amd WGTW-TV. Apparently bringing this to the light day and opposing him had put me on his bad side. I tried to be civil, but he seemed to act as if he was not the problem, but those who oppose him were and that WP:OWN did not apply to him. He needs at minimum a time out or possibly some other further sanction if this is a continuing pattern of behaviour. Kramden4700 20:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that he threatened me here User talk:Kramden4700#Channel 48 Kramden4700 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

He has now accused me and two others of stalking him. See: User talk:Kramden4700#Request for Arbitration/CoolKatt. I simply disagree with him and then the threats start. I do not see how not agreeing with him or pointing out his speculations are in violation of WP:STALK. Something is very wrong here if bringing to light a disruptive vandal's future plans is wrong then I think I may consider leaving as people like this spoil the whole experience. Kramden4700 04:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment This user might not be clean himself, as he is now blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, probably for his delete vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Russell (second nomination). Personally, I suspect this block might be a rouge admin at work, but it is definitely worth considering. Morgan Wick 07:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Crossmr (talk • contribs)

Most of what I'll say here is a rehash of what I said on the RfC. I first encountered Coolkatt on an AfD. I wasn't even aware I had until after the AfD closed. I left an opinion but it wasn't on my watch list. Sometime after the closure of this AfD, I logged in to find a spurious accusation on my userpage that I was a sockpuppet of someone whom I didn't even know. This dif[15] shows the sock puppet tag. The proper process wasn't followed and it was simply retaliation for "agreeing with nom" in the AfD, who interestingly wasn't even apostrophe. Going back to look at the AfD as I barely even remembered it, I found [16] that Coolkatt had gone and accused everyone who called for delete a sockpuppet. He'd also left the same spurious sock puppet accusation on Opabinia's user page here [17]. Both her and I spoke out about it on the administrators noticeboard, but no administrator bothered to get involved. Seen here in my archives [18] he first claims that making numerous personal attacks on users is "the right thing to do" and then claims Apostrophe (whom I did not know) forced myself and others to recommend delete. He continues to say one thing and do another, claiming he'll behave then doing things like putting AfD tags on his RfC. Here [19] he blame's his behaviour on everyone else and refuses to take responsibility for it. here [20] I tried to reach out to him to give him some guidance but his immature behaviour continues unabated. --Crossmr 20:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum

Here is again making unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry [21] and he refers to him as such in this edit summary [22].--Crossmr 15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If arbcom is still reading this now that they've accepted it, here [23] he continues to blame his behaviour on others and refuses to take responsibility for it. This has been one of the major problems all along where he is never at fault and all his behaviour is someone else's fault. His continuing to blame it on others after all this time is a very strong indication, in my opinion, that there isn't much help for rehabilitation here.--Crossmr 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by CFIF (talk • contribs)

CoolKatt, has at times, bordered on being paranoid and physcotic (seen here talking about himself in the third person), making false accusations and legal threats against members, along with making false claims and odd statements. He has a whole slew of subpages filled with unfactual and fantastic which do no good for the encyclopedia. He has also made demands and acting like he is in charge (which is sooo far from the truth). and assumes everyone "knows his contributions are useful". Everything else has been pretty much covered by Rollo and Crossmr. --CFIF (talk to me) 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by CFIF part 2

He's now started a frivolous RfC against Amnewsboy, and warned Rollosmokes and I not to edit. He's getting crazy folks. --CFIF (talk to me) 02:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

YOU are getting crazy with all this WikiStalking. Stop it now. CoolKatt number 99999 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not WikiStalking. You are just completely paranoid, it seems. --CFIF (talk to me) 02:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

He's now accusing Rekarb Bob of being a sockpuppet of Buckner 1986 with no solid evidence. This guy is crazy. [24]

Well, both accounts reverted my clean-up of WWCP-TV as vandalism. It only makes sense. CoolKatt number 99999 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to know why Buckner reverted CoolKatt in the first place. Was it because of CoolKatt's reputation? I've said this before regarding BenH: revert based on the edit, not the editor! Morgan Wick 17:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by CFIF part 3

He's now calling non-vandalism edits vandalism, [25], and treating Rollosmokes like a vandal. [26], giving him two warnings. This has to stop, I think we should skip the whole Arbitration process and go directly towards a permablock. --CFIF (talk to me) 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Pathoschild (talk • contribs) was nice enough to make a log of all three, and maybe eventually all four, of his frivolous RfC history. User:Pathoschild/Sandbox). --CFIF (talk to me) 16:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by CFIF part 4

He was blocked for one week for edit warring after being warned multiple times. And he's now smart mouthing an admin [27], as if CoolKatt's in charge and can give orders. He's crazy I tell ya, crazy. He's probably going to self implode before the ArbCom can make a decision. --CFIF (talk to me) 12:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by CoolKatt number 99999 (talk • contribs)

Pure, Wiki-stalking. I demand the slander against me stop. I am making many useful contributions, and this is the thanks I get? I demand this dispute end now. CoolKatt number 99999 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] part 2

[28] Crossmr is uncivil and denies being uncivil at the same time. CoolKatt number 99999 18:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You've given no evidence I've been uncivil to you.--Crossmr 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] part 3

[29] Kramden4700 just vandalized the WWCP-TV article I worked so hard on. Since Rekarb Bob seems to be a sock puppet of him, it appears that Buckner 1986 is another sockpuppet.

Could someone please revert this and block Kramden4700? CoolKatt number 99999 04:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

And if no one wants this article cleaned up, I will have to go to AfD. CoolKatt number 99999 04:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're doing an absolutely wonderful job convincing people you shouldn't be banned. Referring to edit warring as vandalism (see WP:VAND and WP:CIVIL), accusing people of being sock puppets because they just so happen to agree with other people opposing you, attempting to bring in people to take part in your edit wars for you, threatening to take articles that clearly deserve to exist to AfD because they happen to have an edit war going on, most of your "evidence" is trying to slander/blame your accusers rather than actually defend against the charges... nice job. Morgan Wick 06:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Lambertman (talk • contribs)

Most everything I've witnessed has already been discussed. I can only add this [30] statement from Katt in which he says his speculation (as to the meaning of callsigns) should be taken as fact because it makes sense to him. Lambertman 23:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Minun (talk • contribs)

I have came across him quite a few times, through a couple of the Wikipedians I work withs talk page, I have read the existing talk page and see that it is very serious. By the look of his talk page, I believe hes still doing these stuff and he was only unblocked to discuss this case, so hes violating his restrictions. I also have a feeling he will not be able to take any restrictions as established by refucsing to go with admin rules, but I still believe that this is very serious —M in un ^Spiderman 11:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

Accept. Dmcdevit·t 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Accept. But if he really is that bad... will no sysop rid us of this user? James F. (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Accept. - SimonP 14:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Accept Fred Bauder 22:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Accept. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction

[edit] CoolKatt number 99999 restricted from editing

1) CoolKatt number 99999 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is banned from editing any pages other than his own user pages and those relating to this arbitration pending its resolution.

Enacted at 12:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Bans for disruption

1) Users who by tendentious editing, edit warring or otherwise disrupt editing of an article or set of articles may be banned from editing in that area.