User:Rollosmokes/Big Rollo vs. CoolKatt number 99999

UPDATE: The conflict against CoolKatt has been taken to a Request for Arbitration, which I initiated on July 13. Others who have been bitten by CK, including CFIF, have participated in the RfA. CoolKatt's arrogant behavior continued, and his insistence on adding unverified information, engaging in editing wars, and his incivility resulted in his being blocked on two separate occasions. True to form, CK attempted to evade one of his blocks, but was stopped by an administrator.

With the RfA pending (as well as an RfC against him that is still pending, but is pretty much moot now with the RfA), one would think CoolKatt would take a hint and clean up his act. He hasn't, and he is banned from editing Wikipedia indefinitely (with the exception of his own user and talk pages, and the RfA against him) as of July 27, 2006. With light of these recent events, I have decided to archive this page. Rollosmokes 16:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: This page is intended to provide a point of view -- my point of view, as it pertains to a conflict I am currently having with another user. I understand that Wikipedia is not intended for things like this to take place, but there is no other avenue I have currently to explain my side of the story. So, here it is. Comments are welcome.

Yes, Wikipedia is open for anyone to add to, edit, and all that, and that's one thing. But in my short time here, I have noticed that there are three types of Wikipedia contributors. The first are good editors, who in my opinion are always on the mark in their writing style, and in their ability to provide accurate, verifiable information which stays consistent with the theme of the article. Then there are the average editors, who can be good at times but are also inconsistent in their work. And then, there are poor editors, those who come in and add non-verifiable and presumptive, speculative information, or those who are just plain bad writers. Many of us have had to come in and clean up the mess these poor editors have left behind.

My primary focus here has been on television-related articles. Early on, I faced a problem regarding UPN over whether it was "factually correct" to use that network's original full name of "United Paramount Network" instead of the acronym, which has been in full use since 2000. I disagreed with many of you on this subject, since my belief was/is that even though the full name was no longer used regularly, the letters UPN still meant something. Fortunately, we all cooled off and so did that issue. I have also had the displeasure of having to re-revert articles because of true cases of vandalism caused by users such as BenH, who seems to appear every ten days or so and does something stupid.

Falling into the category of poor editors, another problem user (in my opinion) is CoolKatt number 99999 (contributions), who has recently taken his stubborness to a new high (or low, if you will). CoolKatt believes that my continued editing of articles which had also been edited by him is part of a personal vendetta I have against him. CoolKatt claims that I have violated several Wikipedia guidelines, including (but not limited to, as he would have you believe) WP:OWN and WP:STALK. He has also been promising to use "legal threats" against anyone (including myself, CFIF, and Boothy443) who re-edits his work. That, to me, is more of a violation of both WP:OWN and WP:STALK than can ever be levied upon me (even for the UPN thing). CoolKatt also wants to further his cause by bringing in outsiders, such as Blueboy96 and Firsfron into this dispute. And, all the while, he has been very uncivil to me and other users, such as CFIF, Boothy (who's apparently no angel himself), Kafziel, and Kirjtc2, who told me as much in an private e-mail.

The origin of all this stems from an edit war regarding WTNH-TV. Though he did add useful information Blueboy, as he sometimes does, rewrites sentences in such a way that the context of paragraphs were changed completely. He also made other stylistic errors, which I corrected by rewriting and/or reverting. CoolKatt, who has a Request for Comment for his past arrogant behavior still pending, and who ignores comments about such on his talk page, decided to use Blueboy as his cause to start a dispute with me.

His gripe with yours truly is my deleting his "trivial" additions to television station articles, such as references about stations such as WFLD-TV being "the largest Fox station on the UHF dial" from the main portion of such articles. I told him in one instance that such information should be classified as trivia, and be placed in a new section labeled as such. Sometimes he has listened (eg. WFLD), sometimes he hasn't (see WATL.)

Then he became belligerent. When I changed back an edit he made to WCTX on May 21, 2006 [1], he angrily re-reverted and labeled my changes as vandalism [2]. At issue was his insistence on including WCTX's cable carriage in Springfield, Mass., in both the article and in the station's infobox. Since WCTX does not (and never has) identified itself as a Springfield station, I felt that mention didn't belong in the infobox. I also suggested to CoolKatt that if he wanted to keep the Springfield cable mention, then it should be placed somewhere else in the article. He disagreed, and when I re-reverted again, he accused me of violating WP:OWN. The WCTX entry was last modified by me on June 2 [3], when I removed all Springfield mentions from the article and infobox.

