Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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, not different disputes. 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: 1 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

User(s) has been obsessed with reverting my edits which is disrupting at least my wiki experience. Users barely used talk if ever on some articles. They are using a "just revert till remote party gives up" philosophy. I virtually have to force all my edits through them. I received a stunning (and partial) number of ~50+ reverts (Davenbelle 20, Stereotek 30). User:Coolcat#Categories. Those are the ones I counted without "effort". User(s) have 6 reverts I get 3 via 3rr. They revert often regardless of the content. Revert reads "POV" or "POV vandalism". And their double standard is visible in many occasions. It is currently futile for me to edit wikipedia as they will find ways to revert. I'll discuss individual cases below.

[edit] Description

  • Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles
  • Work toward agreement
  • Argue facts, not personalities
  • Don't ignore questions.
  • If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
  • Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
  • Don't make people debate positions you don't really hold.
  • Help mediate disagreements between others
  • Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
  • Amend, edit, discuss.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Excuse of dismissing governmental data: "Governments have been known to lie..." [1]
  2. user:Davenbelle has a personal issue with me [2] and probably Turkey.
  3. Nanking massacre: Image sizes are a good excuse to start rever war. Standard Thumbnail size vs 280px [3]. I expect decency in the article. If people want to see full sized corpses they can click on the image. The Holocaust entry uses thumbnail sized images. Reverts should be evaded and things should be discussed. They had no edits on this article prior to my arrival as well. I was trying to mediate this thing in hopes that I learn better ways to mediate their and User:Fadix's "contribution" made a mediation impossible. They had no edits prior to my arrival as well.
  4. I abuse wikipedia templates: [4]
  5. Davenbelle marked GAP project a copy vio. Material was PD and is used on 11 websites of which two are PD. Copyvio people deleted the page anyway as copy vio people if they are marking pages as a copy vio make sure material is not on a PD source. I rewrote the page from scratch the page still is not there as the "copy vio" issues are still discussed. The page is rewritten from scratch. It is yet another stressful and unnecessary case which would be easily avoided. I don't enjoy red tape sorry. (ammended)
  6. Another assume bad faith case in Greco-Turkish_relations. I do not know what the user was trying to prove. Topic stayed locked because of his intervention (trolling). See how the discussion went on (or lack of discussion). [5]. Check the revert war in on going in archived discussion. I am doing spelling corrections. They cannot even tolerate that.
  7. I was asked to mediate Javier Solana (via IRC). Which I accepted but Davenbelle for one removed my mediation guidelines to the users (which I later forced back in). His interference is visible in talk archive 3. I have every right to push a few rules to hopefully force people to discuss the matter rather than continue their revert war. At least that was my intention which they again made impossible.
  8. For instance I listed Antiwar.com on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 16 ([6]) as Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Antiwar.com at 16/06/2005, 15:39:55, Davenbelle oppsed it on 16/06/2005, 15:41:10 ([7]). In other words 1:15 minutes later of it being listed he opposed it. Granted people can suggest whatever the wish I am not criticising that remotely. But the fact that they are so efficent in oposing any and every suggestion or edit I can this easily and fast bothers me. (times were my local time)
  9. Another example will be in Abortion. Article is contraversial yes, my edits were not. My edits (bear in mind I have two blocks of edits and some changes were not my doing): [8] All edits from my last edit till just before Stereotek's first edit (mostly links being removed/added): [9] Stereotek's edits as follows: [10]. From my first edit till the end of Stereotek's first block: [11]. Granted Not every thing I did is gone, but the majority is. Aside from the links (which was not my doing) almost all of my edits are gone. I was doing cleanup duty. Bear in mind that he used no Talk: . I was talking to User:Tznkai on IRC. Infact he invited me to clean the article. While the discussion of which version is better is open to debate, like any edit. I wouldnt be as buged if someone else than the two (Davenbelle and Stereotek) appeared.
  10. PKK: Users have not contributed to this article prior to my edit. They just abusively revert. No discussion no talk no assume good faith...
  1. POV delete or is it? PKK's drug ties is well known. So says the Turkish government and so confirms the US government. Bear in mind user posted nothing to talk. just do a google search with this string: pkk drug site:.gov google search. That's a ridiculously simple search. Users however ignore common knowledge, stick to their "governments tend to lie" ideology... [12] rv to last NPoV version by Bobblewik
  2. Example of double standard. Bear in mind that restore of "removed material" removed about 5182 bytes of data. (assume bad faith and discard the work of others out of hand) [13] revert; don't discard the work of others out of hand
  3. Users NPoVise articles by stubisizing: [14]
  • I have also tried to deal with the problem here, which appears to me to be primarily a case of Davenbelle and Stereotek targeting this editor and failing to exercise assumption of good faith. A number of things have emerged from Coolcat's interactions with me: he is well-meaning and willing to change his behavior, but if Davenbelle and Stereotek dogged me as they have dogged Coolcat perhaps I would also feel extremely unwelcome on Wikipedia. Most of my interactions on this matter with Davenbelle have been in email, and I won't disclose the contents. I will disclose my impression, however, and I present this as evidence, as an editor in good standing who would have no reason to take sides with Coolcat if I doubted his good faith. Davenbelle has a bee in his bonnet about Coolcat and he has in my opinion gone way overboard in his activity concerning Coolcat's edits. Coolcat's feelings of persecution appear to me to be somewhat justified. I would like to see less of this kind of behavior on Wikipedia. I think it's disgraceful, frankly. Coolcat should be permitted to hold a different opinion on Wikipedia and to edit articles in good faith in the light of his best judgement, as all of us are, according to the policies of Wikipedia. Editors should not feel free to trample on those policies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 1 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia: Wikiquette

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation request filled, unanswered
  2. Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance request filled, unanswered
  3. They are declaring my edits bad, normally they should be the ones using my talk to tell me what their problem is. I posted this msg pushing my patience to its limits. That was the first real communication, which I initiated. Nothing changed. Any communication I received from them was them informing they have marked an article I wrote as copy vio etc. Stereotek got me blocked 3 times (due to 3rr on all cases the dispute was between me and Davenbelle and Stereotek). He requested the 4th block of me breaking 3rr of me violating it on my own talk page. There is absolutely no sign of them wanting to work with me rather than get rid of me. I never requested a single block on them even though many cases they violated the rule. I don't seek a childish vengeance, I just tried to keep my cool, assume good faith, try to reason... I post material to talk on why I wrote what I wrote. I cite sources discuss things, they don't read/answer. Keep reverting instead...
  4. There was even an arbitration case, which was declined due to the lack of a RfC

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 1 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)
  2. Cool Cat My Talk 11:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

[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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

[edit] Response by Stereotek

Coolcat has disrupted Wikipedia by refusing to follow Wikipedias policies regarding NPOV in many articles, and has been pushing a pro-Turkish/Genocide denialist PoV in many articles such as Armenian Genocide, PKK and Nanking Massacre. The user has often refused to explain his actions on the relevant articles talkpage, see: Abortion for a most recent example.

