Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole

message: I am concerned that this has been opened as a request for arbitration concerning only Locke Cole. While Netoholic brought the original complaint, everyone making statements in this matter has referred to Netoholic's behavior. Is it the intention of the Arbcomm to have a separate RfC/RfAr discussing Netoholic's behavior? If not, I suggest we change the name to something a little more appropriate. ... aa:talk 12:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focus of discussion 

message: Not only have edits on my part been brought up, but they have been characterized by Netoholic. I don't feel that (in the present scope of this discussion) I am involved. As such, I don't feel it is appropriate for me to add comments or "evidence" to this discussion. However, Netoholic will use such characterizations in the future if nobody removes them. "Well, this edit from years ago shows you were moving articles in bad faith back then." 
I think the scope of this discussion needs to be widened, or the bystanders need to be 100% removed from it. I do not need to be mentioned by name in this discussion at all, and nor do my actions need to be characterized in this discussion as I am an unrelated, uninvolved party. If that is not the case, we need to make that very clear.  ... aa:talk 20:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, I don't think you are involved... but in order to prove my assertions about Locke, I have to describe the situation up to the point he became involved.  I'll review my section to see if I can balance your concern in with my needs. -- Netoholic @ 20:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as I cannot edit your comments here, I would like it if you would take it upon yourself to edit your own comments. I think I made a good effort to make the edits I made (wrongly) to your "Evidence" section as neutral (to the conflict between you and I) as possible. Again, I'm looking to follow your lead here. Already we've had at least a couple reverts in this case, it's not looking good. Please try to take the lead here. ... aa:talk 05:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments regarding myself 

message: I have changed the name of my wiki account from "Adrian Buehlmann" to "Ligulem" (, ). Best regards, --Ligulem 08:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username change 

message: Tim Starling started work to replace  with a native mediawiki construct: ,  and this. --Ligulem 11:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematical expressions and conditional constructs 

message: I just noticed something.  The finding of fact says 
* "However, Netoholic has indeed subsequently caused disruption in his editing in the Wikipedia and Template namespaces."
but the remedy:
* "banned from editing in the template namespace for one year"
does not include the Wikipedia namespace.  Was this overlooked or was it intentional?  I don't see any discussion about it either way. — Omegatron 18:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Namespaces 

message: It's been nearly seven years since this case was before ArbCom and I think we're well past the point where our interactions could cause us problems. I request that the committee remove the interaction ban and the enforcement provision. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: @Netoholic: The precursor to this amendment request was ending up on your talk page and wanting to apologize, then realizing we still had an ages old interaction ban. Hopefully interacting here is safe. The primary point of our dispute has long since been settled, and without either of our involvement really. For my part in it though, I do apologize and wish you well. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

text: @Arbitrators: I respect Netoholic's feelings, especially considering what we went through. I'd also like to think we've both matured over the past seven years. I'm also aware that, in the unlikely (and really, in my view, impossible) scenario that he and I were to "lock horns" again over something, this committee would be within its rights to re-establish these restrictions (and likely enact some punitive punishment for having put their faith in us). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Locke Cole 

message: The "Editor Interaction Analyzer" shows an exceedingly unlikely chance of interacting badly IMO.  Zero articles in common in over five years ...   how long is needed? Collect (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Collect 

message: Having read Locke_Cole's reply, I think it'd be fine to just reduce this to an informal understanding as suggested by Carcharoth and Newyorkbrad.   -- Netoholic @ 06:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Netoholic 

message: : This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
:* Could a clerk please notify Netoholic, as the other 50% of the interaction ban, about this? Many thanks in advance,  Roger Davies talk 07:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Received notice, and thank you. -- Netoholic @ 05:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: * Well, if Netoholic is also okay with the i-ban going, I wouldn't stand in your way. Probably best now to see what they have to say,  Roger Davies talk
:* @Locke Cole: we have Netoholic's answer now. I'd likely oppose removing the i-ban.  Roger Davies talk 12:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: * Decline at this time. AGK [•] 18:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion