Case Opened on 20 March 2005

Case Closed on 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Statement by Neutrality

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Currently there is a great deal of evidence on Netoholic in the 172 case. It seems that it would be prudent to split the two, for purposes of clarity and convenience. Netoholic's behavior really needs to be looked at separately. Neutrality^talk 01:20, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Kim Bruning

~~I was going to actually put some statements in support of Netoholic in talk and in evidence yesterday.~~

~~However, I've since changed my mind, due to his calling an "RFDA" on Snowspinner, thereby crossing the line not once, not twice, but three times in a single edit.~~

I since left a somewhat angry message with him to that effect at his user talk [1] , as did UnivitedCompany:[2]. These comments were deleted by Netoholic, and no reply or attempt to adress our concerns was made.

I don't mind when people make mistakes, even quite awful ones, as long as they are willing to communicate. I don't even mind if they don't admit to making a mistake. However, making a mistake and compounding it with a failure to communicate goes too far. I'm not able to cooperate with such a person, since I do not see how that would be possible.

~~Kim Bruning 11:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)~~

After communicating with Netoholic, my concerns have been met. I am also assured that future misunderstandings of the same kind will no longer occur.

I do believe Netoholic still has some things to learn. However -as he has now demonstrated to my satisfaction- he is quite capable of communicating and learning. As long as he continues to do so, wikipedia will gain more from his activities than that it loses. Though I am not the one to eventually decide, I strongly reccomend that Netoholic should be granted the opportunity to continue to work on wikipedia as before⁽¹⁾, provided his future behaviour remains civil as per the WP:HEC norms. ⁽²⁾

For the abovestated reasons:

I hereby withdraw my complaint.

Kim Bruning 10:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(1) Notwithstanding other measures.
(2) These are normally voluntary norms, not policy.

Statement by Grunt

This dispute between Netoholic, Snowspinner, and Neutrality has been going on for at least four or five months now with no end in sight. I've been keeping tabs on the progress of the dispute, and it amazes me that the only thing that appears to be keeping it going is the apparent fact that Netoholic despises both Snowspinner and Neutrality (and vice versa). I haven't even been able to figure out why the three of them can't just get along; they're all largely reasonable people when not being viciously provoked by each other and have been demonstratably responsive to polite forms of discussion.

I have pitched proposals on IRC to have the three of them sign a sort of "ceasefire" whereupon all three of the major involved parties would agree not to attack each other in the inexcusable fashions I've seen recently and to forgive any past misgivings hurled at each other. I would hope that reason would prevail and that this would enable these three invaluable contributors to stop focusing energy into their hatred for each other and instead put it towards construction of an encyclopaedia - after all, that's what we're all here to do.

I still feel that this dispute is the result of a long-running misunderstanding and hope that it can be resolved without resorting to extreme force. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 00:55, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/4/2)

Split/Keep merged/Recused/Other

Recuse. Neutrality^talk 01:19, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Recuse. Ambi 01:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Split. Note that the relevant evidence should be copied, not removed, from the 172 case - the ArbCom can consider anything it feels it needs to and I want to check it over for relevance - David Gerard 01:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
~~Split. Original 172 request has nothing to do with Netoholic's behaviour and should be looked at separately. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 01:41, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)~~Actually, better yet, can we make sense of what the point of the evidence being there is? If it doesn't have any relevance to the 172 case, it should be removed, and we should determine whether or not a separate case is warranted on its own. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 03:16, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC) ~~Split; this seems to be so contentious that we should do something before someone goes wikiwacko. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 22:01, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)~~ Recuse. I've been working at resolving this dispute in alternate techniques and don't think it would be solved by pursuing this case. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 18:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
I disagree with David. Netoholics behaviour has nothing to dowith whether 172 misbehaved or not. Evidence of his behaviour should be removed from the 172 case. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'd note that the evidence includes Netoholic's past conflict with 172, making him other than a disinterested third party as claimed - David Gerard 11:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please present in this request some evidence of violation of some policy by Netoholic Fred Bauder 13:49, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Presumably that's the stuff linked in from User:Neutrality/workshop III. I think it demonstrates there's a real issue here - David Gerard 14:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Recuse. →Raul654 21:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Split ➥the Epopt 11:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Split - The evidence at User:Neutrality/workshop III is very compelling. --mav 02:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

1) For the duration of this case, Netoholic is not to revert edits in the Wikipedia: page space. He should discuss proposed changes on talk pages instead. If he makes an edit any administrator judges to be a reversion in the Wikipedia: page space, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours.