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. [15] and Stereotek + Fadix = Death [16]

Coolcat has shown complete discontempt for the opinion of other editors and Wikipedias rules regarding concensus. Examples include insisting on redirecting the Abdullah Öcalan article to the PKK article ([17], [18], [19]), disregarding the clear consensus on the talkpage not to merge the mentioned articles.

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?..." [20] and comments such as: "You cant read either, the color format is discussed above" [21]

Coolcat has frequently been violating wikipedias policies regaring copyright. Examples include the GAP Project article which he insisted on recreating unitarily, despite consensus not to do so on the votes for undeletion. Other examples of copyvios that Coolcat has been insisting on including are his now deleted version of the Diagnosis: Murder article. More evidence regarding Coolcats dishonest use of copyrighted material is available here: [22]

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.

Apart from these violations of Wikipedia policies, Coolcat has been disrupting Wikipedia by aggressively promoting a vast varity of odd ideas. These include insisting on using a very unusual colorsheme when 'mediating' in articles such as Greco-Turkish relations and Javier Solana see: [23] (this often despite other editors clearly rejecting this idea), insisting that wikipedians should be equipped with a 'startrek' rank [24] [25], and repeatedly claiming that it was HIM who invented the internet, the we as a community now benefit from. [26]

Stereotek's response to Coolcat's claims regarding my edits in specific articles

  • Coolcats comments regarding my edits in the abortion article are simply not true. The conflict started when he replaced the previously well written prose in several sections with a unorganized collection of bullets. I started my work restoring the prose with this edit [27] using the edit summary "see talk". I mentioned my concerns about his actions on the articles talkpage [28], and the other editors that commented there mostly agreed with my concerns. However, Coolcat refused to discusse his edit, and didn't leave any messages on the talkpage, regarding this issue. Coolcat's only response to the concerns that I raised on the articles talk page was a revert with the editsummary "sockpuppet edits..." [29].
  • In the 'Antiwar.com' Coolcats first action was to list the more than half a year old article for speedy deletion [30], and delete all the internal links pointing to that article. I removed the speedy deletion tag mentioned my concerns on the talk page and asked Coolcat to list the article on VfD instead [31]
  • The dispute regarding Coolcat's attempts to decrease the size and (Coolcat doesn't mention this): move the pictures in the Nanking Massacre to a less prominent position, should be seen in the light of Coolcats broader attempts to promote his genocide denialists POV. Coolcat has previously made it clear that he among other things deny the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.

More evidence regarding Coolcat's violations of Wikipedias policies are among other places available here: User:Davenbelle/Evidence re User:Coolcat moved: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence/Davenbelle's Evidence re Coolcat.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Stereotek, of course...
  2. Davenbelle July 4, 2005 02:54 (UTC)
  3. Fadix 4 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Davenbelle

I have attempted to talk with User:Coolcat about his edits and have explained why I have opposed many of his edits: [32] [33]

I'd like to know why are you constantly reverting my edits instead of editing them. Please provide an answer in my talk page. Thanks. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'll reply here.
I will answer in a civil manner and I will give reasons why I have reverted some of your edits. I will also tell you, bluntly, what I think of other actions and views of yours. And I would appreciate it if you would read everything I say to you, think about it awhile, and then reply; here, please.
I have not reverted your edits "constantly" -- you've made many, many, edits that I do not believe should have been made, and I have let them go -- for now, at least. But, yes, I have reverted edits of yours; I have, however, also edited on top of your edits, probably more than I have reverted you. My primary efforts in regard to you have been directed at drawing the attention of others to your actions.
I have opposed you because I feel that many of your edits are, as Tony put it, "doing harm to Wikipedia." (Tony's characterization of my view and that of others, not his own view.) There are a number of forms this "harm" takes. You have a very strong Point-Of-View on subjects involving Turks (as, of course, everyone has points of view on certain subjects). In spite of this strong-POV (and likely because of it), you choose to edit articles on the subject you have the strong-POV on; i.e. Turkic-related articles. To compound matters, you characterize your actions as "neutralizing" POV when in fact what you are doing is seeking to advance your POV and remove information and opinion at odds with your POV. You do this quite aggressively; deleting factual material and inserting "Pro-Turkish" material, presenting yourself as a neutral mediator, pushing garish color schemes, attempting to dictate the form that talk page discussions should take, and introducing appallingly repugnant terms such as "Pro-Genocide" to refer to those holding the "view" that genocide occurred. In this perverse-speak, I am "Pro-Genocide" and proud of it, while those (you) holding to the notion that the death of a million-odd people was not genocide are "Anti-Genocide".
In the case of Armenian Genocide, you seek to present, as an equally valid view, the proposition that what occurred 90 years ago was not, in fact, genocide. That genocide occurred, is a fact, not one view among multiple legitimate views. The position you are taking is termed genocide denial, and is abhorrent. It is also the position of the Turkish government; it is no more morally acceptable there than it is here. Beyond impeding cultural healing, denial also facilitates the next instance of genocide somewhere in the world, and the next; and so it goes. The truth is, genocide is one of more loathsome distinguishing characteristics of humanity; it is also gruesomely effective at accomplishing the goals of those who resort to it. When people get away with it, others follow in their footsteps and more people end up in mass graves.
I am not Turkish, Armenian, Kurd, or Greek, and I have nothing against people who are, or against those countries. In fact, just last weekend, a fine Turkish fellow was pouring me shots of vodka. I feel that your Turkish POV-pushing actually hurts the world's Turkish people. I am, of course, against genocide, and I oppose POV-pushing on Wikipedia.
— Davenbelle 05:27, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

User:Coolcat is presenting himself as the victim when, in fact, he is the problem. He has been opposed by many editors on wikipedia because many of the edits he makes are ones that many people do not like. This is the second time in little over a week that he has filed this RfC; the first failed certification and as I write this, this iteration has also failed to be certified.

