Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2/Proposed decision

temporary injunctions

You're kidding, right? User:Xiong has been a persistent thorn in the side of everyone on WP:TFD, and nothing in my interactions with him has remotely resembled a personal attack. This user's behavior has been increasingly odd. Don't assume that because he's very verbose, that everything he says has complete validity.

As far as reverts in Wikipedia: space, none have been abusive and all have had along with them clear explanations and, incidently, been supported by other users. David says that in the last 24 hours, I've been revrting excessively in the Wikipedia: space, well, let's take a look, shall we? Counting up reverts in the last day, I see only four reverts (plus one partial self-revert) on three different pages. Two of them have not been undone and remain, and two were. ALL were either explained in the summary, or if needed, were discussed by me on Talk.

People edit pages, people revert, people discuss. Picking me out is unfair, since I can probably find other people with more reverts over the same periond. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Deliberately provocative edits as a result of this injunction

Below I am documenting the deliberately provocative edits made to pages of interest to me, which appear to have been done solely in light of my inability to revert Wikipedia: pages. -- Netoholic @ 02:02, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

• [1] - Neutrality removes a {Move to Wikibooks} template which I inserted on the Wikipedia:How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop page, despite the discussion on the talk page, and the appropriateness of the suggestion.

Comments

• I encourage you to assume good faith and consider the possibility that Neutrality just disagreed with you. Snowspinner 02:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I only wish that others assumed good faith as much as they ask me to. If he disagreed, he can post on the talk page. Removing the notice was provocative. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
    • I have trouble believing that removing a notice is itself provocative. Presumably the provocation comes because you are not allowed to revert him, in which case I admit to being puzzled - editing pages in a way you disagree with is provocative while you're banned from reverting? Snowspinner 02:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • When the person is a party to this case, fails to explain that removal with not even an edit summary, or even post on the talk page, yes. Neutrality has made many edits just to provoke me, such as with the minor revert war on WP:RFC, as described on the Evidence page. -- Netoholic @ 03:00, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
        • I would assume he looked at the talk page, agreed with Xiong, and figured that his reverting to Xiong's version would indicate this adequately. I have trouble with the idea that disagreement with you can constitute provocation - that would seem to mean that you could chase Neutrality and anyone else who has been involved in this complaint off of a page by editing it. That's surely not the point of an editing restriction. Snowspinner 03:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
          • I am further disappointed that you made a revert in substance in response. If Neutrality's edit was provocative, the proper response was most certainly not to make a provocative re-insertion of your request to move in different words. Snowspinner 03:17, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as an arbitrator, I would be extremely reluctant to count disagreeing with someone as "provocation" - David Gerard 09:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Temporary Injunction & Additional Evidence

Arbcom members: I have spoken with Netoholic since his last posting here and he has agreed for me to serve as his Advocate. I have an agreement from him that he is going to refrain from reverts and will be more measured in his responses to other members. I would submit though that criticizing a position on a template is not a personal attack. I have seen little evidence submitted regarding this point. That being said, again, I have an agreement from him regarding his conduct while you consider this case.

I have also submitted some revised evidence that I ask you to consider before rendering judgment in this case.

Thank you.

--Wgfinley 07:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to David Gerard's Diffs on Temporary Injunction

I just wanted to take a few moments and respond to the diffs that David Gerard listed. In reviewing the evidence in this case it is clear there are a number of users who follow Netoholic about to provoke disputes with him. I am not trying to state that Netoholic has not himself been incivil at times but if you look at the history of interactions you can begin to understand why.

• Diff 1[2] is a response to this diff from Susvolans [3]. This is a direct jab at Netoholic in which Susvolans pointed out the template was useful for him adding evidence against Netoholic in this case. Clearly Netoholic is sensitive about matters concerning this case and Susvolans provoked him here. The sole personal attack is "troll".
• Diff 2[4] is where Netoholic states that Xiong's behavior is "increasingly odd". I don't believe this rises to the level of a personal attack. More on this later.
• Diff 3[5] is another response to a direct attack from Susvolans [6]. He makes an attack of his own stating that Netoholic is "baiting" someone and that he will "fall into a trap". These comments are far more representative of a personal attack than Netoholic's response. I also believe that Raul654 is in little need of warnings about dealing with other members as he does it quite well quite frequently. Again, a clear prod at Netoholic by someone who isn't a party to the dispute and chooses to insert themselves to rile him.
• I can't find much of a personal attack in Diff 4 [7] aside from "am I the only one that reads". Since it isn't directed at anyone in particular I don't see how it is construed as a personal attack though it is an area of opportunity for Netoholic to be more civil which I am working on with him. As the previous 3 diffs show though, he's been besieged by people provoking him.
• Diff 5 [8], while it has some colorful language does little more than accuse another user of crusading against him. I think I've firmly established the reasons for Netoholic's "bunker" mentality and am working with him to address it. That being said, another user referred to this proposal as "absurd" [9]. There is not a single vote in favor of Xiong's proposal [10] and by his numerous mentions of Netoholic in his proposal [11] it is clear that Xiong is engaging in disruption to prove a point here [12] with his proposal. I would point out that Neutrality and Snowspinner in their submitted evidence accused Netoholic of engaging in a crusade yet this hasn't been cited as a personal attack, it's an observation.
• Diff 6[13] is again, another response to another poke at Netoholic by Xiong[14]. This is a case of two users, Xiong and Susvolans taking it upon themselves to unilaterally state Netoholic's submission of a TfD is out of line and removing the tags. Please note in Diff 5 above and the proposed replacement from Xiong that Netoholic did not respond in kind. I don't believe this constitutes a personal attack given the strong wording of Xiong's comment and accusations of "malicious vandalism".

