This page is intended for mentors and Cool Cat to communicate. Please help to keep it uncluttered by using the talk page for other communications related to this mentorship.
The arbitrators have made the following comments when asked to clarify the decision:
Cool Cat has place an edit that appears to be a crude personal attack on Davenbelle, Fadix and co:
I've removed it for now. I'd like to ask Cool Cat to explain what he meant by the edit. I'm also asking the other mentors to review my actions and add their comments. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 06:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I have negotiated an alternative wording with Cool Cat. It goes into more detail and, while it does criticise some named individuals for their actions that were determined by the arbitration committee to be a breach of civility, dwells largely on the consequences of this activity for Cool Cat, and does not in my opinion come close to being a personal attack. Subject to the agreement of the other mentors, I'm happy with it.
Cool Cat is not on personal attack parole; his behavior in this regard was not singled out by arbcom in the recently concluded case. I'm still considering the appropriateness of placing a personal attack warning to Cool Cat on this page, and invite the comments of my fellow mentors on this. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 11:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I think Cool Cat is okay with the fact that he is allowed to criticise people for actions that are not in the interests of Wikipedia, as long as he doesn't step over the line of personal abuse.
We're not arbitrators, but we should use commonsense in distinguishing reasonable complaints from unreasonable ones. We have to balance the current involvement of Davenbelle with the fact that Cool Cat's edit would undoubtedly have been interpreted by nearly everyone familiar with the arbitration case as a personal attack on him. He wasn't intruding in any way, in my opinion, but rather responding to the provocation in an appropriate manner, by taking it to the mentors instead of letting it fester. It's what we're here for. Had he made a fuss about an edit by Cool Cat on the Turkey article, say, that would probably have been inappropriate in my opinion as a fellow editor, but we're not arbitrators, nor are we Davenbelle's mentors, and it isn't for us to tell him what he can and cannot do. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 21:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
To me it would seem like opposing an RFA for Cool Cat within ten minutes of its creation and notice on Cool Cat's page, is ... well, somewhat hounding behavior. I think it would be obvious to most that Cool Cat would turn down the RFA, and that if he didn't he wouldn't come near passing at this time. The impression Davenbelle's action gave me is that he was just looking for a chance to give Cool Cat another kick. Regardless of his intentions I think he should avoid giving such an impression. Is this acceptable behavior in light of the Arbcom decision? -- Gmaxwell 17:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Cool Cat is banned from editing the abovementioned two articles from 1000 UTC December 5, 2005 to 1000 UTC December 12, 2005. The ban is enforceable by blocking by any administrator, subject to review and possible adjustment or annulment by the mentors, under the terms of the Mentorship set up by the Arbitration Committee:
This is not a punishment, but is a preventive measure taken to prevent possible further disruption on those articles due to his actions or those of third parties. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 10:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
This notice has been placed on Cool Cat's talk page by me:
-- Tony Sidaway 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I have banned Cool Cat from editing, creating or nominating for deletion any articles, templates or categories related to the kurds [2] [3]. This is for an initial seven day period, to be extended indefinitely subject to the agreement of the other two mentors. -- Tony Sidaway 05:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
This page is intended for mentors and Cool Cat to communicate. Please help to keep it uncluttered by using the talk page for other communications related to this mentorship.
The arbitrators have made the following comments when asked to clarify the decision:
Cool Cat has place an edit that appears to be a crude personal attack on Davenbelle, Fadix and co:
I've removed it for now. I'd like to ask Cool Cat to explain what he meant by the edit. I'm also asking the other mentors to review my actions and add their comments. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 06:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I have negotiated an alternative wording with Cool Cat. It goes into more detail and, while it does criticise some named individuals for their actions that were determined by the arbitration committee to be a breach of civility, dwells largely on the consequences of this activity for Cool Cat, and does not in my opinion come close to being a personal attack. Subject to the agreement of the other mentors, I'm happy with it.
Cool Cat is not on personal attack parole; his behavior in this regard was not singled out by arbcom in the recently concluded case. I'm still considering the appropriateness of placing a personal attack warning to Cool Cat on this page, and invite the comments of my fellow mentors on this. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 11:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I think Cool Cat is okay with the fact that he is allowed to criticise people for actions that are not in the interests of Wikipedia, as long as he doesn't step over the line of personal abuse.
We're not arbitrators, but we should use commonsense in distinguishing reasonable complaints from unreasonable ones. We have to balance the current involvement of Davenbelle with the fact that Cool Cat's edit would undoubtedly have been interpreted by nearly everyone familiar with the arbitration case as a personal attack on him. He wasn't intruding in any way, in my opinion, but rather responding to the provocation in an appropriate manner, by taking it to the mentors instead of letting it fester. It's what we're here for. Had he made a fuss about an edit by Cool Cat on the Turkey article, say, that would probably have been inappropriate in my opinion as a fellow editor, but we're not arbitrators, nor are we Davenbelle's mentors, and it isn't for us to tell him what he can and cannot do. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 21:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
To me it would seem like opposing an RFA for Cool Cat within ten minutes of its creation and notice on Cool Cat's page, is ... well, somewhat hounding behavior. I think it would be obvious to most that Cool Cat would turn down the RFA, and that if he didn't he wouldn't come near passing at this time. The impression Davenbelle's action gave me is that he was just looking for a chance to give Cool Cat another kick. Regardless of his intentions I think he should avoid giving such an impression. Is this acceptable behavior in light of the Arbcom decision? -- Gmaxwell 17:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Cool Cat is banned from editing the abovementioned two articles from 1000 UTC December 5, 2005 to 1000 UTC December 12, 2005. The ban is enforceable by blocking by any administrator, subject to review and possible adjustment or annulment by the mentors, under the terms of the Mentorship set up by the Arbitration Committee:
This is not a punishment, but is a preventive measure taken to prevent possible further disruption on those articles due to his actions or those of third parties. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 10:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
This notice has been placed on Cool Cat's talk page by me:
-- Tony Sidaway 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I have banned Cool Cat from editing, creating or nominating for deletion any articles, templates or categories related to the kurds [2] [3]. This is for an initial seven day period, to be extended indefinitely subject to the agreement of the other two mentors. -- Tony Sidaway 05:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)