Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Edit warring considered harmful
1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Copied verbatim from Requests for arbitration/Leyasu —Locke Cole • t • c 07:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Civility
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users and to observe Assume good faith, Wikiquette, Civility, and Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Copied verbatim from Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Proposed_decision —Locke Cole • t • c 07:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Participation in dispute resolution in good faith
3) Users are required to participate in the give and take of Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures in good faith, especially in the earlier steps of negotiation and mediation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I don't see where this is a requirement. Certainly, ArbCom may refer Arb Requests to those processes, but that's not a requirement. -- Netoholic @ 06:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually this was quoted, verbatim, from an accepted principle in a recently closed case. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Copied verbatim from Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Proposed_decision —Locke Cole • t • c 07:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I still don't see what purpose this serves? I initiated Mediation Cabal, I tried talking to you on your talk page, and I pulled you aside privately on IRC a couple of times.  I'm not one to give up hope, but I think I at least gave mediation a fair shake. -- Netoholic @ 20:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As I presented in evidence, you've categorically misrepresented your efforts at "mediation". And your "participation" in the mediation was less than helpful ("participation" being a charitable description considering you were barely involved beyond making the mediation request). IMO you've abused dispute resolution, or entered into them in bad faith. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Disruption
4) Editors who are disruptive whether by edit warring or otherwise may be blocked. Persistent disruption with respect to a specific article or topic may lead to a banning from that area.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is many thoughts combined in one, and it doesn't work as written. -- Netoholic @ 06:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * May agree, but this was copied, verbatim, from Requests for arbitration/Tommstein. I'm trying to stick to recent cases as a guideline for principles here (especially principles which were accepted). I'll add links if I do this in the future. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Technical considerations
5) It is beyond the (competence / scope) of the Arbitration Commitee to evaluate the considerations in Avoid using meta-templates, HiddenStructure, and other pages related to conditional templates.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This is a re-phrase of a Finding from the "Netoholic 2" arb case. Seems more like a Principle, but can be moved. -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but to be clear, it's not beyond the ArbCom's competency/scope to evaluate recent statements by the lead MediaWiki developer, Brion VIBBER, is it? In other words: no, the ArbCom can't (well, shouldn't) make technical decisions all on their own, but if one of the developers has made statements and those statements are provided as evidence, surely the ArbCom can back those statements up? —Locke Cole • t • c 10:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The ArbCom members cannot all be expected to be experts on Rajput genealogy, depleted uranium, the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and every other topic in the encyclopedia either... and yet they are called upon to make rulings in relation to such issues on a daily basis. This is no different. The individual arbitors may or may not be familiar with the technical issues of this case, but it really doesn't matter. They ARE familiar with Wikipedia's consensus guidelines. They can evaluate the evidence page to determine whether there is consensus on this issue. In the prior case there were questions of whether development concerns might over-ride consensus, but now there is input (linked on the evidence page) from the lead developer directly stating that this is not the case here and normal consensus decision making should be followed. This case can thus be evaluated like any other - is there consensus, is it being followed, et cetera. --CBDunkerson 14:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So here is what you would have to show to get that... first you'd have to prove there is consensus (remember that there are several technical points to evaluate), then you would have to show I acted against consensus after consensus had been established, then show that I did so in flagrant disregard for consensus, and then show that my action is worthy of sanction. Keep in mind that Brion does not set consensus... he only said that there is no technical mandate that would override consensus.  -- Netoholic @ 05:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy set by developers
6) Policy, where it is directly related to technical matters, may be made by the developers, and specifically by the Wikimedia Foundation's Chief Technical Officer Brion VIBBER.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * We need to capture the matching counter-point to this... that developers, when they choose to not make something policy, do not necessarily affirm the negative of that policy - they simply defer on the subject. Brion said basically "we've not made this a policy" and then voiced his opinion.  The community could potentially still make that subject policy on their own. Brion never said directly that WP:AUM can never be policy/guideline/whatever. -- Netoholic @ 20:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Nothing new here. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally agree, but would note that Brion has said, "Generally, you should not worry much about little things like templates and "server load" at a policy level. If they're expensive, we'll either fix it or restrict it at a technical level; that's our responsibility." Thus, most matters of common technical policy can be decided by normal consensus procedures. If required the devs are more likely to change the system to prevent the problem than create a policy for users to follow. --CBDunkerson 01:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is coupled with the statement below that AUM isn't policy. Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring is bad
