Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole

Focus of discussion
I am concerned that this has been opened as a request for arbitration concerning only Locke Cole. While Netoholic brought the original complaint, everyone making statements in this matter has referred to Netoholic's behavior. Is it the intention of the Arbcomm to have a separate RfC/RfAr discussing Netoholic's behavior? If not, I suggest we change the name to something a little more appropriate. ... aa:talk 12:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

comments regarding myself
Not only have edits on my part been brought up, but they have been characterized by Netoholic. I don't feel that (in the present scope of this discussion) I am involved. As such, I don't feel it is appropriate for me to add comments or "evidence" to this discussion. However, Netoholic will use such characterizations in the future if nobody removes them. "Well, this [http://... edit] from years ago shows you were moving articles in bad faith back then."

I think the scope of this discussion needs to be widened, or the bystanders need to be 100% removed from it. I do not need to be mentioned by name in this discussion at all, and nor do my actions need to be characterized in this discussion as I am an unrelated, uninvolved party. If that is not the case, we need to make that very clear. ... aa:talk 20:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, I don't think you are involved... but in order to prove my assertions about Locke, I have to describe the situation up to the point he became involved. I'll review my section to see if I can balance your concern in with my needs. -- Netoholic @ 20:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Seeing as I cannot edit your comments here, I would like it if you would take it upon yourself to edit your own comments. I think I made a good effort to make the edits I made (wrongly) to your "Evidence" section as neutral (to the conflict between you and I) as possible. Again, I'm looking to follow your lead here. Already we've had at least a couple reverts in this case, it's not looking good. Please try to take the lead here. ... aa:talk 05:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Username change
I have changed the name of my wiki account from "Adrian Buehlmann" to "Ligulem". Best regards, --Ligulem 08:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Mathematical expressions and conditional constructs
Tim Starling started work to replace qif with a native mediawiki construct:, and this. --Ligulem 11:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Namespaces
I just noticed something. The finding of fact says but the remedy: does not include the Wikipedia namespace. Was this overlooked or was it intentional? I don't see any discussion about it either way. — Omegatron 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "However, Netoholic has indeed subsequently caused disruption in his editing in the Wikipedia and Template namespaces."
 * "banned from editing in the template namespace for one year"

Request for amendment (September 2013)

 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=572914912#Amendment_request:_Locke_Cole Original discussion and vote]

Initiated by  —Locke Cole • t • c at 06:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Netoholic and Locke Cole not to interact with each other
 * 2) Enforcement of interaction ban


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANetoholic&action=view&diff=571192188 notified by Callanecc]


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Unable to inform other editor due to interaction ban.


 * Information about amendment request


 * Request that the remedies stated above be halted.

Statement by Locke Cole
It's been nearly seven years since this case was before ArbCom and I think we're well past the point where our interactions could cause us problems. I request that the committee remove the interaction ban and the enforcement provision. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Netoholic: The precursor to this amendment request was ending up on your talk page and wanting to apologize, then realizing we still had an ages old interaction ban. Hopefully interacting here is safe. The primary point of our dispute has long since been settled, and without either of our involvement really. For my part in it though, I do apologize and wish you well. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @Arbitrators: I respect Netoholic's feelings, especially considering what we went through. I'd also like to think we've both matured over the past seven years. I'm also aware that, in the unlikely (and really, in my view, impossible) scenario that he and I were to "lock horns" again over something, this committee would be within its rights to re-establish these restrictions (and likely enact some punitive punishment for having put their faith in us). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
The "Editor Interaction Analyzer" shows an exceedingly unlikely chance of interacting badly IMO. Zero articles in common in over five years ...  how long is needed? Collect (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Netoholic
I appreciate that some people might think this remedy has outlived its usefulness, Locke's statement is too short on substance for me to gauge what mutual benefit would be gained. I'd like the restriction to stay in place. I don't see any harm in leaving the status quo since it only affects me and him, but I also don't see any good that can come from lifting it. If Locke wishes to lift this restriction now so that he can interact with me, I'd prefer instead that he seek assistance from a third party and potentially prevent our mutual hot-headedness from becoming an issue. -- Netoholic @ 05:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Having read Locke_Cole's reply, I think it'd be fine to just reduce this to an informal understanding as suggested by Carcharoth and Newyorkbrad. -- Netoholic @ 06:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
 * Could a clerk please notify Netoholic, as the other 50% of the interaction ban, about this? Many thanks in advance,  Roger Davies  talk 07:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Received notice, and thank you. -- Netoholic @ 05:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Well, if Netoholic is also okay with the i-ban going, I wouldn't stand in your way. Probably best now to see what they have to say,  Roger Davies  talk
 * @Locke Cole: we have Netoholic's answer now. I'd likely oppose removing the i-ban.  Roger Davies  talk 12:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Absent an objection from Netoholic, I too would agree to lifting the interaction ban. Risker (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Has there been any interaction (under the "necessary dispute resolution" exemption to interaction bans) between the subjects? Are they likely to interact if we vacate the ban, and do they work on similar articles and topics? AGK  [•] 14:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline at this time. AGK  [•] 18:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Collect answered you (I moved the commenting out tags to make Collect's statement visible). Given that Netoholic has only made 18 edits this year, and their last 50 edits go back to 2006, I think lifting the interaction ban is OK after a reasonable waiting period (2 weeks?), and on the understanding that Netoholic can reopen this amendment request if they have any objections when they see the message left on their talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Netoholic for your statement. The irony as I see it is that being under an interaction ban requires that editor to remember this and thus (in a way) keeping thinking about an editor they may be trying to forget about. Surely a situation like this is ideally suited for voluntary and informal avoidance of each other, like many editors do every day? There should be some way to downgrade formal interaction bans to informal avoiding, with the option to reinstate a formal interaction ban if that becomes necessary. Would both of you (Netoholic and Locke Cole) agree to downgrade this from a formal restriction to an informal one? If not, then the interaction ban should probably stay in place, but you should both try and see a way for this to be lifted eventually so you can both co-exist without having to carefully avoid each other. Carcharoth (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that Netoholic has opposed removing the IBAN, I need a good reason to support lifting the restriction. And "it's been 7 years" is not one. So,, why would you like to have the IBAN lifted? Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Interactions bans do not prevent positive editing. The terms of a ban are to prevent users from talking about or to each other. They can still edit the same articles providing they do not revert each other. As such, with one party still keen on the other not interacting with them, and the requesting party not putting forward a reasonable rationale for the ban to be lifted, I see no strong reason to lift the ban. It is helpful when considering lifting interaction bans if both parties had patched up their differences, possibly through an independent third party. Please ping me if either party makes a statement that may alter matters.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  14:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm hard-pressed to imagine any sanction that needs to last for longer than seven years, so I would support lifting the sanction, emphasizing to both parties that this would basically be a symbolic action (reflecting the absence of any recent problems) more than anything else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Motion

 * The ban on interaction between Locke Cole and Netoholic imposed in Requests for arbitration/Locke_Cole in 2006 is terminated in light of the time that has passed without further problems.
 * Support:
 * Consistent with the discussion above and subject to the comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Newyorkbrad. NW ( Talk ) 05:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Without prejudice to the interaction ban being reinstated. AGK  [•] 12:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 20:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 20:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain: