Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Proposed decision

David Levy FoF

David Levy abused his sysop powers in blocking Netoholic three times, despite being involved in disputes with him both previously and at the time.

There are 900 sysops. Let another one do it; don't fight your own private war.

David Levy is reprimanded in the strongest possible terms for abusing his sysop powers whilst engaged in a dispute, and should be aware that any further examples seen by the Committee will likely lead to his loss of sysop status. David Levy is reminded to seek assistance from fellow, uninvolved adminstrators to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest in the future.

I considered blocking him, but decided I wasn't involved enough to know whether such a block would be justified or not, based on the details of the case, and afraid that Neto would misrepresent my actions as harassment. Sucks to see David punished for enforcing policies when I could have helped. — Omegatron 13:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I also have problems with this. David has shown great restraint and ability to work with Netoholic under the best and worst conditions. The controversy came after the blocks, not before. He was not involved with any dispute with Netoholic. I chose not to block myself though I was familiar enough with the case but did not want to have to deal with the likely fallout - I applaud his diligence and courage. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Locke Cole ban length

Locke Cole banned for a month for harassment

Locke Cole (talk • contribs) is banned for six months for harassing Netoholic.

One month or six? — Omegatron 13:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, mistake; I see. I'd rather see a remedy where he's only banned from the relevant namespaces. "not intended to prevent __ from working productively", etc. — Omegatron 13:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ban ratchetting

No week-> ratchet; noose to hang himself, etc. etc..

Huh?? — Omegatron 13:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Normally after five such blocks, the maximum allowed block increases to a year. They didn't give him a noose to hang himself with. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I saw that on the workshop page. I wonder why it's not being included.

Anyone wantonly breaking their restrictions should just be banned. Why are we always tripping over ourselves trying to tolerate blatant disruption? — Omegatron 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalking and restriction lifting

I strongly disagree with several of the listed items. My personal definition of 'stalking' doesn't cover what Locke Cole was doing (there was no intent of harassment - just a disagreement on template design), but if it is to be accounted as such then I cannot see how what Netoholic was doing can be described any differently.

Nor do I think 'Locke Cole was mis-representing the restrictions on Netoholic' makes sense given that the only exception to those restrictions was in the event that Netoholic was not being disruptive... which another finding says he was. Ergo, the exception was not in force and Locke Cole was correctly quoting the restrictions.

I also can't see where David Levy did anything worthy of a reprimand. As he noted several times, there wasn't an existing argument / edit war between himself and Netoholic at the time he placed the blocks. The argument came about because of the blocks. David Levy made an admin judgement as an uninvolved party. Other findings here seem to suggest that his judgement was correct. However, since Netoholic disagreed with it David Levy is now to be reprimanded? Irk? --CBDunkerson 14:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly concur. I would like to personally thank David Levy and Locke Cole for their courage to do what they did. They did the right thing and it improved Wikipedia. --Ligulem 18:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Nor do I think 'Locke Cole was mis-representing the restrictions on Netoholic' makes sense given that the only exception to those restrictions was in the event that Netoholic was not being disruptive... which another finding says he was. Ergo, the exception was not in force and Locke Cole was correctly quoting the restrictions.

Agreed. The exceptions were not very clear, and only applied in the case that Netoholic was not being disruptive. This same page finds that Neto was being disruptive, so the exceptions did not apply. — Omegatron 16:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides, the page I linked to had the clarifications at the bottom (not sure when they were added, but I'm fairly certain I was still linking to this page even after the clarifications were inserted). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

And to be clear for James F., Netoholic's restrictions were not lifted in the clarifications. The arbitrators who clarified it specifically mentioned the restrictions were lifted so long as he was not disruptive (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2#Arbitrator responses to Netholic's requests for clarification). Whenever I linked to the Netoholic 2 decision page (which, as noted above, contained the clarifications) I believed he was being disruptive. It was up to the admin handling the complaint to decide (or so I believed the arbitrators intended) one way or the other (and blocks arising out of such complaints should not be labeled as "accidents"). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The comments were made after (significant) discussion by the Committee at large; although only 3 Arbitrators commented there, the decision was made (we didn't then have a properly-developed system like we do now for making such post-case changes).

