A quick scroll of his entier edit contribution suggests his entier contribution lately is reverting people
Prior to that I see a large number of minor edits, spelling corrections etc.
Few things that has caught my attention, now I will not claim I have analized everything nor do I claim to know anything about the disputes user is involved. But I think it explains the behavior of the user.
Note that User:Ollieplatt is a sockpuppet and is blocked indefinately. So he had merit to pursue him... However..., there are some rather questionable reverts of some User:Ollieplatt edits. I do not know the details of the dispute but I'll coment on what I saw.
An awfully professional revert for a newbie. Given this is his 28th edit. Apparently he is amazing familiar with Wikipedia for one so "new".
Evidence prior to the start of arbcom case (13:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC))
Note: None of the cases below did the users joined the discussion prior to my arrival, evidence aside from the RfC itself is below.
Note: I have discussed a few of the cases, the actual dispute spreads into almost every article I edit. But I do not believe that much evidence is necessary, I can dig it up if requested. --Cool CatMy Talk 02:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Note: Best aproach is probably reviewing contributions. [2]
Talks about Armenian Genocide and Nagorno-Karabakh article and me pushing pov under mediator-guise. Now, I made no edits to Nagorno-Karabakh aside from breaking it into 3 sections etc. I am not pushing pov at best I am cleaning the article up.
With my experience in mediation now, I would have walked away from this article since my mediation attempt was rejected. Realise if Davenbelles conviniant interference was not there I would have likely failed on my own for not leaving.
I realise discussing anything with Adam Carr is difficult, and Davenbelle's interference dod not make matters any better.
Since I cannot mediate I can go ahead and improve the page. Right? After all I know something about both countries. I made my first suggestion regarding a pact signed in the 1954. I had no idea of such a pact and I still dont know.
Made another suggestion: naming of cities. Greeks tend to refer to cities now in Turkey by their Greek names while Turks refer to lots of Greek cities by their Ottoman name. A Greek domminance or Turkish domminance in the naming will generate confusion. There is no POV pushing here.
Mentioning the S-300 crisis. A ship was caught carying S-300 missle laucnhers bought from Russia by Greece in Istanbul as missles have the range of hitting the capitol, or so said several news-papers.
This raised tensions between Greece and Turkey. No POV here. These missles are in crete as far as I remeber.
The Greek side isnt denying this... come on. What kind of a POV am I pushing accepted by both sides. Greece recieved a NATO warning for buying arms from russians as Russia wasnt exactly a "frend" yet.
"The Christian minorities, the Greeks and Armenians, saw their position in the Empire deteriorate".
Ethnic discussion regarding Turkey is a field with sides disputing each other.
I am inclined to have that reworded and sourced at that point.
I did NOT remove it from the article when the article was unlocked.
I explain to Kenney that the comon name of Istanbul is not Constantinopole, thats a greek Misconception Just like it is a Turkish misconception to suggest Selanik is the name of the Greek city Thessaloniki. Different people mention the cities differently so all referances cannot hurt. Right? Also see how CIA referances to the cities on the right.
I source the S-300 incident, at the time internet wasnt around, much.
Davenbelle removes colors from MY edits as well as all other colors and declares the article black and white. Now I do not know what his problem. He certainly so far had not discussed anything regarding Greece or Turkey and kept the topic locked with his interferrence.
I reverted him gladly keeping his last post, then posted a reply asking why is he not discussing the topic on the articles page he is editing/dictating. I also fixed the spelling (KewlKolors -> Cool Colours) of the section header.
I have to admit, he is a lesse evil, at least he mentioned something related unlike Davenbelle. THough he is discussing WW2 on a section discussing a greek-turkish-yugoslavian pact. And rants on.
He is also discussing the contributor may I point out. His tone is less than civil.
Firstly realise he reverted my spelling correction of the header, making something corrected wrong. I would ask him the motive of his behavior.
Also realise he made minor, yet unnecesary edits to my post. Not that I am bugged, but this guy is complaining about me changing all referances to Coolcat to Cool Cat on the Proposed desicion talk page (discussed way later)
Notice the restoration of the Cc abriviation as well as the KewlKolors obviously to no good purpose.
