664:, 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.
797:" 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. --
856:
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. --
38:
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
855:
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
783:
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
574:
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
315:
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"
449:
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
570:
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.
565:
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
653:
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.
542:
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
547:. 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.
578:
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
885:. 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.
590:
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
882:
83:
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.
466:
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.
550:
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
109:(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.)
238:
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.
480:
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. --
672:
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. --
58:
702:
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.
583:
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.
660:
In my 6-month history of
Knowledge editing, I've had a similar fight stemmed from an edit conflict. I was working on the arguably notable article
716:
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,
92:
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. --
247:
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.--
791:
784:
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
477:, 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.
738:
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. --
64:
142:
52:
30:, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the
749:
683:
431:
415:
277:
27:
17:
860:
845:
837:
829:
820:
801:
754:
733:
730:
724:
688:
638:
624:
611:
598:
524:
508:
488:
437:
398:
389:
374:
360:
356:
346:
326:
323:
301:
293:
251:
242:
233:
221:
99:
48:
559:
554:
to tag the articles with something to explain they weren't real articles, he did so immediately. His edits are
661:
575:
allowed to keep many reviews of movies on his userpage's sub-pages, and this doesn't seem so different to me.
704:
I don't believe CFIF has been just a "little" uncivil. CFIF has a long history of incivility, for example
790:. As you can see in the AFD in question, anyone who agrees with deletion is labelled a sock puppet by CK
288:
710:
where he repeatedly leaves comments about edits being "stupid", "dumb", "BS", "ridiculous", "lies", etc
634:
500:
338:
744:
678:
622:
522:
429:
410:
372:
272:
322:
Please. I am not trying to be uncivil. This is getting silly. Let's just end this now, please?
794:
486:
826:
385:
285:
239:
842:
834:
630:
608:
544:
505:
497:
353:
343:
335:
298:
161:
787:
shows the sock puppet tag, at the same time she also tagged
Opabinia for the same reason
817:
470:
230:
96:
739:
721:
673:
646:
617:
595:
594:
be the person who lists that user's pages for deletion, because then it's personal.--
533:
517:
474:
423:
405:
395:
367:
267:
166:
857:
798:
773:
481:
456:
248:
218:
381:
881:
signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to
562:
page. Granted, that page still needs work, but he saved me hours of editing.
814:
227:
93:
793:. I left him an NPA template on his talk page and received this as a reply
558:
all worthless, and I feel like we had a good working relationship on the
217:
I have tried (and evidently failed) to correct his behavior in the past.
226:
I have also tried to resolve the disputes by reminding him to stop. --
155:{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
349:
If you both "drop all charges", this won't have to go any further.
73:
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
469:
As far as the category renames go, there's arguments made by
377:
Agree with above, this RfC is just escalating the situation.
539:
I've had what I feel are good relations with both users.
527:
A time away from each other would probably be best here.
788:
785:
709:
705:
512:
197:
193:
189:
185:
139:
136:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
175:
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
759:
Striked out due to my lack of knowledge of anything.
210:{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
167:Not an indiscriminate collection of information
39:will be deleted. The current date and time is:
143:Knowledge:Requests for comment/A Man In Black
8:
720:CFIF put CoolKatt's pages up for deletion.--
359:I second the above. I think the MfD against
825:I second this motion for a permanent ban.
205:Users certifying the basis for this dispute
7:
511:I also asked them to just back off:
260:Other users who endorse this summary
795:User_talk:Crossmr#Sockpuppet_claims
462:First, I thought RfC certs are two
422:Withdrawn after further events. --
151:Applicable policies and guidelines
24:
420:05:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC) per norm
806:Users who endorse this summary:
603:Users who endorse this summary:
493:Users who endorse this summary:
331:Users who endorse this summary:
28:Knowledge:Requests for comment
18:Knowledge:Requests for comment
1:
105:Evidence of disputed behavior
26:In order to remain listed at
363:and the RfC here should end.
883:this page's discussion page
41:13:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
901:
179:(provide diffs and links)
861:19:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
846:16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
830:16:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
821:16:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
802:16:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
729:For the record I am male
708:, or in his user history
560:DuMont Television Network
438:01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
302:16:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
294:15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
252:16:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
838:12:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
755:22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
734:19:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
725:11:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
689:04:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
662:Camp Timberlane for Boys
639:22:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
625:18:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
612:17:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
599:23:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
525:18:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
509:00:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
489:21:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
399:19:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
390:01:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
375:18:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
357:17:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
347:00:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
327:21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
243:03:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
234:21:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
222:21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
100:20:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
78:Statement of the dispute
266:# Weak endorsement: --
731:CoolKatt number 99999
361:CoolKatt number 99999
324:CoolKatt number 99999
49:CoolKatt number 99999
888:
887:
874:
873:
865:
864:
851:
850:
809:
808:
779:
778:
767:
766:
693:
692:
691:
666:
665:
655:
282:
876:
875:
867:
866:
853:
852:
811:
810:
781:
780:
769:
768:
696:
695:
671:
670:
669:
659:
658:
652:
265:
892:
772:Outside view by
752:
747:
742:
686:
681:
676:
645:Outside view by
620:
532:Outside view by
520:
484:
455:Outside view by
436:
426:
418:
413:
408:
370:
291:
280:
275:
270:
42:
900:
899:
895:
894:
893:
891:
890:
889:
872:
777:
750:
745:
740:
684:
679:
674:
650:
618:
537:
518:
482:
460:
446:
434:
428:
424:
416:
411:
406:
380:Vexatious RFC.