Which brings me to this: as a sidebar, CoolKatt has been adding several stations from the Hartford-New Haven market, including WCTX, onto the template {{Springfield MA TV}}, and did the same with WPHL-TV on the template {{Susquehanna Valley TV}}. Currently, the Television Stations WikiProject is debating on whether to include out-of-market stations in templates, based on cable carriage and "significantly viewed" status. Though I am not part of the project, I agree with several Wikipedians who feel that a consensus should be reached in favor of including the out-of-market stations first before changing the templates. CoolKatt took it upon himself to change those two aforementioned templates anyway and not wait for the full consensus.

Finally, CoolKatt has been making very sloppy changes on several articles which I have contributed to (and in some cases, rewritten), such as WWOR-TV, WCAU, WPSG, WLFL-TV, WTXF-TV, Group W, and KTWB-TV, in addition to WFLD, WATL, WTNH, WPHL-TV, and WCTX. In all cases, CoolKatt's changes were so poor in quality that they warranted revertion. But I never labeled them as vandalism initially. It was only after CoolKatt re-reverted these changes to HIS VERSIONS (WP:POINT), and labeled my changes as VANDALISM, did this personal war escalate into what it has become. In short, CoolKatt wants NO ONE to change what he has done (WP:OWN), and God help the editor that does (WP:STALK). He has now gone so far as to label ALL of my edits and revertions as vandalism, as if to only spite me and vilify him.

One more recent example: Blueboy96 split the original WGTW-TV article into two separate articles on June 14, 2006: one focusing on WGTW and the other focused on the previous occupier of Burlington, N.J.'s channel 48 assignment, WKBS-TV. At first I questioned the reasoning behind the split, but I later agreed with Blueboy, as does most others. Blueboy's reasoning was that since the two stations operated with two separate licenses (despite sharing the same channel, and considering the nine-year gap between WKBS-TV's demise and the birth of WGTW), the two stations should be looked at separately. CoolKatt does not agree with the split, and would like to see the articles re-merged. He placed {{Mergeto}} and {{Mergefrom}} templates on the articles, despite the consensue being in favor of keeping the split. When myself and others have removed the merge tags and explained why, CoolKatt ignored us and brought them back, with a personal message from him to "!-- do not remove the merge tag --" written next to it. CoolKatt went so far as to create a subpage displaying how HE believes the WGTW-TV article should look (in his Bizarro-like, utopian world), but when I placed an AfD tag on it, citing misuse of WP:POINT and WP:VANITY, he quickly deleted the text but redirected the empty page to his main talk page. Apparently feeling the heat from the frying pan, he gave up his quest and removed the merge tags, accompanied with a half-hearted, token "apology" to Blueboy. I say, half-hearted and token because he will do the same thing again, only to renounce his wrongdoing when faced with the possibility of discipline.

After the very civil pleas that were made by myself and others, CoolKatt continues to behave in a very child-like manner. He has went so far as to threaten me with a possible Request for Comment, which embarrassingly failed. But that hasn't stopped him in his feeble attempt to force his will upon me and the rest of the Wikipedia television community. He is no administrator, though he behaves like one. He accuses others such as myself of claiming ownership of certain articles, when he is the biggest practitioner of such. He's also a hypocrite when trying to rally support for a permanent block against BenH, when his own behavior should warrant a block of a lengthy period.

CoolKatt continues to paint himself as a victim. In turn, he is using his arrogance to try ruining my Wikipedia experience. I ask again, before judgement is passed on me, let's look at all angles -- compare my track record to his -- and we'll see who the real victim is.

Here are some quotes from CoolKatt himself, as he's written on other's talk pages

• To Kafziel (regarding edits made to the article on the television series The Shield): " You really need to check your sources. My edits to "The Shield" were not vandalism. Yours are. Stop this sh*t right now." (5-10-06)

• To CFIF (for listing CoolKatt's fantasy subpages for deletion): "What you are doing to my sub-pages? You've crossed the line. A lot of people make sub-pages. Please, leave me alone. I've had enough of you."

• To CFIF (on cat sort): "Stop and I mean stop calling my edits vandalism. It violates WP:CIVIL, and if you are going to do it this way, might as well remove all cats for TV stations. Now, leave me alone!!!!!"

Here are some messages from my original talk page regarding this dispute

Blueboy96

Please stop reverting his edits. He is a good contributor, and you need to see that for yourself. And while you are at it, stop reverting my edits, all of this is violating WP:OWN. CoolKatt number 99999 18:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Coolkatt, you have made me laugh in your effort to stick up for Blueboy. This coming from someone who wastes precious space on Wikipedia with your "alternate history" pages on the Scripps-Howard television stations and of Louisville, largest city of the "Commonwealth of Whore". You can't seem to take constructive criticism when it comes to your edits, so you have the audacity to come at me? PUHLEEZZE!!

