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: 15:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC).

• Cool_Cat (talk · contribs · logs)

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

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.

This RfC is filed over concerns of User:Fadix's lack of civility.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

User has had an overal incivil and offensive tone. User prefers to 'discuss' contributors rather than contribution or topic. user has been repetively warned and given more than enough slack. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

Evidence by Cool Cat

(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. WP Talk:RfAr/Coolcat Davenbelle Stereotek/Proposed decision: 14:50, 4 September 2005 - User:Fadix - Coolcats disruption of the Armenian Genocide entry)
   • Threatens Arbcom: Either something is done about this, or I’ll kick Coolcat out of the Armenian Genocide entry myself and will assume the consequences.
   • Rest of the page is full of other personal attacks. I do not believe however anyone will read over a meg of text.
2. User:Cool Cat/f
   • Reverts w/o looking... The actual change is merely spelling and smimilar corrections.
3. User:Cool Cat/f
   • Quit it Thoth, I have enought of it, your undertanding of NPOV policy is as weak as Coolcats
4. User talk:Cool Cat: 17:10, 8 March 2006
   • Acusses me of sockpuppetary while threatening to arbcom me to achieve 'harder sanctions'.
5. User:Fadix: 13:25, 20 March 2006 - User:Fadix
   • I PLACED THE REST OF MY TEXT ON THE RIGHT SIDE LEAVING THE REST BLANK AS A PROTEST TO USERPAGES IDIOTIC AND NATIONALISTIC TEMPLATES THAT HAVE NO PLACE IN WIKIPEDIA. etc.
6. User:Cool Cat/f
   • If you want to be respected respect others and stop lying about them.

These are one of the many examples of such behaviour. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His response on this page can also be viewed as hostile. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. User:Cool Cat/f
   • I'd be insulted if someone was declaring my views 'childishtic' --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 08:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence by Grandmaster

1. Fadix expressed his displeasure with some sections of the article History of Azerbaijan on the talk page and launched a personal attack on me, while I did not even make any significant contribution to that article:
   • Also it amuses me that Grandmaster has nothing to say when studies are manipulated to serve his POV, but would reject such studies when they reject his prejudicial beliefs [1]
2. This is from his posting addressed to me on the talk for Iranian Azerbaijan:
   • I haven't read every crap (as we are now, I guess with all the POV pushing you've been doing, I can from this day on consider those crap) you've been introducing. I just got interested in the article History of Azerbaijan, and the first paragraphs were already tainted by the sort of crap you've been spewing. As for your question, for now I have better things to do than chassing again some dishonest POV pushers … [2]
3. On the talk for Nakhichevan Fadix accused me of pushing my POV just because I started an RfC on naming principles as was proposed by one of admins (he confirmed that on the talk page). The very first line of Fadix’s post was saying in bald letters:
   • I am warning users that Grandmaster is attempting to POV push onces again. The rest of his input was not any better. He commented not so much on the issue in question, as much as on my personality. [3]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Grandmaster 06:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   As the above reads: "This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view." You have certified the RfC, so this outside view is out of order. Please make the necessary modifications. Thanks. El_C 03:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks
2. Wikipedia:Civility

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. User has been blocked once for NPA violations. block log
2. Warnings
   • User Talk:Fadix: 21:00, 28 April 2005 - User:Silsor - (anonymous users have the same rights as you)
   • Talk:Armenian_Genocide: 19:33, 17 February 2006 - User:Shanel - (Article is problematic at the moment - please be civil)
3. Dispute resolution efforts
   • A lenghty conversation between Tony Sidways and Fadix. [4]
4. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Fadix

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Grandmaster 11:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. --InShaneee 21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

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.

1.I don't see the relevency of pointing to an Arbcom cases which had a ruling and Arbitrators present.

2.Coolcat knows that in that Arbcom evidence page, I had provided Coolcat edits under the banner of grammar correction he made POV edits and hidded it under the pretext of increasing the quality of the article(grammatically), this evidences he already brought during an Arbcom cases, so again, what is the point to present this in a RfC, when it has been presented to the Arbcom.

3.I stend by it, Thoth and Coolcat both have been problematic and do not understand NPOV policy. Thoth support what Coolcat might interprate as 'pro-Armenian' line. I don't see what Coolcat is attempting by pointing to this.

4.Yes! I was mistaken, and I have appologized for that mistake. But it ended up that those were really socks of another user. Besides even Tony suspected you when I brought the case to him. You have already accused at least 5 other users to be my socks and requested checkusers. But unlike me, you have never appologised for those accusations.

5.Yes! I stend by this, we are here to write an encyclopedia, and stupid templates in user pages regarding their nationalistic positions, moods etc. are simply worthless and unconstructive.

6.Coolcat doesn't even understand the nature of the conflict at Nakhichevan page. I have never requested what Coolcat claims. The nature of the conflict was to add Turkish/Azeri names in articles relating to territories now part of the Republic of Armenia, because some Azeri or Turkich territory articles contain Armenian words, Nakhichevan was an example, and this was why the debate sparked there. There was no debate what so ever to delete any Azeri or Turkish words in Nakhichevan entry. Coolcat just jumped there because he has found yet another thing to pursue his personal vendetta against me, while he didn't even took the time to understand what was the nature of the conflict.

7. Those words were harsh, but I stend by them, anyone can read and understand the matter. When someone mislead others about the content of my edits, I call this to be a lie. Find another word less offensive and I will use it. Fad (ix) 18:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answering Grandmaster accusations

1. Maybe irrelevent to the content of the article perhaps, I don't any direct personal attack there.

2. We can make things mean anything we want by selective quoting. Reading my full replies there to Grandmaster will give a deep understanding of the problem. And it is even more interesting as Coolcat lunched this RfC when I announced to Grandmaster I will be RfC on his conduct in the upcomming week for his disrespect of guidlines and policies and refusal to adhere to them.

3. No, this is not exactly why I have accused him of POV pushing, but rather because of his childishtic 'if Armenian terms are there, Turkish/Azeris terms should be here. Fad (ix) 06:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Eupator 22:10, 22 April 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.

• Poor attitude about the processes of Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Genocide(2nd nomination) in which he says "Speedy delete. How dare such an article exist, it should be deleted without even voting to do so."

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Stbalbach 21:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know I should not answer in this section, but due to the circumstances I will have to. Dear Stbalbach, this AfD was filled after another one failed with a speedy keep just before it and another one weeks ago. Everytime the article get unblocked it is constantly vandalised with stupidies like this, if it is not a request for deletion it is else. I have requested a partial block (preventing non-registered users and newly registered users to edit it) my request was left unanswered. My vote to that RfD was sarcastic, there is no way that the community will ever vote to delete it, and two other RfD from some unidentified probably socks without any supports. My comment in that RfD should have been understood as: "OK, go ahead, delete it, afteral just ignore the community decision." That RfD was sarcastic from a user that make fun of Wikipedia's tools and my answer was to the measure of the seriousness from which that request was filled. I thought my answer to the RfD was clear, which finally was not since you misinterpreted it. My fault. Fad (ix) 22:04, 27 April 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.