Case Opened on 10:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 10:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 01:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties[edit]

Locke Cole (talk · contribs)
David_Levy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Netoholic (talk · contribs)

Requests for comment[edit]

Statement by Netoholic[edit]

Locke Cole and I disagree on several technical points. Beyond that, though, Locke has taken great steps to make my experiences on this wiki hellish, to say the least. I feel like he is stalking me, both by directly reverting items he's never been involved in before and by involving himself on the opposite side of every topic I comment on. He looks for ways to discredit me, he pours gasoline on the fires of the most minor conflicts, and generally is doing everything he can to ensure I have the most miserable experience possible on this wiki. I do not make these statements lightly. As I have previously been involved in Arb cases, I'll tell you honestly, I am scared to come before the ArbCom again and would happily avoid it if I could. Locke Cole's actions have become so malicious, that I cannot avoid this any longer.

I previously made a report about wiki-stalking by Locke COle on 06:25, 4 February 2006, for which he was blocked. Recently, he's been spending almost his whole time here attacking me in several ways, both obvious and subtle. He is reviewing my contribs extremely frequently (which is not bad on its own), but then using that information to find ways to confound me... even when I act in good faith or on topics he's never been involved.

Leet - several times, Locke Cole has reverted changes to this article - one he'd never edited before. When it was recently moved to a disambiguated title, he even voted opposing my request to move it back. It's hard to believe anyone would think, after fair consideration, that a disambiguated title is appropriate. He voted to screw with me.
I made a 3RR report about another editor. Locke Cole commented on it, but only to poison the well.
I created a template design guideline proposal at Wikipedia:Avoid conditional templates on 20:34, 7 March 2006, unfinished, and still very much in draft form. Eight minutes later, Locke Cole moved the page to my userspace without asking me, and using a snide summary.
Even though he knows that Arbitrators have clarified my restrictions (that admins should only block me for disruption, rather than strict interpretation), he reported some recent edits of mine to WP:ANI at 05:05, 9 March 2006. At that exact minute, User:David Levy blocked me. This was a coordinated action, as it is implausible in the extreme that this was a coincidence.

Locke has previously recruited others to do similar things, often through IRC channels. I'm listing David Levy as "involved" as I feel like he's acted in coordination with Locke on several occasions, and probably deserves at least a reprimand. He's blocked me three times (all lifted quickly) within the span of one week, despite the fact that he and I've had long-time disagreements. He's clearly not neutral, and is using his blocking power as a form of harrassment.

Please take this case, as this sort of persistent bullying is unfair to anyone. -- Netoholic @ 07:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Locke Cole[edit]

Well, I want to start off by saying that Netoholic is wrong. There's no concerted effort to "get him", and certainly no coordination between David Levy and I. I'll address his four allegations, then detail why I think the Arbitration Committee should accept this to discuss Netoholic's behavior since his last appearance here.

Leet is an article I've kept an eye on since I started here. Being a longtime BBS user, I'm familiar with the subject matter (see my edits to similar subject matter, for example, Major BBS and MajorMUD). Further, Netoholic notes that I voted oppose to his requested move, but he doesn't note that I changed my vote to support after considering the matter more fully. [1]
My comment on the 3RR was to point out that he shouldn't even be editing as he was. His edits were disruptive, and his attempt to get Madchester (talk · contribs) blocked for 3RR flies in the face of the fact that he shouldn't have been revert warring to begin with. That's not poisoning the well.
Yes, I moved it shortly after its creation because it was a fork of WP:AUM in large part. If the issue is that I was aware he created the page, that's because he'd just reverted a large number of my template namespace edits, and I was using his contribs to see if he'd reverted any others. Note also that the page is currently on MFD (nominated by another editor), and the overwhelming consensus is for deletion (as a fork). See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Avoid conditional templates.
Netoholic would like you to believe David Levy and I are out to get him, but if you take a look at the exact times of the two incidents, you'll see that I made my posting to WP:AN/I after David Levy blocked Netoholic:
- 2006-03-09 05:05:52 — My posting on AN/I at 52 seconds after.
- 2006-03-09 05:05:19 — David Levy's block at 19 seconds after.
Why would I report him on AN/I after David Levy blocked if our actions were coordinated? I wouldn't. It's senseless.

I will freely admit that Netoholic frustrates me. He frustrates me because he seems to have a near obsession with meta-templates. He frustrates me because, despite being under an ArbCom ban against editing in the Wikipedia and Template namespace, he persistently edit wars with me over things that he can't really justify. And his behavior has only worsened. In the last week he's reverted very nearly every edit to the Template namespace I've made (often repeatedly):

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].

And he's also done this to other editors, such as CBDunkerson (talk · contribs) back in late-January:

[22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49].

I also feel he may be stalking me:

[50] — Here he reverts me on a template he's never edited before.
[51], [52] — In the first diff, I make an edit to the template. In the second diff (29 minutes later), Netoholic, who hasn't edited this template since 2005-12-18, makes an edit to it as well.