7) As per Edit war, revert warring is considered harmful. This stands regardless of whether a side is right or wrong.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Yes, it dupicates something above. I wrote a whole decision.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Userpages
8) While Wikipedians are allowed a good deal of leeway in what they place on their userpage, userpages must conform to Wikipedia policies.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Nothing new. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

... good etiquette to work with the User
8.1) While Wikipedians are allowed a good deal of leeway in what they place on their userpage, userpages must conform to Wikipedia policies. Where violations are found, it is good etiquette to work with the User to find resolution, rather than directly alter the page, especially against the user's apparent wishes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Maybe a little verbose, but sets some fair expectations. While a couple users prior to Locke_Cole contacted me regarding the images, they didn't follow-up after I provided my fair-use rationale (which I and they) believed satisfied the policy. My evidence and Wgfinley's goes to show that respectful interaction solves problems faster than heavy-handedness. -- Netoholic @ 05:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)   See a similar point on Arbitration policy/Precedents (second bullet) -- Netoholic @ 06:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the way you present many of the 'facts' on this page, but the above is simply fiction. The seven users who contacted you on this issue prior to Locke Cole are not "a couple". Further, while Ral315 did accept your fair use rationale your description of the other discussions is also false. So far as I can see you did not provide any response to comments by Rd232, Dbenbenn, and myself. It is impossible to provide links to responses you did not make, but if my statement is untrue you can provide links proving that. In further contradiction, SoothingR and Cleared as filed did respond to your rationale... to reject it. Only Ilmari Karonen did not respond after you posted comments... but those comments included your awareness that what you were doing was against policy - just that you did not agree with the policy. Your claims now that no one discussed the matter respectfully with you and you were unaware it was against policy prior to Wgfinley are simply false. You restored the images five times after acknowledging that they violated the policy. --CBDunkerson 12:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Fair use
9) Fair use, official policy on Wikipedia, states, "Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace." Wikipedia user pages may therefore not include images for which fair use is claimed.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Nothing new. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith
10) Wikipedia users must assume good faith on the part of other editors until presented with clear evidence to the contrary.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Nothing new. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Stalking
11) It is not acceptable to stalk another editor who is editing in good faith. (Note that everyone is expected to assume good faith in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary.) Once an editor has given reason to suspect bad faith, monitoring is appropriate, but constantly reverting is always a violation of required courtesy.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * From Coolcat et al. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute tags
12) Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Vandalism states that such tags should not be removed unless the dispute is settled.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

User pages
13) Users have a right to have their user page deleted at their request should they wish to leave the project. See User page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Construction. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * User page says nothing straightforward to that effect. What it does say is that contested user page deletions should be listed on Miscellany for deletion.   There is no need for discussion Locke's user page in this case. -- Netoholic @ 16:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * And Right to vanish — Omegatron 01:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of sysop powers
14) Administrators must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute (Blocking policy).


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Obviously, you're implying that you and I were engaged in a content dispute when I blocked you. Please provide evidence of such a dispute (keeping in mind that the reversion of vandalism or edits tantamount to vandalism does not qualify as a "content dispute").  &mdash;David Levy 16:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Avoid using meta-templates as policy
1) Brion Vibber has stated that that Avoid using meta-templates is not developer-mandated policy. The Arbitration Committee endorses this statement.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Struck the last line. Redundant as this point will be later voted on. -- Netoholic @ 20:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have unstruck the line, this is a proposal, it is inappropriate to strike things (they'll be effectively "stricken" when voted upon). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Seems clear to me. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring by parties
