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

message: You're kidding, right?  User:Xiong has been a persistent thorn in the side of everyone on WP:TFD, and nothing in my interactions with him has remotely resembled a personal attack.  This user's behavior has been increasingly odd.  Don't assume that because he's very verbose, that everything he says has complete validity.
As far as reverts in Wikipedia: space, none have been abusive and all have had along with them clear explanations and, incidently, been supported by other users.  David says that in the last 24 hours, I've been revrting excessively in the Wikipedia: space, well, let's take a look, shall we?  Counting up reverts in the last day, I see only four reverts (plus one partial self-revert) on three different pages.  Two of them have not been undone and remain, and two were.  ALL were either explained in the summary, or if needed, were discussed by me on Talk.
People edit pages, people revert, people discuss.  Picking me out is unfair, since I can probably find other people with more reverts over the same periond. -- Netoholic @ 17:52, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
=== Deliberately provocative edits as a result of this injunction ===
Below I am documenting the deliberately provocative edits made to pages of interest to me, which appear to have been done solely in light of my inability to revert Wikipedia: pages. -- Netoholic @ 02:02, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
*  - Neutrality removes a {Move to Wikibooks} template which I inserted on the Wikipedia:How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop page, despite the discussion on the talk page, and the appropriateness of the suggestion.
;Comments
*I encourage you to assume good faith and consider the possibility that Neutrality just disagreed with you. Snowspinner 02:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
** I only wish that others assumed good faith as much as they ask me to.   If he disagreed, he can post on the talk page.  Removing the notice was provocative. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
***I have trouble believing that removing a notice is itself provocative. Presumably the provocation comes because you are not allowed to revert him, in which case I admit to being puzzled - editing pages in a way you disagree with is provocative while you're banned from reverting? Snowspinner 02:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
**** When the person is a party to this case, fails to explain that removal with not even an edit summary, or even post on the talk page, yes.  Neutrality has made many edits just to provoke me, such as with the minor revert war on WP:RFC, as described on the Evidence page.  -- Netoholic @ 03:00, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
*****I would assume he looked at the talk page, agreed with Xiong, and figured that his reverting to Xiong's version would indicate this adequately. I have trouble with the idea that disagreement with you can constitute provocation - that would seem to mean that you could chase Neutrality and anyone else who has been involved in this complaint off of a page by editing it. That's surely not the point of an editing restriction. Snowspinner 03:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
******I am further disappointed that you made a revert in substance in response. If Neutrality's edit was provocative, the proper response was most certainly not to make a provocative re-insertion of your request to move in different words. Snowspinner 03:17, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Speaking as an arbitrator, I would be extremely reluctant to count disagreeing with someone as "provocation" - David Gerard 09:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  temporary injunctions 

message: Below I am documenting the deliberately provocative edits made to pages of interest to me, which appear to have been done solely in light of my inability to revert Wikipedia: pages. -- Netoholic @ 02:02, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
*  - Neutrality removes a {Move to Wikibooks} template which I inserted on the Wikipedia:How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop page, despite the discussion on the talk page, and the appropriateness of the suggestion.
;Comments
*I encourage you to assume good faith and consider the possibility that Neutrality just disagreed with you. Snowspinner 02:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
** I only wish that others assumed good faith as much as they ask me to.   If he disagreed, he can post on the talk page.  Removing the notice was provocative. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
***I have trouble believing that removing a notice is itself provocative. Presumably the provocation comes because you are not allowed to revert him, in which case I admit to being puzzled - editing pages in a way you disagree with is provocative while you're banned from reverting? Snowspinner 02:57, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
**** When the person is a party to this case, fails to explain that removal with not even an edit summary, or even post on the talk page, yes.  Neutrality has made many edits just to provoke me, such as with the minor revert war on WP:RFC, as described on the Evidence page.  -- Netoholic @ 03:00, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
*****I would assume he looked at the talk page, agreed with Xiong, and figured that his reverting to Xiong's version would indicate this adequately. I have trouble with the idea that disagreement with you can constitute provocation - that would seem to mean that you could chase Neutrality and anyone else who has been involved in this complaint off of a page by editing it. That's surely not the point of an editing restriction. Snowspinner 03:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
******I am further disappointed that you made a revert in substance in response. If Neutrality's edit was provocative, the proper response was most certainly not to make a provocative re-insertion of your request to move in different words. Snowspinner 03:17, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Speaking as an arbitrator, I would be extremely reluctant to count disagreeing with someone as "provocation" - David Gerard 09:17, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deliberately provocative edits as a result of this injunction 

