Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Netoholic

Locke Cole and I disagree on several technical points, particularly regarding templates. It is not my intention, in raising this Arbitration request, that the technical points be decided upon. I feel that both he and I have very good reasons for our technical differences and that we are working in good faith - to make Wikipedia better.

What I strongly protest is the frequent harassment that Locke_Cole has subjected me to outside of the template area. He's taken to directly reverting items he's never been involved in before. He's involving himself on the opposite side of several topics I've commented 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. Locke Cole's actions have become malicious.

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.

Locke_Cole engages in wiki-stalking on Leet

I've been involved in a debate about the status of this article since January 14th, where, upon reading it, I found several unsubstantiated assertions that it was a "language" (as opposed to a slang or other category). One that date, I removed an instance of Template:Language accordingly. This change was objected to and for several days (and even to the present), discussion about the "status" of Leet has been held on Talk:Leet. User:Avriette was the page's most vocal supporter of calling leet a "language".

• January 26
  • 05:44 - After twelve days of active discussion on Talk:Leet#Infobox and after comments on Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Leet discounting the "language" argument, I removed the Infobox and made several other changes.
  • 07:59 - Locke Cole reverts completely, marking his edit minor, and misstating a situation he had never participated in. At no time since the article began, until this edit, has User:Locke Cole ever edited Leet or Talk:Leet. I contend he was watching my edits, and used that info to revert me in retaliation for the template conflict.
  • 17:42 - Locke_Cole reverts again
• January 27
  • 20:46 - Locke_Cole reverts again. He still has not participated on the Talk page.

• March 8
  • 04:42 - Avriette edits leet extensively in relation to a different dispute.
  • 18:10 - I subsequently reverted that change, again based upon a different dispute, and commented on Talk to that effect.
  • 20:51 - Locke_Cole reverted me, without explanation or justification.
  • 23:13 - Avriette moves "Leet" to "Leet (language)", then edits the redirect into a disambig page. The move was not proposed first, and I subsequently nominated the page to be moved back.
  • 23:53 - I place the TotallyDisputed and OriginalResearch tags onto the page, per my talk page justification.
• March 9
  • 00:09 - Locke_Cole reverts
  • 01:23 - In his first edit ever to Talk:Leet, Locke_Cole votes opposing the move back to "leet".
  • 04:40 - I restored the tags, citing Wikipedia:Vandalism which says: Improper use of dispute tags: ... Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period.
  • 04:41 - Locke_Cole reverts. His edit summary is an attack on me, and does not explain why he thinks the POV dispute is settled.
• March 10
  • 18:17, 21:02, 21:07 - Locke_Cole subsequently removes the tags on these further occasions.
• March 11
  • 00:51 - Locke_Cole retracts his oppose vote on the move poll. This may be evidence that in his initial oppose vote, he did not fully consider his position and may have acted just in opposition to me.
  • 04:34 - Locke_Cole comments on Talk. I note this only because, after all revert warring (nine reverts total) and his opposition on the move vote, this is the first and only time Locke_Cole has participated in any substantive discussion regarding Leet. I immediately accommodated his request for a more complete explanation of my criticism of the source's that Avriette used.

It's my belief that, due to the behavior exhibited by Locke_Cole, that his primary goal with regards to the Leet page was to oppose me for it's own sake, to confound or discredit me, and to generally make a difficult situation worse. His actions were completely unproductive.

Locke_Cole revert wars on Netoholic's user page

For quite some time, my user page had two images that were uploaded as fair use. Later, after the Wikipedia fair use guidelines had changed to disallow them, I had objected, citing that I was using them as parody, and "fair use" as such on my user page. At the time, I'd misunderstood and thought that the guideline meant that fair use rationale had to be documented... whereas I understand now it is is a flat "no fair use images of any kind on user pages".

February 2, 2006

• 23:47 - Locke_Cole removes these images from my page, without contacting me on my talk page first. His edit summary uses the interestingly names shortcut "WP:FU" ("eff- you").

February 4

• 05:15 - Locke_Cole removes them again.
• 05:41 - Locke_Cole removes them again.
• 05:48 - I restore the images as wikilinks, rather than displaying them.
• 05:51 - Locke_Cole reverts, even though my version complied with the guidelines. I saw this as vandalism.
• 06:23 - Locke_Cole is blocked over this incident as "blatant user page harassment".