In summation, I will stipulate that Netoholic has been uncivil at times, I am endeavoring to work with him on that issue. I think I have clearly demonstrated he has been provoked an equal number of times and he usually becomes uncivil only after he has been, I believe, deliberately provoked.

--Wgfinley 18:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you feel that Xiong and Susvolans are following Netoholic around to try and provoke him, you might wish to start an RfC against one or both of them (are joint RfCs allowed?). Thryduulf 19:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My current focus is to serve as an advocate for Netoholic and as such I need to focus on this case right now. I am hopeful that his relations with other users can be worked out in other manners of conflict resolution without going to RfC now that I'm involved. --Wgfinley 20:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Injunction broken already

Within hours of the first injunction being placed, Netoholic broke it and is currently on a 24-hour block. Injunctions are placed so as to keep the peace in situations involving those who apparently can't control themselves without a very short leash; I fear that appears to be the case here. I urge arbitrators to pass the second injunction - if Netoholic is so very good at keeping to its strictures (no personal attacks) anyway, then it'll never kick in - David Gerard 09:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My edit was not a revert by any commonly applied definition. Neutrality removed the Template:Move to Wikibooks with no explanation, or edit summary. I placed a signed comment on the top of the page pointing out a discussion on the talk page about the requested move -- I did not undo Neutrality's edit. Noone would ever reasonably use my edit to justify a 3RR block, and such blocks would be quickly undone by people with a more practical standard of what a revert is.

This injunction is not a ban. Do not suddenly pretend that normal standards can be made more flexibly interpreted. Use common sense judgement. I now fear that people are going to block me for reverting vandalism, reverting myself, rephrasing a section of a page, etc. by using looser standards than normal. David's "short leash" is more like a cat-o-nine-tails. -- Netoholic @ 10:12, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

I would, in fact, 3RR someone who found four different ways to phrase "Move this to Wikibooks" and inserted them all, one after another, and had them removed. Snowspinner 12:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

And, actually, as I read the IRC discussion where you repeatedly asked for your block to be looked at, I can't help but notice that a whole bunch of admins who looked at it also said it was a revert. So I think your claim that nobody would have held this as a revert is untrue - especially since several of the editors saying it was a revert (bish, nsh) have never, to my knowledge, been on the "Has a crusade against Netoholic" list. Unless disagreeing with you is itself unreasonable. Snowspinner 12:21, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

As far as the personal attacks injunction - it is completely inappropriate. I admit I have been defensive lately (who wouldn't be), but I despise true personal attacks and do not use them. If I've made a mistake in the past, I have removed or rephrased it on my own or by request. Criticism is different, and is not covered in WP:NPA. Please do no leave this open to more "loose" interpretation, when the evidence shows that personal attacks are a rarity.

I feel the need to point out that these overly harsh injunctions are not based off any evidence in this case. They are the creation of David Gerard, who I have asked to recuse from this case since the beginning because he has a strong negative bias against me and an even stronger bias in favor of Snowspinner. I have to ask him again to consider recusing, and ask the other Arbitrators to encourage him to do so. -- Netoholic @ 10:26, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

You asked me to recuse, but despite me repeatedly saying you had provided no justification when you did so, you provided no justification. In fact, you still haven't - just blank assertions. What was your actual reason? With diffs. - David Gerard 22:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Injunction Issue

I have been contacted by Netoholic as well as David Gerard regarding the recent block of Netoholic for violation of the temporary injunction which passed on 7 April. Unfortunately I wasn't able to speak for Netoholic very long yesterday as I spent a large portion of the day without internet service. I would like to bring a few facts concerning this matter to the attention of the Arbcom:

• Per the Wikipedia Arbitration policy:[15]

An Injunction is considered to have passed when four or more Arbitrators have voted in favour of it, where a vote in opposition negates a vote in support. A grace period of twenty four hours is usually observed between the fourth Aye vote and the enactment of the Injunction; however, Arbitrators may, in exceptional circumstances, vote to implement an injunction immediately if four or more Arbitrators express a desire to do so in their votes, or if a majority of Arbitrators active on the case have already voted to support the Injunction.