James F. (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I also endorse the above statements. Looking back, I think that it was a mistake to reprieve a controversial editor like Netoholic simply because he was enforcing a policy. Given his abrasiveness another controversy was likely to erupt that simply could have been avoided if the original ban was in place. If Locke is guilty of harrassment then Netoholic is guilty as well by painting editors who are enforcing policies as persecutorial tormentors. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Request

Could someone (perhaps James F. or Fred Bauder) please cite the "dispute" in which I allegedly was engaged with Netoholic when I placed the blocks? I've repeatedly made such a request of Netoholic himself, and I've received no response.

As noted above by CBDunkerson, there was no such dispute. Netoholic frequently claims that anyone who takes actions against his misconduct is "biased" or "out to get him," and he's managed to convince a great many people that this is true. I urge the ArbCom to examine my contributions from that period for any evidence of an edit war or other dispute involving Netoholic and me. There was none. I reverted his vandalism, I warned him to stop committing it (per comments by lead developer Brion Vibber), and I blocked him when he refused to comply. That's all.

Is there were even reason to believe that I erred in blocking Netoholic, I could understand some sort of warning, but I've yet to see any evidence to suggest that these blocks were unwarranted, let alone malicious.

If I'm to be censured, Netoholic once again succeeds. Regardless of the sanctions that are taken against him, he sends the message to all sysops that if they attempt to enforce his restrictions, this is the response that they can expect. That's precisely why many admins gave up a long time ago. I'm not one of them, and that's why I'm a party to these proceedings.

Netoholic's ability to manipulate the process in his favor is nothing short of astonishing. If someone blocks him, he jumps on IRC and contacts every available admin (among those who are unfamiliar with his history), claiming that he's been unfairly blocked (typically misconstruing his ArbCom clarifications as provisions of virtual immunity). Without fail, he manages to convince one (often inexperienced) sysop to unblock. He then cites this as proof that the blocks were improper (as he's done in this arbitration request), and portrays the series of events as a "dispute" between him and the blocking admin (thereby, in Netoholic's assessment, rendering the admin ineligible to ever block him again). In doing so, he manages to avoid accountability for nearly everything that he does, and actually paints himself as the victim. One by one, sysops learn that any attempt to enforce policy (as far as Netoholic is concerned) will be futile at best, and injurious to their reputations at worst. The sad part is that he's absolutely right. —David Levy 23:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As noted above by CBDunkerson, there was no such dispute. Netoholic frequently claims that anyone who takes actions against his misconduct is "biased" or "out to get him," and he's managed to convince a great many people that this is true.

Agreed. I've seen this several times from Netoholic. — Omegatron 17:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If I'm to be censured, Netoholic once again succeeds. Regardless of the sanctions that are taken against him, he sends the message to all sysops that if they attempt to enforce his restrictions, this is the response that they can expect. That's precisely why many admins gave up a long time ago. I'm not one of them, and that's why I'm a party to these proceedings.

Count me in as one of the admins who gave up a long time ago because this is the response admins get when they attempt to enforce his restrictions. — Omegatron 17:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As noted above I also found myself unwilling to deal with the fallout. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate...

Will someone please let me know what conflict with Netoholic they believe I was involved in at the time of the blocks? Even if I disagree, I'd like to at least be informed of the basis for this claim. I was hoping that James F. or Fred Bauder would respond, and I now ask the same of The Epopt.

I'm sorry, but I'm honestly at a loss here. ArbCom members are voting to censure me, and no one will provide an explanation of why. Am I not owed that much? —David Levy 23:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit — Perhaps you could tell me what conflict I was engaged in with Netoholic at the time of the blocks. Can anyone tell me? Is it unreasonable for me to inquire? —David Levy 00:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't finished looking at this case, and in particular the proposals regarding you gave me the most trouble (and I haven't voted on them yet). Give me a day or so and I'll tell you what I think. Dmcdevit·t 00:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You did vote in support of the declaration that I "abused [my] sysop powers in blocking Netoholic three times on the 2nd, 9th, and 11th of March 2006, despite being involved in disputes with him both previously and at the time." Was this unintentional?

In any event, thanks very much for taking the time to address my concerns. I sincerely appreciate your response. —David Levy 01:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Bah, too much copy and pasting (I don't usually leave proposals blank). After more thought, I changed my vote to what seems more appropriate, and will spend more time looking at the evidence of involvement. Dmcdevit·t 04:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalking, etc.