Suggestions... yah his suggestions benefited the article greatly. I Challenge anyone reading to provide me with the suggestions regarding article content.
I post a news link regarding a hotline between Greece and Turkey easing millitary issues as aircraft occasionaly locked missles on eachother above the agean sea, few close encounters and one downing of a plane almost caused war.
I went ahead and applied my changes, and left the topic at this point.
I also archived the past discussion which no one bothered responding.
It is clear that Davenbelle did not discuss anything regarding the content of the article. His behavior was less than aproporate and I think is at the boundries of trolling, if not crossing.
user:Davenbelle definitely has a personal issue with me and probably with Turkey as well. He is definately NOT neutral. Alternatively, he is trying to "piss me off", though I am not.
Interference with my mediation attempt at Nanking massacre. Also a senseless revert war for image sizes
I felt the article wasnt quite neutral, introduced {{POV}}
My intentions was to mediate this. Since unlike Armenian Genocide I have no POV, I felt I could mediate this. I honestly was not expecting Stereotek to show up.
I wasn't aware of 3rr but I basicaly gave up on the idea of editing the article, I just walked away on my own. Realise Stereotek did NOT use talk.
Up to this point there is a level of merit in them reverting me. I was being stupid back then, but I do believe their behavior wasn't "good" either. Two wrongs dont make one right.
Back in january he was complaining about "disturbing images" to RickK then in april he is increasing the sizes of disturbing images and reintroducing one of them.
Not thge best edit summary, I wouldn't count it as a personal attack, its not polite either. Though having a 3 on one "gang-bang" will irritate anyone.
Silsor blocked me for violating 3rr (as clearly visible I violated 6rr I belive). He explained me the 3rr procedure.
Silsor also blocked Stereotek
At this point I left this article. I believe this would make a good candidate to be one of the lamest revert war ever.
I have never been to China or Japan. I know nothing regarding the topic. In fact I found this by using the random button to find a controversial article. You learn to walk by falling so I had high hopes of developing mediation skills.
I will give a range rather than individual conversations. You can see them discussing me, how much of a "POV-pusher" I am etc. rather than the article clearly.
User:Coolcat has no official role as a mediator; this is merely a self-applied label. He has previously attempted to
cast himself in the role of 'mediator' on Talk:Armenian Genocide, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh and
Talk:Greco-Turkish relations, where he has met considerable resistance. He loves to use coloured text on talk
pages and quote highly unique interpretations of Wikipedia policies, especially NPOV. Anyone is free to reject his
self-styled 'mediation' and any advice he offers. He has been known to engage in personal attacks and edit other users
talk page postings. — Davenbelle 09:00, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
You have no official status either. I am trying to help, you are not. --Cool CatMy Talk 09:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)"Official status" is such an Anti-wiki philosophy. I am a user, period.
I am, however, most certainly here to help. — Davenbelle 09:37, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
I think Davenbelle is conflicting self. There is absolutely no reason for his involvement. I find it absurd.
==Koizumi==
"In the past Japan through its colonial rule and aggression caused tremendous damage and suffering
for the people of many countries, particularly those of Asian nations." Koizumi.
Can you please elaborate? --Cool CatMy Talk 08:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
do you even know who Koizumi is. --AussieSoldier 09:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No I dont, can you please elaborate? --Cool CatMy Talk 09:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ROTFLMAO! — Davenbelle 09:22, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Davenbelle, it sounds like your purpose there is to annoy or insult Coolcat. Do you think you could show
a little more Wikipedia:WikiLove? silsor 09:46, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
I did NOT know anything about Nanking massacre, I still don't know much as I do NOT care. I was not there to wreck wikipedia and the revert war on image size was lame. Davenbelle's and Fadix's degraded conversation in article talk was less than civil if not un-civil.
Interference with my mediation attempt at Javier Solana
Interferes with my effort to settle the dispute. Do realise that no one in the article talk page is complaining aside from him.
Also he wasnt a part of this disscussion prior to my arivle. There is no sane link between massacres, kurds, armenians, or turks and Javier Solana since I have no idea who Javier Solana is, all I was trying to do is get people discuss things.