• The 4th vote in favor of the injunction was not made until 10:41 UTC on 7 April by sannse. David Gerard is the only member who specified the grace period in his vote. Per the policy the 24 hour grace period should have been in effect untill 10:41 UTC on 8 April as no arbitrator voted to put it in effect immediately.
• While Netoholic's action is certainly pushing the envelope of what would be considered a revert it is not a revert in and of itself as the Move to Wikibooks tag was not reinserted.[16]
• This action was taken at 20:58 UTC on 7 April which is within the 24 hour grace period.

At this point I would like to ask the Arbcom to issue another injunction in this case and that is that all parties refrain from reverting each other. It is inordinately difficult for me to work with Netoholic and try to resolve this in a meaningful manner when he is being provoked. I am not attempting to excuse any of his behavior and certainly he needs to be responsible for his own actions. However, the fact remains I believe there is convincing evidence here of deliberate attempts to provoke him and that should not be encouraged.

I have made further reference to this in an entry on the Evidence page [17] which I feel is a better forum to present this information.

--Wgfinley 15:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your interpretation is not the ArbCom's interpretation. I put 24 hours on my vote to make it not kick in for that time; that does not automatically apply to anyone else's vote. Your argument that it does seems novel, to say the least.

Furthermore, I really am not going to entertain as an arbitrator the notion that disagreement counts as provocation suitable to excuse an action, and I really doubt any other arbitrator is either. - David Gerard 22:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No interpretation is required, on its face it is plainly stated:

Arbitrators may, in exceptional circumstances, vote to implement an injunction immediately if four or more Arbitrators express a desire to do so in their votes'

No arbitrator voted to implement the injunction immediately so the grace period should apply.

Finally, there is no attempt to show this is a disagreement, far from, I think there is evidence it is quite deliberate. I also fail to understand why you would endorse Neutrality's action when you specifically mentioned reverting without explaining in discussion pages as a reason for the injunction against Netoholic. --Wgfinley 22:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All of this misses the point that Netoholic clearly considered himself bound by the injunction and then flouted it anyway. I have trouble with a defense of "The injunction didn't apply yet" when the person in question was acting as though it did apply. If he'd thought he could still revert, that would be one thing. That he thought he couldn't and did anyway is shameful, even if, in fact, he could. Snowspinner 22:34, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

The decision page, on the other hand, puts the 24 hours from the first vote. As Netoholic accused Neutrality's edit of provocation, he clearly thought that he was under the injunction, and so I think the legalistic hair-splitting here is well beside the point - the fact of the matter is that Netoholic looked at the injunction, looked at the revert, and decided that he was going to reinsert the substance of what Neutrality removed under different words. If the only defense you can mount of that is that it was technically within the rules, then quite frankly, the action is indefensible - restraint, common sense, civility, and courtesy were all ignored here by Netoholic.

The issue is not that Netoholic is being provoked. It's that he has come to the point where he views anyone who disagrees with him as trying to provoke him. As for the idea of a revert injunction against all participants, I have to say, that seems rather unfair considering that I haven't reverted an edit of Netoholic's in the Wikipedia namespace in some time, and there is no evidence presented of misconduct on my part or Neutrality's. Snowspinner 16:29, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

The decision page says: 24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed. It doesn't say that will be the case. Such a rule wouldn't make any sense, if an injunction is proposed and nobody votes in favor of it until 3 days later is the person the injunction is against bound by that? Of course not. Hence, the policy sets clear guidelines for the 24 hour grace period and that anything shorter is an exception to the rule and requires it be specified by those voting for the injunction.

Secondly, I'm not the only one who believes the definition of a "revert" has been stretched in this case.[18]. Nor, as you can see, am I the only one who sees Neutrality suddenly interceding in the article as a curious coincidence.

When you are talking about denying someone their privileges as an editor I think pointing out that the person in question may have been provoked is a valid defense and something the Arbcom should consider. Provocation while the case is ongoing or use of the mention of the case to provoke should be seriously considered.