To be clear, and per my evidence, if I am guilty of stalking, Netoholic is at least as guilty of stalking (see the fourfive pages he'd never edited before in my evidence, not to mention the dozen or so pages he hadn't edited in months where he suddenly turned up to revert war with me). It's also worth noting that, as far as I am aware, Netoholic has largely withdrawn his claim that I was "stalking" him (see his evidence) and instead accuses me of the more generic "harassment" ("stalk" only occurs three times now within his evidence; two from his own words, one referencing the name of a section within my evidence).

In any event, I've done my best to disprove any claims of stalking in my evidence (and in fact, I believe neither of us is guilty of stalking). It would help if the stalking claim included diffs/examples of what the arbitrators believe is stalking as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If we thought that your evidence supported that assertion, we'd make a ruling along those lines. We don't, and we haven't.

James F. (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks James for that very helpful response. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. Take the exact 'finding' and just reverse the names, "Netoholic (talk • contribs) has consistently engaged in behaviour similar to stalking Locke Cole (talk • contribs) about the wiki, contributing in the form of argument against Locke Cole to many pages that had been untouched before Locke Cole arrived there." Is that not equally 'true'? I don't agree with the characterization of an ongoing argument across multiple pages as "stalking", but if it IS then why is it so only for one of the two people? Locke Cole cited numerous examples of Netoholic popping up on pages he had never edited before or not edited in months to immediately revert... what is different about those that they 'don't count' as 'stalking', but the (so far as I can see, effectively identical) actions by Locke Cole do? The only differences that I am aware of are that Locke Cole's hiddenStructure > QIF conversions were supported by consensus while Netoholic's QIF > hiddenStructure conversions were not... and that while Brion Vibber had said both methods were ugly hacks which should be replaced with built-in conditional functions the accessibility concerns against the hiddenStructure method were valid, but the server load concerns against the QIF method were not. I can't imagine that Locke Cole's behaviour is being deemed more 'stalk-ish' for having been right... so what is it? How do you explain the different rulings? Or how it is possible to find both that Netoholic was being disruptive and that Locke Cole wrongly cited the restrictions on Netoholic given the existence of exceptions to those if Netoholic was not being disruptive... which you have found that he was. Or where exactly David Levy ever displayed bias against Netoholic which should have required him to recuse himself? If you are basing it on the existence of any simple disagreement does that mean that every arbitor and clerk who ever disagreed with Locke Cole and/or David Levy (on this issue no less) should have recused themselves? Only one did... are the others 'acting improperly'? --CBDunkerson 15:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

In the end, that is for Jimbo to decide.

James F. (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight...

• When Netoholic "enforces policy", it's good. Good enough to overlook his egregious disruptions regarding said policy (which he himself wrote and which is otherwise uniformly rejected), and to lift his editing restrictions.
• When others attempt to enforce widely-accepted policies that Netoholic is repeatedly breaking, it's bad. Bad enough to formally reprimand and/or ban them.

Did I get that right?

Is this the treatment I can expect if I have to enforce this page's decision against him someday? — Omegatron 00:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Administrators must not use their sysop powers against editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content or policy dispute."

To apply this to the current situation, David Levy blocked Netoholic, because he "despite warnings, disruptively edited within the template namespace to insert code explicitly condemned by lead developer Brion Vibber". So this is abuse of sysop powers simply because Netoholic didn't agree that his edits were disruptive?

So if someone disputes our policies and thinks that vandalizing is ok, I can't block them? We would then be in a "policy dispute", after all. Any time anyone uses their admin powers against someone, it will be disputed by the recipient. Please elaborate on this; it's way too vague. — Omegatron 20:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess this result comes as no surprise...

At least now I understand why Karmafist repeatedly referred to this as a Kangaroo court. There's no justice here, there's just "playing favorites" (and I think it's obvious James F. favors Netoholic).

Anyways, I'm fed up. There's been zero involvement with arbitrators during any of this (except for Sam Korn, who recused himself; so I don't think that counts), little or no discussion with arbitrators, it's as if this was decided in a closet with no input from 3rd parties or the respondents. It's amazing to me that what was discussed on the Workshop page is so drastically different from what's been voted upon as well.

