Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2/Evidence

Requests
To the petitioners: -- Netoholic @ 04:19, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
 * Can I please ask that the extraneous evidence now be removed from the 172 case pages?
 * Can you please refactor the "Evidence presented by Snowspinner and Neutrality" section? It is highly confusing, not being in chronological order nor does it logically separate the charges to make it easy to facilitate referencing.
 * The "Introduction" and "Evidence presented by Snowspinner and Neutrality" sections must be separated by the user submitting the evidence, as done in the template.

To clarify, are you asking Neutrality's evidence to be separated from mine, or just for the intro to be split off? Snowspinner 06:02, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * There should be "Introduction" section, and yes, your evidence should be split from Neutrality's, per the template instructions. -- Netoholic @ 06:07, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)


 * There is precedent, most explicitly from Raul, that the template is really just to indicate that evidence should be organized. This seems roughly organized by desired finding of fact, which I'd imagine is helpful to the arbitrators, though if any of them would like it reordered, please let me know and I'm happy to. As for splitting, I don't think the template was designed with that specificity in mind, but again, if this is something the arbcom would like, let me know. Snowspinner 06:18, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, this is extremely important. If Admin A accuses me of doings something wrong, I want to clearly give examples of where Admin A has done the same thing or said that it isn't wrong.  This goes towards me providing evidence that a double-standard may exist, or at least that there is ambiguity enough to show I am justified.  -- Netoholic @ 06:50, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)


 * The evidence looks fine and readable to me. They worked on it together, so it would be difficult to separate out who said what. Also - and this is important - someone else's bad actions are not any excuse whatsoever for any bad actions you may have committed. So to make a case against them, you should just go through their edits - David Gerard 22:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Trust me when I say the actions of these specifically admins is quite important. Please do not hinder my ability to make a decent defense, because I've already said you should be recused, and hinderance only makes me look right. -- Netoholic @ 22:59, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I am having trouble with the evidence sections. The times are all wrong, some being in UTC and some being in what looks like US Eastern. Can I ask that we make all time references be in UTC? -- Netoholic @ 22:01, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

On-going objection
I asked David Gerad to recuse, with good cause, and he has not done so. -- Netoholic @ 04:19, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)


 * If that is because he was in one of the cited "revert wars" with you, that seems pretty minor. Having seen many revert wars go on for weeks, it is hard to call these events where the 3RR rule was bumped up against a couple of times, "revert wars".  I suspect David will not consider them "revert wars" either, however, there is a sense in which he is being accused by the evidence also, although the posters were careful not to list him as the reverter. --Silverback 13:22, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If you had good cause, you had about two weeks to submit diffs. You didn't. I am reluctant to recuse on the grounds of "I disagreed with him so he must hate me so he should recuse" - that sets an awful precedent that our more creatively antisocial editors would waste no time in exploiting, as should be fairly obvious - David Gerard 22:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppets
Because I have asked David Gerard to recuse, and he seems to be the designated ArbCom sockpuppet-checker, I must insist that instead an impartial developer perform any sock puppet checks and report directly to the evidence page. -- Netoholic @ 17:20, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting that David would lie about the results of a sockpuppet check? Snowspinner 21:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is highly inappropriate that any one person both be responsible for providing evidence in a case and be an adjudicator in it. Also, David Gerard incorrectly concluded that User:The Recycling Troll was a reincarnation of User:142, so I don't trust his judgment in any case. -- Netoholic @ 21:34, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)