message: Arbcom members:  I have spoken with Netoholic since his last posting here and he has agreed for me to serve as his Advocate.  I have an agreement from him that he is going to refrain from reverts and will be more measured in his responses to other members.  I would submit though that criticizing a position on a template is not a personal attack.  I have seen little evidence submitted regarding this point.  That being said, again, I have an agreement from him regarding his conduct while you consider this case.
I have also submitted some revised evidence that I ask you to consider before rendering judgment in this case.
Thank you.
--Wgfinley 07:50, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary Injunction & Additional Evidence 

message: I just wanted to take a few moments and respond to the diffs that David Gerard listed.  In reviewing the evidence in this case it is clear there are a number of users who follow Netoholic about to provoke disputes with him.  I am not trying to state that Netoholic has not himself been incivil at times but if you look at the history of interactions you can begin to understand why.
*Diff 1 is a response to this diff from Susvolans .  This is a direct jab at Netoholic in which Susvolans pointed out the template was useful for him adding evidence against Netoholic in this case.  Clearly Netoholic is sensitive about matters concerning this case and Susvolans provoked him here.  The sole personal attack is "troll".
*Diff 2 is where Netoholic states that Xiong's behavior is "increasingly odd".  I don't believe this rises to the level of a personal attack.  More on this later.
*Diff 3 is another response to a direct attack from Susvolans .  He makes an attack of his own stating that Netoholic is "baiting" someone and that he will "fall into a trap".  These comments are far more representative of a personal attack than Netoholic's response.  I also believe that Raul654 is in little need of warnings about dealing with other members as he does it quite well quite frequently.  Again, a clear prod at Netoholic by someone who isn't a party to the dispute and chooses to insert themselves to rile him.
*I can't find much of a personal attack in Diff 4  aside from "am I the only one that reads".  Since it isn't directed at anyone in particular I don't see how it is construed as a personal attack though it is an area of opportunity for Netoholic to be more civil which I am working on with him.  As the previous 3 diffs show though, he's been besieged by people provoking him.
*Diff 5 , while it has some colorful language does little more than accuse another user of crusading against him.  I think I've firmly established the reasons for Netoholic's "bunker" mentality and am working with him to address it.  That being said, another user referred to this proposal as "absurd" .  There is not a single vote in favor of Xiong's proposal  and by his numerous mentions of Netoholic in his proposal  it is clear that Xiong is engaging in disruption to prove a point here  with his proposal.  I would point out that Neutrality and Snowspinner in their submitted evidence accused Netoholic of engaging in a crusade yet this hasn't been cited as a personal attack, it's an observation.
*Diff 6 is again, another response to another poke at Netoholic by Xiong.  This is a case of two users, Xiong and Susvolans taking it upon themselves to unilaterally state Netoholic's submission of a TfD is out of line and removing the tags.  Please note in Diff 5 above and the proposed replacement from Xiong that Netoholic did not respond in kind.  I don't believe this constitutes a personal attack given the strong wording of Xiong's comment and accusations of "malicious vandalism".
In summation, I will stipulate that Netoholic has been uncivil at times, I am endeavoring to work with him on that issue.  I think I have clearly demonstrated he has been provoked an equal number of times and he usually becomes uncivil only after he has been, I believe, deliberately provoked.
--Wgfinley 18:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel that Xiong and Susvolans are following Netoholic around to try and provoke him, you might wish to start an RfC against one or both of them (are joint RfCs allowed?). Thryduulf 19:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My current focus is to serve as an advocate for Netoholic and as such I need to focus on this case right now.  I am hopeful that his relations with other users can be worked out in other manners of conflict resolution without going to RfC now that I'm involved.  --Wgfinley 20:03, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to David Gerard's Diffs on Temporary Injunction 