Then we get James F.'s snarky remark above to my query about why it is things are being decided this way. There's no justice here, no justice for the parties and certainly no justice for the project. A troll gets given a slap on the wrist, and an actual contributor who tries to respect consensus is banned for a month for engaging in identical behavior as the person being given a walk. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for saying I favour Netoholic; given the vast number of times we've had... disagreements it seems far-fetched to me, but there you go. :-)

As to my "snarky" reply, I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I really do simply disagree with you on the evidence supporting the idea that you were stalked by Netoholic to any significant degree, and that this does not hold for the reverse. Obviously, you disagree (well, you would, you're in interested party, but...), but in the end, the judgement is mine, and I have recorded mine truthfully and accurately, as per my duty; I'm saddened that we disagree.

Also, if you are going to make personal attacks, I'd strongly recommend not doing them straight in front of the Committee, hmm? :-) And yes, calling Netoholic a "troll" certainly is a PA, as we've ruled many times before.

James F. (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

James, the problem, as I see it, is that several arbitors and clerks were involved in the underlying dispute about the 'qif' template... all with the same 'anti-qif' position as Netoholic. That in itself is not reason to disqualify as we generally rely on the ability of people to be impartial so long as they haven't shown questionable judgement/behaviour on the issue to date (except, apparently, in the case of David Levy). However, when some members of the ArbCom promote rulings which seem unequal (e.g. David Levy labeled as 'abusing sysop powers' for blocking Netoholic on clear violations while no edit war existed between them... but Wgfinley not abusing sysop powers with a block of Locke Cole of questionable legitimacy while actively engaged in an edit war against him / Locke Cole 'harrassing' Netoholic, but not vice versa for seemingly identical behaviour)... then there is a natural question of why the seeming disparities exist. Which you have repeatedly not answered. You say, "I really do simply disagree"... but you do not say why.

1. What is it that Locke Cole did and Netoholic did not that makes only one of them guilty of 'harrassment'?
2. What was it about David Levy's 'involvement'/action which was more an abuse than Wgfinley's action... or than the participation of various arbitors/clerks in this case despite some degree (limited to significant) of 'involvement'?
3. How is it logically possible for the ArbCom to find both that Netoholic was being disruptive and that Locke Cole should not have cited restrictions on Netoholic since they didn't apply if he was not being disruptive?

You haven't answered those questions. Despite repeated requests. At which point suspicion of the reasons is not 'far-fetched' but simply inevitable. Without answers to those questions the decisions just seem inconsistent... 'A' is harrassment but 'B' is not, 'C' is abuse of position but 'D' and 'E' are not - despite no clearly apparent difference between them. --CBDunkerson 13:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[Whoops, didn't see this - please learn how to format threaded conversations in MediaWiki; we've only been doing it for half a decade now.]

OK, you've got a few questions that I've not had time to answer (and don't now, but who cares about the dozen other Arbitration cases when you lot are so up-in-arms about this one?); here goes, in nice simple questions (note that all of the answers are merely "in my opinion" items) - please ask for me to answer more if I don't cover what you want:

Did Netoholic harrass?

No; I can't point to any one thing and say "yep, look at that, that's harrassment" - it's a judgement on the overall balance, and in mine, Netoholic's actions weren't harrassment. Obviously, a proof of lack of such items is a farcical and facetious request.

What did David Levy do wrong?

Again, I can't say "look at this, this character here was wrong, this one was right", but it's an overall impression - David Levy would have known that he and Netoholic weren't exactly "getting along swimmingly" (a dead, stuffed dodo would have known), and as a sysop I would expect him, knowing that, to ask for (at the very least) a second opinion, instead of moving against someone. Of course, this is all both shades of grey and a judgement call, and you (not only no doubt, but actually do) disagree; for that, I am sorry.

James F. (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So if an admin and someone being disruptive don't "get along swimmingly" folks need to get a second opinion? That would seem to define all admin action. Perhaps some more specifics about Devid Levy's error would be helpful. In this case someone who has done a good job in at least a few peoples opinions is being rapped on the knuckles for it. That's fine, it just would be helpful for everyone to understand what action that is tied to beyond "overall impression".

Augustz 02:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What didn't Wgfinley do wrong?

I didn't see anything in particular wrong with Wgfinley's actions, but then, I didn't look fantastically closely at that.

James F. (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Aren't all us Arbitrators "involved"?

The Arbitration process obvious doesn't count; as to personal involvement, no Arbitrator's personal view is clouded to make them unable to judge neutrally here.

James F. (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Were Netoholic's restrictions lifted contingent on a sysop's judgement of "disruptive"?

