Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by Neutrality and Snowspinner

Netoholic is a constant disruption. He revert wars on multiple articles with multiple users, makes personal attacks, engages in disruption of Wikipedia to make a point, and calculated harassment and stalking. I request that the Arbitration Committee considers the mountain of evidence aganist Netoholic. Specifically, I would like the Committee to impose a broad revert limitation and personal attack parole aganist Netoholic, if not a significant ban. I'd also like a ban on using bots and editing templates, and a ban on editing the project namespace.

Trolling/reverting/disruption to make a point on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrokenSegue

• January 5
  • 22:54: Neutrality nominates BrokenSegue for adminship, writing: "BrokenSegue has been around for several months, has probably made a few thousand edits, and has made excellent contribs in science and technology-related articles. He and I collaborated on Battle of Inchon, which is now a featured article. An excellent even-tempered contributor. Disclaimer: personal friend." [2]
• January 7
  • 17:52: Netoholic vindictively opposes the nomination with no comment. He has had no dealings with BrokenSegue before. [3]
    • As an outsider I have to ask: why would someone be "vindictive" against someone with whom he "has had no dealings"? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:39, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • Because I was the one who nominated him (he said as much at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrokenSegue). His opposition was purely to punish me (and thus was in complete bad faith.) But that's not the main issue here; the primary cause for concern is the disruption to make a point (see below). Neutrality^talk 01:10, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
• January 8
  • 17:25: Neutrality asks Netoholic "Why?" [4]
  • 22:37: Netoholic responds to Neutrality, writing "Why ask why? And why must people ask "why?" whenever someone votes but doesn't leave an explicit reason? Anyway, my reasoning should be obvious - this person is your personal friend, plus, I have known you to make extremely poor decisions in the past." At the same time, Netoholic spams the page, asking all 13 supporters "Why?" [5]
• January 9
  • 00:47: Michael Snow removes Netoholic's spam, using the edit summary "removed excessive interlaced comments that violate instructions ("responses to other comments belong in the Comments section below)." [6]
  • 01:01: Netoholic reverts Michael Snow, restoring the spam. [7]
  • 01:03: Neutrality removes Netoholic's spam. [8]
  • 01:08: Netoholic restores most of the spam. [9]
  • 21:19: After a 21-2-0 vote, Cecropia makes BrokenSegue an admin. Netoholic and Dr Zen are the only users to oppose. [10]

• March 20
  • [11]: Netoholic makes a particularly hostile opposition of bumm13's RFA, with no explanation beyond "hell no."

Revert warring at Wikipedia:Requests for comment

• March 10
  • 16:07: Jguk replace the header text on Wikipedia:Requests for comment with new guidelines proposed and nominally agreed to at Wikipedia:Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments). [12]
  • 16:11: Only three minutes later, Netoholic reverts, writing "rvt major change to process." Netoholic does not discuss the revert on the talk page). [13]
  • 16:14: Jguk reverts, writing "rv - this has been well publicised on the talk page, and all users have had an opportunity to comment on it - please respect this edit." [14]
  • 16:21: Netoholic reverts. [15]
  • 16:23: Jguk reverts Netoholic. [16]
  • 16:30: Netoholic reverts. [17]
  • 16:34: Jguk reverts, writing "We've both now reverted 3 times! this is not policy! changes have been fully discussed on the talk page." [18]
  • 16:46: Netoholic inserts Template:Twoversions on the page. [19]
• March 11
  • 16:34: After the 24-hour three-revert rule period is over, Netoholic reverts from Template:Twoversions to his version of the page. [20]
  • 16:43: Jguk reverts Netoholic, restoring Template:Twoversions (note that unlike Netoholic, he does not restore his version of the page. [21]
  • 17:10: Netoholic inserts a large banner on the page:

"The current process documented on this page does not reflect consensus. This is the result of a proposal, authored by only 3-4 people, that was not advertised widely. Multiple users have expressed problems with it (see the Talk page and the Village pump), but the author (User:Jguk) has not conceeded [sic] this point and has continued to replace this with his version. Please remove this message when this page has been returned to its previous documented procedure...It is recommended that no new disputes be added until this issue is resolved. [22]

• • 17:13: Neutrality reverts to the Template:Twoversions version. [23]
    • 17:18: Netoholic posts "How did I know you were going to troll your way into something you aren't even part of, just to fuck with me?" on Neutrality's talk page. [24]
  • 17:23: Netoholic reverts (and does not mark his edit as a revert). [25]
  • 17:30: William M. Connolley reverts to the Template:Twoversions version. [26]
  • 20:05: Netoholic reverts. [27]

Revert warring/improper use of TfD on Template:Sisterproject

• January 27
  • 11:23: Itai creates Template:Sisterproject, writing in the edit summary "generic sister project template, to be used at Template:Wikibookspar, Template:Wikiquotepar, Template:Wikisourcepar; akin to Template:Metapicstub." [28]
  • 12:13: Netoholic nominates the template for deletion on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion and puts Template:Tfd on the template. [29]
  • 18:17: Fredrik removes the TfD template to prevent it from showing up on thousands of articles. [30]
  • 21:25: Netoholic reverts Fredrik. [31]
• January 28
  • 08:21: Fredrik removes the TfD template, writing in the edit summary "removed {{tfd}} shows up in the wrong places." [32]
  • 10:20: Netoholic reverts Fredrik. [33]
  • 18:16: ContiE removes the TfD template, writing in the edit summary "revert. the deletion notice shows up on LOTS of articles, which hurts wikipedia much more than possible bad templates." [34]
• February 4
  • 22:50: After an 11-2 vote to keep the template on TfD (including Netoholic's vote), Netoholic archives the TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted. [35]. Note Jamesday's comments in the archiving of this debate explicitly noting that these meta templates are not a problem. Note the lack of effect this has had on Netoholic's edit warring, or on his insistence that he has the developers' support for his crusade.

Clarification:Netoholic's advocate has dug up some relevent quotes from Jamesday. Again, however, one wonders why Netoholic could not be bothered to point at these quotes when asked for an actual developer citation. Perhaps Netoholic is right about these templates - that's not at issue. What is at issue is his failure to link to any of Jamesday's comments in the TfD discussion, his relisting of a template, his insistance on removing a template that survived TfD, and his refusal to have a note that his "policy" page was not accepted policy maintained. That Jamesday seems to not support Netoholic as enthusiastically as Netoholic says, as the quote above indicates, is also problematic. But it's not even the major issue (Hence the lack of a "Lying about developer comments" section). Snowspinner 16:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

• February 21:
  • 14:19: Less than 18 days after the first TfD was rejected by 86 percent of the vote, Netoholic submits the template for TfD a second time. [36]
• February 28
  • 23:20: Frazzydee archives the second TfD, which resulted in a vote of 6-1 (including Netoholic's vote). [37]
• March 1
  • 00:51: After having his two TfDs fail, Netoholic redirects the template to the unrelated but similarily named Template:WikipediaSister. In doing so, he demonstartes a willfill but typical disregard for community consenses. [38]
• March 4
  • 04:36: Netoholic is reverted. [39]
  • 10:21: Netoholic reverts. [40]
  • 11:19: Netoholic is reverted. [41]
  • 11:54: Netoholic reverts. [42]
  • 12:07: Netoholic is reverted. [43]
  • 12:57: Netoholic doesn't revert because he knows doing so would trigger the three-revert rule. Instead, he turns the template into one that saves the same purpose as Template:Wikipediasister. [44]
  • 12:59: Netoholic is reverted. [45]
• March 5
  • 12:51: Netoholic reverts. [46]
  • 23:33: Netoholic is reverted. [47]

Personal attacks

• Jan 28
  • 10:29: Netoholic posts "Itai - you are a fool, and a troublemaker. Damaging articles and adding burden to the servers by fighting over your shit-poor templates is a bad effort. Please stop. You also didn't even bother to check what you were reverting. Let the vote finish, and then we will consider using the meta-template." [48]
• March 9
  • 09:21/14:20: In an edit on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Netoholic writes: "I am currently undecided as to which of you is the bigger drama queen" and writes that "RickK is whining." [49]
  • 14:00: Netoholic writes that "Snowspinner refuses to grant any assumption of good faith, and would much rather wave that "Snowspinner refuses to grant any assumption of good faith, and would much rather wave his big stick" around and knock heads. Policy, procedure, consensus, and civility are not top priorities of him. The worst part is that he has lots of friends." [50]
• March 11
  • 17:18: Netoholic posts "How did I know you were going to troll your way into something you aren't even part of, just to fuck with me?" on Neutrality's talk page. [51]

Evidence tampering

The evidence here is too long to recount. Please instead see the page history of User:Neutrality/workshop III.

Revert warring at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines

• March 1
  • 16:08: Netoholic removes the "beyond policy" section on Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, using a misreading edit summary that says "revert commentary." This passage reads in full: "Policy is not an exhaustive list. There are bad things you can do that nobody has thought of yet, and if you do them, it is entirely likely that you will find yourself in trouble. Edit in good faith, with civility, seeking consensus, and trying to build a NPOV encyclopedia, and you should be fine." This passage is a long-standing pillar of appropriate conduct on Wikipedia. [52]
• March 1
  • 14:26: Netoholic is reverted. [53]
  • 14:43: Netoholic reverts. [54]
  • 16:48: Netoholic is reverted. [55]
  • 17:09: Netoholic reverts. [56]
  • 19:58: Netoholic is reverted. [57]
  • 21:33: Netoholic reverts. [58]
• March 6
  • 05:28: Netoholic is reverted. [59]
  • 10:23: Netoholic reverts. [60]
  • 13:17: Netoholic is reverted. [61]
  • 16:08: Netoholic reverts. [62]
  • 17:14: Netoholic is reverted. [63]
  • 20:29: Mrfixter, a probable sockpuppet of Netoholic, reverts. [64]
  • 20:47: Netoholic/Mrfixter is reverted. [65]
  • 21:01: Mrfixter reverts. [66]
  • 21:34: Netoholic/Mrfixter is reverted. [67]
  • 23:58: Netoholic reverts. [68]

Sockpuppetry

• User:Mrfixter may be a sockpuppet of Netoholic.

Revert warring at Template:Wikiquotepar

The evidence here is too large to recount. Please instead see the page history.

Revert warring at Template:Wikibookspar

The evidence here is too large to recount. Please instead see the page history.

Revert warring at Template:Wikibooks

The evidence here is too large to recount. Please instead see the page history.

Revert warring at Template:Wikisourcecat

The evidence here is too large to recount. Please instead see the page history.

Revert warring at Template:Wikisource

The evidence here is too large to recount. Please instead see the page history.

Revert warring at Template:Wikisourcepar

The evidence here is too large to recount. Please instead see the page history.

Revert warring at Template:Wikinews

The evidence here is too large to recount. Please instead see the page history.