Finally, I don't understand the objection to my proposed injunction. I think in the issue of fairness that parties to the dispute should refrain from editing or reverting each other, that's only fair. I think, for instance, an agreement that all parties going to arbitration agree to follow the principles set forth in the Harmonious Editing Club while the case is under consideration would be a good idea. I find it hard to understand why it would not be a good idea for all parties in a case to keep their distance while the case is considered. --Wgfinley 22:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm a party too, unfortunately. *sigh* I guess I can live with HEC rules for a short while. Kim Bruning 22:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, yes. An injunction is not normal standards of editing, which is the whole point of it. It was phrased as a tight leash and it was quickly voted for as a tight leash. Probably a more productive approach that would reflect well upon Netoholic's conduct would be to show that he can keep to it flawlessly (which would in fact be strongly to his credit), rather than showing that he cannot and apparently refuses to (which would be strongly to his discredit) - surely that's the obvious sensible response - David Gerard 22:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "fourth vote" is actually an error on the policy page. We started adding a delay a while after the new members were elected to the committee - the speed of closure suddenly increased, and cases were closed before all had a chance to check the final form. So we introduced a delay of 24 hours from the time of the first vote (which is also usually 24 hours from the time the committee is informed of the motion to close). If you look a the cases this has been implemented in, you'll see that the first vote is the usual (I think this was the first time we used the method). From the history of the policy page, it looks like the error was introduced with Grunt's recent updates. I won't fix this right now, as it's a current issue, but it certainly needs fixing. But anyway, if we are going to rules lawyer here, the wording of the section dealing with injunctions is worded in such as way as to be a suggestion and not a requirement. "A grace period of twenty four hours is usually observed" (not "is required to be observed") - so not only is this an error, in my opinion it doesn't say what you think it does anyway. -- sannse (talk) 19:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just want to take a moment to clarify my position on this injunction on behalf of my client Netoholic as I have spoken with him in greater depth about the issues concerning the injunction and the revert previously discussed.

First, it is not our position that the strictest interpretation of the rules is needed in every case, far from, we support the Ignore All Rules principal. However, we do feel there is an established precedent and guideline for a 24 hour grace period that Netoholic should qualify under just as any other member would.

Second, and I wish to make this very clear, it was not Netoholic's intention to violate or circumvent the injunction or the direction of the Arbcom in any way. He acted, under provocation, in a manner that he thought would still comply with the injunction while reflect his opinion about the revert. After he was blocked he was very distressed and made some postings here that, upon further reflection, are rather harsh. We ask for the Arbcom's understanding at the frustration this entire matter has caused him along with the repeated reference to this case by Netoholic's detractors as I have submitted in evidence.

Finally, to reiterate our position on the true cause of the matter:

• Neutrality reverted Netoholic without reason in violation of Wikipedia policy Always explain your reverts.
• This very policy was cited as the reason for the injunction against Netoholic.
• Neutrality is a party to this case and was certainly aware of the injunction as such.
• Neutrality had no prior involvement in the article in question before he reverted Netoholic.
• Neutrality reverted Netoholic only after the injunction was approved.
• Given all of the above one could reasonably believe the intent of the revert was to provoke Netoholic and and this action reflects poorly on the community.[19]

With all this said, I regret very much to have to make such allegations against a respected member of the community and an Arbcom member. However, I feel there is little doubt that, in regard to his dealings with Netoholic, Neutrality, on several occasions now, has acted in poor judgment. Such behavior and actions (along with others from all sides) have seriously diminished the ability of the ruling on this case to have any constructive resolution to the dispute. --Wgfinley 00:02, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On "there is an established precedent and guideline for a 24 hour grace period that Netoholic should qualify under just as any other member would" - yes, there is, and he did. As I've explained - the usual grace period is 24 hours from the first vote, as was given in this case. On your other points - for now, just a reassurance that I have read and understood your comments and will consider them fully - I'm sure the other arbitrators on the case will do the same. -- sannse (talk) 22:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if comments from outsiders are really considered appriopriate. I'm fairly new and am not too familiar with how Arbcom works. There are some issues with this case that I find somewhat disconcerting.

I agree with Wgfinley's objections on most points. That members of Arbcom, even if they're not presiding in the case at hand, should avoid direct confrontation that have to do with any ongoing cases. Even the possibility of rasiing an accusation of bias against Arbcom should be enough for individual members to simply stay away from this kind of conflict. Surely, there must be countless other admins to handly any violations. My outsider's impression of this dispute is that it's mostly about politics. Very influential people are upset with Netoholic and he's not really doing anything to appease anyone. I think it's clouding a lot of people's judgements, since the dispute does not give the impression of being all that serious. Even if I feel that this RfAr is valid and should probably lead to at least some sort of parole, I think Wgfinley's objections should be taken much more seriously.