In my opinion, Blueboy's edits and additions have bordered on informative (which, when researched and written properly, are helpful) and sloppy (at times he has changed whole sentences, changing the entire continuity and context of paragraphs which someone else, such as myself, has had to clean up and revert). His contributions are as inconsistent as Alex Rodriguez's batting average with runners in scoring position. Blueboy needs to work on this and not be so sensitive. As for you, Coolkatt, you have no right to defend someone else when you are guilty of a whole lot worse. Most of us don't either, including myself. The difference between you and me is that I can accept and answer to criticism, and you can't.

BTW: I have read WP:OWN, and I believe that it applies more to you than to me. Rollosmokes 07:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:CoolKatt number 99999

What do you mean? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I am mostly only aware of what effect me, and that users constant adding of speculation to artciles, which i am in part to blame in that when the user first started doing it i did nothing, and his misrespentation of tv markets, with the inclusion of stations that are not in the DMA but calling them as such becuas thery are carried on one or severl cable systems and because the market does not have a affilate of it's own. Do what you want, i dont see anthing ever coming of the rfc, or of this situation. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI he is changing cat sort again, after this was discussed. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

My response to...

All I'm doing is re-reverting his dumb edits. And now he wants to drag Boothy443 into our dispute, when all I did was revert one of Coolkatt's recent edits back to one done by Boothy. For further explanation on my reasons for this, read my talk page. Rollosmokes 06:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

My edits? Dumb? They most certainly are not dumb, if want to talk about dumb edits, click here, here, and here. Also, Boothy443 has been reverting my edits as well, in case you have not noticed. CoolKatt number 99999 18:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your response is so devoid of reasoning, I'm not even going to give you the benefit of a rebuttal. Let the record speak for itself. Rollosmokes 03:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"someone please stop CoolKatt...this is getting ridiculous" Actually, the person that needs stopping is you. Believe it or not, the Harrisburg info belongs in WPHL. Now, stop reverting my edits. I asked you in the past (in WTXF), now actually do it. CoolKatt number 99999 08:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You are getting more and more uncivil in your edit summaries. To be honest, you should NOT be even reverting my edits at all. Now, for the umpteenth time, STOP REVERTING MY EDITS!!!! It is considered vandalism if you keep reverting a particular person's edits (not including IP's), and you WILL get blocked if you continue to do so. Once again, I have reverted your vandalism of {{Springfield MA TV}}. CoolKatt number 99999 06:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and while I am at it, I also reverted your vandalism of Group W. CoolKatt number 99999 06:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop referring to other editor's work on Wikipedia as vandalism. Thanks in advance, --Firsfron of Ronchester 19:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Rollosmokes, I see you have left a long note on my userpage in re:my request to you to please stop referring to other users' edits as 'vandalism. I didn't bother to read it. I correctly predicted when I wrote the message that you would not reform, and instead say, "Well, here's what he did". I don't care, and I'm again asking you not to violate wikipedia policy. The examples you've given are not examples of vandalism, so stop. Thanks in advance, --Firsfron of Ronchester 13:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Not vandalism...

You are going too far in labeling my edits as vandalism. Stop doing that, and I will also stop labeling your edits as vandalism. CoolKatt number 99999

Quoting Firsfron: I didn't bother to read this message. I correctly predicted when I wrote my message to you that you would not reform, and instead say, "Well, here's what he did". I don't care, and I'm again asking you not to violate wikipedia policy. The examples you've given are not examples of vandalism, so stop. Thanks in advance,--Firsfron of Ronchester 13:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Even he is telling you to stop. So let me edit, or don't come here at all. CoolKatt number 99999 14:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Firsfron, if you didn't bother to even read my message, then why did you leave me one on my talk page,

You misunderstand me. I didn't bother to read the message you left for me on MY talk page, because all it was was "Well, he did this", in response to me asking you NOT to call other editor's work "vandalism. Vandalism is NOT what CoolKatt has done.

including the same sentence TWICE asking me

No, one was for CoolKatt, and was written under his sentence, not yours.

to "stop labelling others' work on Wikipedia as vandalism"? What is the point of you getting involved in this dispute if all you were going to do is back up CoolKatt?

I'm not backing up CoolKatt, as I left the same message for him on his page. Check for yourself. I am only "getting involved" to the extent that what both you and CoolKatt are doing is violating WP policy. In your edit summaries, you write that you are "reverting vandalism". You are doing no such thing. You are in fact reverting the work of another editor. Whether I agree with it or not is one thing, but you cannot continue to put the word 'vandalism' in your edit summaries when it is clearly not vandalism. I have asked you now twice to please stop doing so. Thanks in advance, --Firsfron of Ronchester 17:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

New messages on this topic should be posted on the discussion page. Thanks for your time. Rollosmokes 08:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)