No, they weren't; they were lifted completely, but with an implicit warning that the Committee wouldn't be averse to re-appling them

James F. (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't hesitate to ask more, but, having said that, let's not go around in circles endlessly

James F. (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I say you favor Netoholic because shortly after he created Wikipedia:Avoid conditional templates, I'd moved it into his userspace and made an edit to it (such that he couldn't move the page back). IIRC you assisted him in moving the page back into the Project namespace. That was favor. Had I given it any thought, I'd have asked you to recuse yourself when this was opened, but as you didn't vote in the acceptance phase, I didn't expect it would be you providing proposed decisions (which it seems most of the other arbitrators have simply rubber-stamped, hence my belief that this is in fact a kangaroo court).

And, FWIW, calling him a troll is not a personal attack. It's the sad honest truth. You are simply too blinded by bias to see it. And that makes me very sad. (Also, please assume good faith, I'm not calling him a troll because I'm trying to diminish your respect of Netoholic, I'm calling him a troll because I honestly believe he is/has been one). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well.

As to that "favour", all I saw was someone who I had no interaction with acting in a foolish and seemingly ill-considered move that was completely against AGF; Netoholic made a direct personal request to me (gods know why, we don't really get on), I reviewed it, and undid the move that had been made along with several assinine comments, and asked for an actual discussion first. Given that this was many months ago, if you really think that it is "evidence" of my being bias, you should (and would) have brought it up and asked for my recusal - and you'd have been the first, for the record.

You just don't get it - I disagree with Netoholic on matters of substance in almost every single way, and agree with you - I think that logical templates (now parser functions) are a sensible way of achieving a great deal of useful functionality, and I think that the loss of accessibility was (and is, where it remains) a great shame. I've been one of the biggest fans of parser functions out there, yet you seem to think that I agree with Netoholic that such things are evil - I don't. I just want the community to actually come to a decision, and not be forced in one direction or another by people not engaging with the community by trying to bypass it.

James F. (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive users often email others uninvolved and uninformed, which is why it's good practice to discuss with an the admin before reverting their actions. Did that happen? Additionaly, this fork was deleted by strong consensus despite being moved back into the project space. Allowing Netoholic some breathing room to develop it in user space would I think have been the better approach, not "foolish and ill-considered". Augustz 02:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this comes as no surprise. I would take it as a collateral damage. But at least, we have accomplished what is needed for wikipedia: Netoholic was unable to destroy qif, and he failed in destroying things like {{cite book}}. As a remaining damage, we still have all this hiddenstructure stuff sprinkeled over wikipedia. But since accessibility is not such an issue, we shouldn't care that much anyway. And if even developers don't agree on the server load issues, how should normal wikipedians understand what was going on? We'll see how long it goes this time, until Netoholic finds another template issue to push up to policy level. He's indeed a phenomenon. I just hope that this time he has exhausted the ArbCom's patience enough not to get lifted his ban again. And I hope Locke Cole will continue to contribute after his one month ban. Sincerely, --Ligulem 12:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC) .

As, indeed, do I. After all, if we didn't want Locke to come back, we'd ban him for life.

James F. (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fun contd., part the umpteenth

moved and reformatted James F. (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Dispute / Administrative actions as involvement

Again, I just want to know what content dispute with Netoholic you believe I was involved in when I blocked him. On what article, policy page, et cetera were he and I engaged in a disagreement at the time? I'm quite certain that the answer is "none." In fact, I was under the impression that he and I were on fairly good terms. (I even awarded him a barnstar, which he displays on his user page to this day.)

The only "dispute" concerned the validity of the blocks themselves. Netoholic insisted that he wasn't behaving in a disruptive manner. I believed that he was (and the ArbCom evidently agrees), so I reverted his disruptive edits, warned him to stop, and blocked him when he refused to do so.

You seem to be indicating that it's inappropriate for a sysop to block a user who disputes the validity of the block and believes that he/she has been unfairly targeted. If that's so, Netoholic can never be blocked by anyone for any reason, because he always believes that blocks against him are unwarranted. Being startlingly clever (and I mean that with the utmost sincerity), Netoholic usually manages to convince another sysop that he's the victim of a vast conspiracy, and quickly gets himself unblocked. He then portrays this as evidence that the block was unjust, thereby accusing the blocking admin of misconduct (as he's done in this case). This is why relatively few sysops are even willing to deal with him. I did, and you believe that I should be censured as a result. —David Levy 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

and

I agree that the arbitration process doesn't count as "involvement," but your FoF regarding my actions seems to be based upon the belief that administrative processes do count as involvement. To me, this logic seems paradoxical, as it means that any sysop automatically becomes "involved" in a "dispute" whenever he/she blocks someone, and therefore shouldn't have blocked said user. —David Levy 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first time was fine, IMO. The problem was, it was undone, and rather than say "OK, I'll discuss this, rather than do it again, and let someone else do it next time" you did it again. Twicely, indeed. And both times, again, you were reversed. This is essentially sysop-warring, as well as examples of profoundly unsound judgement.