User:White Cat/cDavenbelle do not edit the = =, they are the way they are and thats how I want them, you are the only person having problems with them,
So I revert davanbelle and his interference and get on with my mediation effort
Realise by doing so he is destroying the artificial line between old degraded discussion and new one.
Pay special care to two of his comments:
User:Coolcat has repeatedly adjusted the section levels of this talk page (and others) so that sections
posted by him are first-level headings which makes the posts of other users (who use the default second-level)
subordinate to his 'mediation' impertinence. This refactoring of talk pages should be especially unwelcome here
as I see no indication from other participants on this talk page that he has been accepted as any sort of mediator.
(If anyone 'requested' his mediation, I'd be interested in seeing where.) I, for one, do not accept that he has any
right to dictate the format of the discussion here. In his edit he asserts that he's using first-level section
levels because 'thats how I want them'; this is not a valid reason. If he has a reason other than manipulation of
the hierarchy of posts in the table of contents of this page in order to imply a structure of his choosing and an
authority he merely presumes, he is welcome to post it. — Davenbelle 18:10, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
The behaviour is unnaceptable. There were no arbcom rulings to prohibit me from mediating. And even if there were one I feel it would be inaproporate for someone to just bug in and say "This guy is a horible mediator". I am not claimining to be a great mediator but it is depressing to have someone that interferes with every mediation effort you attempt. Also one would be hard pressed to even relate this article to articles Talk:Nanjing Massacre, Talk:Armenian Genocide, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh and Talk:Greco-Turkish relations
Odd behaviour, instead of talking to me talks people to talk to me
I "abuse" wikipedia templates. User did not voice an opinion in articles talk page or in my talk page or in any talk page aside from a 3rd parties.
Why is he opposing me this time I STILL do not know.
There are many templates yes. This article compares NATO rank insignias. Same template is used in US Army UK army and Turkish Army pages. I intend to make more comparisons and list all world rank insignias.
Hellenic or Greek army page also started using the insignia template.
Now on the long run I can call a templates to compare lets say balkan countries, or EU armies. I also can write about Canadian Amry and include their rank insignia with little effort.
Recently the rank isignia of a US Warant officer changed. Changing one image in one template fixed the problem on ALL pages template appears. Hence I feel templates are good.
Inarguably Davenbelle was at the boudary of trolling and perhaps crossing. He made people discuss things without getting even getting involved prior.
Ta bu shi da yu also finds this behavior odd as well: Surely good faith editing would mean that you discuss the issue with one of the creators of the template?
Granted people can suggest whatever the wish I am not criticizing that remotely. But the fact that they are so efficient in opposing any and every suggestion or edit I can this easily and fast bothers me.
Users do not vote on Templates for deletaion or VfD regularly if at all.
On many other instances such as deletation/move of Template:CVIP and Template:RWIP they were also in the opposing corner conveniently.
A foot note, I am a pasifist, I feel wars are "bad" and people should get along. I was NOT pushing pov. This article is still a stub and I feel it is unencyclopedic... Antiwar com alone is nothing, what matters is people who write on Anriwar.com who have individual articles. This should be an external link. on each of those pages.
From my first edit till the end of Stereotek's first block
Granted not every thing I did is gone, but the majority is. Realise the change ended up being mostly trivial.
Aside from the links (which was not my doing) almost all of my edits are gone. I was doing cleanup duty.
Additionaly do notice the annon raging havoc on the page. Making identical edits just like a previously blocked annon. I was reverting this annon too and seteriotek's interference was making it very difficult.
Bear in mind that he used no Talk:. I was talking to User:Tznkai on IRC. In fact he invited me to clean the article and I actualy told him that there is a risk of spesific people who havent even edit the article once to show up. But he told me to edit anyway.
While the discussion of which version is better is open to debate, like any edit. I wouldn't be as bugged if someone else rather than Davenbelle and Stereotek appeared.
I'm not sure where the best place to put this is, but here it goes. I did infact
invite coolcat via IRC to help clean up the abortion article, and I think he did
a good job of it in some places, and I disagree with others. In the time I worked
with him, he made his edits in good faith. While he may have been incorrect in
doing somethings, he did his best to do what I asked him: improve the article.
--Tznkai 7 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)
PKK revert wars
I am yet to develop this evidence in a more legable and acceptable form. Feel free to ignore this chink for a while.