2) and  have engaged in revert warring on Netoholic's user page and on various pages throughout the template namespace.   also revert-warred on Netoholic's userpage.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As noted by CBDunkerson, the removal of deliberate copyright policy violations (which are tantamount to vandalism) should not be construed as revert warring. Netoholic refused to comply with repeated requests that he not display copyrighted images on his userpage (excepting the brief periods in which he waited for the heat to die down before quietly restoring them).  Aside from protecting his userpage or blocking him from editing, what other options remained?  &mdash;David Levy 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Even if it is his userpage, it still isn't acceptable. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree here. Copyright policy has long directed users to remove copyright violations on sight and in relation to the Freestylefrappe arbitration there was discussion over whether reverts of copyrighted material should be subject to 3RR given the 'remove copyvios' policy. This resulted in vandalism policy being changed to indicate that knowing mis-use of copyrighted material should be considered vandalism and thus not subject to 3RR. Yes, revert warring is a bad thing... but Wikipedia policy actually directs all users to do it in a handful of cases, including the removal of copyrighted material from pages on which it should not appear. There is no censure attached for 'revert warring' to remove vandalism and there shouldn't be any for 'revert warring' to remove copyright violations. --CBDunkerson 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The doing it once is not being criticised. The way to settle an issue like this is to get someone whom Netoholic respects to suggest it to him, not to further inflame him.  Netoholic seems to have believed that he was allowed those images under fair use law, if not fair use policy. Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh. Do you realize that you have just implied that Netoholic does not respect Rd232, Ral315, SoothingR, Cleared as filed, Ilmari Karonen, Dbenbenn, and ME? :] All of whom tried to "suggest it" to him before the events in question took place. I think a case can be made that Locke, David, and Cleared as filed (who also reverted the userpage twice in that incident) shouldn't have to go searching for someone Netoholic 'respects'... the numerous previous attempts should have been sufficient. --CBDunkerson 01:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that you have just implied that all of those user's were dissatisfied? Half of them in fact never further followed-up after I provided fair use rationale.  I'm sorry, but Locke and David were on my user page for the wrong reasons. Cleared as filed was equally disrepectful, edit warring as well, but at least he and I weren't directly involved in a separate conflict. --
 * In what "separate conflict" were you and I involved at the time? I was "on [your] user page" because it repeatedly jumped to the top of my watchlist.  (As I previously noted elsewhere, it contains the user/talk pages of everyone whose talk page I've posted to.)  Upon analyzing the dispute, I found that you were deliberately violating policy, so I intervened.  &mdash;David Levy 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is never the right way. If you aren't going to affect something in a good way, as a moment's thought would have told David and LC would be the case, you shouldn't try to affect it at all.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As has been noted, the concept of "edit warring" doesn't apply to the removal of deliberate policy violations. Regardless, given what had occurred up to that point (Netoholic's refusal to comply with numerous polite requests), what would have been a better solution?  Aside from protecting his userpage or blocking him from editing, what other options remained?  &mdash;David Levy 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Performing the action once would have been acceptable. It was the repeated actions that were not.  Going to ANI would have worked well, or using the mailing list.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Had I reported the incident at WP:ANI, what response would have resulted? In other words, what could someone reading the message have done differently to address the problem (aside from protecting Netoholic's userpage or blocking him from editing)?
 * That page "is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators." I am an administrator, and the problem already had come to my attention (and the attention of Cleared as filed, another administrator).  Both Cleared as filed and I intervened by enforcing the copyright policy in precisely the manner prescribed.  How was it inappropriate to undo Netoholic's deliberate policy violations (tantamount to vandalism) more than once?  Why was it necessary to seek the intervention of yet another administrator?  Are you suggesting that a different administrator should have removed the images each time?
 * Of course, it's important to note that administrators possess no special authority (compared to non-administrators) to enforce this policy. Locke Cole, as an editor in good standing, was well within his rights to remove the images.  I don't know whether his ongoing conflict with Netoholic was a motivating factor, but the actions themselves were entirely appropriate.  &mdash;David Levy 19:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is one thing to remove something once, quite another to remove it again. You and Locke Cole continued to revert, even when it was clear that reverting was not going to get anywhere.  That is unacceptable, and it is that that this FoF refers to, not the removal of the images.  Discussion is always better than unilateral edit warring.  The administrators' noticeboard frequenty includes discussions of disputed matters.  You could also have pointed Netoholic to a demonstrated consensus that he was not allowed the images.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, the repeated reversion of deliberate policy violations (such as vandalism, to which this was tantamount) does not constitute "edit warring." No fewer than six administrators (not including myself) had discussed this issue with Netoholic over a span of nearly four months.  Are you actually suggesting that instead of reverting vandalism, we should be required to point the vandals to "a demonstrated consensus" that their particular vandalism is "not allowed"?  Why was the pertinent policy (the existence of which Netoholic acknowledged and intentionally disregarded) insufficient?