James F. (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Are you under the impression that the three blocks related to the same incident? That isn't so. They pertained to three separate incidents. I never reinstated any of the blocks, despite the fact that the first two were removed in a manner contrary to the blocking policy. (I'll elaborate below.) Instead of wheel-warring, I did discuss this with the other sysops (one of whom apologized) and the community, so I don't know what you mean by that.

2. As I indicated above, you're allowing the fact that the blocks were reversed to serve as evidence that they were inappropriate. Again, this isn't so. Netoholic goes on IRC and sends private messages to numerous sysops, usually managing to convince one that he's the victim of a rogue admin. Should he be rewarded for this?

The first block was lifted by Phil Sandifer. He did so unilaterally (without discussing it with me or anyone else), despite the fact that the blocking policy explicitly directs sysops to "not unblock without discussing the matter thoroughly in advance with the blocking admin, and with other admins on WP:AN/I if appropriate." Rather than reinstate the block, I reported this incident at WP:AN/I. I included a link to this discussion in my initial statement for this arbitration case, but here it is again.

The second block was lifted by Zscout370. Netoholic contacted him on IRC, claiming that he had been unfairly blocked by an "involved" admin. Zscout370, who apparently was unfamiliar with the proper procedure, decided to unblock without informing me, and I didn't notice this until much later. Rather than reinstating the block, I contacted Zscout370. He apologized, and indicated that he now has a better understanding of the situation.

For the third block, I actually went to the #wikipedia IRC channel and announced my intentions to everyone, and none of the admins present objected to the block. I waited around for as long as I could (expecting Netoholic to show up), but I eventually needed to go to sleep. A short time later, Netoholic did arrive, and he convinced Freakofnurture to lift the block. To his credit, Freakofnurture attempted to contact me first, but I wasn't awake to respond. The basis for unblocking was that the same admin had blocked Netoholic three times.

As I've noted, however, this was a matter of necessity. Netoholic usually manages to convince newer sysops that the ArbCom has granted him virtual immunity from administrative intervention, thereby resulting in no block or in the reversal of another sysop's block. Meanwhile, most established sysops refuse to deal with him, due to the apparent futility (because the blocks usually are lifted) and the risk of Netoholic turning the situation around against the blocking admin (as he's done in this case). Furthermore, the fact that Netoholic's edits were harmful and disruptive was not readily apparent to someone unfamiliar with the situation's background, and it would have been extremely difficult to explain it to a random admin in an expedient manner. (Keep in mind that the purpose of the blocks was not to punish Netoholic, but to stop him from harming the encyclopedia.) And of course, as soon as a sysop catches on to Netoholic's misconduct, he deems them "involved." His ability to manipulate the system to his advantage is nothing short of astonishing, and it seems as though there's no way to stop him. I tried, and you seek to punish me as a result. —David Levy 20:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I've never said that you were involved in a "content dispute"; the FoF says "dispute", and the principle says "content or policy dispute".

James F. (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, the only "dispute" pertained to the blocks themselves. You're basically saying that if a user objects to a block, it's inappropriate for that sysop to ever block the user again. —David Levy 20:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If one were to block someone, they object and manage to convince another sysop that their objection has sufficient clout that they unblock (which, yes, they should do in consultation with you and the community at large, but never mind), then yes, it would indeed be inappropriate to block them again in similar circumstances - in a way, it has bugger-all to do with the victim, but with respect for your fellow sysops. If you seriously think that other sysops have erred, then that's a matter for us. Don't sysop-war. And all three blocks were made by you against Netoholic for the same actions, whatever page they were located on; don't wiki-lawyer on that point, please.

James F. (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Please direct my attention to the policy that indicates what you state above.

2. One of the sysops in question acknowledged that he erred, and he apologized for doing so.

3. As I explained, Netoholic always protests his blocks, and he usually manages to convince another sysop to unblock him. This has nothing to do with me. You're essentially ruling that the same admin may never block Netoholic twice.