Revert warring at Template:Commonscat

The evidence here is too large to recount. Please instead see the page history.

Revert warring at Template:Wikispecies

The evidence here is too large to recount. Please instead see the page history.

Abuse of policy pages

Netoholic has abused policy proposals by implying that they are "official policy" and citing them as if they where (in edit summaries and other edits to project pages). He has done this despite being repeatedly directed to Wikipedia:How to create policy. The two specific examples of this abuse are Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful (in edit summmaries and TfD discussions) and Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship (on that page and on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

Requests for de-adminship

• March 17
  • 12:59: Netoholic finishes major changes to a proposed process, Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship (RFDA). Netoholic removes the banner that says "This proposed process is currently in draft form. Please address comments to the talk page." To the uninvolved user, the page now appears to be an official policy page, although it not been adopted and more than half the comments on its talk page indicate extreme opposition. [69]
• March 19
  • 22:57: Snowspinner adds a note to the top of this page ("This page is not an accepted part of Wikipedia's policy or function"). [70]
  • 23:08: Netoholic reverts, bizarrely citing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship as "not policy either." [71]
  • 23:11: The notice is restored by Snowspinner. [72]
  • 23:12: Netotoholic reverts, again citing WP:RFA. [73]
  • 23:13: The notice is restored by Snowspinner. [74]
  • 23:22: Netoholic reverts. One minute later, he adds the page to the category Category:Wikipedia requests. [75]
  • 23:36: Angela restores the notice. [76]
• March 20
  • 01:18: Netoholic does not revert, because doing so would trigger the three-revert rule. Instead, he modifies the notice completely: from "This page is a proposal for a new policy regarding de-adminship. Please comment on the talk page about whether this process is needed. This page will not be in use until there is a consensus that it is needed. See WP:RFC to report problems with an administrator, or with any user" to "This page documents a procedure for handling de-adminship. This topic is usually highly controversial, so please comment on the talk page. Please be aware that until this process is generally accepted, even successful requests may not be acted upon." In the edit summary Netoholic writes that "this has already been proposed for a week. the determination now seems to be when to start and whether stewards will act," which is patently untrue.
  • 01:30: Neutrality restores Angela's notice. [77]

Requests for adminship

• March 20
  • Netoholic adds a link to a proposed policy, Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. The latter is a policy page which has not been adopted; upward of half the comments on its talk page indicate extreme opposition.
• [78]
  • And again.
• [79]
  • And similarly reverts RFA.

Misuse of bot

• August 31
  • Netoholic requests permission to use a bot at [80]. =

• September 16
  • The bot is objected to by Snowspinner and Ambi.

• September 26
  • Netoholic objects to Snowspinner's request for a bot, quoting Snowspinner's objections to his bot with links to the objections to make it clear that this is purely revenge. The conversation is at [81].

• October 15
  • Netoholic uses his bot, Netbot, to replace a template with another template. No consensus or discussion had been reached that this was a good idea. This was done in the course of an edit war with Itai, after Itai had started a poll at Wikipedia talk:Wikisource. This was done at [82]. It was also not something the bot was requested for, little yet approved, as the bot was not approved. There are many instances of this in the history of Netbot, all around the same time. Other examples are [83], [84], [85]. [86]. and [87]. At present [88] leads to a big trove of them, though if Netbot is used again it will stop doing so.
  • Itai adds his concerns to the existing request for comment regarding Netoholic. Netoholic removes it, exiling it to a second RfC where the complaint dies off. [89].

• • • A clarifying note: In January, I expressed a willingness to allow Netoholic to use his bot. At the time, I was unaware of the abuse in the form of using the bot to win an edit war with Itai. Had I been aware of this, I would never have supported the bot. Snowspinner 16:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

RfC Hijacking

[90], [91], [92] in which Netoholic, upon certifying an RfC against Snowspinner regarding a specific incident, hijacks it into an RfC about blocking wars and rollbacks. Note that this is in direct contradiction to his revert of Itai's addition to his RfC. Perhaps his mind has changed on the matter? It has been a few months...

At [93], Netoholic makes an astonishing change in his complaint, where, after complaining that Snowspinner blocks against policy, he criticizes him for unblocking someone when the block violated policy. Adding to the irony is the fact that, contrary to his claim, Snowspinner was discussing the problems with the block at length in IRC before removing it. This makes it difficult to believe that Netoholic's objections to Snowspinner have anything to do with Snowspinner's attitude towards policy, as Netoholic is just as quick to criticize when he does follow policy.

Vandalism

• March 24
  • 02:22: Netoholic vandalizes Wikipedia:District Attorney's Office. [94]
  • 14:57: And again [95]

Continued revert warring in the Wikipedia namespace

• March 23
  • [96] [97] [98] [99]: Netoholic reverts WP:3RR four times, removing a note about attempts to game the system be waiting until just over 24 hours to make the revert. Note that for these reverts, Netoholic was the only one objecting [100]. Eventually, Ceceropia sided with him, however the point remains: Netoholic continues to be willing to wage one man edit wars against widespread opposition when he feels like the rules aren't being followed, while, as numerous other sections of this evidence page show, being more than willing to bend or break the rules when it suits him.

Snowspinner is not KingofAllPaperboys

[101] shows the time during which KingofAllPaperboys was blocked - 4:30-4:49. [102] would have, were Snowspinner King of All Paperboys, triggered an autoblock for IP address sharing. It did not.

Bad faith

At [103], Netoholic objects to Snowspinner's 3RR listing of User:John Gohde for using questionable definitions of revert. Minutes later, he lists [104] against Snowspinner, with the fourth revert being of stuff that is several days old. Neither of these would be problematic on their own, but in tandem they point towards one of the major problems with Netoholic - the way in which policy only applies when he wants it to, and how he wants it to.

Harassment on WP:TFD

Netoholic has been needlessly provcative, abusive, and downright nasty on Templates for Deletion. General examples include [105] [106] [107]

He has a particular crusade against Xiong, as shown at [108] [109] [110] [111]

Evidence presented by Netoholic

(because of inconsistencies in the other evidence sections, all times in this one are in UTC)

General arguments

Regarding Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

This page is a wonderful guideline, and one that I have referenced quite often in my dealings with other editors. Unfortunately, it has been called on quite inappropriately in recent times. They key part of the guideline is to direct people not to disrupt Wikipedia. This should not be interpreted such that "making a point" is considered a problem. Doing anything that "makes a point" is absolutely fine so long as Wikipedia isn't disrupted, and no other policies are violated. I think you'll see that I have often done things to illustrate a point, but haven't gone so far as to be disruptive.

Regarding reversion

I am of the belief that it is very difficult to truly adjudicate whether or not my reversions can be seen as excessive to the point of action. It is everyday nature that occasionally users get in situations where there have been repeated reverts. Unfortunately, I myself has run into quite a few warriors. I shall endevour to show that, at all times, I have seeked to use proper dispute resolution processes, including the relevant talk pages, user talk pages, RFC, and further. When the other parties have not joined in kind, and have only a desire to revert ad nauseum, it is incredibly difficult to handle. As I said, I have found myself faced with these users, so I will attempt to show that my actions had reasonable merit and that the other users simply reverted without making similar attempts to resolve rationally. It is unfortunate that the context has been lost when those providing evidence do so in a slanted manner, as has been done in the Snowspinner/Neutrality evidence sections. Please consider my rational and actions as I describe the individual situations.

Ancient history

Unfortunately, other litigants have provided much evidence to support accusations of improper actions I was to have done many, many months ago. This sort of accusation is particularly hard to answer for two reasons. First of all, it is nearly impossible with the current state of the servers for me to go back so many thousands of edits back. Server timeouts and block-compressed versions aside, the shear number of edits is enough to make this task very difficult. Second, there is the matter of relevance. Even if I had violated some policy at that time, I cannot see how it is relevant towards taking any sort of current action or sanctions. I ask that the Arbitrators agree with this and weigh such allegations appropriately.

Civility

I am adding this section because I sense that most people involved may not be aware, or are unfairly not recognizing, previous efforts by me to resolve disputes. While I can't disagree that I have been involved in disputes, I do strive to resolve them in a mutually acceptable way.

User:Ta bu shi da yu

History: TBSDY and I were involved in a dispute which originated from some hightened emotions around one of the 2004 U.S. election articles. At one point, TBSDY joined in on the previous opened ArbCom case, and he and I added much evidence against each other.

Resolution: Simple talking. TBSDY met up on IRC over the course of a couple of days, and talked over our differences. In the end, that case was closed after he and I mutually asked for that. In recent times, our relationship has been very friendly. Just prior to his departure for personal reasons, TBSDY wrote me a very nice message and also made a kind request of Jimbo, and I was happy to be one of many to express regret when he decided to leave.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrokenSegue

Primarily, this clear case of my attempt to make a point, but one that was not disruptive to Wikipedia (see above General arguments section "Regarding Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point").

Too often, during a vote, those on the majority side seek to make the non-commenting voter say something so as to discredit that position. In this case, I intentionally tried to avoid a long debate and simply wanted to vote. When Neutrality singled my vote out by asking "Why?", I replied in part "Why ask why? And why must people ask "why?" whenever someone votes but doesn't leave an explicit reason?" What my action of replying to the supporting voters with a similar "Why?" question did, as I intended, was to humorously show that too often when someone votes and yet chooses not to leave a detailed reply, they are somewhat hounded or put on the spot to provide some comment. My intention certainly was to illustrate a point, but if Wikipedia, the RFA, or even a few users have been truly disrupted, I'd have removed them if asked to. As it happened, Michael Snow removed them and Neutrality himself saw fit to restore them ("reinstate Netoholic's edits - I want everyone to see this", an edit intentionally left out of the Neutrality/Snowspinner evidence section), so I can't see how he can accuse me of disruption. In fact, even when the vote closed and to the present, my questions remained. No harm befell this user's RFA, and indeed, a lot of people did take notice and, in my opinion, fewer "quiet voters" are pestered for detailed explanations.

I think the Arbitrators should consider that only if I had done this sort of thing over the course of several vote pages would this amount to disruption of Wikipedia. As it is, this was minor and isolated and at the time (over 3 months ago now) noone took major issue with it nor asked me to remove them. If It had been truly disruptive, someone at the time would have instituted a block or official warning.

Personal attacks

I am not one to make personal attacks. I certainly do express my opinion and vigorously denounce actions I disagree with. This series of charges do not amount to any long-term problem regarding personal attacks coming from me.

• Jan 28, 10:29: This is probably the only time I've ever specifically name-called. I regret it, and would have retracted it had I been asked to once the situation calmed down. Itai has a history of pointlessly edit warring over some extremely poorly-considered templates. This has been a problem for quite a few months, as evidenced by the rest of the talk page section, and on this occasion, I probably could have reacted better.