A lot of people involved should try to stay a bit cooler if they're demanding that Netoholic do the same. Especially considering the amount of quite obvious provocations directed his way. Kicking people while they're down is completely unacceptable and should be discouraged by everyone. Peter Isotalo 02:01, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

For the record I don't like having my request for adminship being one of the central pieces of evidence. I don't even know why. It just bothers me. I'd prefer if some other pieces of evidence could be used instead [refering to the two findings of fact]. BrokenSegue 03:26, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember if I put this in or not, but it is one of the few clear pieces of evidence I have found. I guess if it is the only evidence, there would not be much of a case. I am tempted to remove it just to see if that is the case. But I'll just keep that possibility in mind. We need to find a lot more than that to justify any substantial ruling. Fred Bauder 15:10, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry it troubles you, and I can understand how it might. But Netoholic's behaviour on it is an excellent illustration for FoF 7: an example of disruptiveness, revert warring and assumption of bad faith in one package, so I do want to keep it in - David Gerard 00:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advocate Withdrawal

Unfortunately after consultation with Netoholic I've elected to withdraw from serving further as his advocate at this time. I am hopeful the Arbcom will use this as a point of information and not any particular finding of fact in this case. --Wgfinley 20:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talked to my "client" today and appears there was a miscommunication, I will continue to serve as his advocate. --Wgfinley 02:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two suggested changes...

I hope no-one minds my making these suggestions. In the title of FoF 4, consensus is spelled concensus. Secondly, I think it might be better to say juristiction rather than competance in FoF 6. "Juristiction" would suggest that this is not a matter for the ArbCom to decide, while "competance" is a) calling into question the ArbCom members' ability, and b) sidestepping the issue. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the first - thanks, spelling fixed. On the second - This hinges on a technical issue, and not a policy issue, and I have no ability to assess the issues in such a case. In matters of technical detail I'm very happy or the word to be competence. -- sannse (talk) 01:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mentorship note

I reworded the AC's email to Netoholic for tense and person. This is the original note. Please alert us if I fouled up anywhere! - David Gerard 17:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[emailed to arbcom list, Kim Bruning, wgfinley, Netoholic via Wikipedia user page]

I've been asked to email you about a proposal in your case.

The most likely remedies were considered to be a ban from anywhere except article and article talk space or a ban from editing altogether, either of these to be combined with a revert restriction. However, Kim Bruning convinced us that a mentorship for you may be workable, and that your editing pattern and ways of working with others in Wikipedia: space are correctable. So we decided to put it together and ask you privately if it sounds workable to you before putting it out publicly.

The plan for this is to have three mentors: Raul654, Kim Bruning and Grunt. The mentors have the power to, by decree, remove your privileges to edit a particular page or namespace, or to ban you for up to a week if the situation warrants it.

They will also act *for* you, as your advocate if needed: that if you're expressing yourself disastrously (e.g. in the meta-templates issue, where you were arguably completely technically correct, but interacted so negatively with others that you actually convinced them you weren't), they will step in and help communication as needed.

If at any time, you feel the mentors are too restrictive on you, you can change your mind and opt for the namespace and revert restriction.

The mentoring arrangement will be reviewed after six months. If the mentors think it's working well, they can lessen or end their supervision of your editing. If they think it's failed (at the six month review or at any earlier time), you would be back to the namespace and revert restriction.

Note that the three mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. That is, playing mentors off against each other is unlikely to be workable.

namespace edit restriction

"2) Netoholic is restricted to editing only in the article namespace and article talk namespaces for twelve months, with a restriction to one revert per day"

I think that he should be allowed to edit his user and talk pages, and communicate with other users on their talk pages. Thryduulf 18:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, you're quite right - especially given this is a current issue - David Gerard 20:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There isn't evidence questioning my social interactions except within the Wikipedia: space and in the narrow instances related to the Sisterproject template. Certainly, I am quite positively productive within the Template: space, have assisted in the Help: space, do much clean-up of Categories, and participate without controversy in many, many Wikipedia: pages, polls, and votes. I don't do much with Images or Media, so I guess I wouldn't miss that, but then... why would I be banned from it?

