Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole/Evidence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  removing most of myself from this arbitration request 

message: 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)
thread_title: David Levy's reply to Netoholic's evidence