 * That judgment was made as a user and an administrator, and it would have been highly inappropriate for him to use his arbcom powers for that dispute. Snowspinner 21:43, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Who cares? I ask the arbitrators to please expedite their request to the developers for a sockpuppet check. Dragging my name into this is all well and good, but lets at least deal with facts, not guesswork. --Mrfixter 21:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can one of the arbitrators please contact a developer? I'd like to put down all such random accusations that I have ever used a sock puppet. Specifically, I agree User:Mrfixter is likely a sock puppet, but he isn't mine and I've never used one. -- Netoholic @ 05:56, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
 * I am not Netoholics sockpuppet, nor is he mine! --Mrfixter 14:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also request a sock puppet check on User:Vacuum. This person's actions have always been odd, in particular seeming to be a voting sockpuppet, and in particular has always been quite aggressive towards me even before we directly interacted. Since he raised evidence against me here, I need to know who the person behind that account is. -- Netoholic @ 17:20, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppet? With 500 edits? Oh, my! Vacuum c 19:25, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * All of which are harrassment of me, VfD & other voting, odd template creation, and involvement with the Clitoris & Autofellatio articles. Yes, I suspect you are someone's sock puppet. -- Netoholic @ 20:51, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
 * That's completely incorrect. If you look at my early edits hardly any of them were in the WP: namespace. Vacuum c 22:14, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I do the sockpuppet checking to avoid annoying the devs too much. Note that I can only check back seven days. Note also that the checker in question is accessible to me and Tim Starling, and - here's the key point - displays a log of all uses of it. So the watcher is in fact being watched - David Gerard 22:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, seven days isn't very long, so please get Tim Starling on these requests ASAP. -- Netoholic @ 22:57, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)


 * You are aware of the existence of User talk:Tim Starling right? Snowspinner 23:03, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am aware that you feel sarcasm is always in order. I have already tried contacting Tim via IRC.  He didn't have time and pointed my to David.  Naturally, I would like an Arbitrator to please forward these requests so that they're handled.  Perhaps it is you that should do this, since it is your evidence that accuses me of sock puppetry.  -- Netoholic @ 23:18, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Please do "split", and not just "add"
I'd like to second Netoholic on one point: the arbitrators voted to split hearing matters related to Netoholic from the 172 case. Instead what seems to have happened is that a separate, additional case has been raised here, and all the old (and essentially unrelated to 172) material has remained exactly as it was. (And incidentally, each is well over the 1000 words requested maximum.) I thought that Neutrality's suggestion of splitting the cases was an excellent one, but it doesn't seem to have happened. If what was wanted was an additional, separate case, then the (2nd, Netoholic) RfAr should surely have been put in very different terms. Alai 21:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point, especially if whatever Netoholic is being accused of impacts the thinking about the 172 case at all. The 172 case is not a dispute resolution between he and Netoholic.  Netoholic's involvement is almost a matter of accident, I was in the process of preparing a case against 172, because of his abuse of admin powers, one of the most serious violations that can occur on wikipedia.   Netoholic displayed remarkable quickness and thoroughness in putting the case together so well and quickly, and saved me and one or more others considerable effort.  He should also be commended for proposing a de-adminiship policy, although I suspect de-adminship should be easier and nearly automatic for any personal use/abuse by those entrusted with the powers by the community. It is nice that those with the wrong temperament want to serve, but there just isn't any need for them, if they can't refrain from abusing the community and serving themselves rather than the community. --Silverback 13:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The point remains that the arbitrators can consider anything they feel is appropriate to consider in a case; removing the evidence from the 172 evidence page will not mean in any way that the arbitrators are somehow unable to consider its existence. (I am in fact referring to it in the set of proposals I'm drawing up for 172 2.) - David Gerard 22:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Didn't you just say above "someone else's bad actions are not any excuse whatsoever for any bad actions you may have committed." This arbitration against me started as an end-run around procedures, and continues to be.  The arbitrators acceptance was to -split-.  All that non-relevant evidence should be removed from the 172 case page.  I interacted with 172 on a couple talk pages -at most- and evidence regarding my "bad behavior" is irrelevant, as you said above.   I don't care if the arbitrator consider it... the written words should be removed. -- Netoholic @ 22:55, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Impersonation
I sincerely doubt that Netoholic was behind the impersonation of me. He's querellous in some problematic ways, but this isn't one of them. Snowspinner 23:51, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

