Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Evidence

removing most of myself from this arbitration request

per discussion elsewhere, i've removed characterization of myself, as well as my edits, and information unrelated to this dispute. if you would like to dispute the rest of that material, please do so in a different forum, or agree to open the scope of this dispute to include that data. also, go ahead and revert if you like, and re-edit to accomplish same. however, i want to limit the scope so that i am uninvolved in this discussion unless you would like otherwise. ... aa:talk 22:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the page instructions - you are not permitted to edit someone else's evidence section. Either create a rebuttal section of your own, or make suggestions on the talk pages. -- Netoholic @ 01:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that's what I suggested on the talk page, and I suppose I misread your comment as an assent to do it. Please revert your comments and re-edit it, or let's talk about the scope of the discussion. I'm not comfortable being "discussed" without being a party of the dispute. As I stated elsewhere. Sorry if I misunderstood your intent. ... aa:talk 04:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

David Levy's reply to Wgfinley's evidence

Those involved will point out that previously Neto had been asked to remove them, that isn't the point,

Yes, it is the point. You've claimed (and continue to claim) that no one had ever provided a proper explanation to Netoholic. This is patently false.

the point is that Locke, David, crotalus and Radiant all got involved in this matter 2 Feb - 4 Feb when they just so happened to be elevating totally unrelated disputed at AUM and Infobox.

In what "dispute" was I engaged with Netoholic? I've never edited Template:Infobox (to this day), and my only substantive edit to WP:AUM in that timeframe was to restore a tag per Netoholic's request. You, however, were involved in the Template:Infobox edit war (in which you sided with Netoholic and against Locke Cole).

The next fantastic piece of wikilawyering is that Neto didn't take the images down after I asked him, he replaced them.

You've completely misconstrued the point. He didn't replace the images. He replaced links to the images. Please examine your own diff link (noting the leading colons), and the version that immediately preceded this revision.

The images involved were removed, period.

Again, the last person to remove the copyrighted images was Locke Cole, and this occurred before you became involved. Also keep in mind that they'd been removed several times before, but Netoholic repeatedly restored them. In this instance, you've accused various editors of "suddenly" taking issue with the images' presence, despite the fact that Netoholic restored them (without using an edit summary) 31 minutes before this dispute began. He waited until ten days after Dbenbenn removed them, despite having made three unrelated edits to the page in the interim.

This utterly ridiculous statement below that he didn't take them down is emblematic of how blinded by the dispute they are and the type of ridiculous assaults back and forth between these parties that happens almost every day. So intent are they in finding fault with Neto they are reduced to contend that replacing images with acceptable ones somehow doesn't achieve the goal of complying with not having "Fair Use" images in the user space.

Again, Netoholic didn't replace the images. They already had been removed, and not by Netoholic. At this point, I have to wonder if you've been "blinded by the dispute."

The point is I was the first one to point the issues out to Neto before taking it upon myself to edit his user page

Again, you were far from the first:

1. 11 October 2005 (Rd232)
2. 1 December 2005 (Ral315)
3. 3 December 2005 (SoothingR)
4. 18 January 2006 (Cleared as filed)
5. 19 January 2006 (Ilmari Karonen)
6. 19 January 2006 (CBDunkerson)

(always in bad taste and due to cause issues),

As I asked you once before, given the fact that Netoholic refused to comply with repeated requests, what else (other than removing the images) should have been done? Should one of the seven intervening admins (myself included) have blocked Netoholic or protected his user page instead?

I pointed out the issues with the images and answered his questions

...as numerous users had done before...

and he removed them and replaced them with acceptable images of his own volition.

Again, this not the case. Netoholic never removed the copyrighted images. —David Levy 21:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

David, if you are going to stick with this position that changing images to acceptable ones does not in fact achieve the same goal of removing the fair use ones (since, technically, the fair use ones are GONE and now non-fair use ones are there) there really is no hope for you. As this entire rant demonstrates, I think you lost any objectivity in this a long long time ago.

Yes, the act of replacing copyrighted images with non-copyrighted images is a means of removing the copyrighted images. That isn't what Netoholic did. Again, when Netoholic added the non-copyrighted images, the copyrighted images already were gone (having been removed by Locke Cole, not by Netoholic).