368:
312:
289:
278:
273:
268:
262:
207:
177:
153:
133:(legal threats)
107:
90:
80:
40:
34:dispute with a
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
898:
896:
871:
868:
849:
848:
840:
832:
823:
776:
770:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
757:
736:
649:
643:
642:
641:
627:
614:
536:
530:
529:
528:
514:
459:
453:
445:
442:
441:
440:
432:
401:
392:
378:
364:
350:
311:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
296:
261:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
245:
236:
224:
206:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
195:
191:
187:
176:
173:
172:
171:
170:
169:
164:
152:
149:
148:
147:
146:
145:
134:
129:
125:
121:
117:
106:
103:
89:
86:
79:
76:
70:
69:
68:
45:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
897:
886:
884:
880:
869:
863:
862:
859:
847:
844:
841:
839:
836:
833:
831:
828:
824:
822:
819:
816:
813:
812:
807:
804:
803:
800:
796:
792:
789:
786:
775:
771:
758:
756:
753:
748:
743:
737:
735:
732:
728:
727:
726:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
706:two weeks ago
703:
700:
699:
698:
697:
694:
690:
687:
682:
677:
667:
663:
656:
648:
647:User:Ccool2ax
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
626:
623:
621:
615:
613:
610:
606:
605:
604:
601:
600:
597:
593:
589:
584:
582:
576:
572:
569:
563:
561:
557:
553:
548:
546:
540:
535:
534:User:Firsfron
531:
526:
523:
521:
515:
513:
510:
507:
504:
503:
499:
496:
495:
494:
491:
490:
487:
485:
478:
476:
472:
467:
465:
458:
454:
452:
451:
443:
439:
435:
430:
427:
421:
419:
414:
409:
402:
400:
397:
393:
391:
387:
383:
379:
376:
373:
371:
365:
362:
358:
355:
351:
348:
345:
342:
341:
337:
334:
333:
332:
329:
328:
325:
320:
319:
317:
309:
303:
300:
297:
295:
292:
287:
284:
283:
281:
276:
271:
264:
263:
259:
253:
250:
246:
244:
241:
237:
235:
232:
229:
225:
223:
220:
216:
215:
214:
213:
212:
211:
204:
198:
196:
194:
192:
190:
188:
186:
184:
183:
182:
181:
180:
174:
168:
165:
163:
160:
159:
158:
157:
156:
150:
144:
140:
138:(for leaving
137:
135:
132:
130:
128:
126:
124:
122:
120:
118:
116:
114:
113:
112:
111:
110:
104:
102:
101:
98:
95:
87:
85:
84:
77:
75:
74:
66:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
47:
46:
44:
37:
33:
29:
19:
878:
877:
854:
818:(talk to me)
805:
782:
774:User:Crossmr
717:
713:
701:
668:
657:
651:
602:
591:
587:
585:
580:
577:
573:
567:
564:
555:
551:
549:
541:
538:
501:
492:
479:
468:
463:
461:
457:User:Avillia
448:
447:
444:Outside view
403:
339:
330:
321:
318:
314:
313:
231:(talk to me)
209:
208:
178:
154:
108:
97:(talk to me)
91:
82:
81:
72:
71:
61:
55:
35:
31:
25:
827:Rollosmokes
394:As above.--
286:Computerjoe
240:Rollosmokes
88:Description
870:Discussion
843:Rekarb Bob
835:Lambertman
631:WikidSmaht
609:Zer0faults
354:Zer0faults
299:Rekarb Bob
751:contrib.
746:Ccool2ax
722:Firsfron
685:contrib.
680:Ccool2ax
596:Firsfron
545:WP:Civil
433:contrib.
417:contrib.
412:Ccool2ax
396:Firsfron
316:section.
310:Response
279:contrib.
274:Ccool2ax
162:WP:Civil
59:contribs
858:Crossmr
799:Crossmr
483:Avillia
471:WP:Bold
290:'s talk
249:Crossmr
219:Kafziel
552:nicely
475:WP:IAR
382:Stifle
141:) and
36:single
741:Chris
712:. He
675:Chris
506:oHelp
464:other
450:view.
425:Chris
407:Chris
344:oHelp
269:Chris
16:<
815:CFIF
718:then
635:talk
619:Scot
592:also
588:like
581:more
519:Scot
498:Here
473:and
386:talk
369:Scot
336:Here
228:CFIF
94:CFIF
65:logs
53:talk
32:same
879:All
714:did
556:not
404:--
637:)
629:--
616:--
607:--
586:I
568:my
516:--
388:)
366:--
352:--
43:.
633:(
502:T
384:(
340:T
67:)
62:·
56:·
51:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.