User talk:Netoholic/Mentoring

Netoholic's complaint: trying to review a sample

I don't have any "ongoing problematic editing by Netoholic" to report, so I suppose these comments/questions about what I see on Netoholic/Mentoring will go more appropriately on this talk page than on the page itself. I don't really understand (heck, I don't understand at all) the technical issues of the meta-templates, and I sure haven't fully reviewed Netoholic's interchange with the community (having a day job and all), so apologies to all concerned if I'm missing stuff. I'm almost sure to, but I still think it may be helpful for the mentors if random members of the community make a good faith effort to grasp the courtesy issues involved, and to look at both Netoholic's actions and those of other people. I've tried to check out a sample pertaining to Netoholic's complaints against Firebug (will be back re Omegatron later) for what N calls "obstructive stance" and "attacks", namely Firebug's edits to Xiong's userpage on May 7. If anybody sees ways in which my sample becomes misleading without more context, I would appreciate it if they'd point me to other edits and pages that I need to take into account. (But please don't say "all of it", try to be specific, if possible.)

I was drawn into trying to figure out the issue of Xiong's userpage by Firebug's report on Grunt's page about Netoholic's editing of Xiong's page:

Netoholic is also altering User:Xiong's user page, which I see as a clear attempt to re-energize the long-standing war between these two users. In both cases, Netoholic has used multiple reverts.

On the face of it, the history of Xiong's page bears out Netoholic's claim that Firebug is "finding ways to make my time here difficult". I can't see the evilness of Netoholic's edits to the page, and "a clear attempt to re-energize the long-standing war between these two users" is a hostile description of them. Firebug's edit summaries invoke policies that either don't exist (Rv vandalism. Netoholic, you do not edit other user's user pages), or don't apply (Per Wikipedia:User page: "if users ask you not to edit their user pages, it is probably best to respect their requests": but Xiong has not asked that, as far as I can see).

Netoholic does seem to me to make good changes to Xiong's page, in removing cats or templates that aren't appropriate for a userpage, and replacing them with text that performs the same function. Of course it's inappropriate to edit in another's space if that person objects, but does Xiong object? Again, I may be missing it. Firebug quickly reverts Netoholic's changes and scolds him in the edit summaries, so I presume Xiong did want his page defended from changes by Netoholic? These questions are moot now, as Xiong has issued an invitation for Netoholic to edit his pages ad libitum, but I'd be grateful if either Firebug or Xiong could explain what the problem was earlier. I'm certainly not supposing Firebug acted maliciously or with intentional provocation, but I'd appreciate clarification. For instance, was it a question of defending Xiong? Or of Firebug being still so outraged by terrible behavior by Netoholic in the past, before the mentoring project, that s/he's a priori convinced the mentoring can't work, and doesn't deserve to work?

I hope everybody can abstain from namecalling ("Netoholic is a bully", etcetera (Firebug)) on this mentoring page, of all places. I don't care what horrors Netoholic may have committed aginst them earlier and elsewhere, this is still a bad time and place for it. --Bishonen | talk 00:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my statements were over the top. My concern with Netoholic's actions wasn't that they were so evil in and of themselves, but that they showed a continuation of the pattern of the same inappropriate behavior that Netoholic had committed before. Normally, editing another user's user page (as contrasted to their user Talk page) is considered a breach of Wikiquette, and I felt that it was particularly inappropriate for Netoholic to do so given his previous history of conflict with Xiong. Firebug 01:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bad or two in the past few days while Editing Under the Influence (of annoyance), but I hardly think my behavior counts as stalking. (Reversion of meta-templates twice (contrast with his four) and editing the Final Decision are all I can think of, and I apologized for both. Feel free to point out anything else.) Reporting his behavior is hardly an attack. Netoholic's previous "ongoing problematic editing" is clearly spelled out here, and he hasn't seemed to change his patterns much since then, blanking criticism of his actions, revert warring, etc. - Omegatron 00:05, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Privilege of Netoholic (re Xiong)

Interested parties may view a notice I have placed on the pages User:Xiong and User talk:Xiong. Netoholic has, in the past, edited both of these pages; other users and I have objected. At the time of this posting, Netoholic has privilege upon these pages -- I reserve the right to revert his edits, but he may assume, primus, privilege to edit them mercilessly. I may revoke this privilege at any time without rhyme, reason, or prior notice.

I have taken this unusual step to remove a possible area of mutual conflict. It should not be taken as implicit criticism of any other user or endorsement of Netoholic's actions past, present, or future. It is a purely practical step, as one takes in an elevator when bumped by a fellow passenger.

In the specific case of Netoholic's edit to my transclusion of {{villagepumppages}} and Firebug's subsequent reversion: This case predates the privilege, and prompted me to extend it. In no way is privilege retroactive; in no way should it be considered a comment on Firebug's actions.

