Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek - Wikipedia


Article Images

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, not different disputes. 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: 1 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC).

User(s) has been obsessed with reverting my edits which is disrupting at least my wiki experience. Users barely used talk if ever on some articles. They are using a "just revert till remote party gives up" philosophy. I virtually have to force all my edits through them. I received a stunning (and partial) number of ~50+ reverts (Davenbelle 20, Stereotek 30). User:Coolcat#Categories. Those are the ones I counted without "effort". User(s) have 6 reverts I get 3 via 3rr. They revert often regardless of the content. Revert reads "POV" or "POV vandalism". And their double standard is visible in many occasions. It is currently futile for me to edit wikipedia as they will find ways to revert. I'll discuss individual cases below.

Description

  • Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles
  • Work toward agreement
  • Argue facts, not personalities
  • Don't ignore questions.
  • If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
  • Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
  • Don't make people debate positions you don't really hold.
  • Help mediate disagreements between others
  • Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
  • Amend, edit, discuss.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Excuse of dismissing governmental data: "Governments tend to lie"[1]
  2. Davenbelle (talk · contribs) has a personal issue with me [2] and probably Turkey.
  3. Nanking massacre: Image sizes are a good excuse to start rever war. Standard Thumbnail size vs 280px [3]. I expect decency in the article. If people want to see full sized corpses they can click on the image. The Holocaust entry uses thumbnail sized images. Reverts should be evaded and things should be discussed. They had no edits on this article prior to my arrival as well. I was trying to mediate this thing in hopes that I learn better ways to mediate their and User:Fadix's "contribution" made a mediation impossible. They had no edits prior to my arrival as well.
  4. I abuse wikipedia templates: [4]
  5. Davenbelle marked GAP project a copy vio. Material was PD and is used on 11 websites of which two are PD. Copyvio people deleted the page anyway. I rewrote the page from scratch the page still is not there as its a "copy vio". The page is rewritten from scratch. I am still dealing with the copy vio case. Its yet another stressful and unnecessary case. I don't enjoy red tape sorry.
  6. Another assume bad faith case in Greco-Turkish_relations. I do not know what the user was trying to prove. Topic stayed locked because of his intervention (trolling). See how the discussion went on (or lack of discussion). [5]. Check the revert war in on going in archived discussion. I am doing spelling corrections. They cannot even tolerate that.
  7. I was asked to mediate Javier Solana (via IRC). Which I accepted but Davenbelle for one removed my mediation guidelines to the users (which I later forced back in). His interference is visible in talk archive 3. I have every right to push a few rules to hopefully force people to discuss the matter rather than continue their revert war. At least that was my intention which they again made impossible.
  8. For instance I listed Antiwar.com on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 16 ([6]) as Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Antiwar.com at 16/06/2005, 15:39:55, Davenbelle oppsed it on 16/06/2005, 15:41:10 ([7]). In other words 1:15 minutes later of it being listed he opposed it. Granted people can suggest whatever the wish I am not criticising that remotely. But the fact that they are so efficent in oposing any and every suggestion or edit I can this easily and fast bothers me. (times were my local time)
  9. Another example will be in Abortion. Article is contraversial yes, my edits were not. My edits (bear in mind I have two blocks of edits and some changes were not my doing): [8] All edits from my last edit till just before Stereotek's first edit (mostly links being removed/added): [9] Stereotek's edits as follows: [10]. From my first edit till the end of Stereotek's first block: [11]. Granted Not every thing I did is gone, but the majority is. Aside from the links (which was not my doing) almost all of my edits are gone. I was doing cleanup duty. Bear in mind that he used no Talk: . I was talking to User:Tznkai on IRC. Infact he invited me to clean the article. While the discussion of which version is better is open to debate, like any edit. I wouldnt be as buged if someone else than the two (Davenbelle and Stereotek) appeared.
  10. PKK: Users have not contributed to this article prior to my edit. They just abusively revert. No discussion no talk no assume good faith...
  1. POV delete or is it? PKK's drug ties is well known. So says the Turkish government and so confirms the US government. Bear in mind user posted nothing to talk. just do a google search with this string: pkk drug site:.gov google search. That's a ridiculously simple search. Users however ignore common knowledge, stick to their "governments tend to lie" ideology... [12] rv to last NPoV version by Bobblewik
  2. Example of double standard. Bear in mind that restore of "removed material" removed about 5182 bytes of data. (assume bad faith and discard the work of others out of hand) [13] revert; don't discard the work of others out of hand
  3. Users NPoVise articles by stubisizing: [14]
  • I have also tried to deal with the problem here, which appears to me to be primarily a case of Davenbelle and Stereotek targeting this editor and failing to exercise assumption of good faith. A number of things have emerged from Coolcat's interactions with me: he is well-meaning and willing to change his behavior, but if Davenbelle and Stereotek dogged me as they have dogged Coolcat perhaps I would also feel extremely unwelcome on Wikipedia. Most of my interactions on this matter with Davenbelle have been in email, and I won't disclose the contents. I will disclose my impression, however, and I present this as evidence, as an editor in good standing who would have no reason to take sides with Coolcat if I doubted his good faith. Davenbelle has a bee in his bonnet about Coolcat and he has in my opinion gone way overboard in his activity concerning Coolcat's edits. Coolcat's feelings of persecution appear to me to be somewhat justified. I would like to see less of this kind of behavior on Wikipedia. I think it's disgraceful, frankly. Coolcat should be permitted to hold a different opinion on Wikipedia and to edit articles in good faith in the light of his best judgement, as all of us are, according to the policies of Wikipedia. Editors should not feel free to trample on those policies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 1 July 2005 23:29 (UTC)