• March 9, 14:21: Nothing about this is a personal attack, though it certainly is critical.

• March 9, 18:58: Nothing about this is a personal attack, though it certainly is critical. The "big stick" portion paraphases something that Snowspinner said himself.

• March 11, 22:18: Nothing about this is a personal attack, though it certainly is critical. For context, this was posted immediately after Neutrality reverted an edit of mine. This was completely out of the blue, and Neutrality has not been part of the specific dispute before or since. This revert was done purely out of spite against me, and just to get a reaction - a common description of "trolling".

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner

The RFC is on the misuse of admin rights (specifically Blocking) by Snowspinner. How can my additions of further evidence in that regard be considered hijacking, and how is this remotely a violation of a policy such that it merits inclusion in this case?

Wiping my talk page

Regarding User:Vacuum's submission: The fact that he is referencing a copy of a failed RFC which was deleted should be enough to discredit the assumption that I've done anything wrong in how I maintain my user page. Adding that the outside views support my rights in that regard should solidify my defense of this point.

Template:Sisterproject and related

User:Jamesday has explicitly described that meta-templates in general, and specifically this one, are to be avoided.

From Template talk:Sisterproject#Technical impact of templates like this:
"The developers are working hard to reduce the number of things which can cause long lags of this sort. Templates like this are working hard to increase the number and frequency of them. Please avoid creating a single template which is used on more than a small percentage of the pages on the site."

Every time I reverted Itai's re-inclusions of this meta-template was done purely based on this directive. I trust it, understand the technical reasons for it, and other editors should not ignore it. I am still attempting to frame this idea into a simple guideline at Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, but the obscure nature of the problem and difficulty explaining it are large barriers.

Itai, on the other hand, does not provide any counter-reasons for his continued reversions. For -long- stretches of time, like between like the month of March 2005, mostly, Itai's only edits were to revert these templates, all the while calling out personal attacks in his edit summaries.

My intention was purely to help get out the word about the technical problems these innocent meta-templates have caused. It is very discouraging to have such good intentions turned around and described as being negative.

Evidence presented by Vacuum

Wiping of talk page

Netoholic deletes any comment on his talk page that he perceives as critical, in violaion of the Wikipedia:User page guideline: "Please avoid deleting discussion merely because it is critical of your actions - doing so will only make people repeat the same criticism, and will make you seem like you are ignoring criticism." For more details, see User:Vacuum/Netoholic RfC and its talk page.

Response to Netoholic: The RfC was deleted on a very minor technicality. Secondly, there are at least 6 people who thought that the complaints were non-trivial: myself, User:Ta bu shi da yu who decided to resolve matters alternately, User:Zen master who certified, endorsers User:Shane King and User:Tony Sidaway, and User:Ben James Ben, who remarked that he "found it useful" after it was archived. I would also note that almost all of the users that endorsed his view of the situation had had a valid Arbitration case against them, and are thus likely to be trolls/difficult users.

Evidence presented by Silverback

Snowspinner may have been using User:KingOfAllPaperboys as a sockpuppet. The evidence is presented at [112].--Silverback 21:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Wgfinley

Let me preface my comments by saying that I'm not familiar to any of the parties to this case and only became interested in it because of prior arb cases and what I perceive to be a less than optimal level of tolerance.

Since I originally posted my evidence I have agreed to serve as Netoholic's Advocate. Per AMA Guidelines I am presenting evidence using my own username as a representative of the disputant, Netoholic.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrokenSegue

Netoholic's point regarding "those on the majority side seek(ing) to make the non-commenting voter say something so as to discredit that position" is completely valid. In fact, I would take it a step further and point out that even those who oppose with reason are frequently rebutted or have their position criticized very pointedly, the autofellation IFD vote being the first to come to mind. A quick review will find that virtually every person who has voted to delete it with cause has had their position attacked.

Further, Neutrality is in clear violation of Wikipedia rules regarding Requests for adminship:

To add your vote, edit the section for that candidate. You may add a short comment to your vote, but discussion and responses to other comments belong in the Comments section below every nomination. When voting, please update the vote tally of the nomination that you are voting in. The vote tally format is as follows: (Support/Oppose/Neutral).

The bold emphasis above is mine. Clearly there is no requirement for comments on votes, it states may. Secondly, Neutrality's comment is not in the comments section, it was directly after Netoholic's vote[113] which is a clear violation of the rules. Michael Ward correctly removed Netoholic's and Neutrality's comments to the correct section.

The reason for the rules are clear, in this case Netoholic's vote was characterized in Snowspinner/Neutrality's evidence as "vindictive". Netoholic's vote is his right and it's his right to vote as he pleases, he shouldn't have to explain it to anyone. If Snowspinner or Neutrality want to characterize that vote or attempt to determine why Netoholic voted that way they are making that their issue and not his. I submit they likely knew why he voted that way and only asked to provoke a hostile reaction which they received in the form of what they called "spam".

Netoholic's response was obvious retaliation since no one else who voted without comment had been questioned he was agitated and responded in kind. While this certainly isn't the best outcome to say he wasn't goaded into it would be skirting the truth. Instead of just leaving Netoholic's vote as it was he was prodded and it escalated from there.

Revert warring at Wikipedia:Requests for comment

I reviewed Snowspinner's submitted evidence and found the discussion on the draft to be about 90% directly from Jguk.[114] While this doesn't necessarily indicate implementing the proposed changes wasn't warranted, it does indicate there wasn't a great deal of discussion. In fact, there appears to be only one other person who commented on it, Maurreen. This indicates that either there aren't many people with comments or the draft project was not well known, I would posit the latter is likely the case.

Be that as it may, it appears moving forward may have been a bit hasty, Jguk started the draft on 19-Feb and the incidents Snowspinner discussed as evidence took place on 10-March, just over a fortnight. This is a pretty significant process change so I think a longer period of discussion would have been in order. It takes two to tango (at least) in a revert war, one would have thought after Netoholic reverted (citing his reasons for more discussion needed) there would have been some discussion on it before it was reverted back but that was not the case and the matter escalated from there.

Revert warring/improper use of TfD on Template:Sisterproject

Here is another case of escalation that was not needed. Netoholic had a position on the template and thought it should be deleted, I'm captioning it here to demonstrate:

Created as a sort of "meta-template", a bad process. I agree on standardization, and simplifying the sister project links, but this meta-template will only serve to defeat that goal. Complexity and m:Instruction creep are insidious (see Wikipedia:Stub categories). There is (some) drain on the database when calling a meta-template since there must be an extra read and more computation. Its probably neglible, but as these templates are used on more and more pages, it adds up and is avoidable. Also, whenever this meta-template is changed every page using one of the child templates will be purged from the cache and have to be re-read. This is another avoidable drain.

There's not a lot of vitriol here, he seems to have a position based on his opinions and lays out some facts, what's the point? It doesn't appear he put it on TfD haphazardly or without cause and followed the process. If that process (the inclusion of the TfD tag) creates some problems that is a fault of the process and not Netoholic. What the outcome of the vote was or what have you are not relevant to whether his request was out of line or not and I should note that Snowspinner came in with an early vote, surprise, on the opposite side of Netoholic.

The fact of the matter is Snowspinner has misrepresented Jamesday's opinion:

• He clearly supported Netoholic's contention about the harm of the template.[115].
• Cburnett rebutted Jamesday and he replied, again, in support of Netoholic's position.[116].
• Itai and AlanBarrett rebutted and, yet again, Jamesday replied in support of Netoholic's position.[117]
• One more time, a point is made about the protection of templates and Jamesday indicates accord with Netoholic's position that only widely used templates should be protected.Ibid.

I think the Arbcom can agree that Jamesday is an authority on this issue and as such Netoholic has a legitimate technical point here that is not easily addressed by the community and isn't readily addressed by current community process. Netoholic took the posture of putting it through TfD again which may have been ill advised. However, again, because quick and hasty reactions (removing it from TfD) were made even after Jamesday provided support for his position, it escalated the matter as will be demonstrated further below.

Personal attacks

This evidence is paper thin and if "fool", "drama queen", and asking if someone did something just to "fuck with" them are the worse of our personal attacks we should all be dancing a jig.

The third excerpt pointing out that Netoholic accuses Snowspinner of abusing his authority seems to be the source of this entire case -- a couple of people who don't get along.

Meta Template Warring Evidence

It is important to note the degree of escalation to this point before considering the Meta Template reverts. Netoholic tried to add input on Meta Templates detailing how they were harmful to the servers and this position was supported by Jamesday. Despite this support Netoholic's position is ignored, his requests for deletion are removed in clear violation of Wikipedia process [118], he resubmits them and they are again deleted. He has tried to follow the process and has gotten nowhere. He then resorts to trying to limit the damage by restricting their use.

The rest of Snowspinner's evidence shows that, indeed, Netoholic has been involved in some pretty heavy revert warring concerning meta templates. I would suggest that instead of focusing on the behavior of people it would be far better to focus on Netoholic's gripe, supported by a developer.

He obviously feels strongly on it, the number of people who are aware of what these are and how the technical arguments play out is small, so it appears the process of TfD doesn't work very well to address these issues. In looking at some of the reverts I'm a bit amused by the inflated comments such as "community opinion will be enforced".[119] I would hardly consider 10 or 12 votes to be a good sampling of the community and that perhaps the fault here lies with the process and not the people. A better process to analyze these more technical issues to include people who would be knowledgeable on the subject would be a better solution than going to arb against a user.

Policy Changes

Now totally exasperated, Netoholic believes that creating a policy will perhaps help deal with the Meta Template problem.[120]. Again, he gets slapped down:

• Netoholic completes his original draft and neglects to put a notice that it is a proposed policy, Neutrality writes in large, bold letters that it is NOT official policy (emphasis his).[121]
• BlankVerse has a measured reaction by adding a more subtle notice that it is policy in development with reference to the Policy thinktank.[122]. He even makes some suggestions on revisions. Admittedly Netoholic gets a bit of a bunker mentality at this point and isn't receptive at first, doesn't completely agree with the changes and reverts them (understandable) and works out differences with BlankVerse.
• Jamesday is here again, obviously indicating support for the policy change as he adds a lengthy technical description of the problems being caused by them.[123]
• Policy adoption guidelines have been followed in this case and there are a number of users discussing the proposed guideline on its talk page.[124]. Parties on both sides of the dispute have stated they may have overreacted to stated positions and it appears the policy is moving towards a consensus now, it still has a way to go.

