From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page contains several deleted requests for comment displayed here for evidence in a related request.

Contents 1 A Man In Black 1.1 Statement of the dispute 1.1.1 Description 1.1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.1.3 Applicable policies and guidelines 1.1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 1.2 Response 1.3 Outside view 1.4 Discussion 2 Rollosmokes 2.1 Statement of the dispute 2.1.1 Description 2.1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 2.1.3 Applicable policies and guidelines 2.1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 2.1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 2.1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 2.2 Response 2.3 Outside view 2.4 Discussion 3 CFIF 3.1 Statement of the dispute 3.1.1 Description 3.1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 3.1.3 Applicable policies and guidelines 3.1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 3.1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 3.1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 3.2 Response 3.3 Outside view 3.3.1 Morgan Wick 3.4 Discussion 4 Amnewsboy 4.1 Statement of the dispute 4.1.1 Description 4.1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 4.1.3 Applicable policies and guidelines 4.1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 4.1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 4.1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 4.2 Response 4.3 Outside views 4.3.1 CFIF 4.3.2 Whomp 4.3.3 Pathoschild 4.4 Discussion

[edit] A Man In Black

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

---

• A Man In Black (talk • contribs • logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Nominated a good article for AfD in November, supported that article's other AfD's CoolKatt number 99999 02:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description

• See my statement

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. [1]
2. [2]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:OWN
2. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [3]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I don't even understand what I'm accused of, here.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Ridiculous RfC. Ban this guy [CoolKatt]. --CFIF (talk to me) 03:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
3. I looked through the difs and there's nothing wrong with User:A Man In Black's actions... RfC seems frivilous and baseless. --W.marsh 03:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
4. --cesarb 03:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Joe 05:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Frivolous RfC -- Samir धर्म 05:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
7. This user has a history of bullying other users when he doesn't get his way. This RfC makes no sense, and is beyond ridiculous, as the accused seemingly did no wrong. Rollosmokes 06:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
8. - Non proper use of RfC blue520 13:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
9. I'm not sure why either. Morgan Wick 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Obvious WP:POINT disruption. Kirjtc2 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Pointless and stupid RfC! Computerjoe's talk 15:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
12. I don't get it. It's like a joke, but not funnny. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Per WP:POINTRaichu 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Don't get it. --Varco 17:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

This is complete farce. CoolKatt is obviously abusing RfC. I'd nominate to speedy this and have theadmins block CoolKatt for WP:POINT. --CFIF (talk to me) 03:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. CFIF (talk to me) 03:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
2. I second this motion. Rollosmokes 06:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
3. If it's WP:POINT it's a pretty bad one, I don't even know what the point is! Morgan Wick 18:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

CoolKatt is the one engaging in questionable behavior, like getting all snooty with him for leaving a simple message on his talk page, and trying to interfere with the AfD process. Supporting an AfD is not questionable behavior; trying to nominate an AfD debate for deletion (especially without anything to indicate it falls under Wikipedia:Speedy keep) is. Some of the behavior under consideration here, including the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute", should go on his RfC. Morgan Wick 18:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

[edit] Rollosmokes

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 06:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

---

• Rollosmokes (talk • contribs • logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Has a grudge against me, uncivil to others. CoolKatt number 99999 06:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description

• Continuous reverting of my edits, he should know they are useful.
• Uncivil on other people's talk pages
• Insists on using UPN's full name which is not used anymore

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:NOT
2. WP:OWN
3. WP:STALK
4. WP:POINT

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [8]
2. [9]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

In order to save both space here, and my own personal time, I have detailed my side of this ridiculous dispute on this subpage. Rollosmokes 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. CFIF (talk to me) 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Blueboy96 21:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

CoolKatt's the problem. He keeps taunting Rollosmokes and acting uncivil, calling edits vandalism. CoolKatt's edits are extremely unconstructive to building an encyclopedia. (See his ridiculous subpages that are a waste of WP's space. Rollo has, admittedly, made a few mistakes, but CoolKatt has made far more mistakes than he has. CoolKatt has also made legal threats against me and got away with it. Obviously the real problem is CoolKatt. My message to him: Get real!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CFIF (talk • contribs).

Users who endorse this summary:

1. CFIF (talk to me) 13:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Kirjtc2 16:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Blueboy96 16:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Hinto 20:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

[edit] CFIF

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

---

• CFIF (talk • contribs • logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

Provoked me into getting blocked, uncivil to me and other users and in edit summaries, keeps reverting my edits CoolKatt number 99999 21:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]
5. [14]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:OWN
2. WP:STALK
3. WP:POINT
4. WP:CIVIL

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Give me a break. CoolKatt is again, being ridiculously unreasonable, and he has abused RfC before. He's the one who has caused most of the problems. This is really stupid. All of that "disputed evidence" is crock. I need to be the subject of an RfC because I started one against you? Puhleeze. You're sooo lucky you got away with those legal threats against me a couple of months ago. CFIF (talk to me) 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Rollosmokes 08:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC) CoolKatt has filed RfCs against myself and another user within the past two months, all because he doesn't like being corrected, second-guessed, anyone who does those things and more against him are immediately labeled "enemy". In my view, CoolKatt is a poor editor who cannot accept constructive criticism and cannot accept being told when he is wrong. CFIF, myself, and others have used civil reason with him in the past, only to be met by incivility on his part. What also needs to be factored in are: 1) a RfC against CoolKatt that is still pending; and 2) his recent 24-hour block for violating 3RR, and his attempt to circumvent the block and resume editing, also a Wiki-violation. In conclusion, The Powers That Be in Wikipedia should toss out this Request for Comment and impose stricter penalties against CoolKatt.
2. Crossmr 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC) CoolKatt slapped pointlesss sockpuppet tags on both myself and another simply for disagreeing with them on an AfD. During that same AfD he made countless accusations of sockpuppetry towards anyone who disagreed with him. This user is a trainwreck. Countless personal attacks, a legal threat, revert wars, retaliatory RfCs, etc. This RfC is just another in a long line of his uncivil and disruptive behaviour.