I'll freely admit to misinterpretting the new guidelines, and after someone took the time to discuss with me calmly, I've removed them completely. That being said, Locke_Cole's actions show specific harrassment, on my own user page.

Locke_Cole opposes Netoholic, poisoning the well

• I made a 3RR report about another editor. Locke Cole commented on it, but only to poison the well.
• followed me to Template talk:Infobox CVG in order to oppose my comments - a page he's never edited there before.
• About an hour after I made this edit on Template:Ship_table, he posted this note. He's never edited Ship_table or the talk page before.

Locke_Cole misrepresents Netoholic's editing status

• 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_Cole shows further bad faith

• 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.

David_Levy

David Levy has 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.

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would show specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by Locke Cole

Locke Cole and David Levy are not acting in coordination

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 is purely coincidental (and as David pointed out in his statement, understandable, as I've been reporting Netoholic's ArbCom ban violations fairly regularly by now).

Netoholic is wikistalking Locke Cole

Netoholic has been following me around, either flat out reverting my edits, or largely undoing the work done within (and reverting portions I had fixed). Where applicable I've included when Netoholic had last edited any of these.

• 2006-03-10 20:56:46 — rvt, accessibility not a concern, his previous edit was on 2006-01-19 04:50:10.
• 2006-03-10 21:02:16
• 2006-03-10 21:14:57
• 2006-03-11 04:34:28 — rvt. hiddenStructure is not so bad, his previous edit was on 2006-01-19 18:10:26.
• 2006-03-11 05:19:26 — rvt user needs to take a vacation, this would be an example of incivility.
• 2006-03-09 04:28:30 — Netoholic has never edited this template before.
• 2006-03-09 08:26:02
• 2006-03-09 04:18:54 — his previous edit on 2006-01-27 03:08:32 was a simple revert of CBDunkerson (talk · contribs), his last actual edit was on 2005-12-24 06:17:49.
• 2006-03-09 04:18:11 — his previous edit was on 2006-02-14 06:16:09.
• 2006-03-07 19:23:52 — his previous edit was on 2005-12-09 21:18:51, with my last edit being 2005-11-03 22:18:27.
• 2006-03-07 19:22:16 — rvt crusade / ugly html, with previous edit being on 2005-05-21 03:13:35 (it was also his only edit prior to this reversion).
• 2006-03-07 19:20:38 — rvt crusade/ ugly html, and Netoholic had never edited this template before.
• 2006-03-07 19:19:36 — rvt crusade, and Netoholic had never directly edited this template before (his only edits were to the talk page, the last of which was on 2005-12-09 15:28:49).
• 2006-03-07 19:16:36 — Netoholic has never edited this template.
• 2006-03-07 06:54:41 — rvt undiscussed changes to this template, his previous edit on 2006-01-27 03:08:19 being a simple revert of CBDunkerson, and his last actual edit being on 2005-12-29 05:32:48.
• 2006-03-07 04:08:38 — rvty undiscussed changes. impact on accessibility is minimal, with his last edit on 2006-01-27 03:05:30 being a simple revert of CBDunkerson and his last actual edit being on 2006-01-13 07:44:28.
• 2006-03-07 04:08:01 — rvt undiscussed changes., his previous was on 2006-01-18 01:21:37.
• 2006-03-03 06:01:49 — tdeprecated, with his previous edit being on 2006-01-24 15:28:48. Unlike most other diffs here, this was not a revert, but instead an attempt to deprecate the template altogether.
• 2006-03-03 07:16:41
• 2006-02-28 07:37:25 — revert
• 2006-02-28 07:03:10 — Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful
• 2006-02-28 06:54:26 — WP:AUM

Netoholic is revert warring

Please include my Wikistalking evidence here as well.

Netoholic has ignored fair-use image policy

Up until a month ago Netoholic had two copyrighted images on his userpage (a picture of The Hulk, as portrayed by Lou Ferrigno; and a picture of Will Ferrel on Saturday Night Live). These images have been removed multiple times by various editors because their use on userpages is a violation of Wikipedia's fair-use policy. Netoholic, however, usually reverts or places the images back after a short time, ignoring Wikipedia's fair-use policy.