 * Incidentally, when I removed the images for the second (my final) time, it was not clear to me that reverting was not going to get anywhere. I actually believed that Netoholic might have the sense to realize that his flagrant policy violations would not be tolerated.  &mdash;David Levy 20:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use claims on User:Netoholic
3) claimed fair use on images used on his userpage, thus directly contravening Fair use.  This continued despite numerous warnings that he was contravening the policy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It implies I knowlingly acted against policy. I admit in hindsight I totally see it, but at the time, I and the first 3 or 4 people that contacted me about it, were satisfied with the fair use rationale I provided.  This is beside the point, because it was how and who decided that they needed to police this ... and what they had to gain from it. -- Netoholic @ 05:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Simple enough. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Netoholic's comments above are untrue per my remarks at proposed principle 8.1. One person (Ral315, not 3 or 4) was satisfied with the rationale and Netoholic did knowingly act against policy at least the five times which he restored the images after acknowledging that they violated the policy. --CBDunkerson 12:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic failing to assume good faith
4) has consistently failed to assume good faith on the part of those with whom he is edit warring.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This came up in Netoholic 2 as well. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What evidence is leading towards that? Also, this finding is worded as a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.   Either I assumed good faith (but still edit warred) or I failed to assume good faith (and edit warred).  It's biased. -- Netoholic @ 04:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Assuming that David and LC were acting in concert. Not considering the idea that LC might have been trying to be helpful when he moved ACT into your userspace.  Will that do for starters?  Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * DL blocked me three times at the behest of LC. They tag-team revert warred on my user page and several other pages. They do work together and if I only need to show more evidence as to how I reached that conclusion, I intend to.  I considered the idea that LC moved WP:ACT to my user space in good faith... but he did so within moments of it's creation before I'd linked it from any pages he commonly participates on.  The only way he knew it existed was by viewing my contribs and he failed to first ask me if I would move it myself. -- Netoholic @ 20:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Stalking
5) and  have consistently engaged in stalking each other over the wiki.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Seems pretty mutual to me. It takes two to tango.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're kidding right? Ignore template reversions for a couple minutes (because I know that I, for one, have a shit-ton of templates on my watchlist) and look at "everything else".  Are you saying the stalking was mutual?  I mean, I've pointed out where Locke involved himself on several pages that weren't even templates.  The timing is suspicious and the "counter-Netholic" tactic fairly repeatable on his part. How is it "mutual"?
 * Ok, so now let's look at the templates. Locke Cole in his "Netoholic has wikistalked Locke Cole" listes several templates where he says I stalked him... He also has generously pointed out when I last edited these templates.  I have many, many templates on my Watchlist, and when I see a bad edit come throught, I get involved.  Locke's edits are poor in my opinion, and so I get involved. This is not stalking. I am not going and specifically getting involved against him on other pages. -- Netoholic @ 06:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole stalking
5.1) has harassed Netoholic by becoming involved against him on several pages, many of which were never edited by Locke before (Leet).
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Netoholic given leeway
6) Following his previous Arbitration Committee decision, received permission from the Committee to violate the specifics of this decision provided that he did not cause disruption.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * We were generous. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic has caused disruption
7) Following his being given permission per Finding 6, Netoholic has caused disruption in his editing in the Wikipedia and Template namespaces.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Fairly clear, IMO. He wasn't given carte blanche.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well put. We can bend the rules for users when doing so would be more useful than enforcing them to the letter, but we still have to draw the line somewhere. Rob Church 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Before really evaluating this think on this point... who are the ones shouting that they've been "disrupted"? Locke_Cole and David primarily.... except for the pro-meta-template clique, none of my interactions on Wikipedia or Template have been noted as disruptive - in fact, they've been positive in the extreme.  In fact, that phrase was not used until Locke discovered it was a way to get me blocked after the ArbCom clarifications were given.  My previous restrictions were basically a tool for this group.  They never felt the need to actually work with me, because they could simply defeat my position by either getting me blocked, or citing my restrictions against my ideas. -- Netoholic @ 04:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Translation: "No one believes that my actions were disruptive...except for everyone whose opinions I ignored (and whose edits I repeatedly reverted, in clear defiance of consensus) because they disagreed with me (and therefore were wrong)." &mdash;David Levy 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I also disagree. I found your interactions on the Naming conventions (television) to be quite frustrating and sometimes disruptive and have noted so on several occasions which you have chosen to ignore. I have consolidated our interactions on my talk page because they do not appear in your talk page after you "archived" them.  The talk page for the convention is especially relevant, as is this comment in particular.  For those who want the short version, my statement on March 3 on Netoholic's talk page sums up most of my feelings towards him  --Reflex Reaction (talk)&bull; 18:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole misrepresented Netoholic's restrictions