Passed 5 to 0 at 18:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for emergency injunction

Netoholic is exploiting the time used by ArbCom in deliberation by stepping up his acts hostile to the community as a whole. I omit specifics in the interest of brevity; evidence mounts on the appropriate page. I ask for an emergency injunction against all editing within this project, outside of the user's own user pseudospace, until this case shall terminate.

To underline what I feel is a necessary, emergency measure against a dire threat to the community, I offer to share this injunction, and bind myself to its limits. — Xiong 熊 talk 04:44, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point

1) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith

2) Assume good faith. Assumption of bad faith can lead to personal attacks and an unpleasant working atmosphere. This is particularly important in the Wikipedia: project page space, where policy is discussed and administered.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert warring is bad

3) As per Wikipedia:Edit war, revert warring is considered harmful.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

4) No personal attacks

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

5) In general, Wikipedia policies are formulated through wide discussion by Wikipedia users who attempt by a process of consenus to make policies which advance the basic goal of creating a free and neutral encyclopedia. Wikipedia policy is discussed in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and the associated articles Wikipedia:How to create policy, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), See Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#How_are_policies_decided.3F and [[Category:Wikipedia policy thinktank]].

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Wide discussion

5.1) In order for a proposed Wikipedia policy to be considered binding it is desirable that the proposal be widely publicized and discussed and Wikipedia:Consensus reached.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Role of talk pages in policy determination

5.2) In determination of specialized areas of policy, discussion on the talk page of the relevant project page plays a central role. It is important that sufficient interest be generated in the discussion to formulate a valid consensus.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Difficulty of determining what is policy

5.3) Discussions of proposed policy are sometimes inconclusive or involve only a small group of users, thus questions arise of whether a valid policy has been formulated.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Provisional and ambiguous policies

5.4) In instances where policy is ambiguous the solution is more discussion, not struggle through revert wars, assumption of bad faith or personal attacks.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Findings of Fact

Disruption to prove a point

1) When user Neutrality nominated a friend for administrator, Netoholic opposed the nomination [3]. Asked why? [4]; Netoholic spamed all who supported the nomination with the question, "Why?" [5]

Passed 4 to 0 with one abstention at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Incivility

2) In relationship to opposing Neutrality's friend, on inquiry, it turned out that the only basis for oppositon was, "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. "

Passed 4 to 0 with one abstention at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

2.1) Netoholic has in the course of his dispute with Neutrality engaged in personal attacks, see [6]

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Project page concerning meta-templates

3) On February 4, 2005, based on the work of User:Jamesday, Meta:developer, Netoholic created the project page Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, Page at completion of Netoholic's edits. This page raises a policy question which concerns both editing and coding.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Lack of consensus concerning meta-templates

4) Despite Netoholic's best efforts his concerns regarding meta-templates were not adopted as policy.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert warring over templates

5) Netoholic has engaged in a series of revert wars over the form of templates, repeatedly reverting edits to his prefered form with the comment, "(rvt to remove meta-template for server performance reasons. see Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful.)" See pages histories of Template:Wikiquotepar, Template:Wikibookspar, Template:Wikibooks and others.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert warring over templates

6) It is beyond the competence of the Arbitration Commitee to determine whether the considerations in Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful should be incorporated into Wikipedia policy.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Opposition to changes to Requests for Comments

6.1) On March 10, 2005, after discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment (draft user conduct amendments), User:Jguk revised the content of Wikipedia:Requests for comment [7]. The discussion leading up to this revision involved only a few people and did not include Netoholic, see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment_.28draft_user_conduct_amendments.29 where Netoholic questions a major change based on discussions by only a few people. A revert war ensued, Netoholic commenting, "rvt. If this is a good change, it can't hurt to get wider acceptance. See Wikipedia:How to create policy. We are in no hurry." [8]. Netoholic then expressed his viewpoint by a notice on the project page and then continued revert warring: [9] [10] [11]

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Bad faith, disruptiveness and aggressive disregard for others' opinions

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.)