In April I sought to have an arbitration case accepted involving User:Coolcat (brought by Cc re User:Fadix) — largely due to Tony Sidaway's efforts the case was not accepted. see: [34]; excerpt:

Statement by party 4, Davenbelle re User:Coolcat'
I request that the Arbitration Committee accept the case regarding User:Coolcat. I have encountered this user on many pages and found him to be a flagrant POV-pusher. User devotes much time and energy to hunting down all references to Kurdish issues and Armenian Genocide and edits the articles to advance his point of view. User has listed numerous articles for deletion (unsuccessfully), deleted factual material, has been reverted by many, many users (including Tony Sidaway), and has consistently returned to seek a new way to advance POV. User has attempted to dominate discussion on talk pages and quotes absurd interpretations of Wikipedia policies there and in edit summaries. User edits at warp speed running up an editcount of almost over 4,000 4,500 edits in 2.2 months.
I have already compiled an extensive evidence page and only await an official evidence page upon which to post it. In the course of reviewing User:Coolcat's 'contributions' I have found numerous examples of other users' conflicts with User:Coolcat, many of whom might well present further statements and evidence. I have posted a very small example of my collected evidence on my user page (earlier example here); my talk page also makes for interesting reading.
I will post further examples here given the slightest indication that it is welcome and appropriate.
Sincerely, Davenbelle 18:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
This is about more than POV-Pushing; the root of the matter is behavior that is harmful to Wikipedia. User:Coolcat's. not-so-hidden agenda is a process of finding and 'neutralizing' (in a pejorative sense) content on Wikipedia that relates to Kurds and Armenian Genocide, and to a somewhat lesser extent, Cyprus and Greco-Turkish relations. User:Coolcat asserts that all of his edits have been reverted; this is far from the case. User:Coolcat conducts his crusade against the 'offending' content at a furious pace and has removed much content and structure that many editors have built-up over the life of the project. The editors who have noticed his actions have managed to limit the damage to a degree, but the goal here is a Death by a thousand cuts; for every bit of content or structure that has been saved by a revert or a subsequent edit, another has slipped through and may be irretrievably lost. Sure, they're all here, but are they ever going to all be reviewed and reasonable remediation performed? There are thousands.
As you'll have noticed, User:Coolcat reacted hotly to the statements made here yesterday. Twelve minutes before the first of his above comments dated 01:38 thru 01:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC). He made this edit to Kurdistan with the edit summary "Link is related to the Kurdish people, not the region. Already available [sic] in Kurdish People article" which removed the link to Kurdish music. This is just one small cut, to one article. But an article entitled 'Kurdistan' should have links to most, if not all, of the other articles related to Kurds, including to the article about their music, as, of course, should the 'Kurdish people' article. This is fundamental, and to relentlessly conduct a systematic campaign of extermination against any specific content and structure is harmful to the project. And if User:Coolcat gets away with it, others will follow in his footsteps and more harm will befall this great project.
It is no coincidence that my argument here against User:Coolcat's agenda echoes my statement to him on my talk page (diff) excoriating his efforts to deny the Armenian Genocide. The issue is the same: that harmful actions motivated by animus towards a culture are abhorrent and that failure to oppose such actions encourages more of the same and incurs a responsibility for the next such action.
Sincerely, Davenbelle 12:08, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I would urge all readers of this RfC to consider User:Coolcat's "contribs", to review the arguments made in opposition to his edits, and to examine the evidence that has been gathered concerning his behavior. I would also like to point out that since the ArbCom case involving Cc was rejected in April, I have not opposed his edits much (notably excepting his repeated invitation on his talk page to Stereotek and myself to 'go screw' ourselves) — basically feeling that I had done my best and that it was now up to others to deal with his biased editing. Yet two months later, while I'm on vacation, he seeks this RfC? I would also ask that readers consider just who is obsessed with whom.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Davenbelle July 4, 2005 04:01 (UTC)
  2. Fadix 4 July 2005 05:34 (UTC)
  3. Stereotek 4 July 2005 15:46 (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.

It seems that Davenbelle and Stereotek have been leaning on CoolCat harder than he deserves—though, in all fairness, CoolCat's blatant POV-pushing, combined with his generally confrontational and officious manner, have not helped one bit. Both parties need to cool it.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  • —Charles P. (Mirv) 1 July 2005 22:54 (UTC), who further wonders why CoolCat chose to repost this RfC. —Charles P. (Mirv) 1 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
    • The last one failed cert because I didn't hear of it until too late. This is being revived because the previous copy was deleted for technical reasons. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 1 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)

[edit] The GAP project, second copyvio reversion and deletion of history

Note: Coolcat tells me that his complaint covers only the latest revert and deletion of the Southeastern Anatolia Project. I didn't have anything to do with this revert and deletion, so I'm striking out my comments. Also, I thought Coolcat was commenting on an earlier revert and deletion of the GAP project that I did, but he wasn't. --Duk 3 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of defending myself over and over again regarding the GAP project and its copyright violations. So I'll just say that Coolcat isn't being honest in his evidence statement number 5. If anyone wants more information, see User:Duk/CoolCat. --Duk 2 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

I'd just like to observe that it's quite possible that you're both being honest but are seeing different parts of the picture. Coolcat could be the original author and wonder why a copyvio is being declared when obviously no good faith attempt has been made to contact the copyright holder in this disputed case. You could be wondering why you should go to such trouble (I would say that we at least owe him the benefit of the doubt). To describe him as dishonest here is simply incorrect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 2 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)
  • Coolcal claims he rewrote the page that I reverted (and deleted the history of). This is not true, it contained at least a whole paragraph of copied, previously published material. I reverted, and deleted the history so that Coolcat couldn't easily revert and violate copyrights for a third time (on this page.--Duk 2 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)
  • I also explained exactly where the copyvio occurred in the article's talk page and included an example. Coolcat had nothing to say at the time. But now, weeks later, he claims that he was mistreated. Bullshit. --Duk 2 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)

And you know when you present as evidence of copyvio the fact that "at least a full paragraph" of a quite large piece of text is a verbatim copy, it makes me wonder what you're up to. That's an utterly unnecessary standard by which to judge a copyvio. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 2 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