Addendum/Response

In response to Snowspinner's additional statement about Jamesday not currently being an active advocate for the proposal I will let Jamesday speak for himself on the matter.[125]

Misuse of Bot

The evidence is a bit difficult to follow here since the discussion has been archived. Be that as it may this is another case of Snowspinner and Netoholic butting heads:

• Netoholic correctly following procedures and listing he would like to use a bot.[126].
• Snowspinner, quite some time after the initial proposal, voices his objections. He points to no evidence of misuse of the bot at this time nor in his evidence in this case, he simply states he doesn't like Netoholic and doesn't think he should have a bot.
• Snowspinner blocks the bot, a large fracas ensues. In the end all parties who weigh in including Snowspinner and Neutrality agree the bot can be used if it operates as described. If only all their interactions could be worked out in such a fashion the Arbcom would not be bothered with this case.

The fact of the matter is Netoholic did not misuse a bot. He followed the process, that process includes testing the bot if there are no objections while approval is waiting. That is exactly what was done and no evidence has been submitted to indicate this bot did anything harmful. Snowspinner submitted this as evidence citing a position he had in September and October when as recently as January he supported its use.[127].

Vandalism

This was clearly inappropriate on Netoholic's part but, as I've tried to point out, was completely avoidable. Regardless, Netoholic reacted inappropriately. That being said, Netoholic is far from the only person that has voiced concern about Snowspinner's proposed Association of Member Investigations.[128]

Further Evidence of Provocation

Concerning the recent injunction in this case [129] and the incidents of 7 April where Netoholic was blocked:

• The first proposal to move the article in question was make by Milkmandan on 11 Mar [130]
• On 12 Mar Milkmandan removed the request to move the article [131] citing a need for more discussion about incorporating it with another tutorials page [132]
• In previous discussion Xiong had said moving the article to Wikibooks was fine [133]
• On 1 April Netoholic re-tags it to be moved to Wikibooks [134] and points out some well thought reasons for why the article should be moved on the talk page[135]. I should point out again, this was already on the table and being discussed and had been previously tagged as such before.
• Xiong has a rather terse reaction to Netoholic's proposal citing a "vendetta" Netoholic has for him while conceding it may be best to move the article.[136]. I would point out Xiong didn't attack Milkmandan in such a way previously but apparently since it was Netoholic doing it he reacted accordingly. However Netoholic made the suggestion and the change politely and Xiong's response was one of accusations of vendettas and a reference to this case, an obvious attempt to further embarrass him.
• In his vote, David Gerard pointed out his vote and proposal of the injunction [137] is due to: "Netoholic has been reverting even more than usual in the project page space, then maybe discussing in talk: later. This is not good or useful."
• On 7 April at 20:51 UTC, 6 days after it had been tagged for being moved to Wikibooks but after the injunction had passed Neutrality removes the tag from the article (a revert of Netoholic)[138] without discussing it in talk. Clearly this is "not good or useful" and is in violation of the Always explain your reverts policy. Neutrality has not made any previous contributions to the article or participated in discussion on the talk page. While the same could be said for Netoholic's 1 April edit the clear difference is Netoholic did promptly discuss it on the talk page and it was something that was already previously discussed.

While one should assume good faith I believe a philosophy of "trust, but verify" in regards to parties involved in arbitration is a better policy. The evidence is clear that Neutrality had no previous involvement in the article. Yet we are to assume it a coincidence when he reverts one of Netoholic's changes hours after the injunction is issued? Further, Neutrality did not demonstrate good faith when he did the revert as he was not a participant in the article's talk page nor did he add any reason for his revert on the talk page after he did it.

Summation

This is a pretty clear case of people not getting along. However, two of these people are administrators and one is not. I believe that an administrator should be held to a higher standard of promoting harmony and tolerance. While I don't condone many of Netoholic's actions I believe I can see why he reacted the way he did and I believe that if cooler heads had prevailed, particularly Snowspinner and Neutrality, this wouldn't have reached this point.

I encourage the arbcom members deciding this case to look past the vitriol on both sides and try to get to the source of the problems in order to remedy the issue. I hope that I have assisted you in doing that with further highlighting of the evidence submitted.

Evidence presented by Xiong

Netoholic edits in several places to make one point. When he does not win in one forum, he stalks opponents throughout the project, running roughshod over the spirit of the Wiki Way. At times he subverts the system, rather than violating it blatantly.

This evidence is organized first by page, then by date; I ask for notice of date coincidence across pages.

Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates

Netoholic created Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates [139]. By interfering with the collaborative process that matures one user's opinion into candidate policy, he perpetuates the article's status as opinion, yet continues to force-manage it into policy.

• Feb 4
  • 11:04: Created.

• Feb 10
  • 18:50: Neutrality inserts notice ("Note that this is NOT official policy.") [140]
  • 19:03: Netoholic rv notice, with confrontational edit summary [141]

• Feb 11
  • 07:17: Netoholic inserts alarmist language regarding child templates under subsection "Scope creep". [142]

• Feb 12
  • 05:00: BlankVerse edits "Scope creep". [143]
  • 05:09: Netoholic rv "Scope creep". Despite edit summary claiming to "restore very important point", edit marked as minor.[144]
  • Netoholic and BlankVerse edit war over this subsection for several days, including snarky edit summaries ("rvt. sneaky changes to scope creep"[145]) and Talk page comments.

Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates

• Feb 9
  • 10:22: Netoholic links "meta-templates" to vandalism. [146]

• Feb 10
  • 11:18: Itai feels article is too general; creates section "Possible page split". [147]
  • 12:55: Netoholic resists. [148]

• Feb 11
  • 13:20: Itai makes intemperate comment. ("if you wish to make this page longer still") [149]
  • 13:48: Netoholic fans the flames. ("Itai, stop trolling.")[150]

• Feb 17
  • 20:26: Netoholic: "...stop trolling." [151]

• Mar 21
  • 14:31: Netoholic creates section "move to guideline status". Points to lack of recent edits to Talk page. [152]

• Mar 22
  • 05:02: BlankVerse: "The discussion has become moribund here not because there has been any consensus reached...you have taken ownership of the article..." [153]
  • 06:59: Netoholic reponds to challenge while deleting his language of Feb 17 (instead of striking it out, or perhaps even apologizing). [154] diff from last
  • Netoholic continues over next two edits to justify moving opinion to guideline. "Moving to guideline makes for a stronger stance", etc.

• Mar 30
  • 23:15: Xiong (me): Comprehensive rebuttal of this opinion. Rebuttal made concrete by use of a so-called meta-template ({{divbox}}). [155]

• Mar 31
  • 04:31: Suslovans formally requests page be moved into Netoholic's User space. "This is a personal opinion piece by one user..." [156]

• Apr 1
  • 09:31: Xiong votes in favor of move (later retracted). [157]
  • 16:57: JRM votes against move, with another comprehensive rebuttal. [158]
  • 21:42: Xiong retracts earlier vote by striking out. [159]

• Apr 16
  • There has been much new discussion, including a concrete request from Jamesday for emergency action to reduce server load. I (Xiong) found it almost impossible to load this overlength Talk page; I was forced to archive it in order to cut it down to manageable size. I chose to archive to history, summarizing old discussion and providing a link to the prior version. Netoholic reverted this attempt at archival four times, and instigated the restoration of much of the archived comments. As a result, I am again unable to comment on, or even review this page. — Xiong熊talk 04:35, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

• Mar 30
  • 23:49: Netoholic nominates {{divbox}} and all subtemplates. Charges the template was created for Xiong's personal aggrandizement. [160]

• Apr 1 (no joke)
  • 03:40: Xiong defends {{divbox}}. Objects strongly to characterization of template as a personal foible or weapon. Suggests that nomination may be in retaliation for comments on Netaholic's opinion piece. Agrees to delete one malformed subtemplate (done immediately via speedy). [161]
  • 09:19: Netoholic objects to length of Xiong's defense. Within same edit, nominates {{01}} for deletion. [162]
  • 09:23: Netoholic nominates {{Mockup}} for deletion. [163]
  • 10:39: Xiong is entirely ready to remove {{01}} to user space, but objects to vendetta-like nature of nominations. [164]
  • 10:46: Xiong, similar comment re {{Mockup}} -- happy to oblige, but alleges bad faith in nomination. (Something, probably carelessness, deletes comment of 10:39.) [165]
  • 10:56: Xiong answers Netoholics objection to lengthy defense of {{divbox}}. Invites debate on merits of the template. [166]
  • 11:13: Ceyockey alleges {{01}} is a "tool for vandalism". [167]

** 15:42: Grutness delicately links {{Bh}} with vandalism. [168] ** 19:46: Xiong restores "disappeared" comment of 10:46, verbatim. Emphasizes entire willingness to remove trivial templates (via move to user space or creator-requested speedy). [169] ** 19:57: Xiong objects to charges of vandalism, asks for specific examples. (No takers so far). Again invites anyone with an objection to trivial templates to "just ask" for removal. [170]

Template has been deleted, please refer to User:Xiong/Mockup. -Frazzydee|✍ 11:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template: Divbox

• Mar 30
  • 23:40: Netoholic adds {{tfd}} to template. This screws up display of every instance of {{divbox}}, including its own documentation on its Talk page. Also, due to wording of tfd tag, this usage states that text appearing within the template-generated box is generated by a nominated-for-deletion template. (Please note effect of deprecating substantive rebuttal at Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#Rebuttal.) [171]

• Apr 1
  • 02:44: Xiong moves tfd tag from template page to its Talk page. [172]
  • 14:09: Netoholic reverts tfd back onto template itself. Flags edit as "minor". [173]
  • 21:05: Xiong rebuts deprecation directly, rather than revert war the tag. [174]

• Apr 4
  • 05:07: Susvolans rm both both {tfd} tag and rebuttal, restoring original state[175]
  • 05:47: Netoholic rv to Netoholic [176]
  • 06:32: Xiong rv to Susvolans [177]
  • 06:38: Netoholic rv to Netoholic [178]
  • 06:40: Xiong rv to Susvolans [179]
  • 10:49: Netoholic rv to Netoholic [180]
  • 22:35: Susvolans rv to Xiong [181]

• Apr 5
  • 09:54: Netoholic rv to Netoholic [182]

• My last dummy edit to generate this last usable diff link. Please note Netoholic is not merely revert warring. All three of us might be accused of that. He is flagging his reverts as "minor". His skimpy justification is that TfD policy demands this tagging; he has no answer to the charge that this sows confusion and makes the template unusuable prior to its actual deletion.

Template:01

(Please note that I agree this template is trivial and inappropriate for main Template space. When this is all over, I'll happily move it into user space. — Xiongtalk)

This template inserts, inline, the sentence: It's all just zeros and ones!. If used wisely, with subst:, it is a gentle, humorous comment. If used less wisely, via ordinary inclusion, it creates a risk that later edits to the template itself may disrupt other page content. (I am sorry to say I was careless on 2 or 3 occasions -- although here, it is a demonstration. — Xiongtalk)

• Apr 1
  • 09:17: Netoholic adds {{tfd}} to template -- thus causing one of the disruptions for which he deprecates templates. [183]
  • 10:33: Xiong moves tfd tag from template page to its Talk page. Comment on Talk that tag is inappropriate on template page itself. [184]
  • 14:04: Netoholic reverts tfd back onto template itself. Flags edit as "minor". Comment on Talk page anticipates TfD process.[185]
  • 20:49: Xiong re-reverts template, again removing tag (tag still remaining on Talk page). Comment on Talk. [186]

• Apr 2
  • 02:32: Netoholic re-re-reverts; inserts spurious right brace. [187]
  • 02:58: Xiong removes spurious character, leaves tag alone. [188]

Please note: The template was deleted as per consensus at TFD. Please see User:Xiong/01 for history. Full disclosure: I modified Xiong's comment on this page by replacing {{01}} with {{User:Xiong/01}} -Frazzydee|✍ 00:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opinion

Every Wikipedian should vandalize a page -- once. Everyone should get banned for 24 hours -- once. It's good for the soul, teaches humility, and encourages one to experience the Real World for a while, or at least to answer neglected emails. Everyone should wear the black hat for a day, if only to underline the importance of the white hat -- the serious dedication to a free, open, collaborative, scholarly work.

Netoholic is troubling to me because he does not wear the black hat. He does not engage in random blanking of mainspace article pages (so far as I know); he treads the very edge of what is permitted. He is far more dangerous than a simple vandal or raucous edit warrior. Obvious black hats are what they seem, and we can deal with them, however annoying, as a matter of routine.

Gray hats, such as Netoholic, game the system; disrupt, demoralize, and ultimately destroy. Their violations are not always clear-cut; we require careful procedure to ensure we do not react too hastily or too strongly. Such deliberation is very nearly wasted; at best, we can hope only to learn something from the process. Meanwhile, all the resources that might have gone into quality content have simply disappeared into a Black Hole. — Xiongtalk 11:55, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

More vandalism

Carrying the vendetta beyond templates onto a graphics tutorial, Wikipedia:How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop.

• Mar 11
  • 17:46: Milkmandan proposes tutorial be moved to Wikibooks. [189]
  • A few cordial messages are exchanged. At first, Xiong agrees to the move; later, Milkmandan reconsiders.

• Mar 12
  • 10:15: Milkmandan retracts move to Wikibooks. [190]

• Apr 1
  • 09:08: Netoholic tags tutorial to move to Wikibooks. [191]

Evidence restored

I accidentally deleted most of my evidence in order to add the last bit; I've now restored it. Please read; sorry for the confusion. — Xiongtalk 04:52, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Netoholic continues to meddle with templates, but I'm just not going to list any more right now. He has contributed to a recent dispute over the exclusion of a few specific criteria. Note that I honestly believe I am a disinterested, if not neutral party; nothing I've touched is up for speedy.

• Apr 1
  • 13:14: Rich Farmbrough inserts a short notice within CSD, excepting "non-notability" as a criterion. [192]
  • 14:00: Netoholic rv [193]

• Apr 2
  • 04:30: Xiong rv to Rich Farmbrough [194]
  • 11:03: Netoholic rv [195]
  • 16:55: Xiong opens a poll on the matter, on the CSD Talk page. [196]
  • Voting on poll is surprisingly quick, heavy, and strongly against "non-notability" as a criterion.

• Apr 3
  • 01:35: Xiong rv to Rich Farmbrough; explains action in edit summary and on Talk. [197]

• Apr 4
  • 17:24: Netoholic rv (rmv reference to notability,etc. - This page should restrict itself purely to criteria and exceptions.) [198]
  • 22:23: Xiong rv to Korath [199]

Right now, the poll stands at 4-to-1 against, with about 25 voices heard from. I beg the Powers That Be: Whatever loophole this user is crawling through to perpetrate such self-will, please, close it quickly. — Xiongtalk 07:38, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Susvolans

The Amazing Race 7

1. 19:43, 29 March 2005: Madchester reformats the list of race legs.[200]
2. 20:10: Netoholic reverts.[201]
3. 20:46: Madchester restores the reformatted version.[202]
4. 04:04, 30 March 2005: Netoholic reverts to the compressed format, adding extra legs.[203]
5. 09:54, 31 March 2005: Madchester restores the fuller format.[204]
6. 17:40: Netoholic reverts the section.[205]
7. 17:50: Madchester complains on Netoholic's talk page.[206]
8. 04:18, 1 April 2005: Madchester restores the fuller format again.[207]
9. 04:25: LeoTheLion complains about Netoholic's reversions.[208]
10. 09:50: Mo0 concurs with LeoTheLion.[209]
11. 17:36: Netoholic reverts without leaving an edit summary.[210]
12. 17:40: Madchester restores the version supported on the talk page.[211]
13. 17:43: Madchester complains on Netoholic's talk page again.[212]
14. 17:43: At long last, Netoholic posts to the talk page.[213]
15. 17:55: Yes, you've guessed it... Netoholic reverts.[214]
16. 21:00: 129.97.58.55 reinstates the longer version. Netoholic has stayed away for the past four days.

Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Thryduulf

• 03:28, 8 Apr 2005
  • Blankfaze blocked "User:Netoholic" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Reverted Wikipedia:How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop in violation of ArbCom injuction Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2/Proposed decision#No reverts in Wikipedia: page space) Block log: [215] sequence:
    • Netoholic adds a move to wikibooks tag [216]
    • Neutrality reverts [217]
    • Netoholic reverts Neutrality and adds explanatory text [218] note that Netoholic disputes that this is a revert
• 09:45, 8 Apr 2005
  • Raul654 unblocked User:Netoholic (Explained situation via IRC). (block log:[219])

Evidence provided by The Uninvited Co., Inc.

I find the matter of Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship to be of particular interest.

As others have pointed out, Netoholic changed this page from a redirect to a bogus policy page in the course of several edits, with some spelling and grammar corrections and minor adjustments to text by others [220][221][222]. .

Netoholic was disingenuous in purporting to make the page official [223], which was not supported by the comments on the talk page at the time of the edit Note that there had been no vote on the talk page. Netoholic pursued an edit war [224] [225] [226]. in his insistence to make the page "official." Netoholic's purpose became clear when he created a subpage purporting to be a "petition" for de-adminship of User:Snowspinner [227].

Netoholic also pursued an edit war on the subpage [228][229][230][231] to retain its anti-Snowspinner remarks.

I believe that Netoholic's claim that WP:RFA is not policy [232] to be particulary disingenuous, and a hallmark of a campaign rooted in bad faith.

Respectfully,

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Grunt

October 2004-November 2004

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Netoholic details Netoholic's requests for adminship beginning 28 October 2004, which failed miserably (3/28/7); it is clear that by this time a widespread perception of incivility of Netoholic's actions exists. Note Netoholic's comments would appear to indicate assumptions of good faith at this time ("...To be honest, I have tried to mend those bridges...." [233], "...Before this vote closes, I want to thank everyone for participating...." [234]).

December 2004-January 2005

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic was a case brought by Snowspinner on behalf of Ta bu shi da yu. The case was closed because "Ta bu shi da yu, who presented the vast majority of the evidence here, and Netoholic have resolved their differences" through means other than arbitration. I am inclined to believe that this success can be repeated external to this arbitration case. It is possible that it is this case that helped expand the rift between Snowspinner and Netoholic to the state it is at today.

Evidence presented by Raul654

After I mentioned the existance of this conversation to him, David Gerard asked me to copy it here for the arbitrators to see. →Raul654 19:53, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page archive (warning - very large page)

---

Raul - I would like to request, as nicely as possible, that you please stop assuming bad faith in my edits, calling me names (like troll), and showing bias against me. Your recent attitude has done nothing but make me feel very uncomfortable working here, and I don't believe that someone in such a position of respect in this community should act so uncivil.

I spend the vast majority of my time here making very productive enhancements. At no time do I ever make any edit, or begin any discussion on IRC, with the purpose of causing strife. Unfortunately, I got off on the wrong foot with a few members here, and that has been perpetuated beyond what is called for - leading me to try and defend myself from the particularly fashionable practice of "troll-bashing". I look to you, as someone who has the respect of many users here, to help me stop this. If I make a mistake in the future, I certainly ask and welcome that it be discussed with me respectfully. I think I've shown often in the past that I am willing to make changes and come to agreement. In return for your help in stopping this, I will commit to listening more closely to those suggestions and admit fault when I don't.

I really do think that you and a number of other members here have the wrong idea about me, being perhaps jaded by previous encounters. I hope that, with this note, you will see that I am actually a pleasant and hopefully valuable member of the community here. -- Netoholic @ 15:18, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

PLEASE please just stop. Let me put it back in as the proposed text which has been stable since Oct 4th. Even though I've asked you very nicely, you still feel the need to do things just to aggravate. Please stop. -- Netoholic @ 06:02, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

I have requested mediation in an attempt to stop this "cold war". Its my hope that if you're unwilling to discuss with me directly, that having someone facilitate will help. -- Netoholic @ 06:18, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)

---

I've been thinking about how to reply to this for a while (I've been writing this for almost several hours; long before your previous 2 comments above), so here goes. First, I do not assume anything; I judge each edit on its own merits. And, of the edits of yours that I have seen, very many of them looked to me as if it were designed to cause as much conflict and anger as possible. Now, intention is implied by action. What are your intentions, since (many of) your actions seem designed to cause problems?

You complain that being called a troll makes you uncomfortable. If you really don't want to be called one, THEN DON'T ACT LIKE ONE. You say that you do not like someone like me to be uncivil. I am perfectly civil to people who behave properly. You have not been behaving properly.

Further, I believe there are two possible reasons you made this post:

1. You are a user with good intentions who has made some very bad, very anti-social (IE, very trollish) mistakes and has been labelled a troll as a result. You find this label upsetting, and would like to change it; OR
2. This whole post has been made in bad-faith, as something for you to point to later as an attempt to 'be nice' and work with others.

It would not be the first time someone has tried it.

The latter is particularly believable considering shortly after you made that post you went right over to the Speedy deletion page and started an edit war with me there, along with 2 others, by trying to add a policy that doesn't have consensus. When told this, you simply stated that majority is necessary - WRONG! If you were *actually* trying to work with others, after the first time you were reverted, you would have tried discussing it; instead, you edit war with multiple members of the community.

On the other hand, I looked at your user contributions, and I did see quite a few good edits there. I concede that this is almost never the case for true trolls (I certainly cannot think of an exception). As such, I am willing to believe it is as you said - that you made some mistakes when you got here, and you didn't really mean to cause all these problems. I will wipe the slate clean, and treat you as I would treat any other user in good standing. In return, I expect you to behave as we would expect all of our editors to - to be curteous, civil, and when reverted, to DISCUSS rather than edit warring. In fact, I *strongly* suggest you do what Anthony has done and limit yourself to 1 revert per day.