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia: Wikiquette

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation request filled, unanswered
  2. Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance request filled, unanswered
  3. They are declaring my edits bad, normally they should be the ones using my talk to tell me what their problem is. I posted this msg pushing my patience to its limits. That was the first real communication, which I initiated. Nothing changed. Any communication I received from them was them informing they have marked an article I wrote as copy vio etc. Stereotek got me blocked 3 times (due to 3rr on all cases the dispute was between me and Davenbelle and Stereotek). He requested the 4th block of me breaking 3rr of me violating it on my own talk page. There is absolutely no sign of them wanting to work with me rather than get rid of me. I never requested a single block on them even though many cases they violated the rule. I don't seek a childish vengeance, I just tried to keep my cool, assume good faith, try to reason... I post material to talk on why I wrote what I wrote. I cite sources discuss things, they don't read/answer. Keep reverting instead...
  4. There was even an arbitration case, which was declined due to the lack of a RfC

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 1 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

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.

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

Response by Stereotek:

Coolcat has disrupted Wikipedia by refusing to follow Wikipedias policies regarding NPOV in many articles, and has been pushing a pro-Turkish/Genocide denialist PoV in many articles such as Armenian Genocide, PKK and Nanking Massacre. The user has often refused to explain his actions on the relevant articles talkpage, see: Abortion for a most recent example.

Coolcat has frequently violated Wikipedias policies regarding No personal attacks, and has exposed several users to extreme personal attack across several pages. Examples include: User:Stereotek and User:Davenbelle just SHUT UP and GO SCREW yourselves. [15] and Stereotek + Fadix = Death [16]

Coolcat has shown complete discontempt for the opinion of other editors and Wikipedias rules regarding concensus. Examples include insisting on redirecting the Abdullah Öcalan article to the PKK article ([17], [18], [19]), disregarding the clear consensus on the talkpage not to merge the mentioned articles.

Coolcat has also been a frequent violator of wikipedias policies regarding civility, and has among other things used edit summaries such as: "Stop being silly, do you have some sort of sick wet dream to stare at a dead naked woman? Or do you enjoy staring at dead chineese?..." [20] and "You cant read either, the color format is discussed above" [21]

Coolcat has frequently been violating wikipedias policies regaring copyright. Examples include the GAP Project article which he insisted on recreating unitarily, despite consensus not to do so on the votes for undeletion. Other examples of copyvios that Coolcat has been insisting on including are his now deleted version of the Diagnosis: Murder article. More evidence regarding Coolcats dishonest use of copyrighted material is available here: [22]

Another one of Wikipedias policies that Coolcat has frequently violated is the 3 revert rules, and according to Coolcats own userpage, he has been blocked three times violating 3rr.

Apart from these violations of Wikipedia policies, Coolcat has been disrupting Wikipedia by aggressively promoting a vast varity of odd ideas. These include insisting on using a very unusual colorsheme when 'mediating' in articles such as Greco-Turkish relations and Javier Solana see: [23] (this often despite other editors clearly rejecting this idea), insisting that wikipedians should be equipped with a 'startrek' rank [24] [25], and repeatedly claiming that it was HIM who invented the internet, the we as a community now benefit from. [26]

Stereotek's response to Coolcat's claims regarding my edits in specific articles

  • Coolcats comments regarding my edits in the abortion article are simply not true. The conflict started when he replaced the previously well written prose in several sections with a unorganized collection of bullets. I started my work restoring the prose in the sections with this edit [27] using the edit summary "see talk". I mentioned my concerns about his on the aticles talkpage [28], and the other editors that commented there mostly agreed with my concerns. However, Coolcat refused to discusse his edit, and didn't leave any messages on the talkpage. Coolcat's only response to the concerns that I raised on the articles talk page was a revert with the editsummary "sockpuppet edits..." [29].
  • In the 'Antiwar.com' Coolcats first action was to list the more than half a year old article for speedy deletion [30], and delete all the internal links pointing to that article. I removed the speedy deletion tag mentioned my concerns on the talk page and asked Coolcat to list the article on VfD instead [31]
  • The dispute regarding Coolcat's attempts to decrease the size and (Coolcat doesn't mention this): move the pictures in the Nanking Massacre to a less prominent position, should be seen in the light of Coolcats broader attempts to promote his genocide denialists POV. Coolcat has previously made it clear that he among other things deny the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.