It is my hope that if Netoholic is to be censured for any action, its locus will be in common ground and not a personal matter between us two. That is my entire object. For me to watch and decline occasionally to accept Netoholic's edits to a page or two is a very small price to pay for a measure of peace. — Xiong 熊 talk * 22:56, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Reversion of template tag "vandalism"

It is my position that tagging templates, under most circumstances, constitutes vandalism. (See opinion at Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits#Tagging). To summarize in a word my arguments, template tagging destroys instantly a portion of the value of any template; in some cases, it renders the template useless. As this action takes place before process completes or even begins, it is a violation of our core principle of concensus, as prominently stated in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies decided?. That is, the petty policy of whether a given template be permitted to exist is established by process of concensus and not by unilateral act. Obviously, the principle of consensus dominates any minor policy evident at any given time on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion; to the extent that such minor policy conflicts with core principles, it is invalid.

Therefore templates ought not be tagged upon their bodies, and instead upon their corresponding talk pages -- prevailing practice or spurious claims of expedience notwithstanding.

I am aware that, as is often the case, not everyone agrees with my analysis. I do not expect to settle the point in this forum. I only request consideration of whether it is appropriate for this user to participate in this dispute in this way. [1] — Xiong 熊 talk * 23:29, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Oh, my gosh. Thank you for explaining, but I'm sorry to say it's made me enlarge my idea that I don't understand the concept of transclusion towards including the idea that I don't understand the concept of tagging, either. Darn it, that one used to look quite simple in my head ... probably a sign that I never did understand it. :-( --Bishonen | talk 01:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. This is covered in Wikipedia:requests for comment/Xiong. Essentially, Xiong is part of a minority of users who believe {{tfd}} tags don't belong on the main page. I am also part of that minority. Unfortunately for us, the established consensus is that the tags do belong there, not on talk pages. This is documented in the instructions at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion. Until such time as the consensus changes, I will abide by it by making sure that all templates on WP:TFD, with VERY few exceptions to avoid major confusion, are tagged properly. Charging me with vandalism in this respect is a personal attack, so I ask the mentors to provide any advice they see fit. -- Netoholic @ 02:11, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

OK, thanks, now I'm back where I was. Xiong apparently redefines the concept of vandalism on a philosophical level. But nobody's going to know it's been redefined when he refers to "vandalism" in removing the tag, or inreverting Netoholic's reinsertion of it, so, well, yeah, that's an attack. Those edits seem an inappropriate way of battling for one's philosophy. OTOH I don't see how it would be wrong for Netoholic to put the tag back. He gets to edit normally during the mentorship period. That's normal editing.--Bishonen | talk 03:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, in this -- as in so many areas -- there is room for disagreement. By "vandalism", I mean to say needless damage of common property, per [2]. While I'm aware the word has a private meaning among Wikipedians, I use it in the publicly-accepted sense. It does not actually specify hostile intent. (I can, on request, substantiate "needless", "damage", and "common property".)

As the gentleman agrees with me -- here and as he formerly suggested [3] [4] long before I did -- I am at a loss to understand his actions. He may indeed disagree with me that at times it is necessary to paddle against the current, and I don't demand he join with me in removing destructive template tags -- not at all. There are many actions I think wise, yet from which I refrain; indeed, I have left the overwhelming majority of {tfd} tags alone. But not every generally accepted action is compelled -- and if I think it unwise, then I shall surely leave it to another before committing it myself.

I do not imagine I can out-shout a number of community members; and I am well aware that all my actions are subject to reversion. But I should think it sufficient to leave that task up to those members who actually support template tagging. Having raised the matter, I rest. — Xiong 熊 talk * 01:46, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

I've explained myself on this so many times, there is no way you can be "at a loss to understand" my actions in enforcing the tfd template placement requirement. I long before and today believe that it is wrong to place it anywhere except the talk page of the template. Unfortunately, I am in the minority, and have been shown that many times. Rather than create a mixed and confusing environment, I have chosen to accept the majority/consensus and follow the current procedure and to ensure that others, like yourself Xiong, do not create a mixed environment. Make your arguments on the talk page, gain a consensus, and make the change. Don't go against that. just because (say) 20% of people disagree with the tfd template placement, this does not mean we only enforce that placement on 80% of templates up for deletion. -- Netoholic @ 05:04, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

I'm content with your present direction. Good working with you. Thank you. — Xiong 熊 talk * 05:28, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

LevelCheck is apparently attempting to provoke Netoholic

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/LevelCheck/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Tony_Sidaway. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic convo

So Netoholic and I had a long converation tonight. We discussed quite a few issues - particlarly the more recent ones like his votes on RFA, the spoiler warning template, and the accuastion of revert warring on magic the gathering. Here's a summary:

I convinced Netoholic that when asked questions on RFA, he should answer honestly (without ducking them or moving them to the comments section) and with specificity. Also, he is not to mention the requests for de-adminship, except as part of a list of criteria for admins (as others have created) which he can link to.
Earlier today, I prohibited Netoholic from editing Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. I have lifted this, provided that he doesn't revert it for 48 hours, and that he uses the talk page prior to any revert.
I was asked by Radiant to look into his edits on Magic the Gathering. I did, but I agree with Netoholic that the edits there were part of a long-time spam campaign to add that link there, so reverting it was neither wrong nor a violation of hte three revert rule.

None of this is binding per se, so if he makes a one-time mistake, cut him some slack. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 01:07 (UTC)