8) On several occasions, Locke Cole, when reporting or noting (as in edit summaries) that Netoholic was under namespace restrictions, failed to also include mention of the clarifications that had been made by the Arbitrators.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Clearly unfair to me. I was blocked several times simply due to this misinformation.  I got unblocked quickly every time - though I had to jump thru hoops to point out the clarifications. -- Netoholic @ 05:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not misinformation though: you are banned from the Template: and Wikipedia: namespace. You were given clarifications and those clarifications are on the page I link to in the edit summary. Any responsible sysop should check the page first and read it over before imposing a block. I also dispute the idea that the blocks you received were in any way wrong. Your "quick unblocks" were usually because you hopped on IRC and /msg'd sysops until one would unblock you. I've since asked the sysops there to bring discussions about unblocking users (any user, not just you) on-Wiki so others can explain why the block should stand. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Mmm, I see where this is coming from, and I support the general feel of it, but the wording is not quite right. Rob Church 03:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole removed dispute tags
9) On several occasions, Locke Cole, removed the dispute tags from Leet while the dispute was unsettled and without actively participating in any dispute resolution process involving the article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Straightforward. -- Netoholic @ 06:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Locke Cole has requested deletion of his user page
10) Locke Cole has requested that his user page be deleted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Construction. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Locke Cole has left Wikipedia
10.1) Locke Cole requested his user and talk pages be deleted per Right to vanish.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Alternative. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Kind of irrelevant at this point (I see my talk page was finally deleted), and I think this is covered by the principle above at . In any event, James F. indicated on IRC that he wouldn't put any of the stuff about my userpage to a vote (I consider Netoholic's insistance that it be undeleted harassment, but hey, I guess it's just fine if he harasses me, but if I do anything remotely similar to what he does to me, I get banned for a month). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

David Levy
11) Administrator David Levy blocked Netoholic on three occasions between March 2-11, 2006. During this time and before, David Levy was involved with Netoholic in several content disputes over templates.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * See Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Evidence. -- Netoholic @ 16:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, please cite evidence of a content dispute in which you and I were engaged at the time of the blocks. Rolling back your insertion of code deemed harmful by our lead developer (edits tantamount to vandalism) is no more a "content dispute" than the removal of penis photographs from inappropriate articles.  This was one of the reasons why you were blocked (following an explicit warning ).  You deliberately defied two of your ArbCom restrictions by disruptively edit warring in the template namespace, and your intentional use of harmful code was a block-worthy offense in and of itself.  &mdash;David Levy 16:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Bans in Netoholic 2 reaffirmed
1) For persistent edit warring, is banned from editing in the Wikipedia and template namespaces for twelve months, and restricted to one revert per page per day. The twelve months commences at the conclusion of this arbitration case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Might as well go back to them. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I hold the personal view that Net is improving, albeit slowly - and I admit this incident was bad, and didn't help his improvement - and would suggest not banning him from the Wikipedia namespace. Interaction there will be vital if he's to finish coming round. Rob Church 00:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't access to the Wikipedia talk namespace suffice for this? —Phil | Talk 12:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While he may be improving, he continues to follow the same pattern of abuse. While I cannot point to a single incident of rudeness or bluntess in my case, my overall interaction with Netoholic has been extremely poor and I think the ban may be effective in reducing future negative interactions. --Reflex Reaction (talk)&bull; 18:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I hold the personal view that Net is improving, albeit negligibly. I think reaffirmation would improve all of our wikistress levels tremendously.  It was nice for the few months it lasted. — Omegatron 02:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For the most part I think it would be sufficient to ban him from editing in relation to 'conditional logic' in the Wikipedia and Template namespaces. Almost all of his altercations with others relate to that issue. I do think it is neccessary to include the Wikipedia namespace for that topic though. --CBDunkerson 12:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My interaction with him at the TV naming convention was hardly pleasant. In fact I would think it would have continued to escalated if he wasn't blocked for his actions surrounding WP:AUM.  Other editors and myself were able to arrive at a working convention to which only Netoholic was repeatedly objecting.  Conditional logic is not the only source of problems. --Reflex Reaction (talk)&bull; 18:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

