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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

Please note that Coolcat has begun using the account Cool Cat (talk • contribs).

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 5 Arbitrators are away/inactive (Fennec, Mav, Nohat, David Gerard, Sannse) and none are recused, so 4 votes are a majority


For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Mediation

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Informal mediation

1.1) Informal mediation is welcomed as a part of the normal editing process regardless of whether a user is an official Mediator.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:54, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 17:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Competence

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Stalking

4) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly nit-picking is always a violation of required courtesy.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 21:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Monitoring of problem users

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

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Available, perhaps, but only dozens that are actively editing, and that doesn't mean it's easy to get one to do so anyway. Jayjg (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 17:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC) - I concur with Jaw

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Mediation attempts by Coolcat

1) Cool Cat (talk • contribs) has unsuccessfully attempted to mediate a number of contested articles Javier Solana, Greco-Turkish relations, and Nanking Massacre. Please look at the talk pages of these articles for examples of the results of Coolcat's efforts.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Coolcat's status as a mediator

1.1) Cool Cat (talk • contribs) is not a Mediator. His nomination as a Mediator had no support Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Committee#Removed_nominations. Self-nomination [1]; opposition by El C (talk • contribs) [2]; opposition by Davenbelle (talk • contribs) [3] citing attempts to mediate disputes where he had a strong POV. Coolcat responds to opposition [4]. El C reinforces his point [5]. Having gained no support after several months nomination removed by Angela (talk • contribs) [6]

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Restructuring pages

1.2) Cool Cat (talk • contribs) has engaged in the practice of "restructuring" talk pages [7]. This results in the talk pages being confused as comments have been moved out of the context in which they were made.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] POV editing by Coolcat

2) Cool Cat (talk • contribs) has a history of POV editing which has attracted the attention of other users. He may have moderated his behavior but continues to engage in it in some instances see these edits.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:33, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 17:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Efforts by Davenbelle and Stereotek to monitor Coolcat

3) Davenbelle (talk • contribs), Stereotek (talk • contribs), and Fadix (talk • contribs) have monitored Cool Cat (talk • contribs) and have brought problems he has caused to the attention of the community.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. →Raul654 17:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC) - true, but I don't think this adadquently conveys the idea that they have been hounding Coolcat whereever he goes - in both his legitimate and illegimtimate edits. →Raul654 17:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    How about my form below? James F. (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Alternative, stronger, form

3.1) Davenbelle (talk • contribs), Stereotek (talk • contribs), and Fadix (talk • contribs) monitored Cool Cat (talk • contribs) with the view to bringing problems he caused to the attention of the community. However, this has tipped over into effectively "wikistalking" or "hounding" Cool Cat, and so disrupting Wikipedia and discouraging his positive contributions.

Support:
  1. Not totally happy with the wording, but it puts across the point. James F. (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Concur with James. Two users with the best of intentions, but their actions don't aquit them well. →Raul654 02:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 13:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 00:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Cool Cat editing in good faith

4) While Cool Cat has made objectionable edits, there's sufficient evidence to suggest that all of Cool Cat's actions have been taken in good faith.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 18:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Good faith is not affected by results. James F. (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 00:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. He apologizes readily enough, but keeps on and on. Fred Bauder 21:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. He seems to edit in good faith, and yet he cannot seem to stop making objectionable edits. This has dragged on for months - it's surprising the point still doesn't get across. Jayjg (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Coolcat prohibited from mediating

1) Due to lack of community support, Cool Cat (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.27s_status_as_a_mediator, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat,_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Workshop#Coolcat.27s_mediation_efforts_at_Greco-Turkish_relations, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Coolcat,_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek/Workshop#Nanking_Massacre. This ban shall continue in effect until such time as he is officially appointed to the Mediation Committee.

Support:
  1. Second choice Fred Bauder 13:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. James F. (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC) We shouldn't ban people from trying to help in good faith, however mis-guided their attempts may turn out to be. Would vote for "The Arbitration Committee counsels Coolcat to avoid attempting to serve as a mediator due to past difficulties", though, possibly. Meant to vote on this a week ago. Whoops.
  2. I can't vote to prohibit someone from trying to help, even if they are useless at it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. I concur with the above. →Raul654 17:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Coolcat prohibited from mediating for one year

1.1) Due to lack of community support, Cool Cat (talk • contribs) is prohibited from holding himself out as a mediator or attempting to serve as a mediator of any dispute for a year.

