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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Please note that Coolcat has begun using the account Cool Cat (talk • contribs). This may affect certain links, in most cases substituting Cool Cat for Coolcat will cause the link to go to the proper place.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

See also editor comments below.

Stereotek has told me that he's leaving Wikipedia over this. There are no edits from this user since July 4th.

If it matter in any way to this RFA, I've actually been making a few edits as an anon since July 4th, but not many though. The project doesn't interest me much anymore and I won't follow this RFA very closely, properly not at all. -- Stereotek.
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek where Coolcat gives extensive evidence of his attempts to resolve this using all other means available to him in the dispute resolution process.

[edit] Stereotek et al are supposed to let an admin watch over Cool_Cat?

I may have understood that wrong, as I've even closed that window, but did it mean that an admin will be appointed to watch over Cool_Cat? If so, I'd be willing to do just that as I've read a few of the pages concerning his case and I know the editor. Also, FWIW, I'll soon be the newest mediator to the medcom. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I would hope this is the case. Even if ArbCom does not explicitly appoint someone, you are free to monitor his edits. I would encourage you to follow your conscience — you'll get no objection from me. — Davenbelle 03:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I am open to monitoring. I oppose monitoring by Fadix, Davenbelle, and Stereotek. As quite often they go beyond enforcing wikipedia policies. --Cool Cat Talk 03:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The decision says that:

  • "there are hundreds of administrators available to monitor problem users" (Principles 4.1 Monitoring of problem users)
  • and "Davenbelle, Stereotek, and Fadix are counseled to let other editors and administrators take the lead in monitoring Cool Cat." (Remedies 2 Davenbelle, Stereotek, and Fadix)

To clarify: the three people named are advised not to monitor Cool Cat themselves, and in particular they should avoid behavior that could be interpreted as further evidence of [stricken by Davenbelle 07:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)], modified again by Tony SidawayTalk 07:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • '"wikistalking" or "hounding" Cool Cat, and so disrupting Wikipedia and discouraging his positive contributions.' (Findings of fact 3.1 Efforts by Davenbelle and Stereotek to monitor Coolcat),

with a particularly dire warning that

  • "if subsequent proceedings which involve Cool Cat show that he has been hounded by them, substantial penalties may be imposed." (Remedies 2 again).

No one administrator is to be appointed, all administrators are charged with and empowered to restrain any disruptive editing by Cool Cat in certain articles, and empowered to enforce this restraint by a block of up to three days. (Enforcement 5, Coolcat mentorship). --Tony SidawayTalk 04:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I have stricken out part of your above comment because it is an inaccurate summary. I do not mean offense by this — I only intend it to highlight what I feel is inaccurate.
We have been counseled to let others take the lead in monitoring User:Cool Cat, not to refrain from monitoring him at all.
I do hope that others will take the lead in monitoring User:Cool Cat and I hope to minimize my involvement with him in the future. I appreciate your call on all admins to restrain disruptive editing by User:Cool Cat and would urge that they pay particular attention to Armenian Genocide and Kurdistan Workers Party.
— Davenbelle 07:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm just one of the mentors, not an arbitrator, so I can't make an interpretation of what was written. My own opinion, however, is that you, Fadix and Stereotek would do well to avoid the kind of monitoring that you have been engaged in in the past. The mentors are charged with acting as an avenue of appeal for Cool Cat himself, and part of that duty could involve further proceedings at arbitration. Think of us as guardians. --Tony SidawayTalk 07:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I did say that I hope to minimize my involvement with him in the future. I have also said that I do not intend to edit articles related to Turkey, Kurds, and the Armenian Genocide.
I'm surprised to find Wikipedia:Mentorship a red link; is there a definition somewhere else? The decision does not mention a function of guardianship (which also has an element of responsibility to it). I am not surprised that you are bringing that view to your role as mentor and this is part of why I objected to you as a mentor. A mentor should teach and correct as necessary. If you are charged with guarding anything, it would be Wikipedia, not User:Cool Cat.
My concern here is that no one will, in fact, take the lead in monitoring his editing. This concern was expressed by Jayjg [1] and Raul654 [2]. Do you see it as part of the mentors' responsibilities to take the lead in reining-in POV-Editing and any other objectionable editing by User:Cool Cat? — Davenbelle 09:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
On guardianship, not only do the mentors have powers and discretion to block and prohibit, they also have the power to review and amend or anull any other block made under the terms of the decision. They are to act "as an avenue of appeal." A mentor is a "wise and trusted counselor or teacher." Most of the mentorship happens person-to-person, nobody will see it. It's a matter of giving good advice, and I'm afraid that does involve considering the interests of Cool Cat as well as Wikipedia.
On monitoring, this is a normal administrative function carried out routinely by administrators. It's the reason why we have talk pages, RfCs, an administrators' noticeboard, and so on. If complaints filter back about an editor's behavior, administrators tend to get involved. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cool Cat decision