...altered
1.1) For persistent edit warring, is banned from editing in the template namespace for twelve months, and restricted to one revert per page per day. The twelve months commences at the conclusion of this arbitration case.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Per Rob. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * \o/ Rob Church 01:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is confusing. Is the restriction to 1RR for all articles or just templates? ... aa:talk 23:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Bans in Netoholic 2 lifted
1) Recognizing that Netoholic's contributions are generally productive and positive in both the Template and Wikipedia namespaces, the restrictions in Netoholic 2 are lifted.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I firmly believe that, if these restrictions were not part of the equation, normal means of resolving disagreements could proceed. While they are active, they are constantly used to poison the well. -- Netoholic @ 04:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

... is also recognized
1.1) Recognizing that Netoholic's contributions are generally productive and positive in both the Template and Wikipedia namespaces, the restrictions in Netoholic 2 are lifted. It is also recognized that it was the intent of the namespace bans to encourage participation in the mentorship arrangement - it was not intended to prevent Netoholic from working productively.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Ambi said something to this effect once. -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Netoholic, Locke Cole and David Levy reprimanded
2), and  are reprimanded for edit warring.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The edit warring was not the problem... it was the intent of Locke and David and their presence that was. -- Netoholic @ 05:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out, all removals of the images were in accordance with WP:CV. I can't speak for others, but I was merely enforcing a policy with which Netoholic deliberately refused to comply (excepting the brief periods in which he waited for the heat to die down before quietly restoring the images).  As Netoholic had ignored or disregarded numerous polite requests, the only other options were to protect his userpage or block him from editing.  &mdash;David Levy 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * .... or file an RFC,
 * Why? To determine the community's consensus on whether policy should actually be enforced?  Should we extend this courtesy to all vandals?
 * or post on WP:ANI,
 * Why? To seek the intervention of an eighth administrator for the purpose of enforcing a policy that can be enforced by any editor in good standing?
 * or yourself find someone to work with me on a better solution.
 * The only "better solution" would have been for you to remove the images yourself, and you'd been politely asked to do so for months. How else were we supposed to "work with [you]"?
 * Instead, you reverted ad nauseum because you saw it as your role to police me. -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally reverted twice, and I did so in my role as a conscientious Wikipedian. &mdash;David Levy 21:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * All are guilty. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Netoholic and Locke Cole have revert warred with each other on various pages, but so far as I know (or the evidence states) David Levy has not. Reverting twice on Netoholic's user page seems like thin cause for calling it 'edit warring', and per my comments at 'finding of fact 2' above I'd argue that there should be no censure for removing copyright violations. --CBDunkerson 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Having fair use images on a user page is not a "copyright violation" (in fact, I provided fair use rationale that I think many agree would satisfy copyright... the issue is that it is Wikipedia policy not to use fair use on User pages.. it's not a direct legal requirement. -- Netoholic @ 05:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the ambiguity. I was speaking of copyright policy violation. I have no interest in whether or not it was also a copyright law violation. The point is that WP:CV instructs people to remove such things on sight. There shouldn't be censure involved in following policy. --CBDunkerson 12:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would never fault someone who removed the images from my user page. I fault them in the extreme when they remove them repeatedly against my wishes without even trying to talk to me like I'm a rational human being.
 * Numerous users had discussed the issue in great detail over a span of nearly four months. How much more did you need to be talked to?
 * I was wrong about thinking fair use images were OK even if I gave a rationale. I plead ignorance.
 * Quite frankly, your ignorance plea is patently dishonest. You previously had acknowledged that your use of the images violated policy.  You allowed the images to remain absent for ten days (thereby creating the appearance that you had decided to comply with the policy) before you quietly reinserted them without an edit summary (in the hope that no one would notice).  Your policy violations were deliberate, recidivistic and tantamount to vandalism.
 * But, as David is fond of saying, two wrongs do not make a right. They should not have went to the extreme of edit warring to police the policy - especially considering they have a history of conflicting with me on other topics.
 * Policy explicitly calls for the removal of violations. You had been politely asked to do so by no fewer than six admins (not including myself), and you refused to comply.  Therefore, characterizing our repeated removal of the images as "edit warring" is analogous to applying that description to the repeated removal of penis photographs from an inappropriate article.