"vandalism"
Hogwash: none of the definitions in Vandalism can be stretched to apply to Netoholic's edits of District Attorney's Office. (Nor my edits of the same page, but those aren't at issue here.) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 17:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template hijacking
As long as everything is being discussed, I would be much obliged if Netoholic were to explain his attempted hijacking of Template:Sisterproject, after two failed TFD's. This is really quite splendidly audacious, and is probably the single event - well, except for the bot usage - I would most like to see explained. &mdash; Itai (f&t) 21:12, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence
Since I originally posted my evidence I have agreed to serve as Netoholic's Advocate. If Wgfinley is now an official advocate, perhaps he would be so kind as to reformat/move his posts on the Evidence page, since they are argument, not evidence. If he has evidence, by all means post it, but place arguments where they belong. --Calton | Talk 07:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I responded on this users page. Prior Arbcom cases and the rules specify that argument may be presented along with evidence..  All argument is presented with evidence in support of it except for the section concerning personal attacks which is not disputed but rather explained.  --Wgfinley 08:33, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ...rules specify that argument may be presented along with evidence. Right, except what you're doing is the reverse, presenting argument with a soupcon of evidence added to it -- hell, you say so yourself with All argument is presented with evidence. Besides, any argument unsupported by evidence is pretty much by definition a bad argument, so your distinction is pretty much meaningless anyways. I repeat, if you're going to add something to an evidence section, it should be actual evidence -- you know, diffs and links demonstrating some action, behavior, or principle, with explanatory notes -- not a long-winded pseudo-legalistic brief with possible evidence buried within it. --Calton | Talk 04:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC).
 * I'll let the Arbcom decide. --Wgfinley 05:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reorganised evidence for FoF 7
I'd like to ask David Gerard... when you organize this evidence, and make comments about my actions, are you assuming bad faith on my part? -- Netoholic @ 03:45, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)


 * I think, since this reorganization is specifically to support Finding of Fact 7, that he's just showing what evidence supports what part of the finding. Snowspinner 04:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * That would be the case. I've added the FoF itself to make it clear why this section is here. As I note, I'm only a third of the way through the evidence page in writing this section too - David Gerard 07:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent." Normally this would be in the form of a list of diffs after a proposal, but it was so long I put it on the evidence page instead. The purpose of this is for those reading the FoF to be able to quickly see just what out of the 130 kilobytes of evidence page specifically points to that FoF - David Gerard 08:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * And I must say: your protestations of good faith above pale compared to the diffs of your edits that seem to show strongly otherwise. Anyone reading the above defence should take the time to read each of the diffs in the evidence and see the picture they paint - David Gerard 09:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * But David, your list of diffs is only partially of my edits. Can you give me one example of an edit of my clearly showing where I failed to assume good faith?  Frankly, we in this project need to tons down some ego.  I may not agree with other editors at all times, but I do assume they've good intentions.  I try to show above that, rather than be dissmissive, I explain why I disagree with them.  If I didn't think they had good intentions, I wouldn't bother. -- Netoholic @ 18:41, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)


 * Most of the edits listed show both sides of each discussion. I picked examples that illustrate the patterns described in FoF 7 - David Gerard 00:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sheer volume
It seems to me that the sheer volume of purported evidence for this case must set some sort of record, hopefully one that will stand for quite some time.

What inference, if any, we may draw from this is unclear.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My inference is simply that I think people shouldn't wait so long before voicing the problems they see. It is especially unkind to save up such complaints in order to try to "kick them while they're down". -- Netoholic @ 15:37, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)


 * My inference is that people have simply given you quite a bit of rope to allow you to hang yourself with. --Calton | Talk 00:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Netoholic makes a valid point, and Calton illustrates it. Were you wearing your steel toecaps for that one, Calton?--Bishonen | talk 16:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)