Do you find this offer acceptable? →Raul654 06:26, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, your offer is not acceptable. How can it be when you spend more time in the above response pointing out edits of mine in an attempt to discredit me, levying suspicions about whether my intent is good, and directly saying that you believe I'm a troll because I "act like one"? If you had written the above response and left out all but the last paragraph, I would believe that you were returning my offer in good faith yourself. At this point, though, it looks only like your response above was crafted to address other people who might read it, and not me nor my concerns. -- Netoholic @ 15:27, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

I am not attempting to discredit you - you've done a fine enough job of that by yourself without any help from me. I *am* trying to convey my thoughts on the matter, so that you (or, yes, whoever else might read it) can understand what is going on in my head and why I say and do the things I do. It also shows that I have absolutely no hidden agenda - I'm saying exactly what I'm thinking. And if you want me to change my mind, you know exactly what issues to address. Furthermore, yes -- if you act like a troll, you probably are one -- only a fool would say otherwise.

Now, to address your complaint specifically, you can believe my offer was geniune because I have earned a credible and honest reputation around here. In the past, I made the same offer to Plautus (he refused), and then I said I'd ignore him and I abided by it (until he broke the "cease fire" and began to harangue me on my talk page). So, if I say that I intend to treat you like any other user, you can be sure that I intend to abide by it.

On the other hand, I'm beginning to suspect that it is you who have the hidden agenda - that you want this compromise attempt to fail, so long as it shows that you "tried" (and I use the word lightly). For evidence, I cite your reply to my long, well-thought-out response and offer to work with you with a short, accusitive, trite one of your own that didn't actually address a single one of my concerns. And hours after you made the original post, you went right onto another edit war with multiple other users. Your actions since your initial message have not helped your cause nor have they made you any more credible.

So what will it be? Yes or no, do you not accept my offer? To re-iterate, I will treat you as I do any other user, so long as you start behaving like a reasonable, civil, curteous user, who DISCUSSES rather than edit warring. →Raul654 16:27, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

This response is exactly what I expected from you. More jibes at my character, no concession, and no compromise offered other than for me follow some rules of conduct which you yourself do not.

It takes two to "edit war" - An objective look at the conflict you refer to shows me making a minor wording change as a result of a majority position of support, and no indication any controversy. As the only two dissenting voices, you and Ambi reverted me without discussion, except for the snide edit summaries. I invited you to the talk page first. Even after I capitulated, and wanted to restore the original "proposed" text, you rollback'd me. Rollback is an admin tool for vandalism resolution - using that and failing to explain your reverts is an insult and no better than treating me like a common vandal. This, combined with the sudden appearance of a logged-out user getting involved after you had hit the Three Revert limit, shows a lack of respect from you - all after I had contacted you asking for your help. -- Netoholic @ 18:02, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand, so I'll make it clear here - your character *IS* the issue here. Your reputation is not like a boomerang. If you trash it, if you you throw it away, it does not come back to you.

Now, to respond to your statement (and I note - you have not actually addressed a SINGLE one I have made). Let's dissect what you said:

This response is exactly what I expected from you. More jibes at my character," - I really don't care if you expect this or not. Nor should you be complaining about me making jibes at your character, since you're character (or lack thereof) is the prime issue here.

no concession, and no compromise offered " - no, I am not making any consecessions here. You WILL follow the rules, or I promise this will become much more unpleasant than "snide remarks".

"other than for me follow some rules of conduct which you yourself do not." - as I will show below, it is you who is not following the rules.

"It takes two to "edit war"" - No, it doesn't. All it takes in one person intent on making bad edits (and a lot of people trying to stop him). In such a case, the edit war is the fault of that ONE person and no one else.

"As the only two dissenting voices, you and Ambi reverted me without discussion" - (a) You were reverted by myself, and Ambi, and Blankfaze, and the anon. (B) Furthermore, Ambi and I gave discussion when we registered our objections weeks before. Our votes were the 2 dissents out of 5 total votes. 3 supports out of 5 is NOWHERE near consensus.

"except for the snide edit summaries." - let's look at those summaries. After you added the proposal, the summaries are:

• Me: rv - 2 objections and 1 support does not an successful proposal make
• You: add to case 4 "such that further research and expansion is not possible." (3 support, 2 oppose) at Wikipedia talk:Candidates for speedy deletion#Case 4 addition
• Me: Even if you count the votes that way, it still does not have consensus

I counted up the votes (and I ignored your vote, because it is common not to count the person who makes the proposal) and accidentally missed the one that wasn't indented properly, so that should have said 2 objections and 2 supports. You reverted, because you counted them differently, at 3-2, a fair enough statement to make (some people count the nominator, some do not. Not really a big deal). Even 3-2 is still not consensus, so the policy should NOT have been added. But (I believe) this can be explained by saying that you were ignorant of the rules, which means so far, this is an honest misunderstanding.

• You: replacing text in Case #4... majority is sufficient. Opposition to the Talk page please, until consensus reverses

Wrong! And since this statement shows you obviously do not know how things work, you should not be saying it as if you did. In fact, you should have ASKED on the talk page what the burden is before something becomes policy. "Good" users (IE, people who are not out to cause trouble) would so something like that; "Bad' users (people who are out to cause trouble) would continue the edit war. Let's see what you did.

• Me: No, that is NOT how things work around here. You DO NOT add new policy until you get CONSENSUS of people to support it, and THEN you add it.

Totally, 100% correct statement. Hopefully, this educates you to what the rules ACTUALLY say instead of what you think they do.

• You: rvt. user is one of only two dissenting voices for this change.

Since you are no longer ignorant of the rules, this and subsequent reverts is nothing short of willfull disobedience to the rules and to the people enforcing them.

I invited you to the talk page first. - I notice that during all of this, you used the talk page just as much as everyone else did - 0 times. I also notice that you are the ONLY person who is trying to make this a policy. Everyone else (Ambi, myself. Blankfaze, and the anon) was reverting against you.

Even after I capitulated, and wanted to restore the original "proposed" text, you rollback'd me - if you want a literal interpretation of the rules, it did not achieve consensus, so therefore it fails and is should be removed. However, as I said on the talk page, I am OK with keeping it as a proposal text.

"Rollback is an admin tool for vandalism resolution - using that and failing to explain your reverts is an insult and no better than treating me like a common vandal" - since I did explain multiple times why what you were doing was against the rules, and yet you continued doing it, you have no right to complain about the auto-rollback because obviously explaining it didn't convince you to behave properly. And while you do not fit the literal definition of a vandal, your edits weren't very far removed from it, either. What you did was stupid, ignorant, combative, obstinant, and TROLLISH. And, all of this after you come to my talk page, asking for me to stop assuming you are a troll.

"This, combined with the sudden appearance of a logged-out user getting involved after you had hit the Three Revert limit"- Ah, an unsupport accusation that I used an anon to get around the 3RR. I had a developer look up the IPs I've used over the last week (which is as long as they keep records for). You can find them at User:Raul654/Last IPs - note, all of them use either comcast (for my house) or my university (when I'm at work). This user was probably an experienced user who was editing while logged out, which is a fairly common occurence and does not violate any rules. On the other hand, you have exactly 0 evidence to support your accusation, so I suggest you stop making it.

"shows a lack of respect from you" - we give you respect when you are a new user. We give you even more respect when you have been here a while and demonstrated you are a good contributor. Once you have trashed your reputation (as you have done with such proficiency), you are no longer entitled to respect.

"all after I had contacted you asking for your help." - so you drop a message on my talk page asking me to stop assuming bad faith in your edits, and then you go and start and edit war during which you show that:

1. You don't know the rules
2. You insist you do even when you don't
3. You refuse to listen, even when the rules are told you you in plain english
4. You don't know that old bit of common sense, that when everyone else reverts you, you're probably doing something wrong

...and I assume bad faith? Hrmm... why would I possibly do that? I'd also like to say that this is THE MOST optomistic interpretation I can come up with. A perfectly valid alternate theory would be that you are doing all of this to cause trouble. Both theories fit the facts.

Now my proposal is to set aside the bad things you've done and treat you like I would any other user. In return, I expect you to obey the rules and start conducting yourself as we would expect our user to. And regardless of whether or not you accept my proposal, you *will* obey the rules or you will be banned. →Raul654 19:50, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

You were reverted by myself, and Ambi, and Blankfaze, and the anon. - I'd just like to point out that additionally, User:Bkonrad has expressed his objection to Netoholic's changes on the talk page. Netoholic, you did not and do not have consensus, and now (though I suspect it has always been the case) you are in the minority. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And me. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:33, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps that was a bit harsh. Continued on Netholic's talk page. →Raul654 21:23, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

---

Reorganised evidence for FoF 7

(As per intro: "Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent.")

7) Netoholic consistently tries to push his views through, rather than working with and accepting consensus, using disruption to make a point and revert warring. He consistently assumes bad faith in those disagreeing with him or who have disagreed with him in the past, which leads to a bad working atmosphere in Wikipedia: space and some personal attacks. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Netoholic_2/Evidence#Reorganised_evidence_for_FoF_7.)

[I'm about a third of the way through this evidence page in compiling this section. More to come. - David Gerard 07:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)]

I didn't get the rest put in. But the below appears to have been enough to make it clear - David Gerard 17:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[When reading the response from Netoholic below, do be sure to follow and read each of the diffs in this reorganised evidence and see the picture they paint - David Gerard 00:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrokenSegue: disruptive comment flood [235] in response to [236]; when removed [237], revert-wars to keep comment flood: [238] [239] [240] .

Wikipedia:Requests for comment: after long discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments), [241] is reverted dismissively [242] [243] [244] [245] [246], [247] then another reversion [248]; expresses contempt for process [249]; when reverted [250], engages in personal abuse from assumption of bad faith [251]; continued revert warring [252] [253] [254]

Template:Sisterproject: nomination for WP:TFD: [255]; after deletion template removed (to prevent it showing on thousands of pages) [256], revert war [257] [258] [259] [260] [261]; after TFD keeps template, relists after 18 days [262]; after kept second time, redirection against community consensus [263] then revert war [264] [265] [266] [267] [268] [269] [270] rather than explaining himself; bad faith leading to personal attacks [271] [272] [273] (in ref to [274], concerning The Recycling Troll); note that in the case of Template:Sisterproject, Netoholic was arguably technically correct [275], but insisted on revert-warring and personal attacks rather than explaining himself or convincing others. Long-running revert warring against consensus rather than discussion during related TFD vote: Template:Wikispecies (history), Template:Commonscat (history), Template:Wikinews (history), Template:Wikisourcepar (history), Template:Wikisourcecat (history), Template:Wikibooks (history), Template:Wikibookspar (history), Template:Wikiquotepar (history).