4. I'm not wiki-lawyering. It would have been wheel-warring if I had reinstated any of the blocks for the same infraction. I didn't do that, because I do respect my fellow sysops (despite the fact that the first two violated policy by unilaterally reversing my actions without consultation or discussion). Instead, I discussed the situations with the admins and the community.

Each block applied to a separate incident, and block #1 pertained to an entirely different type of misdeed than blocks #2 and #3. Block #3 pertained to the same type of misdeed as block #2, but the sysop who reversed block #2 had already apologized to me and promised not to unblock again. How was I disrespecting him by blocking Netoholic when he committed the same type of harmful, disruptive edit? —David Levy 00:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Wgfinley

Wgfinley blocked a user with whom he was engaged in a content dispute, and he did so in defense of a user who sided with Wgfinley in said dispute. —David Levy 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, so I've been told.

James F. (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration restrictions' lifting

Where was this decision indicated? I never read anything other than statements that Netoholic's restrictions remained in effect, but were to be enforced only when he was disruptive. This is what Netoholic himself claimed. —David Levy 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

See below; essentially, it wasn't at first indicated in a sufficiently clear way, and that it mainly our (the Committee's) fault; however, the continued mis-application after warnings was the source of the fault.

James F. (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please point me to where this was ever indicated before yesterday? (Note that I'm not defending Locke Cole's behavior.) —David Levy 20:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Continued

Ok, that has gotten to be truly a mess so continuing here.

1. "please learn how to format threaded conversations in MediaWiki; we've only been doing it for half a decade now" - ??? Ok, but... what part of directly under your comments indented one level further in was confusing / wrong?
2. Can't point to something Netoholic didn't do to avoid it being 'harrassment' - Ok, can you point to something Locke Cole did do to make his actions harrassment? To be clear... I don't see a difference. At all. We've got two nearly identical apples (so far as I can see) and you're saying one is rotten. What is different?
3. Weren't getting along swimmingly - When I warn a vandal and they put penises all over my user page we are 'not getting along swimmingly'. I am still allowed to block them though. Right? I don't see how David did anything different. Of course they weren't getting along... Netoholic was doing various things he oughtn't and David was warning and then blocking him for them. That's pretty much the 'job description' of 'admin'.
4. Didn't look closely at Wgfinley - Oh, ignoring my evidence are we? :] Heh. Basically he stopped one edit short of a 3RR violation during an edit war with Locke Cole on Template:Infobox, made some generally hostile comments on the talk page there, and then (the same day) blocked Locke Cole for removing fair-use images from Netoholic's user page... but didn't block the two admins who had also removed the same images that day. Clearly, they "weren't getting along swimmingly" at the time... and blocking someone for upholding policy (no fair-use images on user pages) is kinda questionable even when you aren't in the middle of an active edit war with them.
5. Arbitrator judgement is neutral - I respond that admin judgement is neutral. Obviously that isn't always the case, but the standard for any assessment of 'wrongdoing' ought to be... 'wrongdoing'. Not, the 'wrong' person doing the 'right' thing. David Levy blocked Netoholic for things this ArbCom ruling says Netoholic shouldn't have been doing. This is 'bad' how? Because they weren't getting along swimmingly... which is pretty much a given when an admin blocks someone. Ever.
6. Netoholic's restrictions were lifted entirely not just when 'not disruptive' - No, that is just not true. Your FoFs are self-contradictory on this issue. FoF 3.2.5 says they were removed... but FoF 3.2.4 says he was given permission to violate the restrictions provided he was not disruptive. The latter is more accurate. To quote the actual comments:

   Netoholic is technically prohibited from editing in the Wikipedia and template namespaces. However, several arbitrators (myself and David Gerard in particular) have expressed approval of what Netoholic has been doing vis-a-vis killing metatemplates and possibly creating some sort of exception for that. Raul654 21:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

   If you want a statement from an Arbitrator, here you go: while Netoholic is behaving usefully, he is not to be blocked for a technical violation of the terms of his case. No more needs to be said, and this had been said even before the original request was made. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

   I concur with Sam. If he's not being disruptive, don't block him. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

All three Arbitrators who commented on the matter (the only three) specifically said that he was "technically prohibited", but that an exception would be made if he was not being disruptive. The restrictions were not lifted and thus FoF 3.2.5 is demonstrably false... despite being voted a 'fact' by seven Arbitrators. --CBDunkerson 01:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In turn -