Passed 4 to 1 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship/Old_proposal

8) Netoholic proposed a new policy which would have permitted petitions for de-administership of administrators. This policy failed to reach consensus, see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_de-adminship/Old_proposal. This decision was not accepted by Netoholic who continued by various devices to continue to advance his proposal, including creation of Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner, see page history of that project page and Wikipedia talk:Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Counterproductive interaction with others

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. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Netoholic_2/Evidence#Reorganised_evidence_for_FoF_9.)

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Meta-templates issue referred to developers

1) The questions raised by Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful are referred to the Wikipedia developer committee for their consideration. Pending a decision by the developer committee or their designee the lack of community consensus regarding the matter shall control unless a consensus is reached.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Namespace and revert restriction

Admins: Please read the later clarifications presented below - #Arbitrator responses to Netholic's requests for clarification - before applying these literally.

2.1) Netoholic is banned from editing in the Wikipedia and template namespaces for twelve months, and restricted to one revert per page per day. This remedy is suspended while the mentorship in remedy 3 is in effect, and may be cancelled if the mentors consider the mentorship has been successful. The twelve months is counted from the date of the arbitration committee decision.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Mentorship

3) To remedy his editing habits and interactions with others, Netoholic is placed under a mentorship of Raul654, Kim Bruning and Grunt.

The mentors have the power to, by decree, remove Netoholic's privileges to edit a particular page or namespace, or to ban him for up to a week if the situation warrants it.

They will also act for Netoholic, as his advocate if needed: that if he is expressing himself badly, they will step in and help communication as needed.

If at any time, Netoholic feels the mentors are too restrictive on him, he can change his mind and opt for the namespace and revert restriction in remedy 2 to take effect.

The mentoring arrangement will be reviewed after six months. If the mentors think it is working, they can lessen or end their supervision of Netoholic's editing. If they consider it has failed — at the six month review or at any earlier time — the namespace and revert restriction in remedy 2 will take effect.

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

Netoholic has agreed to this mentorship.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement

Request to take problems to the mentors first

1) During the mentorship, editors are asked to make the mentors aware of problems, and administrators are asked to check with the mentors before blocks that would otherwise be according to policy.

Passed 5 to 0 at 22:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Update

As the mentorship has now failed, remedy 2.1 is now in force. sannse (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator responses to Netholic's requests for clarification

From Requests for Arbitration:Requests for clarification:Netoholic

First

I would like to discuss my status with respect to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2.

The mentorship agreement specified that users Raul654, Kim Bruning and Grunt would act as my mentors. It said also "If the mentors think it is working, they can lessen or end their supervision of Netoholic's editing. If they consider it has failed — at the six month review or at any earlier time — the namespace and revert restriction in remedy 2 will take effect."

Over time, all three of my mentors ended their supervision for various reasons. On June 28th, Kim Bruning stepped aside as my mentor. Grunt became inactive as of July 5. On July 19th, Raul654 resigned recommending an alternate "probation" approach.

What I'd like confirmation is whether these resignations fulfilled the "end their supervision" clause. In the above linked resignations, neither Kim or Raul654 indicated that the mentorship failed, but mentioned leaving for personal reasons or because of the way the mentorship arrangement was designed. That arrangement was flawed because the community was asked to bring up concerns with the mentors directly. This meant that even minor disagreements were propogated to three different talk pages, which lead to a lot of stress.

In short, I'd like to ask to be relieved of any Arbitration edit restrictions presently in place. -- Netoholic @ 18:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic and Snowspinner are actually working together. Holy goodness me! Net still needs to grasp the finer points of ~~dealing with f*ckw~~ diplomacy, but has come to both of us for help in these matters, with good productive effect. A strong caution about dealing gently with policy should remain - but he seems to be getting this point, which is excellent. We each have our strengths and weaknesses, after all ... - David Gerard 20:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Second

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

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

Anyone who is being disruptive may be blocked. Netoholic just as much as everyone else. That doesn't mean you shouldn't carefully consider whether he is being disruptive. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Log of bans and blocks

I blocked Netholic for one hour at 15:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC) for technical violations of remedy 2.1, see 04:08, March 7, 2006 04:08, March 7, 2006 04:09, March 7, 2006 06:54, March 7, 2006 Stifle 15:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]