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: revert warring [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283] [284] [285] [286] [287] [288].

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule: revert warring to preferred version against multiple objections [289] [290] [291] [292] [293] [294] [295] [296]

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion: assumption of bad faith and personal attacks [297] [298] [299] [300] [301] [302] [303] [304] [305] [306] [307] [308] ; revert warring to keep idiosyncratic changes to policy against consensus [309] [310] [311] [312] [313] [314].

See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Netoholic_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Raul654.

- David Gerard 02:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Netoholic's counter-evidence for FoF 7

(Please take note that only some of the links provided by in David Gerard's evidence section represent edits made by Netoholic.)

David's central comment, that I fail to assume good faith, couldn't be further from the truth. As a matter of fact, I believe everyone involved in the above edits is doing what they must think is the right thing. I respectfully have disagreed with them, but that shouldn't necessarily be regarded as a bad thing.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrokenSegue: I commented on this above in my evidence section. To re-state, this was a one time occurence, which happened months ago.
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment: One will note that as of today, the Wikipedia:Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments) proposal has not been implemented. At the time, I took much effort to persuade User:jguk to hold onto this for a while. His persistence made this bigger than it needed to be, since, in the end, his changes are not yet accepted.
• Template:Sisterproject : I commented on this above in my evidence section. To re-state, a developer had specifically commented on this and I was editing to support this. User:Itai here is the one that completely resorted to edit warring and negative personal comments - all without providing any counter-arguements to User:Jamesday's. Over many months of his reverts, I let slip one true personal attack. I am sorry for it.
• Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines : Let me point out that David Gerard was a party to this - a conflict of interest. Rather than re-inserting this change, the author should have brought it immediately to the talk page, without re-reverting, as soon as a complaint had been raised. In fact, I did take it to talk (Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines#Beyond policy) and the outcome was a re-write which incorporated much of the idea. David Gerard himself agreed with my final revision of that text, which was a compromise.
• Wikipedia:Three-revert rule : Let me point out that David Gerard was a party to this - a conflict of interest. Rather than re-inserting this change, the author should have brought it immediately to the talk page, without re-reverting, as soon as a complaint had been raised. As of today, David's change is not part of the page, because objections were raised. I have actively participated on the talk page. There is currently no consensus either way on this item.
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion : Normally, when someone creates a bad template, I do not "assume bad faith", I simply regard it as a bad template. Very recently, a new user (Xiong) has become involved with templates. More often than not, his creations have been deleted. Some of his actions, like nominating Template:tfd itself for deletion, have been ... unusual and disruptive. Certainly, one cannot continue to blindly assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary.
  As for the changes to the instructions on the page, those in fact were supported by consensus. I am actively involved on the talk page. The WP:TFD procedures have been in flux since the page began in Sep 2004 and there is not a lot of clear direction for many of the specifics.

Summary

I feel it is disingenuous to say I fail to assume good faith. I believe everyone I've interacted with is here doing what they think is right, but when I disagree with a proposed changed to a policy page, I think it's best to revert the proposed change and bring the discussion to the talk page. Frankly, if I didn't think they had good intentions, I wouldn't bother trying to discuss with them. I think people in general need to realize that disagreeing on a point does note mean that I have a lack of respect for them. In my case, it is the respect I have for the other editors that brings me to the talk pages to try to come to an understanding. I have had good success in many cases. -- Netoholic @ 17:48, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:BlankVerse

Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates

Quite honestly, I was not going to submit any evidence, since I only had one article to talk about, and User:Xiong had already covered it partially in his comments above. I have decided, however, that since the example represents a clear miniature of some of User:Netoholic's behavior and attitudes and his relationships with other editors, it would be best to present a detailed analysis of the events. More specifically, it shows one example of Netoholic's common use of the revert as his first weapon of choice in a dispute rather than one of last resort, and his escalation to insults and snide remarks that often happens, even when he is not dealing with another "difficult" editor.

Major Principles: Revert war, No personal attacks, Assume good faith Civility, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Control of Wikipedia articles

Minor Principles: Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:How to create policy, Always explain your reverts, What is a troll

• 08:23, 27 Jan 2005 Itai creates Template:Sisterproject

• 09:13, 27 Jan 2005 Netoholic slaps a Template:tfd on the Sisterproject template (note: only 50 minutes after it was created)

• 22:50, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC) the Sisterproject template survives its first TFD Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/Archive/0205

• 11:04, 4 Feb 2005 Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful created by Netoholic

• Template:Wikisourcecat 06:11, 8 Feb 2005 Netoholic m (bypass use of sisterproject - Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful)

[315] Netoholic reverts Itai with his first citation of Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful. Since then, there have been numerous reverts on this template by Netoholic and Itai with absolutely no discussion on the Talk page. [316] Template talk:Wikisourcecat Note that Netoholic also marked this as a minor edit.

Although User:AllyUnion later points out a large number of other meta-templates being used on the Wikipedia, Netoholic has remained focused almost solely on the Sister Project templates created by Itai. I point out this sequence to show that whatever the merits of "Meta-templates considered harmful", the primary reason that the page was created appears to be as a "weapon" in Netoholic's revert war with Itai over the various Sisterproject templates.

The following is from the Wikipedia:Avoid_using_meta-templates revision history and from its Talk page:

• 18:50, 10 Feb 2005] Neutrality (Note that this is not policy.)

Since Netoholic had been citing the page as if it was official Wikipedia policy, Neutrality added a notice that it wasn't official.

• 19:03, 10 Feb 2005 Netoholic (this is not policy, but the message is unnecessary. Official policy pages are marked as such, other pages are not marked in any special way,)

13 minutes later Netoholic reverts the message

• 01:07, 11 Feb 2005 BlankVerse (labeled as per Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank + spell-check + some editing)

I added a more detailed message that the article wasn't "official" Wikipedia policy since there were clear instructions to mark thinktank articles, although at that time many of the thinktank articles were not marked as such. At the same time I also did some mild editing of the "Scope creep" section to tone down some of the rhetoric.

I personally had a number of qualms about the proposed policy as worded, although I did agree that there are problems with calling templates from other templates. I thought that the discussion should be covering the full scope of the problems with using templates and not just the narrow area of meta-templates (something like Wikipedia:The use of Templates and database concerns). I also had specific problems with both Netoholic's descriptions in the "Scope creep" section, and the "Use lists" portion of the Alternatives section. I figured that I would discuss those concerns on the Talk page, but I would start with toning down what I thought was some overblown rhetoric in Scope creep section while still trying to keep Netoholic's main points. My reasoning was that having inaccuracies in that area would actually hurt Netoholic's arguments. If someone realized that section was exaggerated, then they would also wonder how much of Netoholic's other arguments were exaggerated (much like Aesop's fable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"). Although I wanted to make larger changes than the ones that I made, I didn't want to do that without discussing them first on the Talk page.

• 01:37, 11 Feb 2005 TALK PAGE BlankVerse (Use lists, not templates and categories?)

Although I had major disagreements with what Netoholic wrote in his "Use lists" comments under Alternatives, I didn't edit the article page. Instead, I started a discussion on the Talk page on why I thought that suggestion was unworkable. In the discussion on the talk page, the database developer User:Jamesday endorses the creation of the various topic stubs (see [317]). Note that Netoholic never responds to my comments about the problems with using lists.

• 07:17, 11 Feb 2005 Netoholic (Scope creep)

Netoholic reverts my changed to the Scope creep section, although he doesn't mark it as a revert, and does no discussion on the Talk page about the reasons for his revision. This is the first and only time that I've ever been reverted on the Wikipedia! Assume good faith, Always explain your reverts, Edit Summaries, Revert war starts

• 07:43, 11 Feb 2005 TALK PAGE Netoholic (?Use lists, not templates and categories?) "Can I ask this... why are unsorted stubs such a problem? Take us-geo-stub, for example - I can guarantee there is noone sitting around saying "Gee, I think I'll see what random U.S. locations are stubs, and improve one". Let's leave them to be happy little stubs, sitting out there doing no harm and not being referenced, until someone actually interested in that subject comes along and improves it. Sorting stubs is busywork."

This reply is disingenuous since I had already explained to him how the topic stubs could be used on 5 Feb and 6 Feb (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/Archive/Feb05#Template:us-geo-stub)

• 13:48, 11 Feb 2005 TALK PAGE Netoholic Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#Possible page split "Itai, stop trolling." No personal attacks

• 05:00, 12 Feb 2005 BlankVerse (?Scope creep)

Almost a day later I did my first revert in my first and only revert war.

• 05:09, 12 Feb 2005 Netoholic m (restore very important point. justify its removal on talk.)

9 minutes after my edit Netoholic does a second revert (marked as a minor edit without identifying it specifically as a revert) and DEMANDS that I justify my edits, even though he had not given me the courtesy of explaining his reversions of my edits!

• 09:36, 12 Feb 2005 TALK PAGE BlankVerse (Scope cree)

I write a short explanation on the talk page on why I rewrote some of the Scope creep section.

• 09:48, 12 Feb 2005 BlankVerse (revert description of Scope creep to less dramatic version)

And then I do my second revert.

• 16:58, 12 Feb 2005 Netoholic m (rvt)

Netoholic's 3rd revert roughly ten hours after the first revert (9 hrs.40 mins)

• 17:00, 12 Feb 2005 TALK PAGE Netoholic (?Scope creep) "There are no exaggerations. The wording may be "dramatic", but this page serves to describe a strong position against the use of these meta-templates."

"dramatic" or exageration? It is only a matter of degree of overstatement of the facts.

• 04:27, 13 Feb 2005 TALK PAGE BlankVerse (?Scope creep)

I add a list of all the parts of the scope creep section that I feel are exaggerated or incorrect. See 20:26, 17 Feb 2005 for my comments on his "response".

• 04:37, 13 Feb 2005 BlankVerse (?Scope creep)

I do my 3rd revert, although it is not a simple revert--I spent some time to write a better version of my rewrite of the scope creep section (see [318] for the difference between the two versions)

• 05:04, 13 Feb 2005 TALK PAGE BlankVerse (?Use lists, not templates and categories?)

my detailed response to Netoholic on why his list suggestion was unworkable, which Netoholic never replied to.

• 07:43, 16 Feb 2005 Netoholic m (rvt BlankVerse)

almost surprisingly, it is over two days before Netoholic does his fourth revert of me.

• 18:23, 17 Feb 2005 BlankVerse (?Scope creep - Since Netoholic never responded to my comments on the Talk page)

For the last couple of reverts Netoholic has been reverting my edits without any reasons in the edit summaries or on the Talk page even though he had demanded that I justify my edits on the talk page, so I end up doing my fourth revert as well.

• 18:35, 17 Feb 2005 BlankVerse (?Alternatives)

And then I add in a short discussion in the Alternatives section on using subst:.