Brion VIBBER has made clear that meta-templates are not a problem currently (at least not for server load reasons) [53]. He's made clear that the CSS hack Netoholic has pushed on the community is bad. [54] I would like the Arbitration Committee to accept this case and consider Netoholic's actions these past few months and whether or not they're really good for the encyclopedia.

Statement by David Levy[edit]

Firstly, I addressed my initial block of Netoholic (and Snowspinner's unblock) in great detail here. I request that you read that discussion in its entirety.

Secondly, there is no "coordination" between Locke Cole and me. I did, however, notice his complaint on Netoholic's talk page, and this led me to investigate Netoholic's actions and issue a block (as I warned would occur, because Netoholic complained that I provided no specific warning on the previous occasion). It isn't surprising that Locke Cole was preparing a message for WP:ANI at the same time, and I'm astounded that Netoholic would paint this as a conspiracy. If Locke Cole and I were in cahoots, why would he post a public message at the same time that I was doing his bidding (which, I assume, is Netoholic's allegation)?

I'm told that Netoholic arrived at #wikipedia a short time later, claiming that he had been unfairly blocked. I was online at the time, but Zscout370 decided to unblock without informing me, and I didn't notice this until much later. (Zscout370 apologized, and he indicated that he now has a better understanding of the situation.)

Last night (my time), Netoholic once again ignored his ArbCom ruling and the aforementioned stance of our lead developer, this time with the explanations "hiddenStructure is not so bad" and "rvt user needs to take a vacation." (The second instance violated both his ban from the template namespace and his "one revert per page per day" restriction.) Therefore, I issued a new block. I announced this on IRC, and I waited around for as long as I could (expecting Netoholic to show up), but I eventually needed to call it a day. It was while I was sleeping that Netoholic convinced Freakofnurture (who attempted to contact me) to lift the block.

I'm very disappointed by the apparent belief that no admin should ever block the same user twice. I happen to be highly acquainted with Netoholic's case and the hiddenStructure matter, so I'm capable of quickly assessing the situation. The primary purpose of blocking is to halt disruption as soon as possible. Unless there's evidence that I'm unfairly issuing blocks with no legitimate basis, it's unreasonable to expect me to engage in the bureaucratic process of attempting to explain this highly complicated issue to an unfamiliar admin (with Netoholic engaging in disruptive misconduct all the while).

Despite Netoholic's implications to the contrary, his ArbCom-imposed restrictions have not been lifted. During the meta-template scare, some ArbCom members indicated that they should be enforced only when he's being disruptive (a stance with which I strongly agreed, because it appeared as though he was doing important work). The problem is that Netoholic insists that none of his edits are disruptive, and he uses these statements as blanket permission to behave however he pleases. Similar to the manner in which he abused his mentorships (eventually dissolved), he's exploiting his ArbCom parole as a means of getting away with more than what any other user would be permitted to do. If someone blocks, he misconstrues this as a literal interpretation of his restrictions, even if the violation in question was severe enough to warrant a block for any user (irrespective of an ArbCom ruling). He's basically managed to construct immunity from administrative intervention.

I'm attempting to remedy this situation by enforcing Netoholic's restrictions when the circumstances dictate. (I have not blocked him for technically violating the letter of the ruling.) Unless it was the ArbCom's intention that Netoholic be permitted to revert war in the template namespace by repeatedly inserting harmful code, I don't see how any of my actions have been inappropriate. —David Levy 14:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adrian Buehlmann[edit]

Netoholic is the only one of those that care to bother with WP:AUM who persistently opposes to have a Mediawiki built-in conditional function, despite Brion Vibber having stated that it would be good to have it and signaling support to do so.
It would be good if the arbcom could review its stance on this matter, as Netoholic repeatedly insinuates that he acts on behalf of the arbcom, due to the fact that some current or prior arbcom members implicitly seem to support his actions and his behaviour.
Brion Vibber has removed the policy tag from WP:AUM and the community rejected it and its forks. Netoholic constantly ignores this as he believes he must reinstate some "sanity" against the will of the "misguided" community.
Netoholic is a tremendous wikipedian-hours resource hog. The least that the arbcom can do with this request is reject it. I cannot see any bad behavior on the side of David Levy and Locke Cole. This is not a simple content dispute and as such an admin that takes care to block Netoholic has to have some understanding of the underlying technical matter. As such it cannot be expected that outside admins do understand what's going on here without a lot of research about the technical details.
This is a very complicated technical matter that an average wikipedian has problems to understand and thus prefers to stay out of it. But this doesn't mean we can leave it to Netoholic alone. Let the community handle this, we can do it. The arbcom should from now on stay out of this.

