all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, 4 Arbitrators are recused and 2 are inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

No reverts in Wikipedia: page space

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.

Support:

David Gerard 17:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) (in 24 hours) - 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. See also User_talk:Raul654#Netoholic.
➥the Epopt 17:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 18:32, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 10:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
mav 10:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

No personal attacks

2) For the duration of this case, Netoholic is on personal attack parole. If he makes an edit any administrator judges to be a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, he may be blocked for up to 24 hours.

Support:

David Gerard 17:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) (in 24 hours) And has been making personal attacks in the process, along with a great deal of assumption of bad faith. See WP:TFD for several recent examples.
➥the Epopt 17:58, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 18:32, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

sannse (talk) 10:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) I see some incivility, but not enough to vote for this at this time. I'd like to see how Netoholic's agreement with his advocate goes first.
Oppose, not just abstain? I shall gather some diffs then. (Currently working on proposals.) - David Gerard 10:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More examples of attacks: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Those are just from the last few days. I would propose something against the generally unpleasant attitude and assumptions of bad faith, but those are not as concrete. That's why this is worded as a very short leash too. The agreement with the advocate is nice, but I really think his mind could do with some focusing - David Gerard 12:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree these are not civil, but they are also not the level of attacks that have required an injunction in previous cases -- sannse (talk) 20:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I note he broke the first injunction within hours of it being placed and is currently on a 24-hour block - 09:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point

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

Support:

Fred Bauder 01:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
mav 02:15, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 17:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 20:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

David Gerard 02:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 20:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
mav 17:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Revert warring is bad

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

Support:

David Gerard 02:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fred Bauder 20:23, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
mav 17:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personal attacks

4) No personal attacks

Support:

Fred Bauder 13:03, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
mav 17:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 20:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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]].

Support:

Fred Bauder 12:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
mav 17:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 20:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 12:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
mav 17:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 20:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 12:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
mav 17:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 20:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 12:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
mav 17:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 20:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 12:25, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
mav 17:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 20:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disruption to prove a point

1) When user Neutrality nominated a friend for administrator, Netoholic opposed the nomination [7]. Asked why? [8]; Netoholic spamed all who supported the nomination with the question, "Why?" [9]

Support:

Fred Bauder 01:12, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
mav 02:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 18:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 02:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) this particular incident is very mild - not worth a finding in itself imo.

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. "

Support:

Fred Bauder 01:12, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
mav 02:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 18:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 02:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

2.1) Netoholic has in the course of his dispute with Neutrality engaged in personal attacks, see [10]

Support:

Fred Bauder 12:59, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
mav 17:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 20:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 13:20, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 02:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
mav 17:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lack of consensus concerning meta-templates

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

Support:

Fred Bauder 13:20, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 02:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
mav 17:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 13:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
mav 17:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 02:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:15, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 02:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Whether he's right or not is not actually the issue; it's how he conducts himself in the process.
mav 17:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) as David says
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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 [11]. 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." [12]. Netoholic then expressed his viewpoint by a notice on the project page and then continued revert warring: [13] [14] [15]

Support:

Fred Bauder 11:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
mav 17:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 20:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.)

Support:

David Gerard 02:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Probably more "apparent assumption of bad faith", actually.
Fred Bauder 18:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) based on finding of fact # 8, although wording could still be improved.
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

~~Fred Bauder 11:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC) Too sweeping and conclusionary.~~
An FoF along the same lines but not as strong might get my vote. mav 17:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

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

Support:

Fred Bauder 18:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 20:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
mav 08:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.)

Support:

David Gerard 17:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) This is not given as evidence of malice at all, but it is evidence of counterproductive interaction.
Fred Bauder 20:16, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 20:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 23:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
mav 08:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed 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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:26, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
David Gerard 02:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC) Though it's a minor issue in this case. And Jamesday was pretty unambiguous about them being a potentially horrible idea.
sannse (talk) 01:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 14:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
mav 08:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Namespace and revert restriction

2) Netoholic is restricted to editing only in the article namespace and article talk namespaces for twelve months, with a restriction to one revert per day. He may also edit in his own userspace. 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.

Support:

~~David Gerard 17:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Amended: He may also edit in his own userspace.~~ 2.1 is better.
Fred Bauder 20:18, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Second choice ➥the Epopt 20:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

sannse (talk) 00:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) on consideration of Neoholics comments on talk - I suggest 2.1 as an alternative

Abstain:

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.

Support:

sannse (talk) 00:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) this is mostly to allow edits to image and category namespaces and to user talk pages - in the user namespace, I'd remind Netoholic that the etiquette is that you don't edit other's user pages without permission.
David Gerard 00:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Note that 2.1 also counts as 'remedy 2' as far as remedy 3 is concerned.
Fred Bauder 00:58, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC) First choice
First choice ➥the Epopt 14:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
mav 08:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

David Gerard 17:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) This could really work.
Fred Bauder 20:18, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 20:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 00:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
mav 08:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

David Gerard 17:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) This is phrased as a request so that, should an admin make a block for a normally blockable violation, there won't be a comeback on them.
Fred Bauder 20:17, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
➥the Epopt 20:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
sannse (talk) 00:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
mav 08:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

The mentors are noted hardasses, but they do in fact want to help Netoholic and make this work, and Netoholic does too. So it looks good so far. - David Gerard 10:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Motion to close

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

David Gerard 22:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC) Everything's passed, this needs to close so we can move forward[reply]
agreed sannse (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Fred Bauder 22:49, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Do it ➥the Epopt 00:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Close. mav 08:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]