  • I don't agree; there is a grey area between short statements of fact are not copyrightable, and longer, creative writing that is certainly copyrightable. In this case there was no confusion, that's why I mentioned the paragraph length.--Duk 2 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
  • It also explains the situation; Coolcat claims he rewrote the page, and maybe he initially believed that he did, but it still contained copied text. At this point, I can only say he is being dishonest, because I explained what I found (weeks ago) and emailed him the text in question recently--Duk 2 July 2005 14:49 (UTC)
  • Finally, you say ...as evidence of copyvio the fact that "at least a full paragraph" of a quite large piece of text is a verbatim copy, it makes me wonder what you're up to. Stop the sleazy innuendos, if you think I did something wrong then say so. On the one hand you are lecturing people to assume good faith for a serial liar, plagerizer and copyright violator, while on the other hand you are failing to do just that for the administrator cleaning up his mess. --Duk 2 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)

[edit] Ta bu shi da yu

I would tend to agree with the view that Coolcat has been leaned on rather too hard. Having your edits reverted and opposed all the time cannot be a pleasent thing to have to endure. I have not signed the outside view above, however, because I would like to comment on the evidence above:

  • Gap project - I would like to ask those who deleted the page after it appears to have been rewritten why this was done. If only to clear the air on the whole problem.
  • I was the administrator who dealt with the second copyvio (May 4), the re-write still contained copyvios. See; [35] and User:Duk/CoolCat --Duk 2 July 2005 02:50 (UTC) P.S. you might want to read the instructions on WP:CP for processing copyvios. It's not the job of the administrator clearing the copyvios to re-write the page or edit out copied text. --Duk 2 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)
  • The most recent deletion seem to have been by Radiant [36].
  • 18:31, 7 April 2005
    I would like to make a few comments about this:
    1. This was Stereotek's user talk page, and the comment was addressed to Stereotek, not Davenbelle
    2. Davenbelle would have done well in posting this comment onto Coolcat's talk page (can't see evidence of this, if I've missed the edit then I take this back), because Coolcat would not have been expecting a reply to his comment by another user on the original talk page he posted to! I must ask why such a comment was posted.
    3. The comment itself seems unfair to me: government sources should be quoted, but if their are conflicting sources then they should also be noted. The govt sources should not be removed completely.
I commented on Stereotek's talk page because that was where Cc made his comment. It is my recollection that Cc cited no specific governmental source; in the case of the Turkish government, I would consider them a highly biased source regarding issues such as the Kurdistan Workers Party and Abdullah Öcalan. — Davenbelle July 4, 2005 04:38 (UTC)
Of course it's biased,it's the Turkish government! But we don't omit sources because they're biased. The essence of NPOV is to represent all significant views. Omitting the official Turkish point of view is as bad as inclusing only the Turkish point of view. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 13:24 (UTC)
  • This evidence appear to be because this edit was included on Davenbelle's "evidence page". What in particular is a concern here?
I had assumed that Cc was misunderstanding this part of that edit: "Hate the Sin, Never the Sinner" — by which I meant that I take issue with his edits and behavior on wikipedia but have nothing against Cc personally. — Davenbelle July 4, 2005 05:01 (UTC)
  • 23 April 2005
    Disagree that this was an unreasonable edit, one revert is OK. I would agree with Coolcat about the image size, but this is basically just a content disagreement and I don't think it was anything personal on Stereotek's behalf.
  • 06:16, 5 May 2005
    "Abuse of templates", while somewhat unfortunate as a term, is used quite often on Wikipedia to describe templates the editor feels should not really exist. If Davenbelle did not send Coolcat a message on his talk page, however, I must ask why not. Surely good faith editing would mean that you discuss the issue with one of the creators of the template?
User:Xiong had just posted an interesting piece concerning transclusion and I thought that a user well versed in the trade-offs involved in extensive nested templates should be made aware of this usage. You can find his comments on the issue here. — Davenbelle July 4, 2005 04:38 (UTC)

(more to come, I gotta go - gah!) Ta bu shi da yu 2 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)

[edit] Fadix

While I do not have much time right now to answer more deeply(will maybe do it, if I have time, or at the very least if this thing goes further), I will give a short answer.

It is true that I believe that “assume good faith” is not respected when addressing to Coolcat, and that maybe this influences Davenbelle and Stereotek behavior with Coolcat. On the other hand, in all the cases I have witnessed those two members answer to Coolcat participation were not in anyway against any of Wikipedia rules(assume good faith is another story, but I will come to that). Reverting taste-type editions is not anything against Wikipedia rules neither. I don't see how while Coolcat taste on image sizes should justify editions, reverting it back should be evidences of misconduct from the reverters part. And above all, I don't see how the fact that one is followed by other members is an indication of misconduct in the part of the followers.

Where is the evidences of Davenbelle and Stereotek misconduct in accordance to what is accepted and not accepted in Wikipedia? One must not forget that Coolcat, unlike those two users, clearly was in the wrong in various occasions. And Davenbelle evidences page is just few examples among many others.

Now, coming to the "assume good faith." Of all the Wiki-etiquettes, the only rule, I have most problem with is this one. While this point is to maintain civility, in various cases it does, and can not, apply. Various of Coolcat edits were not in good faith, they were not just simple mistakes. No member here likes to be fooled, neither do any members will accept exchanging with a member that changes the rules on the middle of the discussion, and obviously lie on your face, when he knows you know he is lying. Coolcat lied in many occasions about himself, and he even has shown in one of his answers that all my concerns about him acting in bad faith were founded. The guy admitted having lied on him when he claimed to be an ignorant regarding the Armenian Genocide subject, while from the start he wanted to discuss as a third uninvolved party who did not know of the subject. This same user lied on peoples face by claiming to not be a Turk, and this after calling Armenians “Armanians” in many occasions and calling the Ottoman Turks as his ancestors. And after people started to clearly witness his POV-pushing, he decided to get involved in other articles, like Japanese crimes. He will later try to make worthless edits in articles, which are taste changes, and than cry when he get reverted accusing others of bad faith in his turn.

I can not assume that this individual edit in good faith, and it is my right to hold this opinion, what should not be accepted though, is that someones belief that another one is acting in bad faith, will make him transgress Wikipedia established rules. If I sense bad faith, and I am after a users edits, and if in my edits there is no transgression, no one can accuse me of any "crimes." I think the entire controversy here revolve around this and not on members sensed obsession in regard to another editor(who in this cases would be Coolcat). In fact, this is so true, that Coolcat, when posting this cases here he considers, the two users he is accusing, are acting in bad faith. Fadix 3 July 2005 03:55 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Cool Cat

Coolcat's response to Stereotek's response.