Honestly, an editing ban to everything outside of the article space isn't called for, even as a back-up to mentoring. Please propose something which addresses the direct concerns, rather than this. Something like a one-revert restriction in Wikipedia: and Template: pages would seem appropriate. Anything more is just punishment for punishment's sake, without reason. -- Netoholic @ 18:42, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Neto - Remedy #2 is the penalty that ensues if Remedy #3 doesn't work out. Maybe those should be renumbered? Whatever the case, Remedy #2 is the "hammer" if the mentorship arrangement doesn't work out. --Wgfinley 19:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That "hammer" is an axe. Remedy #2 should not be intentionally more restrictive in light of the mentorship arrangement. It should be whatever is most justified in light of the evidence given. -- Netoholic @ 20:29, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Net, there's an Australian phrase: "cop it sweet". It means, there's a time when further complaint will probably be futile.

With the mentorship in place, you can still in fact contribute in the Wikipedia namespace, the template namespace and so on, you can still revert, etc. The mentors are quite keen to help and be on your side in working out disputes with others. You have energy and ideas and they want you to be able to get them across effectively. Really, it's a good deal - David Gerard 20:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The mentorship is a good arrangement. What I'm questioning is why there is such a strictness to the "back-up" plan. Why can't the back-up plan realistically mirror what people have given evidence of, and what the FoF's show indicate? Don't make the back-up plan intentionally more restrictive in light of the mentorship. I see the mentorship as a partnership, but one that either side can decide is not in their best interests. By putting such a harsh option behind it doesn't make it feel much like a partnership of choice. -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

Quite the contrary - having such an alternative gives you a strong incentive to make the mentorship work. Remedy 3 is not a back-up plan; it's the last resort. And, just so we're clear on this, remedy 3 is probably the exact same remedy you would have gotten if the mentorship was never proposed. You should be grateful that the arbitration committee has decided to give you a reprieve, in the form of the mentorship. →Raul654 21:06, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

That punishment FAR outweighs anything given out to others who have had evidence showing controversy in only a few specific areas. Banning me from namespaces which I've had no trouble in, and from associated Talk pages as well, is grossly outrageous.

Let me put this another way... in six months time, or any time before then, you three mentors are going to constantly be under this as well. If for some reasons things stop working out in your eyes, you three mentors are left with the only option being an effective ban on me from the project. How will that weigh on your decisions?

Please don't think I'm not grateful... but I have to ask that if a 12-month ban is what they think is reasonable ... then why are they even considering this mentorship? How can I be so bad in one way, but yet be redeemable? -- Netoholic @ 21:21, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)

O:-) Kim Bruning 21:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee will be open to suggestions by the mentors should any be offered regarding modification of the degree. Fred Bauder 22:00, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

And if 2.1 passes instead, then that would go both ways, I'd be open to extending the ban if they suggested it -- sannse (talk) 00:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Net does have a point. I've supported 2.1 now - David Gerard 00:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Ironically, this "lighter" alternative makes it less difficult for the mentors to withdraw, and consequently gives me even more incentive to make it work. It is pin-point to the issues brought up in the case. -- Netoholic @ 00:59, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

The part about this being about the namespace totally flew over my head, I thought it was the severity of the punishment (as far as length, etc) if the mentorship didn't work out. That appears to have been addressed and endorsed in 2.1 and seems to be much more agreeable all around, sorry I missed your point Neto. --Wgfinley 03:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question for the mentors

Are there any immediate plans to limit my editing (per the agreement) upon the decision becoming final? -- Netoholic @ 00:59, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Not from me, but I will be watching. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:26, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

I do not as yes, but I have not been watching closely, so I don't know if you are currently doing anything that warrants it. A quick look through your last 50 edits didn't set off any red flags. →Raul654 02:28, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Talk with folks and try to get some good advice while you're working. You can trust your mentors, folks like wgfinley and bishonen, and a bit unlikely but true also folks like Sam Spade and Snowspinner.

* As long as you talk with those folks and listen to their advice carefully, then you can count on me, no matter what.

* If you choose to go it alone, feel free! Typically things will go ok anyway, and you'll be showing initiative.

* However, if you choose to go it alone, and something blows up in your face, EVEN IF IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT, I shall personally fit you a new set of concrete overshoes and take you swimming. Capice?

Kim Bruning 17:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One question and one suggestion

First off, the wording of your "Proposed enforcement" has me confused. From the wording, it appears that for even serious violations that would normally get any editor immediately banned (e.g. WP:3RR, etc.), that Netoholic would not get banned until administrators had discussed matters with the mentors. Is that really what you intended?

Second: I personally think that Netoholic's behavior has been serious enough that even with the mentorship agreement (for which I applaud the ArbComm for considering, and I applaud the mentors for volunteering for the duty), that Netoholic should get some "token" ban from editing so that he knows what he is risking if he doesn't change the way he interacts with other Wikipedia editors.