Users just abusively revert. No discussion no talk.
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:.govGoogle search. That's a ridiculously simple search. Users however ignore common knowledge, stick to their "Governments have been known to lie... [6]" ideology...
Do note the removal of "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". I do not see the POV in that. If someone explains me the POV I'll be quite relieved.
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) [8]revert; don't discard the work of others out of hand
I am the kind of a guy who reads Jane's Defense News. I know what I am talking about. Me listing PKK's activities without any comments should be NPoV or No Point of View. Suicide bombings did happen. After explosions PKK has claimed responsibility. In sum no one is dening this, asside from my counterparts.
I invited FrancisTylers and Kmmcoy to this article via IRC. FrancisTylers (if my assesment is acurate) has the Pro PKK view, he can be irritating at times but I believe I am irritating him as much as he is irritating me, that's how a POV discussion goes. Kmmcoy is not knowledgeable and was there for peer review, which is fine.
Article is still on going discussion, however Davenbelle and Stereotek are no longer interfering since Kmmcoys edits.
I am saddened to see you leave. I never noticed you before as you are too fast of an anti vandal person. I sincerely encourage you to come back. I hope this is a temprorary wiki-vacation. I agree with your analogy though. Vandals, trolls and malactors are given increasing respect and thats something that scares away "good" users. --Cool CatMy Talk 15:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Consider the topics 3(4) users are involved esspecialy "Stereotek" and "Fadix". You will see an obsession with maters related to Kurds, Turks, Armenians as well.
Users as I see it have POV on the matters they claim are "NPoVizing".
If I am going to be punished for my idiocity on my first 1000-2000 edits, I do not see why similar restrictions should not apply to them. I am at 10,000 edits now and I have grown way beyond that nonsense I was doing Fred pointed out. Never the less I think people trolling and stalking me should also be treated as the same.
Fadix was "pushing POV" on Armenian Genocide to the extent of reverting spelling corrections. You can refer to User:Tony Sideaway who was forced to lock the topic after the incident of Fadix reverting spelling corrections.
Karl Meier was insisting uncited statistics on Kurdish people (mentioned later). On IRC discussions regarding the incident (I was not working alone) a good portion of Admins and Users alike said uncited statistics are bad. A god portion did not want to get involved on the basis of they do not get involved with anything contraversial.
Davenbelle's involvement on Southeastern Anatolia Project was not related to anything but me making an edit on it. Do realise all he did was reverting and did not had any previous contribution to the article. (discussed later as well)
Users are reluctant to revert war with me. Generly they revert until I give up or someone interferes.
Users do not try to edit the page in a way that I may find acceptable. By this I mean they dont ever edit the page and instead they revert till I come up with something they feel is accpetable, though on many occasions that doesnt even happen.
06:07, 17 September 2005 - User:Davenbelle - revert User:Coolcat -> User:Cool Cat; you've broken links doing this; if you insist on this, do not break links or rename sections (I've linked to some) and do not edit my posts
07:28, 17 September 2005 - User:Davenbelle - revert User:Coolcat -> User:Cool Cat; you've broken links doing this; if you insist on this, do not break links or rename sections (I've linked to some) and do not edit my posts -- + diffs
Reverts me also adds a comment.
07:49, 17 September 2005 - User:Cool Cat - Revert to last version by User:Cool Cat, can you show me which links am I breaking? Asside from diffs which you could have easily fixed instead of reverting.
I revert preserving his coment + reply with {{Template:sofixit}}
06:21, 17 September 2005 - User:Davenbelle - revert User:Coolcat -> User:Cool Cat; you've broken links doing this. Do NOT edit this page, it is my evidence re you; you have no right to edit it.
08:14, 17 September 2005 - User:Cool Cat - NO I can edit it to prevent dounle redirects, I cannot change the nature or content (ie purge evidence in bad faith). Its a wiki!
It is clear my attepts to fix the double redirects generated a few problems.
It is clear Davenbelle reverted me instead of fixing the problems. The revert generates more problems (redirects - a drag to wikipedia) than fixing.
It is clear that my edits were minor in nature. If it were treated as such a revert war would have been evaded (like many other instances such as image sizes location of sections in articles).