• 20:24, 17 Feb 2005 Netoholic m (rvt. sneaky changes to scope creep , and remove subst: item, since its better just to document the format to use rather than create a tempalte to subst:)

Netoholic reverts both sections (revert #5) and accuses me of duplicity. I give up any editing of the main article page, which is I am sure was the purpose of Netoholic's revert war. Incivility

• 20:26, 17 Feb 2005 TALK PAGE Netoholic (?Scope creep) "AllyUnion's responses are spot-on. Leave this section alone and stop trolling. Feel free to write Wikipedia:Meta-templates are teh best or somesuch. This page is to describe the negatives of using them, and no watering down of the scope creep section is welcome."

Over four days after I left my detailed reasons, Netoholic responds with only insults and snide remarks. AllyUnion's remarks may have clarified some of my remarks, but he never fully refuted them, nor did he comment on all of my remarks (see [319]). Netoholic's reply then was disingenuous. No personal attacks, Article Ownership, Incivility

I don't know how other people feel about being accused of being a troll, but this is the first and only time that it has ever happened to me. Since I have seen how amazingly disruptive and even hurtful a real troll can be, for me it felt like I had been called a Nazi or something just as bad.

Note: I think that he made a very clear statement of ownership over the Meta-template article.

• 14:17, 19 Feb 2005 TALK PAGE AllyUnion (?Scope creep) "I believe that meta-templates are considered harmful if and only if they are not used with the subst: included. Netoholic's example of the stub sorting is valid simply because it's one of the best examples he could find. I doubt that Netoholic would object if every stub template used {{subst:metastub}} instead of {{metastub}}."

• 19:29, 19 Feb 2005 TALK PAGE Netoholic (?Scope creep) "If -all- that a template is used for is to "subst:", then I don't think the template should exist. In general it is much better to document the wikicode for the template "genre" on a project page for easy copy and pasting."

• 14:31, 21 Mar 2005 TALK PAGE Netoholic (move to guideline status)

From 3 March to 21 March nobody has posted anything to the Talk page, and 4 March to 21 March nobody has many any changes to the article's main page. Although few people have participated in the discussion, and there is no strong consensus, Netoholic proposes to move the article to be part of the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. How to create policy, Consensus

• 05:02, 22 Mar 2005 TALK PAGE BlankVerse (?move to guideline status) "The discussion has become moribund here not because there has been any consensus reached, but instead, it is because you have taken ownership of the article and not allowed any changes that you do not agree with. For example, your censorship of any mention of the use of "subst:"....

My reply to Netoholic Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates#move to guideline status Article ownership, How to create policy, Consensus

• 06:59, 22 Mar 2005 TALK PAGE Netoholic "Please propose what you'd like to add."

Netoholic finally removes where he accused me of trolling (but not the one for Itai), and posts what seems to be a sincere request for my opinion on the policy.

• 19:03, 22 Mar 2005 TALK PAGE BlankVerse (?move to guideline status)

Here I replied with some of my ideas of where the policy needed to be changed. Netoholic NEVER replied to any of my points. I also have to wonder since this was roughly one week after the filling of the RFAr by Snowspinner (13 March), whether Netoholic was just trying to look nice. From this point on, I gave up on the page and the policy.

• 09:09, 27 Mar 2005 Netoholic Alternatives - copyedit, reorder

Although I think that I have made it very clear that using lists for large numbers of stubs is an unworkable "solution" that would require large amounts of human maintenance, the lists area is one portion that he makes some minor changes to, including borrowing my mentioning that some of the Wikiprojects use lists.

• 09:12, 27 Mar 2005 Netoholic Scope creep - ce

Netoholic made some very minor changes in the scope creep section, including changing "explosion" to "uncontrolled expansion". Since Netoholic should know from his visits to WP:TFD that the Stub-sorting project is doing a very good job of organizing the topic stubs, deciding on new topic stubs, and keeping on top of the "unauthorized" creation of minimally useful new stubs, this is yet another disingenuous edit by Netoholic. (see [320])

• 12:03, 30 Mar 2005 Pwqn Alternatives - mentioned {{subst: }} for completeness - please do not revert w/out discussing on Talk:

Pwqn adds in a discussion of the pluses and minuses of using subst:. Notice that he begs Netoholic not to revert the discussion without any talk on the Talk page.

To me, Netoholic's Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful appears to be part of a pattern where he uses Wikipedia:policies and guidelines (especially WP:3RR), rewrites or attempts to rewrite policy, or attempts to create policy as part of his tactics in disputes (please also note how this matches the description at Wikipedia:What is a troll#Misuse of process). Whatever the merits of his meta-template proposal, it appears to have been mostly created as part of Netoholic's dispute with User:Itai over the SisterProject templates (and keep in mind that User:Jamesday specifically said, in reference to Template:Sisterproject, "In this case the benefits outweight the costs"). There certainly needs to be a more detailed look at all the issues involved in using templates on the Wikipedia (and not just meta-templates), but Netoholic has so muddled the issues for the momment that it will be best to just start over from scratch. Furthermore, when you look at all the issues involving templates, some of them will go directly to some of Netoholic's other behavior on the Wikipedia. For example, if edit wars are bad, then edit wars on templates are worse (since they affect so many more pages), and edit wars on infobox templates are much worse (since it is very easy to have things "break").

For another example of subverting Wikipedia policy for his own purposes, look at Netoholic's Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Old proposal where he readily admitted he had some admins in mind when he created the proposal, and made this much more obvious when he created Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner. With his top-down, take-it-or-leave-it approach, it is no wonder that this proposal failed even though there were several people who said that they liked the idea although not the particular proposal (see the comments during voting on the [[talk page). If Netoholic had been more willing to listen to some of the suggestions and had tried to modify the proposal to answer some of the concerns mentioned, the proposal probably wouldn't have had such an overwhelming defeat (2 to 1 against).

Another example is the way that Netoholic nominated of a large number of User:Xiong's templates for WP:TFD, etc. Although most, if not all, of Xiong's templates probably deserved to be nominated, it appears obvious to me that this was also intended as harassment of Xiong by Netoholic. Netoholic's actions are persistent enough (and still continuing) that I would classify them as a vendetta against Xiong. That conflict seems to just keep escalating (now Xiong has nominated WP:TFD at WP:VFD!), and both parties should probably be sanctioned.

A reply to Evidence presented by Wgfinley, re: Policy Changes:

I have NOT worked out any differences with Netoholic. There is clearly no consensus on the policy.

BlankVerse ∅ 06:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic's page move from Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits back to User talk:Xiong/TC

Personal opinion: I think that this page move crossed the line. User:Xiong's article deserves to be in the Wikipedia namespace as a Wikipedia thinktank article just as much as his Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful. It is long-winded, and it does cover things that probably don't belong in the article. On the other hand, for those who are visually oriented, it gives a good idea of how transclusion works, and it does a better job of covering the problems of using templates instead of just focusing on the problems of meta-templates. BlankVerse ∅ 01:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Kim Bruning moved the page back into the Wikipedia namespace, but Netoholic reverted that change, violating his injunction. (I'd give diffs, but I don't know how to do that for page moves. Besides, the page history seems to have diappeared during the page moves.) BlankVerse ∅ 01:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I just moved the talk page, deleting the Netaholic move history for that, too. I can vouch for Netaholic's double-movement, though. This is yet another salvo in the Netaholic|Xiong feud. If Netaholic's page belongs in the Wikipedia: namespace then Xiong's equivalent obviously should, as well. - Omegatron 04:17, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

And he moved it a third time. History. - Omegatron 15:30, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Reorganised evidence for FoF 9

9) On Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful (now called Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates), Netoholic was arguably completely technically correct — but he interacted so negatively with others that he actually convinced people he was not. His dismissiveness of concerns even when told directly he was running roughshod over others, his apparent assumption of bad faith, and his use of revert wars to insist on it being described as a guideline (when it became clear it would not become policy) are all examples of interactions that contributed to this problem.

Note: the diffs below are from Netoholic and others - read in sequence for both sides of the conversations - David Gerard 20:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dismissiveness of concerns even when told directly he is running roughshod over others [321] [322] [323] [324] [325] [326] [327] [328] [329] [330] [331] [332] [333] [334] [335] [336] [337] [338] [339] [340];

A manner assuming page ownership [341] (consistent with something being drafted as a proposed policy, inconsistent with his claims in edit summaries of it actually being policy), revert-warring in a manner consistent with this [342] [343] [344] [345] [346] [347] [348] [349] (note noted lack of discussion) [350] (assuming bad faith); when clear it will not be policy, claims it is a guideline and revert-wars to keep this in [351] [352] [353] [354] [355] [356]; assumed bad faith [357] [358]

Claim or implication of no metatemplates as policy in edit summary: [359]; Asked not to do this [360]. Implied (link as edit summary): [361] Template:Wikispecies (history), Template:Commonscat (history), Template:Wikinews (history), Template:Wikisourcepar (history), Template:Wikisourcecat (history), Template:Wikibooks (history), Template:Wikibookspar (history), Template:Wikiquotepar (history)

Evidence presented by Omegatron

Does this count as a reversion in the Wikipedia: namespace? See history for April 26th. Along with some other things, he removed the phrase "A request to make this a guideline failed, and no consensus has been reached yet". I replaced it, and then he removed the entire paragraph.

The notpolicy template says "References or links to this page should clearly describe it as "proposed"." Netaholic is still not presenting it as such. See here:

"These are nothing more than "glorified stylesheets" (in the spirit of Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates), and should be moved into the main CSS stylesheets, if truly needed."

and here:

"The Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates is the directive of our developers."

- Omegatron 19:30, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• I've really had it with Netoholic. I have attempted to assume good faith, but it is clear that Netoholic is a bully who will not be deterred in his quest to impose his personal desires upon Wikipedia, despite community consensus to the contrary. The mentorship arrangement has not prevented him from continuing his war with User:Xiong by unilaterally moving Xiong's own policy proposal page (Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits) into userspace. This is a clear violation of Arbcom's findings. Frankly, I think both Netoholic and Xiong's effect on Wikipedia has been almost entirely pernicious, and the encyclopedia would be better off with both users gone. Firebug 20:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

---

He has moved the page Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits to Xiong's userspace three times, after his move was reversed twice. History of the latest move - Omegatron 15:30, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

To clarify:

• Xiong creates the article in Wikipedia: space
• Netaholic moves it to userspace
• Kim Bruning moves it back to Wikipedia: space
• Netaholic moves it back to userspace
• Omegatron moves it back to Wikipedia: space
• Netaholic moves it back to userspace
• Kim Bruning moves it back to Wikipedia: space

In this instance he violated both the three-revert rule and his injuction for this RfA - Omegatron 19:35, May 4, 2005 (UTC)