1. Your disregard of my edits, including spelling corrections on all 3 articles you mentioned did not improve article quality, you just annoyed me. Since you didn't bother using "talk:" I do not see anyhting positive in them. Since you butchered PKK under "npovicising" I do really NOT see anything positive at all. Merely you are annoying me. If you didn't intend that you would be using "talk:" in a civilised manner. --Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
Really? You really put yourself at the same level with those two users? They were discussing the matter mostly on IRC. You are just reverting without any discussion. We were discussing matters on irc. I have to admit FrancisTylers edits and discussion did not always went parallel, that doesnt bother me too much. I asked Kmccoy to peer review the article. He explained me why certain details were inapproporate. He did agree with me on certain points. --Cool Cat My Talk 3 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)
The article is not about anti-kurd or pro-kurd. The article is about Kurdistan Workers Party, information I provided was facts. PKK is hardly a peacefull organisations. EU, US, NATO, and dozens of other countries have recognised PKK as a terrorist organisation. It isnt something I made up. My counterparts cooperate and work with me. I do not see them as "against" no. FrancisTylers has opinions that conflicts with mine. Which is great, makes it posible to NPOVise articles. Two oposing views clash. If it stays in a civilised nature as it has been. No problem. Your reverts and interference made our lives miserable. Kmccoy does not have any views or has not voiced any. He is not opposing me at all. We discussed this matter for hours with him. You do not need to know who I discuss articles with, or what I discuss. You are not my commanding officer. The basis of this RfC is you (plural) following me around and opposing me, even when I have people I am discussing the article with. --Cool Cat My Talk 3 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)
2. Revert stalking will at best cause the user to become rather angry. If you are making me angry by annoying me with "random" reverts you are as guilty if not more than I am. This, creating constant conflict, is called trolling in some comunities btw. --Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
I didn't send RickK away. He violated 3rr and block procedure, he also protected the page "abusing" admin power. I wasnt part of the discussion. All I did was rewriting the article. Apperantly as Duk pointed to me I didnt reword a single paragraph. For that RickK deleted the entier page, or blanked, or something along the line, several people reacted to this and was a heated debate on the mailing list. Meanwhile I was on a 2 day business trip. I have lots of those. This month, in fact I am traveling yet again tommorow. I am not pleased to see RickK, infact I almost feel guilty even though I did nothing directly to affect the entier discussion. In sum I wasnt part of the discussion. --Cool Cat My Talk 3 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)
3. What concensus? I was being bold in my initial contribution to wikipedia. I did not see what could be wrong in including same material in both articles. There was no concensus, aside from your constant concensus against me. Later some other user explained me why templates, the way I used them was a bad idea that it makes it difficult for users to edit even though I created the "edit" button to edit the template etc..., I understood and acknowleged my error and moved on. You did not force me off of the issue. --Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
4. Yes, I am violating civility. You aren't being any better by revert stalking image sizes. If you ever bothered to read the actual article you would know I moved images to when they are discussed in the article. The rape image went to where rapes are discussed the others to the right places. Displaying full sized images are wrong and are unethical. Thats my POV right there. You are welcome to disagree. But bear in mind all articles I encountered in the web that has corpses have a warning prior.
If I were you I would double check that. Your version had the images listed and placed from very top to bottom, one below the other. If you have a very high screen resolution (something higher than 1600px- images may not align properly. It looked fine on my computer.
5. Your "frequent" is two articles. My insisting on of me writing Diagnosis: Murder on my own was STUPID and was wrong. It wasnt "dishonest" the original author gave me the right to use her text as it is said on article talk page. But since copy vio people do not read size 28 text I cant quite help it. I frankly do not care if Diagnosis: Murder gets deleted in copy vio or not. Its not my "art", why should I care. I just wanted to solve the problem quickly by declaring authorship while not knowing the copy vio procedure was futile, yes. This is makeing it difficult for me to communicate with copy vio people regarding GAP Project. Which has a story of its own, which does not matter at this point is an ongoing discussion. It was not right for me to make claims while introducing it. But at the time I thought the matter was resolved. That article had (and has) a very significant discussion in mailing list as well. --Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
6. "Coolcat has been disrupting Wikipedia by aggressively promoting a vast varity of odd ideas" it is called being bold. I was asked to mediate Javier Solana on IRC and for the other I wanted to mediate on my own, can you tell me if any of your (plural) comments have improved the discussion? The odd ideas you mention (or havent) such as the "flip image" thing which hides images of graphical content (a semi censor) is not uneque to me. Many other similar ideas are thrown on irc. My "odd" ides do not require your objection to be rejected. Being bold does not disrupt wikipedia. It is intended to improve wikipedia. For my ranking think you (and several others) not only opposed the idea but instead introduced a "penis lenght mesurement" or something along the line to determine ranking. Obvioulsy this will not be ammusing me. --Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
Exactly why did you mention it then? This isnt an RfC filled just for you, your counterpart was anoying me that time. --Cool Cat My Talk 3 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)
7. I did work for Cisco and designed chips as a slave internship person. The design did not revolutionise anything. But you are using it to access the internet. In a sense I designed a portion of the internet. Now, how is this having any relevancy of reverting my edits?--Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
    • I do not explain my edits on article talk pages when I am discussing the matter with the other involved user, Tznkai, on IRC (freenodes #wikipedia). Normaly people dont need to explain their edits to their shadows as normaly people do not have shadows. The articles "unorganised" bullets were discussed on irc. It wasnt a "should I use bullets" discussion but was a "help organise this article" request. I do not have to explain my edits to Davenbelle, Stereotek, or anyone. People may react to the edits, thats fine, my edits could be indeed "bad" thats also fine. If you do not like something how often have you (plural) used talk? Why do you expect me to use talk when you do not read what I post in talk as you failed to do so in Kurdish people article. You weren't nor do not need to be aware of all my activity. You are not the only wikipedia user that exists on wikipedia. I can deal with other users to cooperatively write articles. You disrupting this process isn't helping one bit.--Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
      • For once you weren't a part of the discussion. You came later. I was discussing the matter. No one was reverting me. You are the one rowing up the flow. I do see explaining all my edits to you on every article I edit as a complete waiste of time. For one you dont read talk pages. Also, you fail to see the reason of this RfC. Its you (plural) thats following me, I am not jumping to articles you write (if any). I edit an article, you arrive in the oposing seat. You oppose to oppose, thell me one instance have you cooperated in writing an article with me. Why is this an alien concept?
    • I can place 2 year old articles to speedy delete, people who can speedy delete do have a brain. I'd rather have their view weather it should stay or not rather than Davenbelle and Stereotek's as they lost me with their overwhelming level of opposition against me.--Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
      • True that is the procedure. It isn't being opposed that bothers me, it is YOU opposing me. The basis of this RfC, although I mentioned countless times, the mesage doesn't seem to get across, is not you not following procedures. It is YOU applying all policies possible on me. You oppose me and revert me. You conflict me just to conflict me. You oppose me just to oppose me. My edits can be right or wrong thats always open for debate. The TALK page is used to debate, revert messages are not. "POV Vandalism" is an oxymoron. That is on average the best edit detail I see. Because of your ridiclous level of reverting I ask opinions of people on IRC regarding articles frequently I have the discussion with them which I should have with you. Why is it that your edit history is so simmilar if not identical to mine?
    • I am actualy going to bother and answering this in detail. You claim I am a denialist, thats name calling and is uncivil. "genocide denialists POV". Right, technicaly all murder can be seen as massacring. Serial killers often choose a spesific profile to go kill, some kill women, some kill blacks, thats also genocide, no one talks about those as genocide. I do not deny the Holocaust, even if I did that doesn't mean anything. I used the phrase mentioned on Davenbelle's evidence page to point out that declaring majority of Historians accepet armenian genocide as a fact makes as much sense as majority of Historians denying the holocaust, such baseless clames should be evaded. That's what I ment. If you want to make yourself believe something else fine. Just don't make me a part of your imaginary world. --Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