Also, in looking over the evidence, I think that it would be useful for Netoholic and the mentors to come to some sort of agreement over his editing behavior before this RFAR is cleared so that everyone is clear over what is expected of Netoholic. One suggestion: Netoholic should think about becoming a member of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, and even if he doesn't, he should edit as if he was a member. One revert/page/day (except for vandalism). No second reverts without discussion on the article's talk page. Clearly labeling all reverts. Calling anyone a troll should be verboten. BlankVerse ∅ 08:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The enforcement aspect is phrased as a request for that reason - so that if an admin does block Net for a blockable policy violation, there's no comeback on that admin. But if Net revert-wars, for instance, I think we can reasonably assume that his mentors will deal with it suitably.

I'm pretty sure Net appreciates that this is a gift from the angels. Also, see above section chatting with Raul and Grunt.

I think with these three mentors, they (1) really do want to get Netoholic working well with others (the carrot) and (2) will deal with problems effectively (the stick). Think of it as "you have three psychic mothers checking on you." - David Gerard 10:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quite honestly, in Netoholic's arguing above, it appears obvious to me that he still doesn't see how seriously disruptive he has been for a very long time on the Wikipedia. Just the fact that the ArbComm hasn't considered any lesser penalties should have made it plain to him how serious the ArbComm has considered his behavior. He's been able to survive two RFC's, one RFM, and a previous RFAR without any serious consequences, but finally some action is being taken. Besides, there is plenty of more evidence that I could have added to the case, but I just haven't had the spare time to do it (not anything that I've been involved in, but just more actions of his that I've stumbled upon as I've explored the Wikipedia).

If Netoholic and his mentors really want to show that this will work, then they can work together to try to resolve the problems with User:Xiong. He had already shown that he could be a little excitable (witness his China-naming ultimatum Xiong's last word). But after Xiong's comments at Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates it looks to me as if Netoholic went through Xiong's User Contributions to find ways to attack him. Witness Netholic's actions with multiple TFD nominations, the revert war with Xiong's Photoshop article, etc. Netoholic's actions made have been within Wikipedia policy, but I seriously doubt that they were made in good faith. Even while this RFAR has been active and Netoholic has been under a Wikipedia namespace no revert injunction, he has reverted at least one Xiong-created Template article multiple times without any Talk page discussion (see Template:Tilde history and Template talk:Tilde). Currently Xiong is the subject of two RFC's (one of them started by Netoholic), and the odds are that at least one person will end up filing a RFAR against Xiong.

My personal opinion is that if Netoholic had been able to find a similar way to attack my edits on the Wikipedia, that I would also have received a similiar sort of attack by him because of my comments and edits at Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates and Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates. BlankVerse ∅ 11:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your last paragraph is the key to this entire thing. I freely admit that, upon seeing that Xiong is chronically bad at creating bad templates, I did go through his contributions in that space and nominated those I felt do not belong. Trust me when I say this is not the first time I've done this, nor is it the first time anyone else has. For whatever reasons, bad template creations or changes tend to come in "runs" from certain users. Especially with regards to templates, which are quite obscure compared to articles, it is only due diligence to keep an eye out for unnecessary ones. When one user demonstrates that his ideas for the Template space are poor on average, such as Xiong's, then I do not feel bad nominating them. Why Xiong feels this is a "vendetta", I can't say, but he has been showing that he has an even worse time working with other editors than I do (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong).

I have not "attacked" your edits, because that's not what I do. I think you do pretty well editing. I also, before Xiong disruption on Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates, was actively encouraging your participation and trying to work in all the feedback from you and others. I think you're blowing my history on Wikipedia way out of proportion and failing to judge it impartially, though I see your viewpoint on some items. I've approached you before to find ways to get you to stop berating me, so please take that under consideration. Perhaps if you talk with my mentors, that would help. -- Netoholic @ 14:44, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

BlankVerse, when you're down to saying you're convinced that you "would also have received a similiar sort of attack" by Netoholic, if he had had any reason to attack you, isn't it time to stop? I do believe your suggestions and criticisms are made in good faith and not vindictively, but I just find it hard to believe that this experiment will benefit from them. A lot of people are going to put a lot of work into it, Neto most of all (well, I think so—I get a different message from what he writes on this page than you do). Can't you let it go, now that the case has come so far, stop insisting that Netoholic mustn't get to keep any dignity, and have a little hope? Bishonen | talk 15:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Believe me when I say that I want to see this solution work. I had even thought of proposing a similar solution early on in this RFAR, except that I couldn't see anyone wanting to act as a mentor for Netoholic. I greatly admire the three mentors who have volunteered—especially since User:Raul654 had already tried to work with Netoholic unsuccessfully (based on his evidence and his comments regarding during the Netoholic/Raul654 RFM), and User:Kim Bruning had tried to work with Netoholic and was ignored (based on his comments as an involved party in this RFAR).