It is clear that I fixed some of the problems (all I can see) generated by my atempt to fix redirects. Davenbelle only made my life difficult with his revert warring. He could have fixed the instances of 2-5 URLS getting broken by adding one single char.
Starting on sep 9th see the recent edit of mine on what it did is comment out the table with info from May that is still not sourced...
Any data presented on wikipedia will require citation from a notable source, a blog for example is not an acceptable source but I do not even have that. As far as I care someone was bored and generated random numbers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people to randomly generate numbers.
I really love the irony. He is not only pushing pov but also orriginal research. As I explained earlier uncited demographics are not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a SOAPBOX.
Another important point is since his last Stereotek post karl did NOT make a single edit to this article. His edit storm started right after mine. I refuse to believe that this is a mere coincidence.
Moving along... immidiately arises the concept of who determines which is a reasonable body count? Granted I agree with him personaly, that was an insane increase in numbers (though either number was not cited)
Moving really along... While not apologising for wasting my time earlier, Karl Meier is actualy contributing at this point for my delight. by User:Karl Meier
Do realise that when sources are cited the inflated numbers change dramaticaly. Millions of kurds vanished (as they never existed). A good example why statistics require citation
by User:Cool Cat, I modifed the table to make it beultiful. Using my Oh My Goddess! theme, I personaly think this edit was for the better. In the process I noticed two sections: one being "other regions in europe" and second being "a list of countries". This was not cited so I commented it out (just like the earlier deal).
I really love the irony. Based on the edit summary (and content) User is accusing me of "Pov Pushing" for commenting out demographic statistics that isn't cited "anywhere" on the page. With that logic anyone can genrate numbers and people should never removed them untill they are cited? WTF?
This is indeed pov pushing by Karl Meier. Since I am asking for sources. He is insisting that I should find the sources. I am not inclined to leave unverifiable info on wikipedia.
I'll like to add that CIA factbook statistics on kurds can also be disputed since CIA agents did not count the kurds it is perhaps a guess-timate.
He adjust figures and reintroduces the uncited nonsense. At this point my frustration started reaching its limits. Not only am I beeing harassed, but also am living through a revert war, for what? Uncited statistics.
I Introduced an image showing regions and moved the "conspiracy" that the Southeastern Anatolia Project was infact a plot to "destroy kurdish history". To a section called "conspiracy". The cited source is less than neutral anyways. Never the less it is cited and can exist in an article. As ridiclous as it is we get to keep all sorts of nonsense from time to time such as WTC demolished by UFOs (ya right). So I simply moved.
An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
A group of conspirators.
Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.
Even if that nonsense was factual it would STILL be a conspiracy. I am clarifying my POV. here and also am clarifying what I am doing, if it werent cited one would be hard pressed to keep these allogations.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE INTERPETED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST KARL. On the countrary this proves he is improving and hence while I feel he should be told not to stalk, he shouldn't be levied harsh restrictions. On a second thought, I think he screwed up hounding me... --Cool CatTalk 11:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
User thought I was blanking page, in reality I was moving stuff to diambig page where it belongs. A genuine misunderstanding. Probably because of his lack of trust in me which I am yet to win.
A first in my relations between my disputed parties. They apologised from me when wrong (although it was an innocent mistake as far as I and Arbcom should care)
I have to admit this was a shock for me, I may get along with Karl, given some help. However his behavior on Kurdish people (keeping uncited statistics) as well as Southeastern Anatolia Project (moving conspiracy away from section) is in my view unnaceptable.
On the other hand Davenbelle shows no maturity and appeas to be obsessed with me. See Southeastern Anatolia Project section above for almost live feed of his rever warin. --Cool CatTalk 11:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Votes that I was involved and they got involved after
Some material here is mentioned earlier on. This is a collection of votes they were a part of after me.
Also notice he has not opposed anything else ever regarding Username changes. Or ever commented for that mater and probably was unaware of its existance.
Oppose I can't concieve how anyone could either be neutral or support this. People like Coolcat are a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia, I can't imagine what would happen the day he becomes an Admin. Not only will I leave Wikipedia that day, but I will never visit it again. Fadix 19:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Also realise majority of the oppose votes are because of this very RfAr.