Extras:

I acknowlege I am not perfect. No one is perfect. I like to be pointed out my wrongs so I can better myself. I do not however like/tollerate being chanced around. Also I cannot tell what is POV and what isn't. As far as I can tell (my perspective) all my contributions that got reverted w/o a discussion in talk is wrong. While normaly a revert itself means "Woops something is wrong there", it looses meaning when something like that (below) is declared POV. So it reads in revert. --Cool Cat My Talk 1 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)

  1. "The structure and height of this mountainous region in south eastern Turkey makes it very difficult for helicopters and other aircraft to maneuver, making it difficult for government troops to respond in a timely fashion to any ambush." [37] Also if someone butchers the article like so ([38]) one will be hard pressed to think positively. --Cool Cat My Talk 1 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)
  2. Since the RfA case which Davenbelle used his "evidence" is closed I can get it deleted if I wish. Just like Davenbelle and Stereotek got the previous RfC deleted. I am not criticising that, just pointing out something that is important IMHO. I have nothing to hide. I have a learning curve yes. I make mistakes yes. I don't see my mistakes unless I am being told what the heck is wrong with them. For every revert while you are not required to post something in talk you are recommended to do so. Please actualy read the how to revert article whatever it is. I was not geneticaly engineered to know all wiki rules. wiki rules are not strict anyways some rules can be ignored at times. --Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
  3. Oh and it isn't illegal to have POV. I am not POV pushing, at least I am not trying to. Just trying to post facts. While being a traditional POV pusher response, I really dont see the POV in my edits. Since no one is trying to tell me rather than revert and butcher all contribution. I almost feel as if a 6 feet tall creature is running towards me while screaming "Ahhh... Fresh edit!"* --Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

* Diablo 1's butcher taunts as "Ahh... Fresh meat!" and challenges the player.


Stereotek with his response confirms my claim, users are assuming bad faith. At least thats how I see it. --Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)

Coolcat's response to Fadix's response. "Simply speaking, you are lying; and this answer is just another example on why you get many people in your back. I did not accuse Tony of being a revisionist, the closer I came to, is when I answered him because of the locking of the article on a version edited by someone that just appeared to make the edits you were after. He himself admitted that version was not a good one. And yes! I did not allow you making any edits, and I still believe you should not touch the genocide articles(any genocide and war crime articles, because you will just edit them to claim that you don't do this only with the Armenian cases), beside, there are three Turks there, and no one is blocking them to participate in a NPOV way. It simply is that you still can not comprehend what is POV and no-POV. articles are not about what is the truth or not, it is not to Wikipedia to decide what is. Articles are about presenting the [different] positions regarding subjects. That's all. You were always after trying to delete informations, like who believes what, and still you request this. For this reason, and many others, I requested that you do not touch that entry. And this only stick with you, and not the other Turks. And here, I was not the only one doing that, Thoth and Raffi were much more harsh kicking you out than I was. Let just say to yourself, that you were lucky that the arbitration cases was rejected. Oh and about the two users that are after you. They are patrolers, and I believe that patrolers are really needed in Wikipedia, and they SHOULD fallow people that their behavor they question. I have nothing to hide, and I will accept anyone going after me, if they sense any bad faith. And do realise here, that arguments like: "they're always after me" doesn't make what they do, against Wikipedia rules. Fadix 2 July 2005 22:11 (UTC) " (from User talk:Ta bu shi da yu)

I voiced minor points and rewording things like "concentration camps" to "relocarion/concentration camps". I haven't made any major edits. You reverted spelling corrections. And now you lecture me on different views? I will not bother commenting to you further. Only arbitration commitee has the right/authority/power to kick users off of topics. I welcome every one to read the armenian genocide talk page. --Cool Cat My Talk 4 July 2005 05:22 (UTC)
And for the last time my bloodline is of no concern to you, nor my identity or any other persona information. Also it doesn't matter either. I could have Turkish and Mexican ancestors. In a sense you have ottoman ancestors as well. Armenians, like it or not were under ottoman rule. Ottoman is a nationality not a race. You will find hidden motives and evils in my edits if you assuming bad faith, you are quite creative. Throughout my experience with you I recieved name calling from you. I still do. Never the less if I start telling what I am not that will cancel out one possibility to my identity. I could use false identities, but I think its more exciting to be Mr. Who. --Cool Cat My Talk 4 July 2005 05:22 (UTC)
You fail to see your error #1. You did not allow me to edit the article.
You fail to see your error #2. It is a wiki anyone can edit, and should be able to.
You fail to see your error #3. You declared I had a hidden agenada since I started beginning the discussion. you declared me a revsisionist as well. Have you not?

Coolcat's response to Davenbelle's response.

Since you havent said much and instead pasted talk material I will not be resoinding to you much.

  • Since in an RfC case I filled I am not beeing adressed, I wont be answering much. you posted logs most of the time anyways. --Cool Cat My Talk 4 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)
  • Maybe you haven't noticed but the conversation you posted here was already linked. see #4 on atempts to resolve dispute. You never discussed your reverts in talk pages. --Cool Cat My Talk 4 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)
  • You posted the entier arbitration case. Why not a link to the arbitration case instead? --Cool Cat My Talk 4 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)
  • I frankly don't care if people get furious if they hear a glimpse of opposing view. --Cool Cat My Talk 4 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)
  • You can't declare me unrespectable. That's yet another personal attack right there if not strong words. I tend to ignore strong words. You are forgetting your entier talk "contribution". Armenian Genocide aside, why did you oppose me in Nanking Massacre? Thats in CHINA not remotely CLOSE to Armenia. --Cool Cat My Talk 4 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)

[edit] Duk

See Coolcat's Item #5 (above). Coolcat faults the copyvio people for the Diagnosis: Murder copyvio mess.

the original author gave me the right to use her text as it is said on article talk page. But since copy vio people do not read size 28 text I cant quite help it.

Here is the part he leaves out; he copied material from two different websites, eventually claimed he got permission from one of them, but couldn't remember which one. That is why the copied text was removed.

This has been typical of my dealing with Coolcat. He violates copyrights, is dishonest about the matter. He bitches, whines and complains the whole time about the people cleaning up his mess, while consistently failing to acknowledge his behavior that caused the problem. Then he repeats the whole process (the GAP project). Then, months later, continues to malign the people who cleaned up his mess, since copy vio people do not read size 28 text I cant quite help it.

The amount of time wasted cleaning up after Coolcat is substantial. But the amount of time arguing with him, and defending my actions regarding his copyvios is astronomical. --Duk 4 July 2005 15:59 (UTC) --Duk 4 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)

[edit] Stereotek

1. I am not the only editor that has been opposing your anti-Kurdish POV-pushing and other violations of Wikipedias policies in articles such as PKK. Other editors such as FrancisTyers and Kmccoy has expressed similar concerns. Regarding spelling corrections/general style and quality of the articles, I think this most recent edit by you: [39] and Kmccoy's answer on the talkpage [40], says it all. Stereotek 3 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)
2. I am not making any "random reverts". However, I do express my concerns when you are doing nasty things such as POV-pushing or insisting on having copyvios published here, or other violations of Wikipedias policies. And about trolling, how many editors have you had a conflicts with during the 4 months you have been here? A figure around 10-15 shouldn't be too low. Your actions even made one of Wikipedias best and most active admins, RickK leave Wikipedia. Stereotek 3 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)
4. Again, what you are saying is simply not true. You didn't move the pictures to more appropiate sections. Actually you moved the rape picture away from the ===Rape=== section, where these crimes was being discussed: [41]. Stereotek 3 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)
6. Well.. actually, I haven't been involved in the Javier Solana article, and I haven't made a single edit to the article or the talkpage yet. I have to say that you are right though when you mention that your "odd ides do not require my objection to be rejected." If I remember it correct, your idea about the "flip images" was rejected without my participation on the talkpage or anywhere else. Stereotek 3 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)
  • "I do not explain my edits on article talk pages when I am discussing the matter with the other involved user, Tznkai, on IRC (freenodes #wikipedia).": You can't expect other editors to follow all your discussions on IRC. If serious questions regarding your edits are raised on the talkpage then you are supposed to respond there. Stereotek 3 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)
  • "The articles "unorganised" bullets were discussed on irc. It wasnt a "should I use bullets" discussion but was a "help organise this article" request. I do not have to explain my edits to Davenbelle, Stereotek, or anyone.": Well.. actually.. if other users are questioning/opposing your edits, then you do have to explain yourself. Also, I was not the only editor, who raised concerns regarding your edits on the talkpage. Stereotek 3 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)
  • Sure you can place a 2 year old article for speedy deletion. I and other editors can then oppose this idea, and ask you to add it for VfD instead. Stereotek 3 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)


[edit] Fadix

That's entirly untrue, and you know it. Your edits didn't stoped with minor changes, you have made important changes without even using the talk pages. And I had provided evidences when the cases was submitted to arbitration. Do you think people here can be fooled that easily? Besid,e ones ethnicity is unimportant, what is important though is respect and honesty. You lied about everything, and after creating all this problem, you told Raffi that you have lied about your knowledge about the topic, which made people much more furious and wanted you to get out of there. You can't expect being respected, when you lie on peoples face like this. Fadix 4 July 2005 05:37 (UTC)

First of all, STOP changing my answers place like you do continuisly. This is an ABUSE of the editing privilages. This is the discussion section, and I am have the RIGHT to post my answers anywhere I want.
No, I do not allow you to edit the article, and I won't allow you to do it. And the reasons are simple to comprehend, since you decided to not touch it, there is peace between the parties involved, in fact, even the Armenians and Turks being involved there seem to have coolen down. You are disturbing the articles progress, you are disturbing peace. Had the arbtration cases been accepted, there was chances that you could have been forbidden to touch the genocide article.
Yes, I did declare you had an hidden agenda, because you obviously HAD a hidden agenda, why else anyone would delete sections of an article, and won't justify the deletion in the talkpage, and this after I have asked you to justify them in VARIOUS occasions. And besides, I did not accuse you of hidden agenda from the beggining. Stop lying. Fadix 4 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Tony Sidaway

Looking at the contents of this page, I think it makes the point very well that a number of editors have got a bee in their bonnet about Coolcat. While there have been some minor breaches of policy by nearly all participants, the main problem here seems to be a blanket refusal to assume good faith. One editor here even grants me magical powers of persuasion in claiming that an attempt to get the arbitration committee involved failed largely due to my efforts.