 * They're repeating that same error (with your help here) by pushing for me to be punished for the fair use images so long after the fact and after I'd capitulated.
 * For the record, I'm pushing for no such punishment. I'm merely defending my own actions.
 * Instead, the Arbitrators need to see their actions on my user page as harmful and part of a more expansive series of harassment. -- Netoholic @ 20:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to hand it to you, Neto. Only you could twist by-the-book policy enforcement into "harassment."  &mdash;David Levy 20:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * David Levy's edit warring is minor, and partially policy enforcement. Can a proposed remedy(?) be made without him? — Omegatron 02:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic reprimanded for failing to assume good faith
3) For consistently failing to assume good faith, is reprimanded.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Maybe it could be stronger. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not too much stronger. And if you consider a reprimand on this side for Net, then consider one on the other side for the others. WP:AGF works both ways. Rob Church 01:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Struck after re-evaluating Netoholic 2. This is a persistent problem. Rob Church 01:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a silly argument... by putting forth a complaint that I am being stalked, I implicitely am saying that Locke_Cole is acting in bad faith, but if I'm saying that, then I'm just failing to assume good faith... Damned if I report it and damned if I don't. -- Netoholic @ 05:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It boils down to whether or not the committee believes that you were being stalked; if so, then your assumption of bad faith was not out of order. I do see your point, and empathise a little. Rob Church 03:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic and Locke Cole will not interact with or comment about each other
4) and  may not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This seems unnecessary, especially interacting with one another. I think it's inevitable that Netoholic will have good ideas for the Wiki, and vice versa, and we should be able to talk these things out (be it on eachothers talk pages or on talk pages on Wikipedia). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To be absolutely clear: do I have problems with our interactions in the past? Yes, we've both failed to be civil on occasion or failed to assume good faith in the other. But I think there's room for improvement; this remedy would preclude such improvement from ever occurring. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OMG the Everyking rules-laywering is enough to fail this Remedy. You vote on WP:TFD on even days and I on odd days?  -- Netoholic @ 05:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not a big fan. And I don't think things have gotten so bad that this is necessary. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Things have gotten bad, Locke... your actions against me outside of the template space have bothered me on a personal level. I only object to this because it's generally not workable. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I don't think it's gotten that bad. As the evidence shows, our interaction outside of templates is small (in comparison to the other things you do outside of templates). I'm sorry that it seems to be bothering you though. I do agree though that things re: templates have gotten bad, but I still think this is overkill. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * From Everyking 3. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What happens if they happen to stumble onto each other without realizing it? It's a fairly small wiki world out there. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Especially considering our mutual interest in templates. And even if his band is extended on templates, I'd still like to hear what he has to say about them if he feels inclined to leave me a note. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean we should never be able to have a dialogue. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic reprimanded for not following fair use policy
5) is reprimanded for failing to follow Wikipedia's fair use policy despite being informed of it several times.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * The issue around the fair use images was to show that Locke and David involved themselves because of a secondary conflict. This item would never have come up to the Arb by itself, and was solved long ago, from my end.  Locke's and David's reasons for why, when, and how they got involved are a different matter. -- Netoholic @ 05:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, in what other conflict with you was I involved at the time? &mdash;David Levy 17:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Again, this could be stronger. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Given that this violation is now over a month old and Netoholic (eventually) allowed the images to be removed I don't think it should be included. It came into the evidence originally as a denunciation of Locke and David editing his user page, and the details of Netoholic's bad behaviour were then added primarily to show why they did so. He did the right thing in the end - a reprimand after the fact would be un-neccessarily punitive. --CBDunkerson 01:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. Don't flog the bloody horse. Rob Church 03:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On the Proposed Decision page this was changed to state:

Netoholic is reminded to follow Wikipedia's fair use policy despite being informed of it several times.