This was copied from User talk:Raul654

By my count the prohibition on User:Cool Cat editing articles articles related or referring to Turks, Kurds, or Armenians for three months, plus Wikipedia:Probation for one year passed with four in favor: Jayjg , ➥the Epopt, Theresa Knott, Neutrality. If I misunderstand something, please let me know. — Davenbelle 02:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, plus the caution to not interfere with his mentorship. — Davenbelle 02:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I anticipated that little happenstance. The arbitration rules make no allowances for such a contingency (where two mutually exclusive rulings pass). So, (figuring that that is what would happen) I emailed the arbitration committee mailing list 4 days ago asking if everyone was OK with the mentorship passing instead of the the 3.0 and 3.1 (because the mentorship seemed to have the most support, all of it unqualified). Since one objected to closing it as such, that's how I closed it. →Raul654 02:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
As far as the caution (2.1), it was an alternative to 2.0 -- 2.0 had 6 supports, 2.1 had 5 supports; thus, I closed it out with 2.0 and not 2.1. →Raul654 02:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... Well, off-the-cuff, I'd say that passed is passed and I don't see how the two decisions are mutually exclusive; indeed the mentorship text refers to "administrator-imposed blocks" and the mentors as an "an avenue of appeal" — presumably for action based on the other decision.
I strongly feel that the prohibition on Turks, Kurds, or Armenians articles and the Wikipedia:Probation needs to be imposed and that it has passed. — Davenbelle 02:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The mentorship and probation are inherently mutually exclusive (and I say that as the architect of both). The mentorship was presented as an alternative, it passed with far more support than the probation, and (just to cover my bases) I emailed the arbcom and no one objected. So while you are entitled to feel strongly about it, it has not, in fact, passed. →Raul654 02:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Furthermore, the exact wording is "In addition, the mentors may overrule or modify administrator-imposed blocks on Coolcat stemming from this decision at their prerogative". The administrator imposed blocks are a reference to an earlier part of that same remedy - "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." →Raul654 02:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I somehow misunderstand, I thought the mentors were for Coolcat general participation in Wikipedia, since this was proposed after Fred proposition of a year ban(from every articles) was found to be too strong, while the proposition of three months(for things related to Turkey) was accepted and not found too strong, in fact, if I remember, Jay proposed that after he has abstained from another proposition and Fred asked him to present an alternative. The conclusion here is not my problem, but rather, I believe things are unclear. Also, was the mentorship not proposed for Coolcat general participation? If not, so why has it been proposed as somehow an alternative to Fred general ban proposition? What I understand is that the situation in which we are, Mentors will only have a say on his participations regarding matters that concern Turkey, directly or indirectly, while Fred told me to bring my problem with Coolcat hitlist to his mentors, when according to the final decision, they do not have a say here, which seems to not be what was planned and discussed previously. Fadix 03:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem with coolcat's editing basically boils down to the fact that his editing on Turkey/Kurdish related articles was bad, but his editing outside those areas was generally good (mostly good but admittedly not perfect). So here's the solution passed in a nutshell:
  1. Any admin may block coolcat for up to three days if he disruptively edits a turkey or kurdish related articles
  2. The mentors may overrule blocks arising from part 1
  3. The mentors can prohibit coolcat from editing any article they believe he is causing problems on. →Raul654 03:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, that clarify things. Fadix 03:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
To which I'd add another point: The mentors also have discretion to block Cool Cat. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Davenbelle should bear in mind that, together, the sysops and the mentors have far more extensive prohibition powers than those contemplated under the probation and ban. The Committee found that Cool Cat has a long history of POV editing, particularly in relation to the articles about which Davenbelle is concerned, and the mentors are bound to take that finding of fact very seriously. Under the mentorship, administrators are permitted more discretion in blocking, using their own judgement as to when Cool Cat's edits are disruptive; the mentors may mitigate instances where they think that such judgement has erred. In the proposed probation, the administrators would have had to show reasonable cause for a complete ban from editing an article. If they can show this, then under the mentorship they can petition the mentors to perform such a ban, which in my opinion should not be refused without equally good reason.

Of course the purpose of this case is to ensure that Cool Cat is able to rehabilitate himself and continue to perform the useful work he has done, without causing further problems for other editors. It means striking a balance. Disruptive editing won't be tolerated, but Cool Cat should otherwise be permitted the space he needs to continue to develop ways of working with the Wikipedia community, for which he has already drawn much praise. I know that Davenbelle, Stereotek and Fadix will take their own responsibilities under the committee's decision seriously, as I intend to take mine. --Tony SidawayTalk 03:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Tony, for me the cases will be really over, after that Coolcat hitlist gets deleted. For some, this may not be a big deal, for me it is. Since you are one of his mentors, can you do something about this? Fadix 03:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I, too, still want that page gone (and yes, I realize that delete just means hide from non-admin view). Fadix, please note that User:Cool Cat will be free to edit Armenian Genocide so long as he plays nicely. — Davenbelle 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure you realise that the mentors cannot overrule WP:MD. I have voted delete in that debate. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Mark (Raul), and Tony, thanks for the clarifications. It is my hope that all parties can disengage to a large degree and work together civilly where mutual interests bring them together. For now, I think we need to let the dust settle a bit and see how things go. I like the suggested mentorship page idea and feel that the parties and the mentors should make a few agreements there. I look forward to suggestions. — Davenbelle 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek; Mark, if you would, please... — Davenbelle 04:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I db'ed my semi-evidence/notes to self page. Should the need arise for a second rfar it is easy enough to undelete it, for now however I do not feel the need for it. --Cool Cat Talk 19:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Coolcat, it is greatly appreciated. Fadix 01:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
My thanks, too. This was the appropriate ending of this issue. — Davenbelle 06:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I db'ed it strictly because the rfar concluded. --Cool Cat Talk 05:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remidies

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, ... This ban shall continue in effect until such time as he is officially appointed to the Mediation Committee.

Passed 4-3

I do not see how this works, I cannot be a member of Mediation Committee unless I demonstrate I can mediate. --Cool Cat Talk 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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.

Passed 7-0

What exaclty does this mean? I dont have a history of "restructuring". I just moved embedded convos into my post on that instance (I also forgot about this). I cannot abide by the "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" as that would mean I cannot respond people in votes for example. I also dont see the purpose it serves. --Cool Cat Talk 03:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll discuss these issues on the mentorship page. --Tony SidawayTalk 04:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Coolcat%2C_Davenbelle_and_Stereotek_5dbb.html"