Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CoolKatt number 99999

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: 20:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC).

CoolKatt number 99999 (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

Uncivil to me on my talk page for putting his sub-ages up for deletion, telling me that I've "crossed the line", also uncivil to other users. --CFIF (talk to me) 20:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

(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]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] (legal threats)
[6] (for leaving [7]) and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/A Man In Black

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

I have tried (and evidently failed) to correct his behavior in the past. Kafziel 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have also tried to resolve the disputes by reminding him to stop. --CFIF (talk to me) 21:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to offer him constructive criticism, and recieved incivility in return. He doesn't take advice, and he will not stop unless he is given a stern warning. Rollosmokes 03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I I simply agreed with someone on an AFD against Coolkat and they left a sock puppet tag on my page. I consider this a personal attack.--Crossmr 16:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

~~# Weak endorsement: -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib.~~

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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Please. I am not trying to be uncivil. This is getting silly. Let's just end this now, please? CoolKatt number 99999 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Here T oHelp 00:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC) If you both "drop all charges", this won't have to go any further.[reply]
--Zer0faults 17:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC) I second the above. I think the MfD against CoolKatt number 99999 and the RfC here should end.[reply]
--Scot ^t 18:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Agree with above, this RfC is just escalating the situation.[reply]
Vexatious RFC. Stifle (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As above.--Firsfron 19:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 05:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC) per norm~~ Withdrawn after further events. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by User:Avillia

First, I thought RfC certs are two other people. Secondly, there seems to be some level of Wikistalking involved by CFIF, some level of incivility by both parties, as well as what might be described as mutual overreaction.

As far as the category renames go, there's arguments made by WP:Bold and WP:IAR, and I suppose it's not too logical to have a category named for one reference in the presence of a disambig, which I bet there is.

I'd suggest that both parties just back off, or ask around for some consensus on the naming. If this has already happened, please provide evidence to that effect. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 21:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Here T oHelp 00:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC) I also asked them to just back off: [12][reply]
--Scot ^t 18:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC) A time away from each other would probably be best here.[reply]

Outside view by User:Firsfron

I've had what I feel are good relations with both users.

CFIF is a brilliant user. His edits are great, and I truly feel like if we had more quality editors like him, we'd have an encyclopedia more accurate than Britannica. That said, he's got a long history of violating WP:Civil. I asked him to stop with the comments about other editors' edits being "worthless", "crap", etc, and, to his credit, he did so. I've never seen someone modify his behavior so quickly. It's really impressive.

CoolKatt has some odd sub-pages on his user page. They're entirely fictional, and someone seeing those on an encyclopedia might easily be fooled. Having said that, when I asked him nicely to tag the articles with something to explain they weren't real articles, he did so immediately. His edits are not all worthless, and I feel like we had a good working relationship on the DuMont Television Network page. Granted, that page still needs work, but he saved me hours of editing.

I thought the dispute was solved, after trying to mediate it on WikiProject:TV Stations. I'm sad it really wasn't. I think it was in poor taste for CFIF to list the pages for deletion, after so recently insulting CoolKatt. And those were insults. If it was my work being called "worthless, "idiotic", etc, I'd feel persecuted and upset. And then if that same user started calling for mass deletions of pages I'd worked on, and re-editing stuff, I'd feel like I'd been wikistalked. I'd say that's what happened here.

As far as the pages themselves, I'm in favor of a streamlined userpage with few frills. I've seen userpages with 1,200 userboxes and tons of animated gifs that nearly crashed my browser. In that case, the user was clearly disruptive. Here, it's not disruptive, I think. I know of another user who was allowed to keep many reviews of movies on his userpage's sub-pages, and this doesn't seem so different to me.

CoolKatt has backed down on several occasions, saying, "Please, let's not do this" and "I give up." (I can provide links, but I'm lazy). CFIF even gives a link above, calling it "incivility". I think I'd be more uncivil than what CoolKatt says in those links. In fact, in one of those links above, CoolKatt asks "Why can't you leave me alone?" I wonder why, too.

I like CFIF. I think his edits are excellent. But I think in this situation, he was wrong. I think it's sort of a conflict of interest to be the person who gets into an argument with another user, and then also be the person who lists that user's pages for deletion, because then it's personal.--Firsfron 23:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

--Zer0faults 17:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Scot ^t 18:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--WikidSmaht (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Ccool2ax

I think that, although CFIF is being a little uncivil, CoolKatt is just being unreasonable. He put up her subpages for deletion, and then she accuses him. His response is defensive, vice versa, and this bickering elevates to a high level.

In my 6-month history of Wikipedia editing, I've had a similar fight stemmed from an edit conflict. I was working on the arguably notable article Camp Timberlane for Boys, and user BaronLarf consolidated my edits. After a misunderstanding or two, we reached an agreement and remained corduall. I didn't call BaronLarf an idiot or a worthless editor, and he didn't keep asking me to drop my debate for no reason. Basically, the moral of the story is, given enough time, the editors can cool down, reach and/or propose a compromise, get consensous, and then move on.

I think that these two users need a short wikibreak, should take a step back, and respectfully reach an agreement, rather than build a debate leading to an RfC. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 04:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I think that, although CFIF is being a little uncivil, CoolKatt is just being unreasonable. He put up her subpages for deletion, and then she accuses him. I don't believe CFIF has been just a "little" uncivil. CFIF has a long history of incivility, for example two weeks ago, or in his user history where he repeatedly leaves comments about edits being "stupid", "dumb", "BS", "ridiculous", "lies", etc. He did stop doing that two weeks ago. You've also got the order wrong: there was an argument between the two of them, then they agreed to end the feud, then CFIF put CoolKatt's pages up for deletion.--Firsfron 11:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I am male CoolKatt number 99999 19:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the gender mixup. I could've sworn I put s/he instead of she. Never mind.. my opinin doesnt really matter that much. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striked out due to my lack of knowledge of anything.
Outside view by User:Crossmr
[edit]
I'd never encountered this user until a few days ago when I "agreed with nom" on an AFD. I logged on to find a sock puppet tag on my user page and began to investigate. As far as I can tell its direct retaliation for simply agreeing with the AFD. He never put the proper puppeteer tag on the person I was supposedly a sock puppet of, nor were the appropriate pages created. This was also found done to at least one other user. This dif [13] shows the sock puppet tag, at the same time she also tagged Opabinia for the same reason [14]. As you can see in the AFD in question, anyone who agrees with deletion is labelled a sock puppet by CK [15]. I left him an NPA template on his talk page and received this as a reply User_talk:Crossmr#Sockpuppet_claims " I am doing the right thing here". Calling people sock puppets for agreeing with a deletion or making legal threats against someone is not "the right thing" . Regardless of any positive contribution they may make to wikipedia, this behaviour isn't to be tolerated, and I support nothing less than a permanent ban until I start seeing full apologies for their actions. --Crossmr 16:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary:
CFIF (talk to me) 16:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second this motion for a permanent ban. Rollosmokes 16:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lambertman 12:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rekarb Bob 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure on the policy for adding additional information, but as you can see the paranoia and denial of any wrong-doing continues. Now apostrophe allegedly forced myself and others to vote delete on that afd "In reality, the only personal attack was the whole AFD, as a personal attack on me. You need to think about that, and the fact that Apostrophe probably forced you and most others to vote delete" I'd really like a comment from an admin as to why this train wreck is allowed to continue here, and if none is forth-coming from this RfC, where might one get the attention of an admin as the noticeboard is seemingly useless as well. --Crossmr 19:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
[edit]
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.