• 2005-10-11 17:12:44 — Rd232 (talk · contribs) informs Netoholic that his use of Image:Cowbell2.gif is "probably not fair use".
• 2005-12-01 04:43:03 — Ral315 (talk · contribs) informs Netoholic that "Both the Hulk and the Cowbell pictures are fair use only, and shouldn't be used on user pages."
• 2005-12-01 17:20:45 — Ral315 leaves another comment, insisting he's not trying to be annoying "just noting that Wikipedia isn't authorized to use these images on user pages."
• 2005-12-03 19:04:34 — SoothingR (talk · contribs) brings up the matter of fair-use of his Hulk image and Will Ferrel SNL image.
  • 2005-12-04 08:20:01 — SoothingR responds to a comment from Netoholic.
• 2006-01-18 03:25:28 — Cleared as filed (talk · contribs) informs Netoholic of Wikipedia's fair-use policy, saying "I noticed your fair use rationale on the Cowbell image; that is an acceptable fair use rationale, but only for using the image in the article that it's relevant to. User pages are never an acceptable place for fair use images." Cleared as filed also removed the images from his userpage.
• 2006-01-19 02:49:46 — Cleared as filed comments out the images.
• 2006-01-19 03:16:01 — Netoholic uncomments the image links, with a blank edit summary (and, obviously, no explanation).
• 2006-01-19 04:16:27 — Cleared as filed rolls back Netoholic's edit.
• 2006-01-19 04:16:34 — After seeing the images had been reinstated and having not received a response to his first message, Cleared as filed asks if Netoholic understands the fair-use policy, or if he is simply ignoring it. The images are removed again and his note ends with: "Please don't put them back up, or you will have to be blocked."
• 2006-01-19 04:53:08 — Netoholic again uncomments the images and inserts fair use rationale.
• 2006-01-19 08:32:18 — Ilmari Karonen (talk · contribs) attempts to explain why the images may meet fair-use under the law, but still fail Wikipedia's fair-use policy.
• 2006-01-19 11:34:17 — And CBDunkerson also responds.
• 2006-01-23 22:37:30 — Dbenbenn (talk · contribs) removes the copyrighted images with the edit summary remove fair use images from this non-article page. See WP:FU#Fair use policy, point 9.
• 2006-02-02 23:16:20 — Netoholic adds the images again, again with a blank edit summary.
• 2006-02-02 23:47:26 — I remove the images from his userpage, noting WP:FU.
• 2006-02-03 22:47:16 — Netoholic adds the images again.
• 2006-02-03 23:23:13 — Cleared as filed removes the images, also noting WP:FU.
• 2006-02-04 04:31:55 — Trödel (talk · contribs) reverts.
• 2006-02-04 05:15:29 — I revert back to Cleared as filed's edit.
• 2006-02-04 05:18:39 — Netoholic reverts with the edit summary don't touch my user page.
• 2006-02-04 05:20:25 — David Levy reverts, again noting WP:FU.
• 2006-02-04 05:28:07 — Netoholic reverts; each images has fair use justification, as required. Please discuss on WT:FU
• 2006-02-04 05:30:38 — David Levy reverts; Per official policy, fair use images are not permitted on user pages.
• 2006-02-04 05:40:15 — Netoholic reverts; both have fair use rationale, as required. Please discuss on WT:FU.
• 2006-02-04 05:41:00 — I revert again, again citing WP:FU.
• 2006-02-04 05:47:27 — Here I take the time to explain it as well after removing the images from his userpage.
• 2006-02-04 05:48:32 — Netoholic reverts, but this time links to the images, instead of placing them inline (a subtle change), with the edit summary fix vandal/wikistalker.
• 2006-02-04 05:50:23 — Three minutes later Netoholic "archives" with the edit summary archive, FU, which I took to mean "fuck you".
• 2006-02-04 05:51:06 — Not noticing the subtle change, I revert again (citing WP:FUC directly).
• 2006-02-04 05:52:27 — Netoholic reverts; rvt wikistalker - stop vandalising my user page
• 2006-02-04 12:14:20 — Cleared as filed removes the image links as well, obviously the difference was subtle for him as well.

It's also worth noting the incivility and bad faith Netoholic displays, calling me a "wikistalker" for simply doing what others have tried to do (and failed). Also, since this last incident he hasn't placed the images back on the page.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

First assertion

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.