Duk's response to Tony's Assume Good Faith. Tony, I have been defending myself from Coolcat's frivolous charges of mistreatment for two months (regarding his copyvios, which I resolved correctly). After defending myself above, you reply; ..."at least a full paragraph" of a quite large piece of text is a verbatim copy, it makes me wonder what you're up to.
This sounds like a slezey innuendo, if you think I did something wrong then say it. Where is your assumption of good faith for me?
On the one hand you are lecturing people to assume good faith for This guy, while failing to do just that for the administrator cleaning up his mess.--Duk 4 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)
I apologised for appearing to slur you. I could have put it better, perhaps. No I'm just unable to understand what you're up to on copyvio these days if you are saying that a single paragraph in a larger piece amounts to copyright violation. I'm honestly flummoxed. It just doesn't seem compatible with what I know of copyright law. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
When I see a significant part of the article copied, and not just lists or facts, but creative writing, then it's a copyright violation. I've seen people on the mailing list say that four or five copied, sequential words is a violation (in their opinion).
If an article starts out as a single, copied paragraph, then what follows over time might be considered a derivative work, meaning a lot of wasted edits when the whole thing needs to be deleted. We need to remove copyright violations when we see them, not rationalize them away because we think they are small enough. However, to be clear, in the Coolcat copyvios that I resolved there was no doubt that significant portions of the articles were copied.--Duk 4 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)
I've thought a little more about this. I think a single, copied sentence can be a copyright violation, even if a word or two has been changed (assuming its not credited fair use etc...) Although I've never processes a copyvio like this. --Duk 4 July 2005 20:24 (UTC)
Crediting is a different issue from fair use, although crediting as a part of explicit quotation may change the context in the direction of fair use. It all depends on the size of the piece and the context. Small sections such as a paragraph from a substantially larger piece usually fall under fair use. If the piece was only two or three paragraphs, the quote of a single paragraph would be an infringement. A sensible way of dealing with a suspected single-paragraph infringement would be to edit the paragraph. I find the idea of deleting the whole piece for that sole reason utterly incomprehensible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)
You've voiced a common misconception of people criticizing the actions of those processing copyvios. You should read the instructions for processing copyright violations at WP:CP. It isn't the job of the administrator processing copyvios to re-write the article, or edit out copyvios. They revert to the oldest version of the article that doesn't contain a copyvio, and if there isn't one, they delete.
There are lots of reasons for this; to start with, there are 50-100 copyvios per day (more work than VFD sometimes, I think), no way they can all be re-written or edited by the one or two admins doing the work. The seven day listing period is supposed to be used to re-write or edit the article (link and instructions provided in the copvio template). I strongly suggest you go spend some time working at WP:CP to get a better understanding of the problem. --Duk 4 July 2005 21:16 (UTC)
Well you're still not giving a good reason to delete a whole article for the sake of one paragraph. Now I've worked recovering copyvios in the past so I know it's not easy work. But then you cite a seven day period, which in view of the work involved is either an absurdly short time to set (what's wrong with setting a month or so? or even six months) or completely irrelevant given that all you would have to do is say "Hey, Coolcat, your piece is fine except for this sentence and this paragraph. Please rewrite it and the piece will be okay." Why isn't this routine practice? And then we get down to the naked accusations of dishonesty that are being made. Why are Wikipedia editors making such accusations over something as trivial as a single paragraph? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 21:25 (UTC)
I did give a good explanation, I don't think you understood. I can only suggest; read the instuctions for processing copyvios at WP:CP, read my explanation for what I did at Talk:GAP project, process a few days of copyvios so that you understand what it involves. --Duk 4 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)
PS. A lot of your arguments belong at WP:CP, not here.--Duk 4 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)

I urge all editors involved to cool down, and stop badgering Coolcat. This kind of behavior really is unacceptable, and it isn't excused by the fact that some of you are administrators, in fact that makes it even worse. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)

I don't why you are constantly accusing editors such as me, Davenbelle and Fadix of bad faith and "disgraceful" and "unacceptable" behavior. Wikipedias guideline 'assume good faith' doesn't demand or recommend that we should be naive and blindly trust an editor, that constantly violate policies by doing things such as PoV pushing, publishing copyvios, and using personal attacks. However, what I and other editors have indeed noticed is that you have been extremely active in helping and protecting 'interesting' users such as Trey Stone and now Coolcat, without showing any interest in cleaning up any of the mess that these users create. Coolcat has been lying straight to peoples faces, used extreme personal attacks and violated almost every policy that exist here in Wikipedia. What Coolcat has done and is currently is doing is not some "minor breaches of policy". We have already provided more than enough evidence for that.

Another thing is that I don't appriciate your attempts to make other editors here look like idiots by claiming that they believe that you have "magical powers of persuasion". What the editor said was: "largely due to Tony Sidaway's efforts the case was not accepted." This might very well be true because fact is that you where the only one that recommended, that the ArbCom should not accept the case involving Coolcat. An ArbCom case that Coolcat originally opened himself against Fadix. -- Stereotek 4 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

Well here you go again, engaging in personal attacks. You not only continually engage in personal attacks againt Coolcat, you even attack someone who only asks you to cool down.
I repeat, cool down. Stop attacking people. Stop assuming bad faith. Stop accusing people of lying. Your activities are not justified and are in danger of becoming a severe detriment to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)
With all due respect Tony, you have the same interpretation of what a personal attack is as Coolcat have. Claiming that Coolcat lie on peoples face, or that he POV push, are not personal attacks,(Coolcat himself admitted to Raffi, that he did lie on peoples face) what is personal attacks is when someone call another names, like idiot. Coolcat did directly called people those names. You seem to not make the differences between personal attacks and accusations. What Stereotek is accusing Coolcat of, many members did accused him and even worst. Adam kicked him out of the Greco Turkish entry, more directly than I kicked Coolcat out from the Armenian genocide entry. If this thing goes on Arbitration, there are at least a dozen of members exchanges with Coolcat that could be presented as evidences. I like Stereotek, can't understand why you are deffending Coolcat like this, and here there is no hidden meaning, before you think there is one; I just wonder. I wonder what you would have done, had I done the same things that Coolcat did, I do hope, actualy no'I do not hope that you would defend me if I were to do that. Fadix 4 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)
Another thing, I think that you misinterprate "assume good faith." If assume good faith would be that general as you request, there would pratically no arbtration cases, because lunching one against a member for POV pushing etc. would be not assuming good faith. Coolcat himself by requesting a comment on the behavour of Davenbelle and Srereotek, is not assuming good faith. But you seem to not have any problem with that. Fadix 4 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)

Sidaway, can you please substantiate your accusations against me. When and where has I used personal attacks against you? I only attack/criticized your actions and behavior in my comment above, and for good reasons in my opinion. I think you should be careful about making any false accusations. You even accuse me of personal attacks against Coolcat. Again, could you please substantiate your accusations and provide some diffs? Evidence regarding my comments about Coolcat making untrue statements has already been provided. Please cool down and stop attacking people. -- Stereotek 4 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

Well there you go again. I can't believe that you don't realise that your behavior on this RfC is the best evidence that Coolcat could ask for. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

Until now, as I see it, Coolcat has been unable to provide a single piece of evidence that I have violated any of Wikipedias policies. I, on the other hand, has provided a lot of solid evidence and diffs regarding Coolcat's questionable behavior. But anyway, for now, let's leave to the ArbCom to decide about these issues. I'm sure that the case will be accepted. Thank you again for bringing it there. -- Stereotek 4 July 2005 18:52 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek_260e.html"