Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2

Commentary from original request

Both Neutrality and Snowspinner have added evidence, inappropriately, to the 172 case solely to get a "rise" out of me. Having failed to do so, because I refused to answer their out-of-place attacks on that evidence page, it seems they are taking this action. As yet, I'm unsure what the grounds are for this, and am not sure what sort of defensive statement I can make here. -- Netoholic @ 03:08, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

In response to Grunt's question, I think the point of the evidence to the 172 case was made clear when I added it - I wanted to show Netoholic's history of bringing spurious complaints and crusades against people. His crusade mentality is disruptive, drives users away from Wikipedia, and makes every interaction Netoholic involves himself in needlessly tense and hostile. As I think about it, it would probably be clarifying to split this off of the 172 case, as the issues here are at least as complicated as the 172 case. So I'd encourage a split with the intention of this case being to look at Netoholic's tendency towards hostile crusades against other users. Snowspinner 03:41, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Comments like this from one who is probably the most litigious user to frequent WP:RFAr is ironic. This is in direct retaliation for my participation with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner. If one cannot use the dispute resolution process without being accused of crusading, then what value is it? This is nothing more than an attempt to silence a voice who raises concerns within the community. This is vindictiveness, without credible evidence of policy violation, so I hope the arbitrators see through it. -- Netoholic @ 04:02, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
  - This is laughable. I raised the evidence in 172 days before the RFC was put up against me, and made this exact same accusation about you. Now, somehow, your participation in the RfC caused me to do something that I'd already done? This is exactly why I want the arbcom to look into this. Snowspinner 04:17, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

It would make things easier to follow for those of us in the bleacher seats, if Neutrality and Snowspinner stated their complaints against Netoholic (in terms of policies violated) and also stated what specific action they want from the AC concerning him. Reading through the "evidence" given by Neutrality and Snowspinner in the 172 case, I don't see how most of it relates to that case, and I am not sure what it relates to. In that case, Neutrality and Snowspinner are third parties providing evidence in 172's defense, and some of it is. But most of it seems to relate to their own, unrelated, grievances against Netoholic. It seems more in order for them simply to file a Request for arbitration against Netoholic, assuming they want the AC to adjudicate those grievances. --BM 04:27, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

to Grunt and MBM: See User:Neutrality/workshop III. Neutrality^talk 05:23, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Is this notice on your talk page really appropriate? If it is, then perhaps you'll get more attention by posting on the Village pump. -- Netoholic @ 21:18, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
Granted, User:Neutrality/workshop III is his subpage, and he is using it to gather a quite one-sided view of my actions. Certainly, making the other guy look as bad as possible is probably how most Arbitrations get started. I made two fairly innocent updates - one to correct a gross exaggeration and another to provide context for a comment I made. Neutrality then used my edits against me by claiming this was evidence tampering. I clarified that comment saying "it's misleading to present multiple edits in one link". This was rollback reverted by Neutrality. I tried adding it as a signed comment. This was rollback reverted. In total, Neutrality has rollback reverted four times today, violating the [[WP:3RR]. I bring this up here, not to report that violation, but to show the misdirected animosity from this person. Sure, it is his subpage, but it is not official evidence in any open case. -- Netoholic @ 21:51, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

To Netaholic. David Gerard was voted in by the community as an arbitrator. Jimbo is looking in to The recyling troll issue, but notice that jimbo blocked him (as did David) Unless you were heavily involved (as far as I can see you were not involved at all unless TRT is a sockpuppet of yours) then you request for recusal doesn't make any sense. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

~~I completely resent the sock puppet accusation. I have at no time employed a sock puppet.~~ I think David knows that there are plenty of reasons why I think he should recuse - the TRT incident is only the most recent since I was vocally against his actions. I will ask the same of Raul654. -- Netoholic @ 08:42, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

[You] completely resent the accusation? I think it would be of benefit for you to separate accusations from rhetorical devices that are used to illustrate a specific point. The misdirected bravado and combativeness dilute your (diff-wise yet-to-be-substantiated calls for recursals) point. El_C 15:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

let me just confirm what El C said. My statement above was not in any way meant to be taken as an accusation. I dont for one minute think that TRT is a sockpuppet of you. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 17:45, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply, T. I hope you'll accept my apology, I may have been up too late last night, and probably am a little defensive on that point. -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

There are going to be enough recusals that I will be very reluctant to recuse just for the sake of it. Also, your reasoning for recusal appears novel - you seem to be saying "I may have pissed him off by disagreeing with him, so he should recuse." For obvious reasons, I'm very reluctant to give this one play - David Gerard 11:55, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think there would only be four recusals, which isn't the most there have been. This is why there are so many Arbitrators, to accomodate the fact that some may have been involved with this dispute and avoid potential biases. -- Netoholic @ 21:18, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

[Re. David vote]

David, please recuse. The recent problems around User:The Recycling Troll are too fresh in mind. I'd prefer if this was heard by people who've not had recent complaints raised against them, since that seems to be the focus of this Arbitration request. -- Netoholic @ 04:02, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

Please see my comment above Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[Re. Fred's request to present evidence]

Neutrality has already linked to User:Neutrality/workshop III, which includes some specific accusations. Much more can be found presently on the 172 evidence page, in the section for evidence by Neutrality and me. The major policy is civility, which Netoholic violates to the point where it becomes impossible to have any dealings with him that are not marked by an intense hostility. Snowspinner 15:25, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Requested remedies

Since I know the arbcom is trying to think outside the box with things other than bans, I thought I'd propose, in addition to the standard personal attack and revert paroles that I think are warranted here, that a page be taken from the Anthony case and that a ban to Wikipedia namespace edits be imposed. Snowspinner 22:29, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Is this case suspended?

I would like an arbiter to please clarify whether or not this case is on hold, as Grunt has pulled out and it now has only 3 Accept votes. I'm assuming not, as some arbiters have placed votes after this, but I still need clarification. Vacuum c 15:52, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Once a case is accepted, it would have to be closed to be deactivated. Once four arbitrators accept, the assumption is that all 12 are accepted until they recuse, go absent, or otherwise disinvolve themselves. Snowspinner 17:51, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

User_talk:Netoholic#Blocked_for_violation_of_arbcomm

I draw any interested arbitrators attention to User_talk:Netoholic#Blocked_for_violation_of_arbcomm in case you want to comment. Or remove the block. William M. Connolley 22:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]