Evidently, you finally realized this. Heretofore, you've misconstrued my point as an attempt to draw some sort of distinction between simply removing the images and replacing them with different ones. (In fact, I was drawing a distinction between replacing the copyrighted images and replacing links to the copyrighted images.) This was an honest mistake on your part, but rather than acknowledging your error (and apologizing), you've edited your reply in an attempt to save face.

By the way, pay close attention here -- see this diff?? Notice how the Ferrigno image and the cowbell image WERE THERE (Alkivar put them back, yes they are inline, no, I don't care, he still removed the reference to them) and then Neto removed them and replaced them with acceptable images? Check one more thing, the time, the time was 4 February @ 11:49, I had asked him to remove them on 4 February @ 01:28 [1], that would be before 11:49

The links (which were inserted before you became involved) were not copyright/policy violations. There was no reason why they needed to be removed.

and at the time I asked him they WERE STILL THERE, not inline.

No, they weren't. Again, the images have been gone since before you became involved.

The point, which you seem to continue to miss is one you make so well yourself -- seven other people tried to get him to remove them and he kept putting them back. When I asked him, and was polite about it and not a dick about it and just removing them without working it out with him, they were replaced with acceptable images and haven't come back.

What do you believe was special about your message (compared to all of the ones that you denied existed), and why do you believe that it played a role in the removal of images that already were gone?

Go figure. I wouldn't expect you to understand though given your attitude toward Neto.

Yeah, how dare I complain about deliberate policy violations?!

Finally, the last time anyone worried about it was 19 January and they were all still there. Suddenly on 2 - 4 Feb, two weeks later

I honestly can't believe that you're still claiming that the images had continuously remained on the page. Again, they were removed by Dbenbenn on 23 January. Netoholic waited ten days before he quietly restored them (with no edit summary) on 2 February. Locke Cole removed them 31 minutes later. The images had not been present for weeks or months; they had been on the page for 31 minutes.

and the same time you two were having disagreements with him elsewhere, is when you and Locke edit warred with him about it. Go figure that one too.

Again, please cite the disagreement in which I was engaged with Netoholic at the time. Locke Cole certainly was involved in such a disagreement, but so were you (on Netoholic's side).

I know, it had absolutely nothing to do with your disagreements elsewhere and you and Locke have been stalwart stewards of keeping fair use images out of the user space....riiiight.

I don't know about Locke, but I simply noticed the disturbance on my watchlist (which contains the user/talk pages of everyone whose talk page I've posted to). I learned that Netoholic was deliberately violating the fair use policy, so I intervened. Again, what should I have done? Explained it to him for the seventh time?

What's funny is I do have a reputation regarding fair use images and yet I didn't see the need to edit war with him on his own user page, I asked him to get rid of them and continued to follow up on it.

--Wgfinley 06:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you asked him to remove the images (as numerous others had done), but you did so after they'd already been removed. Go figure. —David Levy 07:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The last time the images were removed was when I removed them. That he placed back links to the images was not objectionable to me (though a more strict reading of our fair-use policy would probably prohibit that as well). And I'll again note that you've got the timeline messed up: yes I removed the image on the 2nd, but that was the same day he put the images back up; it had nothing at all to do with our disputes elsewhere. I'd have removed them if he'd added them a week before or a week later or today. If anything, maybe you should consider if perhaps he wasn't trying to incite something by adding the images back when he did (since you're attributing so much bad faith to me and none to him)? Again, the timeline for your perusal (note the DATES):

• 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 (almost a full day after I removed them).
• 2006-02-03 23:23:13 — Cleared as filed removes the images, also noting WP:FU.

It had nothing to do with trying to edit war with him or stalk him; and it's not like I was the only one to try and get him to remove the images: at least two other editors also reverted him during this (and seven discussed it with him). Please assume good faith and be civil in your responses. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

David Levy's reply to Netoholic's evidence

David Levy has acted in coordination with Locke on several occasions and harassed Netoholic (see above sections) and probably deserves at least a reprimand.

Again, the assertion that Locke Cole and I have "acted in coordination" is false. Netoholic's basis for this conclusion is the fact that Locke Cole and I are among the users who have attempted to counter his flagrant misconduct. Therefore, in his mind, we must be working together.

