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)

• It strikes me that this is a disagreement between two people that started out stylistically and has escalated into something bigger than that. I read both of your talk pages as well as the previous RFAr and the ArbCom bans, etc. While I readily admit I don't have the head to understand the significance of removing or keeping the "Avoid using meta-templates" policy, I think what's best is both users take a step back and look at the situation.

Netoholic - it's my understanding that you're going against the consensus in the particular template discussion and that's where a lot of the frustration comes from. While I completely know how taking up an issue that not a lot of other users are advocating it can make you feel crazy or like you're the only one fighting for it against a larger group, you do have to realize that the consensus has been established on that issue. However, it does look like this has moved beyond that page into personal attacks between you and Locke. Given the ArbCom ruling it is probably a good idea for you to involve yourself less in volatile situations unless you're sure you can contribute in a manner that no one can construe negatively. From what I've read it does look like everyone else is stacked against you and I can only think that's for a reason. Taking a step back, cooling off, and being open to others' ideas will go a long way. Remember that we're all working to make this community respectable and worth having around.

Locke Cole - while I understand your frustration as well and your desire to make sure this doesn't become a problem again, admins are really the only ones who should be involved in enforcing his ArbCom ruling. By all means if you see him involved in a situation that is disruptive, report it, but reverting the edits of another user (and I point this out to you both) is in violation of policy and only exacerbates the situation.

In the end though, this is a problem between you two as people and I don't know what kind of a solution can be attained unless you're willing to sit down and shake hands. I fully realize how attached you can get to a page or issue or subject, and I understand that attachment can fuel a lot of strife. But this isn't a content problem, so I can't suggest a compromise on that basis. I can only say that you two have to be willing to get along and co-inhabit this space; so far I don't get that from either of you.

Netoholic - I do admit that, after researching the history of this conflict, I find your request that all you want Locke to do is leave you alone a little suspect. There's nothing wrong with that, but so I can get a better understanding of where to go in this, please explain to me below this what, if you could have anything in this, you expect or desire from Locke Cole. I haven't seen anything to suggest that he's "watching" you any more than I've seen you watching him - I think you're both following the edits of each other, and for this to go forward you and he have to be willing to let this go for the time being so neither of you feel it's a personal issue. So tell me, what do you want him to do?

Locke Cole - I'll extend the same question to you. What do you want Netoholic to do?

As I said though, this won't work unless you're both going to try and compromise. If you're not willing to do that it's probably best that this mediation close down and you go back to arbitration; mediation is supposed to help an issue come to agreement or consensus. If that's not what you want then it's best to let the admins decide the solution, but given Netoholic's current restrictions I can only wonder what another admin decision would result in. - mixvio 16:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, regarding enforcement of his ArbCom ban, generally the only time I revert him is when he's reverting me (and 1) he shouldn't be in the first place, or 2) he's acting against the consensus at WP:AUM (which generally agrees that hiddenStructure is evil, qif is the best stop-gap solution we have, and getting rid of all conditionals is a bad idea (and more importantly, something that needs to be discussed before just doing it)). I only began reporting him because revert warring with him would never work out (and is something he shouldn't be engaging in to begin with; it's disruptive).

Regarding what I'd like him to do: stop pushing broken methods out onto the encyclopedia? Stop removing conditionals because he dislikes the alternative? Realize that most people like having some parameters optional and help undo the damage he did while WP:AUM was forced as policy? At a minimum it'd be nice if he stopped violating his ArbCom bans. At best, it'd be great if he helped fix things broken by hiddenStructure. But to be absolutely clear: fix does not mean remove all conditionals, it means moving templates over to qif or weeble (or, when conditional syntax is added (which Brion has said will be eventually), moving to that). Might removing conditionals be a good idea? Perhaps, but unlike moving templates to {{qif}} (which leaves the template functionally identical to how it behaved before), making certain parameters required may (at best) confuse editors and (at worst) piss them off that such a change wasn't discussed. For this reason, if he wants to engage in removal of conditionals, he should do so on each template's talk page (informing the appropriate WikiProject as necessary) and let them have input. He shouldn't be removing them without discussion though: surely whoever made them conditional in the first place had good reasons for doing so.

Anyways, there's my thoughts on it. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I regret having to do this but unfortunately I've decided to take some time away from Wikipedia and can no longer function as mediator in this. I apologize profusely and wish both of you the best. - mixvio 19:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments by others

If you are not satisfied with the mediation please submit your

dissatisfaction to Mediation Cabal: Complaints.