Case Closed as of January 2, 2005

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. 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.

Netoholic's propensity for conflict has gone on for some time now. Much of it is well-documented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Netoholic. The RfC, however, was largely ineffective due to his assertion that, because no one certifying it had been involved with all of the disputes, its certification was invalid. Although I find the irony of the idea that Netoholic had done too many bad things to be actionable on RfC amusing, I find this disturbing, to say the least. To my knowledge, there are four central concerns with him.

1. His edit war with JamesF and others, which culminated in him accusing JamesF and others of running a bot, and listing them on Vandalism in Progress with no meaningful cause.
2. His edit war with Mintguy, in which he repeatedly removed a poll and reinstated an expired poll, demanding an extension of the poll until it gathered consensus. The poll, having majority opposition, was clearly never going to do this.
3. His refactoring of comments, often removing informative information. One example is at [1], though really, you just want to look at the entire edit history of that page.
4. Delisting of articles on VfD ([2] and [3].

His refactoring is, in many ways, the most severe problem, as he has continued it, most recently on my talk page at [4]. As is often the case, what he is removing is not a personal attack.

Finally, and possibly not actionably, Netoholic opposed my request to run a bot to handle Templates for Deletion at Wikipedia Talk:Bots in the section titled Snowbot. The manner of his objection, particularly with its links to my edits, makes it clear that his only objection was that I had previously objected to his running a bot. Aggravating this was that he PMed me in IRC repeatedly while objecting to inform me that I was a "fuck." A sample exchange follows:

<NetAway> lmao SnowBot. so if I object....

<Snowspinner> If you object, I'll ask you what you object to about me running a bot.

<NetAway> no, my objection should be enough, ya fuck.

<NetAway> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Guanaco&diff=6173231&oldid=6172763

<NetAway> How do I phrase "you're a fuck" in a nice way, to allow me to reply....

At one point, this spilled into the #wikipedia IRC channel:

<Snowspinner> Hey, I'm curious - someone just told me that there was a consensus that I was a fuck. Now, I'd probably vote neutral on a poll as to whether I'm a fuck, but I'm just curious - is there in fact consensus that I'm a fuck? Straw poll.

<cimon> Well, we can all improve.

<ugen64> i would support that argument, as you are a member of teh sekret cebal

--> Cantus (~Cantus@CM-lcon5-181-160.cm.vtr.net) has joined #wikipedia

<ugen64> hi cantus

<Netoholic> I would say you are a fuck, but you're also a channel op.

<bumm13> hi cactus

<-- Cantus (~Cantus@CM-lcon5-181-160.cm.vtr.net) has left #wikipedia

<Netoholic> so i guess i can't say that

I know IRC is not presently actionable, but I contend that his vote against my bot was clearly meant to be construed by me as a claim that I am a fuck, and is thus a personal attack.

Mediation, in this case, will not prove fruitful, simply because I am not inclined to mediate with someone who has repeatedly called me a fuck. Snowspinner 19:02, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

My last comment there is perhaps more flippant than it needs to be. Let me clarify. I repeatedly told Netoholic that, if he would simply avoid any fracases like the ones listed above for a month, I would drop my objection to his bot and even apologize. I pointed him towards situations that I thought he'd handled badly.

Every time I did this, I was called a fuck.

Netoholic's continued abuse of me has driven me away from active editing on Wikipedia. This is not a situation that can be mediated. This is persistant harassment of the same level of ferocity and malice that characterized Kenneth Allen, Mr. Natural Health, Irismeister, and others, coupled with the cleverness to do it through unregulated channels. There is a level of abuse at which mediation is no longer useful or possible. Netoholic has passed that level. It is not reasonable to ask me to go into any negotiation that assumes good faith with a user who has reiterated, again and again, that he considers me to be a fuck. That level of contempt poisons the well far beyond what any negotiation based process can salvage. Snowspinner 21:29, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

At this time, I'd rather not make any statement because I don't believe this case was accepted by ArbCom according to policy. This was accepted (on the action of Fred Bauder) on the basis of 3 Accepts and 2 Recusals. Arbitration policy specifies a requirement of 4 Accepts and with four ArbCom members yet to vote, it is possible that all could have voted to Reject in due time.

Please read and discuss on the talk page - Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic#Precedent. -- Netoholic @ 03:19, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/0/2/0)[edit]

1. Recuse (obviously). James F. (talk) 20:19, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2. Reject, try mediation Fred Bauder 20:57, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
3. Abstain, for the moment. I'm torn between recommending for mediation and accepting. I'm discussing the matter with the mediation committee right now, so I recommend the other arbitrators don't vote until I get back. →Raul654 02:23, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

   Recuse. However, after having talked to both parties on several occasions, as well as several mediators, and I don't think there's any hope that mediation will be successful, and I would suggest the other arbitrators take the case. →Raul654 07:03, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

4. Accept (with hesitancy - if any involved party objects to my involvement, I recuse. I was involved at the edges of this dispute, but not, I think, so much so that I am biased. Again, if anyone disagrees, I will recuse for propriety's sake). Jwrosenzweig 22:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. Accept to consider matters of etiquette. Fred Bauder 12:53, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
6. Accept to get it out of the queue. --the Epopt 14:03, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

No verdict was reached on this case, as the major involved disputants have since worked out their differences.