1. This wasn't directed at you in particular.
2. Well, one of them tastes sour to me, to take your analogy further.
3. Netoholic is not, was not, and will never be "a vandal" (as a member of the community he may hypothetically go "batshit insane" and be banned, but that wouldn't be being a "vandal").
4. That sounds a bit troubling, yes. Will look into it. Remember that this is a work-in-progress, and your comments are appreciated.
5. Given that the basis of one of the prongs of the case is sysops having a lack of judgement, well... ;-) For all I care, David Levy could have been blocking Netoholic for posting Goatse on the front page, or magically deleting revisions - it doesn't matter whether the blocks were correct, they should not have been put in place by him. I get others to block people for me, and block people for others, all the time. It's not a big deal.
6. Look, whatever was said at the time, we are not "suggesting", but informing the community of what the Committee actually decided. I was not only privy to, but a part of, that decision, and I think that I can recall what we decided rather better than you can fully understand the nuances of the informally-proclaimed decision from a few brief words that were not necessarily chosen carefully.

BTW, it's "Arbitrator", not "arbitor" or "arbiter" or whatever; it is both capitalised, and spelt that way. Please don't use some other term, when the terms of art are exact and precise. :-)

James F. (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

5. I was thinking of blocking him, but didn't, as:

• I wasn't sure whether his restrictions were still in effect. There was never a clear statement from the ArbCom on this.
• For fear of Netoholic misrepresenting me as "involved" and a "rogue admin". You're just encouraging him with all this. David's comment that he has "virtual immunity from administrative intervention" is an understatement. Formally reprimanding David for his actions sets a bad precedent for all future administrative action. — Omegatron 23:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It was my understanding (and Netoholic's claim) that his restrictions remained in effect, but were not to be enforced unless he was disruptive. Regardless, the rationales behind my second and third blocks would have applied to any editor, irrespective of any such restrictions.

This touches on a big part of the problem. Whether the ArbCom intended to relax Netoholic's restrictions or lift them entirely, this was a modification of the ruling rendered against him. (It brought him closer to normal editing status.) Unfortunately, Netoholic misrepresented these clarifications as permission from the ArbCom to engage in behavior worse than what ordinarily is tolerated. Whenever someone attempted to enforce policies that apply to everyone (and had nothing to do with his restrictions), he argued (and often successfully convinced them) that the ArbCom had prohibited admins from blocking him unless his conduct met a far stricter than normal definition of "disruptive." (And of course, he denied that any of his behavior qualified.) This is what I was referring to when I wrote that "Netoholic usually manages to convince newer sysops that the ArbCom has granted him virtual immunity from administrative intervention." —David Levy 23:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The lack of a clear explanation from the ArbCom about whether he was still restricted or not actually gave him more license to be disruptive than a regular user. — Omegatron 00:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to the 6th item... alright, you say that you have access to information I don't and somewhere off in Arbitorator :] land it had been firmly decided that the restrictions on Netoholic's editing were completely removed. That clearly wasn't the impression which was held by those of us not privy to these external communications because it wasn't "whatever was said at the time". I, Radiant, Locke Cole, and even Netoholic himself believed (and stated) that the restrictions were still in place with an exception that they not be imposed if his actions were beneficial / not disruptive. Thus Locke Cole did not 'misrepresent' the restrictions on Netoholic... rather the Arbitrators mis-communicated them. As you apparently did again in FoF 3.2.4 where it says that Netoholic had permission to violate the restrictions within limited parameters. 'What was said at the time' is all that we had to go on... you state that your knowledge is "rather better than you can fully understand ... from a few brief words that were not necessarily chosen carefully"... but then FoF 3.2.5 holds Locke Cole accountable for things he 'could not fully understand' because those 'few brief words' did not actually say them? Is it just me or does anyone else see the logic-singularity here? --CBDunkerson 01:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

... used, not "abused"

I'm confused as to what distinction is being drawn here. If it's true that I "used [my] sysop powers in blocking Netoholic three times on the 2nd, 9th, and 11th of March 2006, despite being involved in disputes with him both previously and at the time" (which I obviously deny, given the fact that no such dispute existed at the time), that automatically constitutes abuse. How is the meaning changed by replacing that one word? —David Levy 01:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I would sincerely appreciate a response to the above question. —David Levy 20:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)