I am worried, however, about the success of this proposed solution since Netoholic seems to want to "lawyer" matters to the bitter end. I also think that he is still making excuses for himself, and he refuses to acknowledge some of his disruptive behavior (e.g. his reverts of my edits of Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates were definately "attacks", as well as his calling me a troll). I also have to admit that I am bothered by the fact that Netoholic doesn't seem to show any repentance for his disruptive behavior.

Still, I wish the best of luck to Netoholic's three mentors and I hope that this will work out for the best for everyone that has been involved. If any of the mentors wish to contact me, there is my talk page, and my email contact is enabled as well. BlankVerse ∅ 10:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

My Personal Thanks On This Case

I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to a lot of people regarding this case. A couple of weeks ago I was fairly certain there was absolutely no good that could come from the decision in this case and I am glad those fears were proven premature. I'm hopeful that plea had something to do with this decision and even if it didn't I don't really care, what's important to me is how this affects Neto, I'm not looking for accolades.

I believe this case has done a complete 180 -- it's gone from what I've described above to perhaps one of the best Arbcom decisions ever rendered (if adopted). It acknowledges the issues, it has gone "outside of the box" for a solution to those issues and it has strived to find the real meaning behind the actions. It's thoughtful, creative, and I believe, visionary. In fact, it's led me to believe that something we need on Wikipedia is an association of mentors where more cases like these can be referred to if that is found to be something useful. It would also be a great place for new users to get started when they're first embarking on their journey.

So, I would like to thank all the Arbcom members, whether you recused or not (as I have had conversations with some of you that did), for their thoughtful deliberation of this matter. I know you have a thankless job, serving on a school board for two years I have an idea of what that feels like because, like you, school board members in my state are not paid. This was my first official case as an advocate before the Arbcom so I am hopeful I made a good impression although I'm certain I made some rookie mistakes.

Secondly, I have to thank kim_bruning who started out as someone who enjoined in the case against Neto and has demonstrated in many many conversations since that he is someone who believes in the inherent good in most people and that there's always something that can be done to turn things around for people if they try.

Finally, I want to thank everyone who took a moment to give Neto the benefit of the doubt and tried to look deeper in this case beyond the initial reaction. I think Neto is very intelligent and thoughtful and is frequently misunderstood. I'm hopeful the remedies in this case will help him not only on Wikipedia but in life. What we do here on Wikipedia, I think, is on the cutting edge of human interaction on the net. It's based on a belief that with everyone given the freedom to edit as he/she chooses the best results can be achieved. Sure, sometimes it needs some help along the way and that's why we have policies, guidelines and processes. But even all of those things are born out of that philosophy of freedom. I'm hopeful that a lot of people will take a step back and look at this case, where it started out and where it has gone, and relate that to their beliefs about our community in general. --Wgfinley 19:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent Injunction violation

As I have pointed out on the evidence page, Netoholic has been reverting in the Wikipedia namespace in violation of the temporary injunction. The fact that the reverts are a continuation of his bullying of User:Xiong, and that one was a revert of User:Kim Bruning, one of his mentors, (after Kim asked Netoholic NOT to revert—see Netoholic's Talk page) should also be considered in this matter. BlankVerse ∅ 01:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The case is closed now, but I imagine his mentors will rapidly take to not tolerating this. Snowspinner 02:21, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

The necessary votes for closure are there, but the Final Decision has not been recorded. I still count it as a violation that requires a 24 hr. ban. I'll "lawyer" this as well as Netoholic can. BlankVerse ∅ 02:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Eh. Why fan the flames. Snowspinner 02:47, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

It is Netoholic who is fanning the flames of his dispute with Xiong. If Neto would just quit getting into revert wars, there would be nothing to report (and this RFAR would never have happened, and Netoholic would probably have become an Admin). BlankVerse ∅ 03:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion on whether my move decision was correct or not, I did discuss it on the talk page. And page moves have never been considered a revert. -- Netoholic @ 02:51, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

You did discuss on the talk page, but didn't wait for anyone to respond before you did the move. And then you didn't do any discussion before the later page move.

A page move has the same effect as a revert in many cases (like this one, for example), so you are just trying to find a loophole. There is only one rule that you should be following, Use Common Sense, but that seems to be lacking. BlankVerse ∅ 03:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I was explaining stuff to Netoholic and we were moving stuff around. We'll get it right. Sorry to disturb. Kim Bruning 03:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)