Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Rollosmokes[edit]

CoolKatt using harsh and threatening language against me[edit]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5] (see the edit summary comment)

One example of CoolKatt labelling useful edits as "vandalism" (on WCTX)[edit]

Before:[6]

After:[7]

Before again:[8]

After again:[9]

Before again:[10] (here's the accompanying comment I left on his talk page, to which he did not respond)

Last:[11] (with his own special "warning" in the edit summary)

Most of the other examples of his arrogance and incivility are covered by the other participants.

Evidence presented by CFIF[edit]

CoolKatt number 99999 made legal threats[edit]

[12]

CoolKatt number 99999 referred to non-vandalism edits as vandalism[edit]

[13] [14] [15] [16]

WKBS-TV[edit]

[17] (This refers to a possible situation of this occuring)

CoolKatt number 99999 has abused RfC[edit]

Frivolous RfC filings[edit]

User:CFIF/Sandbox (this is an unchanged listing of all the past RfC's he has filed which never met the two-person threshold and were deemed frivolous)

Using RfC as a threat[edit]

[18] Seen here using RfC as a threat to a user who did nothing wrong, nothing that came even close to breaking policy.

[19]

[20]

[21]

CoolKatt number 99999 has made personal attacks, and has been uncivil[edit]

[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

CoolKatt number 99999 has violated WP:NOT[edit]

CoolKatt has made many fictional or fancruftlike subpages (see below) that waste Wikipedia space, and they have no place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Louisville, Whore is ridiculously offensive, and his "alternate histories" and "post group deals" show up on Google, despite the factual inaccuracies and falseness of the said articles.

Also, the user has admitted to speculating in articles (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball)[31], citing the US Constitution's freedom of speech amendment as his allowance to speculate and predict certain things in articles. [32], part of this speculation is assuming every "W" in a callsign means "We're", not necessarily true [33] [34] (This is tied in with adding unverified information)

List of subpages[edit]

The following added by Rekarb Bob (talk · contribs) and CFIF (talk · contribs), see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CoolKatt number 99999 for source, feel free to re-format if this wasn't the correct way to add it: --Morgan Wick 04:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Please take a look at some of his subpages some of which are cruft filled and one a bit of stalking, and another offensive, while WP is not censored, the Louisville Whore page just unneeded and inappropriate:[reply]

And this nonsense article, which thankfully is going through an AFD right now:

The Great Network Switch

CoolKatt number 99999 has indirectly admitted to violating WP:V[edit]

[35] Saying callsign meanings which make sense are not speculation. Completely untrue. For example, WTVT in Tampa, Florida, you'd assume it meant W Television Tampa, but it actually means Walter Tison Virginia Tison, which came from a reputable source. CoolKatt ignored this example [36]

CoolKatt number 99999 edit wars[edit]

Was blocked on July 11, 2006 for 3RR violation. He proceeded to evade his block via a glitch in the system and continue to edit, knowing he was evading the block. [37]

User continues to edit war on WWCP-TV [38] despite being warned not to. [39]

CoolKatt number 99999 bypasses consensus[edit]

CoolKatt number 99999 was seen changing how TV station articles were sorted in categories (The following links are some of his many edits of this type) [40], [41], [42], despite consensus at WP:TVS to not do this. [43]

Late-breaking news[edit]

24.21.63.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has vandalized my talk page (signing it with CoolKatt number 99999), and made similar edits to CoolKatt on WWOR-TV. I think this is a sock of CoolKatt and should be added as evidence.

A checkuser could easily confirm if this was CoolKatt#99999, and I hope the arbitrators will do so: there's no reason for CFIF to have to revert frequent vandalism to his userpage, but it should be verified, under Checkuser policies #6 Evasion of bans or other arbitration remedies, and #8 Vandalism: only for ongoing serious pattern vandalism. If verified, it would probably lengthen whatever block the arbitration committee will decide upon. --Firsfron of Ronchester 17:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted the IP in question did not correctly spell CoolKatt's username. A request for Checkuser would hopefully clear up any lingering doubts about the user's identity.--Firsfron of Ronchester 17:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the IP did spell it right below, so hopefully we can clear this up. It could also be a Spotteddogsdotorg sock too. --CFIF (talk to me) 18:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Rollo already brought this up below. Have you been on Wikibreak? Morgan Wick 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Crossmr[edit]

False Sockpuppet allegations by CoolKatt number 99999[edit]

He placed false sockpuppet tags as retaliation for disagreeing with him on an AfD. [44] and here [45]. The AfD shows him accusing numerous users on the AfD page itself [46]. He claims they're the "right thing to do" [47].--Crossmr 03:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No responsibility for his Behaviour[edit]

Coolkatt 99999 repeatedly blames his behaviour on others and takes no personal responsibility for his actions. Here he tries to negotiate better behaviour [48] though no incivility existed on my part. He claims I'm "making him more incivil". This is also not old behaviour, he recently made another claim blaming others for his behaviour [49].--Crossmr 03:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He continues to blame others for his problems [50] .--Crossmr 06:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coolkatt 99999 Does not provide links to his archived talk pages[edit]