Support:
  1. Second choice. James F. (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. First choice Fred Bauder 15:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. Jayjg (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. First choice ➥the Epopt 21:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Weak oppose. I dislike the idea of someone who is trying to help being barred from doing so, but he is clearly someone who shouldn't be mediating. →Raul654 18:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Cool Cat warned from mediating

1.2) The Arbitration Committee strongly counsels Cool Cat to avoid attempting to serve as a mediator due to past difficulties

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Third choice Fred Bauder 15:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Last choice ➥the Epopt 21:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. This one I like. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Third choice. Jayjg (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 17:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Davenbelle (talk • contribs), Stereotek (talk • contribs), and Fadix (talk • contribs)

2) 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.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 17:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Davenbelle (talk • contribs), Stereotek (talk • contribs), and Fadix (talk • contribs)

2.1) Davenbelle (talk • contribs), Stereotek (talk • contribs), and Fadix (talk • contribs) are strongly cautioned to not interfere with Cool Cat's efforts to improve the quality of his participation on Wikipedia with the guidance of his mentors.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 00:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 08:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I still prefer remedy 2.0 Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coolcat placed on Probation

3) Cool Cat (talk • contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban Cool Cat from any article he disrupts by inappropriate editing. Cool Cat must be notified on his talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:39, September 1, 2005 (UTC) 3rd choice if mentor proposal does not pass Fred Bauder 13:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    Secondary choice in lieu of mentorship. James F. (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I think this would be acceptable to me if was for a shorter duration, or a smaller scope, or both. →Raul654 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I'm really leery of this "probation" idea. As it is, people often question what hard restrictions mean, this will only compound the problem. I'd prefer a clear prohibition on editing certain topics for at least part of the time. Jayjg (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Please propose your alternative, perhaps ban on Turkish topics. However, please note that most of the controversy centers on ethnic issues such as Kurdish and Armenian questions. Fred Bauder 23:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative proposal

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

Support:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 17:44, September 6, 2005 (UTC) Second choice if mentor proposal does not pass Fred Bauder 13:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC) Second choice.
    Now tertiary choice in lieu of mentorship. James F. (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. →Raul654 18:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Alternative proposal II

3.2) Cool Cat (talk • contribs) is prohibited from editing for one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 01:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC) First choice if mentor proposal does not pass Fred Bauder 13:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. Outrageous. This user is clearly well intentioned. This remedy is way over the top. →Raul654 17:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agreed, far too strong. James F. (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 05:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Coolcat prohibited from restructuring

4) Cool Cat (talk • contribs) is prohibited from moving the comments of others around on the talk page of any article or any user talk page other than his own. Additionally he is not permitted to archive any talk page other than his own. Cool Cat may make no edit to a talk page which is not at the end of a section unless he begins a new section at the bottom of the page. This restriction shall last for one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 15:39, September 1, 2005 (UTC) Added clarification Fred Bauder 23:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  2. James F. (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  6. →Raul654 18:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:


[edit] Coolcat Mentorship

5) Cool Cat (talk • contribs) is, for one year, placed under a mentorship as follows: If Coolcat should disruptively edit articles relating to Turkey or the Kurds (or on mostly-unrelated articles with sections dealing with Turkey or the Kurds, such as the Armenian Holocaust on Holocaust), an admin may block him for a short time, up to three days.

Coolcat will have users: Mark Ryan, Tony Sidaway, and MacGyverMagic. as his mentors. The mentors will have the power to block Coolcat or prohibit him from editing certain articles. In addition, the mentors may overrule or modify administrator-imposed blocks on Coolcat stemming from this decision at their prerogative (and thus act as an avenue of appeal).

Support:
  1. →Raul654 07:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 13:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jayjg (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. ➥the Epopt 00:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. James F. (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement by ban

1) For the period covered by the remedies in this matter if Cool Cat (talk • contribs) assumes the role of mediator with regard to any dispute or restructures or archives any talk page other than his own he may be briefly banned, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 14:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  2. ➥the Epopt 22:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I'd much rather people just state words to the effect of "This person has no skill in this area, you'd be a fool to accept him as a mediator" on the talk pages in question. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. As with Theresa. James F. (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. I don't think the attempts at mediation, though annoying, are serious enough to warrant banning. Jayjg (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 18:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 00:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

[edit] Enforcement by warning

2) For the period covered by the remedies in this matter if Cool Cat (talk • contribs) assumes the role of mediator with regard to any dispute, then any user may add one copy of the following text to the talk pages of the users potentially involved in the attempted mediatation:

Warning Regarding Cool Cat as Mediator
The Arbitration Committee [[link to final decision|has determined]] that Cool Cat (talk • contribs) lacks skill in mediation and is as likely to exacerbate conflicts as to help resolve them. Cool Cat has no official standing or authority regarding conflict resolution. Users accepting Cool Cat as mediator do so at their own risk.

"Potentially involved" is to be interpreted narrowly; excessive use of the warning will be considered at best spam and at worst, vandalism by the Arbitration Committee.

For the period covered by the remedies in this matter if Cool Cat (talk • contribs) restructures or archives any talk page other than his own he may be briefly banned, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 17:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutralitytalk 19:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. →Raul654 18:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC) - I don't like this idea but cannot think of a better alternative.

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

[edit] Motion to close

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Everything important seems to have passed. James F. (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 01:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 20:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek_Proposed_decision_c144.html"