Reference: [55]

Statement by Avriette[edit]

I have been asked to comment on this matter. I think the discussion at Leet (et al.) is a different matter, although Netoholic's behavior there is consistent with the behavior mentioned here. The term "wikipedian hours" is apt. I have spent dozens of hours replying to intractable arguments on his behalf, and un-reverting systematically reverted changes (mind you, rarely more than once a day). I am very interested in hearing a "revisiting" of his previous requests for arbitration as his behavior continues to be disruptive. It has been posited that he is less disruptive than he used to be. This is not to say that he is not presently disruptive. Being more disruptive in the past is not an excuse for being disruptive in the present.

Netoholic was originally reprimanded and assigned mentorship. This was in lieu of a ban on editing the Wikipedia and Template namespace. However, this mentorship broke down [56] [57]

While there may have been an "exception" granted [58], no such exception was granted for disruptive editing or 1RR. Netoholic continues to mix the two publicly -- saying he is not to be blocked for "technical violations" of the probation. This probation applied only to the Template and Wikipedia namespace. Not, for example, the main articlespace. [59]

A facet of the 2nd ArbCom resolution [60], the prohibition to engage in personal attacks (specifically proscribed for this user, but of course proscribed in general) was granted no such exception, and indeed has continued. What is surprising about the continued attacks is that they take on the same quality as the previous attacks [61] [62]:

[63]
[64]
[65]

Lastly, with possibly one exception, I believe all parties involved in this request for arbitration are capable of accepting the comments from a request for comment. I think bringing an RFAr is perhaps a little too early.

Statement by Omegatron[edit]

Netoholic has been consistently disruptive, uncivil, and willfully ignorant of consensus since he decided his ban was too inconvenient to be held to anymore. Unfortunately, he's chosen to continue in the same behavior that got him banned in the first place, and these blocks are necessary to keep the wiki running smoothly.

I'd block him myself, but I can't follow him around without redlining my wikistress level. His ability to sweet talk his way out of egregious policy violations when authority's looking is astonishing, and his tactic of "poisoning the well", as he puts it, with regard to anyone who tries to stop his destructive activities is intimidating. I'm impressed by David and Locke's courage and patience.

Bear in mind that blocked users commonly e-mail several admins claiming to be the victims of persecution by a biased admin.

The most positive comment I've seen about his behavior since the mentorship failed is Snowspinner's comment that his current disruptions are not as bad as the "the sort of shit he used to pull".

It was nice and quiet around here for a few months; we could actually get work done without fighting perpetual battles against his never-compromising crusades and self-declared policies. Ideally, Neto's ban from editing in the Template: namespace will be re-instated and prolonged, so the rest of us can get back to writing an encyclopedia. — Omegatron 19:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by User:Crotalus horridus[edit]

Netoholic combines a remarkably high level of revert warring, especially over templates and policies, with a remarkably low number of actual article contributions. To put it bluntly, he spends most of his time fighting with other editors rather than building the encyclopedia. This is disruptive behavior. I see no reason why the original Arbcom remedy (1RR plus a ban from the Wikipedia: and Template: namespaces) should not be enforced and extended. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zscout370[edit]

I just wish for the ArbCom to note that the 4th block on Netoholic in that one week span was performed by me after a notice on WP:AN/I was posted, but I lifted it hours later since I felt like a short block was only sufficient. As it was noted earlier, I unblocked one of David's blocks, and while I did issue an apology to david, I suggested to him, Locke and Neto to bring the issue here. I also agree that the current ArbCom sanctions are still in play until May of this year, I welcome the chance for ArbCom to take a hard look at this. I have no vested outcome in this case, but mainly to fill the gaps. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 00:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CBDunkerson[edit]

The basic dispute here is that both Netoholic and Locke Cole view the other as 'stalking' them and hampering their efforts to 'contribute to / defend Wikipedia'. Both are proceeding largely 'in good faith' with occaisional lapses in civility due to frustration. The true problem is that what Netoholic thinks is good for Wikipedia seems harmful to Locke Cole and vice versa. That said, it seems to me clearly established that the majority of the community agrees with Locke Cole's view: that the harmful effects of meta and/or conditional templates are minor and the harmful effects of banning them or replacing them with hiddenStructure are significant. This also seems to be largely consistent with statements by Brion. I don't doubt that Netoholic thinks he is doing what is best. I also don't doubt that he is wrong... but even if he were correct and the community not, still it would be a bad idea for him to continue to attempt to enforce his opinion against the majority. The same applies to the 'Leet' controversyand various others, people disagree... but one person should not attempt to over-rule all others by sheer obstinance. The 'persecution' Netoholic feels would end if he stopped driving against the traffic... even if we assume he is 'right', driving on the left is more efficient, still he is clearly wrong to insist on doing so when everyone else is going the other way. --CBDunkerson 14:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)[edit]

Accept, preferably as just a "Locke Cole" case at this point (with not much offered against David Levy) for stalking, etc., and possibly to revisit Netoholic as well. Dmcdevit·t 09:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Charles Matthews 19:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse, not because I couldn't be fair (I could), but because aspersions might be cast that would harm the reputation and standing of the Committee. Urge acceptance. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept ➥the Epopt 04:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles[edit]

Edit warring considered harmful[edit]

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.