In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

• ( Cool Cat | talk | contributions)

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

User:Cool Cat has repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF in his interactions with User:AKMask. Aside from rude behavior in general, he has made harrassing statements and multiple allegations of sockpuppetry, accused User:AKMask of stalking, and then removed an Administrator's closing of the discussion.

Cool Cat has accused me, in no paticular order, of being User:MARMOT, User:Davenbelle, Just zis Guy you know?, BryanG, A dmrb♉ltz, and TBC . These allegations stem from the fact that we have shared three votes, a very, very minor percentage of all my WP namespace votes. In addition, when I nominated several stubs for deletion, with the intent that they be merged back into a common list, he made harrassing statements on my talkpage, informing me that he "will remeber (sic) this incident, and I can assure you the memories will not be pleasent." Cool Cat openly admits violating WP:AGF with the statement "I do not assume good faith when stalked." He also had not intended to even tell me he was accusing me of stalking, telling the user who did let me know "Thank you for notifying AKMask you saved me the trobble (sic). Know that notifying him was always optional." He admitted to being very frustrated in the AN/I discussion of my supposed stalking, and I advised he take a wikibreak to avoid getting upset to the point of leaving the project (my main goal with WP:MAN) to which he made a personal attack with "I find this most insightful. You act like a dick and annoy people then suggest they take a wikibreak. Seems like you got this all worked out. Except it wont work." After an Administrator informed Cool Cat that the accusations were baseless he responded quite inappropriatly, implying that he did not consider any vote where he was a participant one that I should be allowed to partake in as well- "I have no intention of letting this nonsense continue, I do not like seeing the same person on votes I participate in the opposing corner."

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

1. [1] Acusations of Sockpuppety
2. [2] More sockpuppetry allegations
3. [3] Admitting to WP:AGF violations
4. [4] Cool Cat admitting to WP:AGF violations
5. [5] WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF violations
6. [6] WP:AGF violation
7. [7] Cool Cat reversing an Admin's closing of the discussion

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

WP:CIVIL

WP:AGF

(provide diffs and links)

1. [8] User:robchurch asking Cool Cat to back off, comment was deleted.
2. [9] User:AKMask warning Cool Cat, comment was ignored.

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. M ^ask 18:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Rob Church 18:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Ban me indefinately -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 19:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

(sign with ~~~~)

1. FreplySpang (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
2. -- Fuzzie ( talk) 19:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply
3. -- Ter e nc e Ong 09:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Batmanand | Talk 21:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Darth Deskana (talk page) 09:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply

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

I refuse to defend myself as I am pleading guilty. I also demand capital punishment.

And for the record I only accused you of being a suspected sockpuppet of User:MARMOT, User:Davenbelle and merely requested a check.

• Marmot spent the time to find a wikipedia vunrablility to just to get me blocked. User:Brion VIBBER/Cool Cat incident report. Also see Category:Imposters of Cool Cat. Marmots hostility is understandable, I had a bot detecting his vandalism. To bad I am not allowed to run my bot anymore on en.wiki. Well i learnt a lesson. I shall never do open source code again. Curse me for my good faith.
• Davenbelle on the otherhand dedicated his entier contribution in stalking me. To the point of practicaly opposing on every page move vote and afd to requested name changes. Also revert warred even on my talk page removing my comments.

I refuse to believe with that level of determination they simply left me alone.

So I do not want to live with the stalking nonsense again. Just block me forever and everyone esspecialy RobChurch will be extatic.

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

1. -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 19:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

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

First of all, this is a request for comments, not a request for arbitration. Therefore, Cool Cat's requests above ("Ban me indefinitely," "I also demand capital punishment," and "Just block me forever and everyone ... will be extatic.") are unrealistic for an RfC. Besides, it smacks of martyrdom, and that isn't a real solution to this problem.

To address the specifics of this RfC: I understand that Cool Cat has had some problems in the past with being harassed by User:MARMOT, per User:Brion VIBBER/Cool Cat incident report. However, that frustration doesn't justify accusing User:AKMask of being a sockpuppet of MARMOT, or anyone else. A quick look at User:AKMask's editing history shows that he's doing a pretty fair amount of vandal fighting, voting in AfDs, and editing of Star Trek articles. Since those last two seem to be a sticking point in this discussion, I'll add that the Star Trek edits appear to be a shared interest, and I don't see any real irregular pattern of voting. One AfD stands out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various unseen or stub Star Trek Classes. Most of the other voters (who are regular participants in AfD) voted to merge the page, but Cool Cat wanted to keep it as is -- and got pretty upset about it. In fact, the only other AfD where I saw both User:AKMask and User:Cool Cat in the same AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Kurdistan, and that debate is quite heated right now.

I would suggest that Cool Cat do as his username suggests, and try to keep his cool. I would also echo User:AKMask's suggestion and take a Wikibreak, because his frustration is becoming apparent -- and rather disruptive, too.

As far as User:robchurch is concerned: This note to Cool Cat is rather heavy-handed ("I anticipate the latter, although I wouldn't mind a shock."). Also, the reply on WP:AN/I ("Quite right. We're all out to get you. It's a massive conspiracy, and we're all in it. Face it, the Cabal wants you out of here. Grow up.") was pretty inflammatory, and it doesn't help to be inflammatory toward someone who's already inflamed. (Is that a word?) Again, I can see where frustration would influence someone to take a tone like that, but it really doesn't spread the love.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I should really have created Wabasha Street Bridge this evening.

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

1. E lkman - ^(talk) 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Quite. Both parties need to cool off, and while robchurches defense was perhaps expected it was very concieted and unacceptable in light of civilty. That is certainly not the way to dissolve a dispute. - Zero ^Talk 18:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
3. per Megaman Zero. Computerjoe 's talk 06:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC) reply
4. (except for the part about the bridge) - Colin Kimbrell 20:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Batmanand. I agree with pretty much everything you say, although I think that, whilst Cool Cat is clearly agitated, his seeming inability to even try to assume good faith is very unfortunate. 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Darth Deskana (talk page) 09:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Woggly 12:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Agreed. I respect Cool Cat, but I think he should just learn to take a breath and think before putting his foot in his mouth. -- D-Day^{( Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 21:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC) reply

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