He's blocked me three times (all lifted quickly) within the span of one week,

Indeed, I did block Netoholic three times (due to disruptive violations of his ArbCom parole). And yes, he did manage to convince three admins (two of whom made no attempts to contact me) to quickly unblock him. I addressed my initial block of Netoholic (and Snowspinner's unblock) here, and I addressed the two subsequent blocks and unblocks in my original statement pertaining to this arbitration.

despite the fact that he and I've had long-time disagreements.

Notice that Netoholic isn't providing evidence to dispute the merit of the blocks. Instead, he's using the old "biased admin" excuse. I would never block someone with whom I was actively engaged in a dispute, but Netoholic apparently believes that anyone with whom he's ever had a disagreement is automatically and permanently ineligible to address his misconduct (regardless of the facts).

He's clearly not neutral, and is using his blocking power as a form of harrassment.

As I've pointed out before, if I'd been looking for an excuse to block Netoholic, it wouldn't have taken me that long. I declined to block him on several occasions (including one in which he basically requested that I block him, thereby enabling the simultaneous block of a user with whom he had revert warred), because I genuinely believed that his behavior was improving. Unfortunately, the ArbCom gave him an inch, and he decided to take a mile. His conduct rapidly reverted (no pun intended) back to the form that led to his ArbCom sanctions in the first place.

Reverting templates to Locke_Cole's preferred version

• 3/7/2006 19:38:31 Template:Infobox Band
• 3/7/2006 19:38:56 Template:Infobox Music genre
• 3/7/2006 19:39:13 Template:Airport infobox
• 3/7/2006 19:39:21 Template:Infobox Military Conflict
• 3/7/2006 19:39:46 Template:Infobox Network
• 3/14/2006 15:25:09 Template:Infobox Book
• 3/14/2006 15:38:45 Template:Infobox Book
• 3/16/2006 17:27:14 Template:Infobox Conditionals

Not one of those reversions had anything to do with what "Locke Cole's preferred version" was. In each and every instance, I rolled back Netoholic's insertion of the "hiddenStructure" hack, which has been deemed harmful by Brion Vibber (our lead developer). Netoholic is well aware of this fact, but he insists upon implementing the code anyway.

Locke Cole also reverted many of Netoholic's edits (presumably for the same reason), and Netoholic once again cites this as evidence of collusion. He's actually claiming that if more than one person undoes his harmful changes, they must be in cahoots.

To be clear, I did not revert Netoholic's edits indiscriminately. My concern was that the "hiddenStructure" hack not be restored. Netoholic made unrelated edits to some templates (including ones on which he was revert warring with Locke Cole), and I did not intervene.

Also, I make no secret of the fact that I learned of some of these edits by monitoring Netoholic's contribution history. Netoholic refers to this as "stalking" him, but it's precisely the sort of application that the developers intended. Netoholic's edits were tantamount to vandalism, and I tracked them in the same manner that I would a vandal's edits. Had I reverted legitimate edits out of spite or malice, that would have qualified as "stalking" him.

Comments opposing Netoholic

These comments or edits were made only a short time after Netoholic made his edit. These are pages that David had never edited or been involved with before (and unlikely Watchlisted).

• 1/26/2006 21:54:18 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of redundant expressions

I don't remember how I found that discussion. I might have noticed it in Netoholic's contribution history, but my participation had absolutely nothing to do with him. Is he actually suggesting that I voted to delete an article because he voted to keep it?

FYI, here's a link that Netoholic neglected to cite. I noticed the TfD discussion in Netoholic's contribution history, and I voted to delete the template. It was created by the person who nominated me for adminship, and its deletion was proposed by Netoholic (with whom I happened to agree).

• 2/4/2006 7:45:03 Wikipedia:Assume bad faith

I did have that page on my watchlist. I discovered it (and deemed it amusing) when it was nominated for deletion.

• 3/8/2006 00:11:10 User talk:Ashibaka

As I explained to Netoholic, I went to Ashibaka's talk page for the same reason as Netoholic (Ashibaka abruptly closed a deletion debate in which Netoholic and I were involved, and I expected this to be discussed there.) Otherwise, I eventually would have noticed Netoholic's post in his contribution history, at which point I would have replied. Since when is it a crime to seek out pages on which relevant discussions are occurring?

Incidentally, I could cite instances in which Netoholic reverted my edits to pages that he'd never edited before. That would serve little purpose, however, as I don't allege that he did so out of spite or malice. (He genuinely disapproved of my changes.) —David Levy 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)