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

[edit] Morgan Wick

Well, this isn't as ridiculous as the RfC against A Man In Black, but it certainly isn't as legit as the one against Rollosmokes. Basically, the heart of this grievance is that CFIF won't let CoolKatt get away with breaking consensus, and more recently, with not contributing to consensus. CoolKatt has responded with incivility and another RfC no one takes seriously anymore. Let me take down these points one by one: Evidence:

1. What's your problem with pointing out behavior that exhausts his (and everyone else's) patience?
2. Why is filing an RfC against you grounds for filing an RfC against him?
3. This one I get, but it's from May. CFIF has since stopped referring to such edits as vandalism, I believe.
4. Um, all he's doing is notifying you of consensus. I would probably take the same tone. So would a lot of other people.
5. We need to build consensus before we go about imposing our view of how the article should be. If anything, you're OWNing the article (in fact, before this point you were accusing Rollosmokes of OWNing the article, not CFIF, so he can hardly be blamed!) Please express your points on this (throughly lame, in my view) edit war on the talk page.

Trying to resolve:

1. Now THIS I would call violating WP:CIVIL. This should be in CoolKatt's RfC as evidence against him.
2. This is not going to breed more civility. Pot, kettle, get to know each other.
3. How different is this from your first piece of evidence against him?
4. This IS being used against you in your RfC.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Morgan Wick 03:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Lambertman 11:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Kirjtc2 13:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Whomp [T] [C] 21:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
5. It's gone to ArbCom now. CFIF (talk to me) 23:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

[edit] Amnewsboy

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

---

• Amnewsboy (talk • contribs • logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

Wikistalking, disagree with callsign meanings CoolKatt number 99999 02:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:STALK

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [23]
2. [24]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

User has failed to meet the criteria set forth for a RfC, as it is him bringing up the issue alone. Furthermore, the user has blatantly said this RfC is in retaliation for his being blocked[25]. This all centers around a RFI, where he was found in violation of WP:V on numerous occasions. I believe this RfC is unsubstantiated and that the user would be better served by learning Wikipedia policy and learning how to contribute relevant information to Wikipedia -- and not by filing frivilous complaints against other users. Amnewsboy 04:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. CFIF (talk to me) 04:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Rollosmokes 05:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
3. --Zleitzen 12:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Lambertman 12:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
5. On the CoolKatt scale of frivolous RfC's, this is somewhere between CFIF's and A Man in Black's, or second-most frivolous. Nothing can be more frivolous than the BJAODN-esque RfC against Man in Black, but this comes close. Morgan Wick 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Whomp t/c 22:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Kickaha Ota 03:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside views

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

[edit] CFIF

"<!-- Do not edit this page if your username is CFIF or Rollosmokes. -->" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CoolKatt number 99999 (talk • contribs) 02:29, July 22, 2006.

Real funny CoolKatt, now get real! Amnewsboy didn't do a single thing wrong and you know it. CoolKatt needs to be blocked again. --CFIF (talk to me) 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. CFIF (talk to me) 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Rollosmokes 05:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
3. --Zleitzen 12:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Lambertman 12:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
5. SB Johnny 13:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (Yes, this user should be blocked)

[edit] Whomp

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

The only thing that I can add to this is the following from here:

“

RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attacks.

”

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Whomp t/c 03:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
2. CFIF (talk to me) 03:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Rollosmokes 04:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC) This is bulls#*t. Plain Bulls#*t. CoolKatt must be banned permanently.
4. --Zleitzen 12:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Lambertman 12:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Morgan Wick 18:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pathoschild

In a matter directly related to this dispute, CoolKatt number 99999 was twice blocked by myself for deliberately violating the Verifiability policy. On many occasions they added information they stated were completely made up but "made sense" to articles; after a warning, they did so again on WUCW, WWOR-TV, WBSF, KTVU, and KNTV. The persisted regardless following a second warning, and I blocked them 24 hours. They were blocked again for 48 hours for the same reasons soon after. Amnewsboy alerted me of their persistance, as I was the administrator overseeing the relevant request for investigation. This is the issue that CoolKatt number 99999 describes as Amnewsboy "disagree[ing] with callsign meanings".

CoolKatt number 99999 has demonstrated an inability to follow policy and a lack of inhibition towards breaking promises to desist regarding the addition of made up information. This is further explored in a Request for arbitration concerning them. He has filed several previous requests for comment, all deleted for lack of certification: A Man In Black, Rollosmokes, and CFIF; for the duration of this request, I've restored these pages to User:Pathoschild/Sandbox. All of these RFCs filed by CoolKatt number 99999 show unanimity in support of the concerned users.

This request for comment appears to be filed in bad faith. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Whomp t/c 03:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
2. CFIF (talk to me) 03:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Rollosmokes 05:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
5. --Zleitzen 12:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Lambertman 12:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Morgan Wick 18:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (He's male, in case you didn't know. This is a case of singular they being awk-ward.)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.