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

message: I hope no-one minds my making these suggestions.  In the title of FoF 4, consensus is spelled concensus.  Secondly, I think it might be better to say juristiction rather than competance in FoF 6.  "Juristiction" would suggest that this is not a matter for the ArbCom to decide, while "competance" is a) calling into question the ArbCom members' ability, and b) sidestepping the issue.  Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the first - thanks, spelling fixed.  On the second - This hinges on a technical issue, and not a policy issue, and I have no ability to assess the issues in such a case.  In matters of technical detail I'm very happy or the word to be competence.   -- sannse (talk) 01:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two suggested changes... 

message: Are there any immediate plans to limit my editing (per the agreement) upon the decision becoming final?  -- Netoholic @ 00:59, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
:Not from me, but I will be watching. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:26, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
:I do not as yes, but I have not been watching closely, so I don't know if you are currently doing anything that warrants it. A quick look through your last 50 edits didn't set off any red flags. →Raul654 02:28, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
: Talk with folks and try to get some good advice while you're working. You can trust your mentors, folks like wgfinley and bishonen, and a bit unlikely but true also folks like Sam Spade and Snowspinner.
: * As long as you talk with those folks and listen to their advice carefully, then you can count on me, no matter what.
: * If you choose to go it alone, feel free! Typically things will go ok anyway, and you'll be showing initiative.
: * However, if you choose to go it alone, and something blows up in your face, EVEN IF IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT, I shall personally fit you a new set of concrete overshoes and take you swimming. Capice?
: Kim Bruning 17:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for the mentors 

message: I wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude to a lot of people regarding this case.  A couple of weeks ago I was fairly certain there was absolutely no good that could come from the decision in this case and I am glad those fears were proven premature.  I'm hopeful that plea had something to do with this decision and even if it didn't I don't really care, what's important to me is how this affects Neto, I'm not looking for accolades.
I believe this case has done a complete 180 -- it's gone from what I've described above to perhaps one of the best Arbcom decisions ever rendered (if adopted).  It acknowledges the issues, it has gone "outside of the box" for a solution to those issues and it has strived to find the real meaning behind the actions.  It's thoughtful, creative, and I believe, visionary.  In fact, it's led me to believe that something we need on Wikipedia is an association of mentors where more cases like these can be referred to if that is found to be something useful.  It would also be a great place for new users to get started when they're first embarking on their journey.
So, I would like to thank all the Arbcom members, whether you recused or not (as I have had conversations with some of you that did), for their thoughtful deliberation of this matter.  I know you have a thankless job, serving on a school board for two years I have an idea of what that feels like because, like you, school board members in my state are not paid.  This was my first official case as an advocate before the Arbcom so I am hopeful I made a good impression although I'm certain I made some rookie mistakes.
Secondly, I have to thank kim_bruning who started out as someone who enjoined in the case against Neto and has demonstrated in many many conversations since that he is someone who believes in the inherent good in most people and that there's always something that can be done to turn things around for people if they try.
Finally, I want to thank everyone who took a moment to give Neto the benefit of the doubt and tried to look deeper in this case beyond the initial reaction.  I think Neto is very intelligent and thoughtful and is frequently misunderstood.  I'm hopeful the remedies in this case will help him not only on Wikipedia but in life.  What we do here on Wikipedia, I think, is on the cutting edge of human interaction on the net.  It's based on a belief that with everyone given the freedom to edit as he/she chooses the best results can be achieved.  Sure, sometimes it needs some help along the way and that's why we have policies, guidelines and processes.  But even all of those things are born out of that philosophy of freedom.  I'm hopeful that a lot of people will take a step back and look at this case, where it started out and where it has gone, and relate that to their beliefs about our community in general.  --Wgfinley 19:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Personal Thanks On This Case