User talk:WGFinley/Netoholic Advocacy

Please use this page for all questions/comments on my advocacy for Netoholic.

Netoholic
I don't agree with what you wrote in the Netoholic RFA evidence page, and that's cool (personally, I sincerely believe that Netoholic is a bully who couldn't care less for opinions other than his own, who should be banned for a month or two). However, one thing bothers me most: "I would hardly consider 10 or 12 votes to be a good sampling of the community". Would you care to elucidate? What would you consider a good sampling of the community? &mdash; Itai (f&t) 04:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure Itai -- in a community that has, at last count, 386 active admins alone and 180,000 registered user accounts you should be able to muster more than 12 people who are interested in a template that is deemed to be useful. As I tried to state, Netoholic's gripes regarding the meta templates bogging down the system may or may not be factual, I'm certainly no network expert to know.  I would just think you could muster together enough people that would give you a more accurate representation and of those at least 10 people who would be very familiar with network systems and know what they're talking about in regard to server load.


 * On a personal note I think some of the labeling has gotten out of hand. I've been reading arbcom submissions and they usually begin with "X is disruptive", "X is a POV pusher", "X gets in revert wars", and your "X is a bully" (don't mean to pick on you, isn't the first time I've seen it).  I think conflict can be useful in resolving some differences but it seems to me far too many are quick to escalate the conflict then try to work out the differences.  Just my humble opinion after being here since June.  --Wgfinley 09:36, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know of what surveys you're thinking, but in most surveys I've seen on Wikipedia, 10-12 votes is actually a reasonable turnout. Indeed, I suppose most current policies were decided on in surveys where fewer people have replied. (Bear in mind that Wikipedia surveys work by sampling, not outright majority among Wikipedia users, as surveying even the smallest noticeable fraction of Wikipedia users is impossible.)
 * As for labeling, I'm afraid my statement stands. Netoholic is a bully - I've known him for several months now - he would much rather win this through intimidation and wearing other people down than community discussion, even his I-am-right page is merely an afterthought after other tactics have failed, and he has turned down all proposals to draft a mutual survey (as I said, he doesn't believe in the community, he believes he's right – which I do too, of course, except community opinion counts more than my own).
 * Of course, I can see how to a user unfamiliar with Netoholic the previous paragraph would seem hideous and awful, spewing vitriol at a certain user who does not even get a chance to defend himself. Know Netoholic for a while, however, and pay close attention to what he does - not what he says he does - and you might just see that I'm right. Or delusional, as the case may be. &mdash; Itai (f&t) 10:27, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I saw your addition, and I thank you for it. The sister template situation is stablized at least for a while, due to page protection, but the basic issues are still there. At this point looking at the case, I'm not very optimistic. It seems that, since I happen to have an open case, every single one of my reverts is being added as evidence. I'm uncomfortable adding counter-evidence for each of these, since an explanation would only serve to glorify what I see as fairly normal day-to-day interaction. I'm not always supported in what I do, but, at least in my mind, I've got good reasons for my edits and working in the best interests of the project. I don't know how to do anything differently, since I can't in good conscience leave things be when I have valid reasons to disagree. I'm not an intentional disruption to the project, just an editor with opinions and conviction. From past cases, that sort of thing is not welcome. If you can look at my case more, I'd be appreciative. -- Netoholic @ 05:03, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)


 * I am on IRC as well. -- Netoholic @

FYI, since he asked. -- Netoholic @ 05:32, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

Netoholic Evidence
Since I originally posted my evidence I have agreed to serve as Netoholic's Advocate. If you are now an official advocate for Netoholic, perhaps you would be so kind as to reformat/move your posts on the Evidence page, since they are argument, not evidence. If you or he have evidence, by all means post it, but place arguments where they belong. --Calton | Talk 08:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic injunction broken already
Within hours of it being placed, Netoholic broke the first injunction. Please have a word with him and try to make it clear to him that that sort of thing does not go down well with the ArbCom - David Gerard 09:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was pointed out privately - Arbitration policy. "A grace period of twenty four hours is usually observed between the fourth Aye vote and the enactment of the Injunction; however, Arbitrators may, in exceptional circumstances, vote to implement an injunction immediately if four or more Arbitrators express a desire to do so in their votes, or if a majority of Arbitrators active on the case have already voted to support the Injunction."

I doubt anyone's going to favor me, but I should have had until 10:41, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) before this came into effect. This was not communicated to me, maybe intentionally. I'm not going to push it, but it would have been nice to know. -- Netoholic @ 10:38, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

Email re: case
I've emailed an important thing concerning Netoholic's case to guy[AT]djguy.net, the address on your blog. I sent Netoholic a copy via Wikipedia user page email, but if you have his actual email address and can forward him a copy that way as well that'd be really good. Thanks - David Gerard 23:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)