More evidence regarding Coolcat's violations of Wikipedias policies are among other places available here: Davenbelle/Evidence re User:Coolcat.


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

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.

It seems that Davenbelle and Stereotek have been leaning on CoolCat harder than he deserves—though, in all fairness, CoolCat's blatant POV-pushing, combined with his generally confrontational and officious manner, have not helped one bit. Both parties need to cool it.

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

  • —Charles P. (Mirv) 1 July 2005 22:54 (UTC), who further wonders why CoolCat chose to repost this RfC. —Charles P. (Mirv) 1 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)
    • The last one failed cert because I didn't hear of it until too late. This is being revived because the previous copy was deleted for technical reasons. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 1 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)

The GAP project, second copyvio reversion and deletion of history

I'm getting tired of defending myself over and over again regarding the GAP project and its copyright violations. So I'll just say that Coolcat isn't being honest in his evidence statement number 5. If anyone wants more information, see User:Duk/CoolCat. --Duk 2 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

I'd just like to observe that it's quite possible that you're both being honest but are seeing different parts of the picture. Coolcat could be the original author and wonder why a copyvio is being declared when obviously no good faith attempt has been made to contact the copyright holder in this disputed case. You could be wondering why you should go to such trouble (I would say that we at least owe him the benefit of the doubt). To describe him as dishonest here is simply incorrect. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 2 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)
Coolcal claims he reworte the page that I reverted (and deleted the history of). This is not true, it contained at least a whole paragraph of copied, previously published material. I reverted, and deleted the history so that Coolcat couldn't easily revert and violate copyrights for a third time (on this page.--Duk 2 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)
I also explained exactly where the copyvio occured in the article's talk page and included an example. Coolcat had nothing to say at the time. But now, weeks later, he claims that he was mistreated. Bullshit. --Duk 2 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)

And you know when you present as evidence of copyvio the fact that "at least a full paragraph" of a quite large piece of text is a verbatim copy, it makes me wonder what you're up to. That's an utterly unnecessary standard by which to judge a copyvio. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 2 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

I don't agree; there is a grey area between short statements of fact are not copyrightable, and longer, creative writing that is certainly copyrightable. In this case there was no confusion, that's why I mentioned the paragraph length.--Duk 2 July 2005 01:28 (UTC)
It also explains the situation; Coolcat claims he rewrote the page, and maybe he initially believed that he did, but it still contained copied text. At this point, I can only say he is being dishonest, because I have explained what I found and offered to email him the text in question--Duk 2 July 2005 01:23 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu

I would tend to agree with the view that Coolcat has been leaned on rather too hard. Having your edits reverted and opposed all the time cannot be a pleasent thing to have to endure. I have not signed the outside view above, however, because I would like to comment on the evidence above:

  • Gap project - I would like to ask those who deleted the page after it appears to have been rewritten why this was done. If only to clear the air on the whole problem.
I was the administrator who dealt with the second copyvio, the re-write still contained copyvios. See; [32] and User:Duk/CoolCat --Duk 2 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)
  • 18:31, 7 April 2005
    I would like to make a few comments about this:
    1. This was Stereotek's user talk page, and the comment was addressed to Stereotek, not Davenbelle
    2. Davenbelle would have done well in posting this comment onto Coolcat's talk page (can't see evidence of this, if I've missed the edit then I take this back), because Coolcat would not have been expecting a reply to his comment by another user on the original talk page he posted to! I must ask why such a comment was posted.
    3. The comment itself seems unfair to me: government sources should be quoted, but if their are conflicting sources then they should also be noted. The govt sources should not be removed completely.
  • 10:40, 9 April 2005
    This evidence appear to be because this edit was included on Davenbelle's "evidence page". What in particular is a concern here?
  • 23 April 2005
    Disagree that this was an unreasonable edit, one revert is OK. I would agree with Coolcat about the image size, but this is basically just a content disagreement and I don't think it was anything personal on Stereotek's behalf.
  • 06:16, 5 May 2005
    "Abuse of templates", while somewhat unfortunate as a term, is used quite often on Wikipedia to describe templates the editor feels should not really exist. If Davenbelle did not send Coolcat a message on his talk page, however, I must ask why not. Surely good faith editing would mean that you discuss the issue with one of the creators of the template?

(more to come, I gotta go - gah!) Ta bu shi da yu 2 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)