 * which is kind of a strange sentence. Tinus 01:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole banned for six months for harassment
6) is banned for six months for harassing Netoholic.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Includes stalking to non-template pages and becoming involved against me, and for the misrepresentation of my restrictions (see FoF 8). -- Netoholic @ 05:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this would be more properly titled as "Locke Cole is banned for six months for disagreeing with Netoholic". Which is really what this comes down to. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Damn harsh compared to . — Omegatron 02:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't much precident, but Skyring was banned for one year for reverting en masse on basically one single day. Compare that with my allegations which have lasted for about 4 months across several pages and unconnected discussions.  I have been followed around by someone who's promised to continue to do exactly that.  I honestly don't feel like I can make a comment or change a page/template without Locke coming by.  I've only provided evidence about those occasions where Locke followed me to a page in very short order - pages he'd never been involved in before.  It is one thing to have a disagreement on an issue - it is malicious to take that disagreement to other pages that your opposition gets involved in. -- Netoholic @ 05:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're concerned about him reverting your edits, ask for him to be banned from reverting your edits. — Omegatron 05:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not about simple reverting of edits... see Locke Cole further harasses Netoholic, poisoning the well. -- Netoholic @ 06:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Locke Cole and Netoholic have been in opposition. IF we take Locke Cole's actions to be 'harassment', which I don't think really applies, then there can be no question that Netoholic's were as well... and equal treatment should apply. However, that being said, it must be noted that Locke Cole's actions were compliant with policy and consensus while Netoholic's were in opposition to such. --CBDunkerson 12:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I cannot follow the logic of that statement. You and I have also been in opposition, should you be banned as well? No, that determination is made on the individual set of evidence presented. As for the last part, you're simply making faulty generalizations. -- Netoholic @ 14:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Choose whatever semantics you like. The difference between your interactions with Locke Cole and myself has largely been that I don't respond in kind when you follow me around undoing my work. Locke Cole more often does, and thus someone could theoretically call that 'harassment' of you, but if so your actions would have to be called such as well. As to 'generalizations'... to be specific, Locke Cole was upholding copyright policy and consensus against WP:AUM while you were violating them. --CBDunkerson 15:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not about simple "undoing my work" -- have you taken a fresh look at Locke Cole further harasses Netoholic, poisoning the well and the section about his actions on Leet? Many of the times he followed me to pages had nothing to do with AUM or copyrights. -- Netoholic @ 15:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole banned for two weeks for removing dispute tags
7) is banned for two weeks for revert warring to remove dispute tags on Leet without properly ensuring the dispute was settled.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Locke Cole's user page deleted
8) Per his request.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Finished. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

David Levy reprimanded
1) David Levy is reprimanded for blocking Netoholic while the two were engaged in content disputes over templates. David Levy is reminded to seek assistance from uninvolved adminstrators to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest in the future.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would be satisified with this. -- Netoholic @ 17:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, please cite evidence to support your contention that you and I were engaged in content disputes at the time. Your argument is analogous to claiming that an admin who reverts vandalism should not be permitted to block the vandal.  &mdash;David Levy 17:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is poor. Evidence is on the Evidence page, no here. I've given evidence where you've disagreed with me for months over several content disputes related to WP:AUM and edit warred on my user page - all prior to your choice to block me rather than post on WP:ANI. -- Netoholic @ 17:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. Yes, I've expressed disagreement with your vandalism of the encyclopedia (the insertion of a hack that our lead developer has confirmed to be harmful). Yes, I reverted your deliberate violations of the fair use policy, but that is not "edit warring."  Your attempt to twist these incidents into "content disputes" is patently absurd.  (Again, it's analogous to declaring that the repeated removal of a penis photograph from an inappropriate article is "edit warring," and that because of this "content dispute," the admin should not be permitted to block the vandal.)  2. You conveniently neglect to mention that I actively supported WP:AUM (and your efforts to enforce it) when it was considered policy.  I took steps to ensure that WP:AUM was enforced (citing it by name), and I even awarded you a barnstar for your work.  3. I didn't mean that you should post the evidence on this page.  4. Why did you move my response from the "Comment by parties" section?  &mdash;David Levy 18:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement
1) Should violate his ban in Remedy 1, he may be blocked briefly for a period of up to one week.  After five such blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year.  Blocks are to be noted at Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Pretty regular. Sam Korn (smoddy) 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I think it is worth noting that the underlying cause of this dispute, disagreement over the relative merits and drawbacks of Qif conditionals and HiddenStructure, has now been rendered moot by the introduction of a built-in MediaWiki method of performing the same tasks... as described at ParserFunctions. Assuming that everyone accepts this new methodology as preferable to the different kludges used in the past I think this situation may effectively have been resolved. --CBDunkerson 10:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)