Coolkatt has a number of archived talk pages which he doesn't readily provide links for. One has to dig through his contrib history to find them. Since he's often archving warning messages and other records of bad behaviour, I find this to be inappropriate and the concensus I've read indicates these things should be linked to. Archives here [51] [52] [53] [54] as of writing this, there are no links to these or any other archives available from his talk page. [55].--Crossmr 03:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coolkatt 99999 Does not Learn[edit]

Coolkatt has been repeatedly blocked for "not learning". His first edit to a user talk page was this [56] and this edit [57] was traced back to be an IP he used before getting his account (by him owning these comments: [58] [59]) Almost a year later he exhibits the same behaviour even though there have been countless incidents in that time frame. After being told he cannot edit anything other than his talk page and and anything directly to this arbitration he ignores and hours after being told not to, he makes 3 edits to pages he's not allowed to, he's blocked again for ignoring rules [60].--Crossmr 15:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Amnewsboy[edit]

User has admitted to maliciously filing RfCs[edit]

[61] User threatens to file a RfC after he was blocked for violating WP:V.

User refuses to abide by admin rulings[edit]

[62] User chastizes an admin who blocked him for violating 3RR, refers to him as "an enemy", and says he has "crossed the line."

[63] In the information post about this RfAr, user demands that other editors who disagree with him be blocked.

[64] User threatens to nominate a page for AfD after an admin blocked him for 3RRing it.

[65] User blocked for violating an ArbCom injunction asking him not to edit pages while this case is pending.

User refuses to follow WP:V[edit]

[66] In addition to referring to this diff as "vandalism", it includes unsourced information and speculative information. This edit came less than 24 hours after this RfAr was opened for evidence.

Evidence presented by CoolKatt number 99999[edit]

User has been accused of vandalism when the edits are not vandalism[edit]

[67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] I am only trying to make these articles better

I don't want to get too far into this mess, but at least one of the edits was made when CoolKatt was blocked. The revert was likely due to the fact that the editor wasn't supposed to be editing, but did due to a glitch. At least one other edit was made when the user was unbanned only to participate in this RfA. 69.19.14.18 18:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (but actually -- Chris is me _{(user/review/talk)}, can't log on right now.) _{This post was made by -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. when he was unable to log in}[reply]

Verifying the above post was edited by me. -- Chris ^Ccool2ax _contrib. 21:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has been a victim of personal attacks[edit]

[73] [74] [75] [76] personal attacks made by Rollosmokes

[77] [78] [79] [80] personal attacks made by CFIF

Evidence presented by Minun[edit]

I haven't really got much to say because most evidence is already covered, but I have two pieces of evidence of him being incivil.

[81] Here, he added content from a previously deleted article. He has done this multiple times and [82] here, he tries to war him from abuse, after A Man In Black already knowing. I mainly endorse whats mentioned on his request for comment, but thats all I can say since most evidence is already covered —M in un ^Spiderman 18:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Opabinia regalis[edit]

Really just an addendum of the ensuing AN discussion after the spurious sockpuppetry accusations documented by Crossmr. CoolKatt number 99999 first accuses the discussants of "talking trash" about him and threatens to try deleting the section pertaining to his behavior: [83]. He then calls the discussion "madness" and implies that the participants are attacking him: [84]. Opabinia regalis 01:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by TrackerTV[edit]

I found this on User talk:Morgan Wick:

"'Actually, I'd like to know why Buckner reverted CoolKatt in the first place. Was it because of CoolKatt's reputation? I've said this before regarding BenH: revert based on the edit, not the editor!'

I have to agree. It appears that Buckner 1986 is a sock puppet of Kramden4700, who just reverted my edit of WWCP-TV as 'vandalism.' The problem is, my edit is not vandalism. Please help? CoolKatt number 99999 04:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the ArbCom say you were supposed to stay out of everywhere except your own userspace and the ArbCom case while the ArbCom case is in progress? And haven't you been blocked for running afoul of that? I'm sympathetic to your plight in this instance but only on principle. I do NOT believe any of the reverters are socks, but it does look like a good-faith if not legit edit. I'll give Kramden a talking-to. Morgan Wick 06:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

I belive this revert was actually made during the "broken block" period as well, but I oculd be wrong. 69.19.14.25 02:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC) _{This post was made by -- Chris is me _{(user/review/talk)} when he was unable to log in}[reply]

CoolKatt runs over the ArbCom, this time, disobeying their ban. -TrackerTV 03:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Part 2[edit]

He ran over the ArbCom again, as evidenced at [85]. -TrackerTV 03:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Morgan Wick[edit]

I suspect 24.21.63.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is CoolKatt evading his ArbCom ban. Evidence. Morgan Wick 05:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To back up this claim, I offer this recent revision of WWOR-TV [86], made by aforementioned IP user. Rollosmokes 05:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]