Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-07 Netoholic & Locke Cole

Request for cabal mediation

Request Information

Request made by: Netoholic @ 04:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Various templates, Wikipedia, and Talk pages (WT:AUM)

Who's involved?

Netoholic and Locke Cole

What's going on?

Locke Cole and I have previously been in disagreement over a template guideline (Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates). Unfortunately, the inter-personal conflict is no longer restricted to that space. In my opinion, Locke Cole is spending and inordinate amount of time "watching" me, and becoming involved in such a way as to make my experience here unhappy. I am currently under restrictions due to an ArbCom decision - restrictions which, via clarification from Arbitrators, should be applied only where I am "disruptive". Locke Cole is making a point to create conflict where there is none, seek out "disruption", and basically just get involved wherever I am involved. I think he has a grudge. I've asked him before if he thought mediation would work, and the response wasn't encouraging. I'm hoping that will change.

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like Locke Cole to keep his disagreements with me to my talk page (if they are about my behavior) or to the specific topic talk pages (if the reasons are wiki-based). I'd like him to keep to topics at hand rather than raise ad hominem comments to poison the well. Heck, I'd even like to eventually get back to collaboration rather than brutish conflict as a result of failing to assume good faith.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

Special:Emailuser/Netoholic (don't want to post address openly, but I will reply.)

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

I would.

Mediator response

All right, I was asked to take this case and I'll go ahead and do so. Please bear in mind that this is my first mediation so it's going to be a bit of a learning process for me as well.

Since my understanding of the problem seems to be that it's just between you two, it's probably best that we keep the discussion to this page. So what I would like from you both is a brief synopsis of the conflict from your respective points of view so I can get an idea of where you're coming from. Thanks. - mixvio 16:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to close out this mediation. Netoholic has request arbitration (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Locke_Cole.2C_David_Levy.2C_et_al), which would seem to make mediation redundant if accepted. In the event arbitration is rejected though, this would be acceptable. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A maediation attempt should never be seen as redundant. No one says that we cannot continue to work at resolution of our differences through multiple means. A successful mediation could change the necessity or outcome of the Arbitration. -- Netoholic @ 04:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're both interested in resolving this without arbitration, then I ask you explain to me your own takes on the conflict. Thanks. - mixvio 05:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe I summarized above already. I'll let Locke have a go. -- Netoholic @ 05:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not "watching" him or stalking him. I am not attempting to make him unhappy on Wikipedia, just attempting to keep him from being disruptive in violation of his ArbCom bans (no edits allowed to Template or Wikipedia namespace, 1RR limit on other namespaces). It's not personal, it's just an attempt to try and curb his poor behavior. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2 for details of his previous RFAr. (This will probably be seen as "poisoning the well", but whatever, it's his history, and it's continued unabated despite the ArbCom restrictions). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others

If you are not satisfied with the mediation please submit your

dissatisfaction to Mediation Cabal: Complaints.