User talk:Netoholic

Talk pages on other Wiki's - simple, meta

Add a new section

---

Motivation

"They are never alone that are accompanied with noble thoughts." – Sir Philip Sidney (1554 - 1586)

"To avoid criticism do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. – Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)

---

Simple Logo

Hi,

creating a transparent logo from a non-transparent one is a lot harder than just using the existing transparent one as a template. I would ask you to keep in place the Simple Logo I created, in order to maintain the distinction between the projects, until a better replacement can be found.-Eloquence* 19:21, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior Solar System Needs You

Danny Wool has challenged us to get Wikijunior Solar System out to hurricane evacuees by October 32005. This is going to be tough!

You expressed interest in WikiJunior. Would you be willing now to join the push to get Wikijunior Solar System completed?

--SV Resolution(Talk) 16:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Your help will be appreciated

I have replied on my talk page User talk:0.39 to your remarks about the template I have been working on (User:0.39/Orbiter (sim)/Infobox Spacecraft Template)... Is your offer of help still on?0.39 11:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing star ratings from albums

Was wondering if your bot could convert these star ratings (and their derivatives) in albums to plain text. I noticed you made the changes when the stars template was officially deleted. However, about a thousand remain. an example conversion. Let me know if you can do it. Otherwise, I'll just post on the bot requests page. Thanks. Gflores ^Talk 04:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the discussion. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Stars_to_text. Gflores ^Talk 05:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hulk Picture

Neto, I blocked Locke for his obvious harassment but Fair Use images aren't allowed in the user space, only the article space. So, yes, the image should be removed from your user page even though it's part of the project. --Wgfinley 06:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The image has been there for a long, long time. I provided fair use rationale on Image:Ferrigno as Hulk.jpg, and as far as I know, it's the first time that's been done. I think it is sufficient, and could be an alternative to ideas that a blanket ban on FU images is needed. I'd really like it to be discussed, and will happily comply if fair use rationale doesn't cut it. -- Netoholic @ 06:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Policy read #9, Fair Use images aren't allowed outside of the article space, sorry, this has been an ongoing issue. --Wgfinley 06:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that's what's written, but that's very recent and "fair use rationale" was never brought up. All I've asked is that people hunting down fair use images take this and see if it fits for an exception. Leaving it up as a temporary demonstration would be nice. -- Netoholic @ 06:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the blanket ban on fair use images on user pages is ill thought out. Had I been in charge, I would have granted more leeway for such images, so long as they were not likely to lead to actual legal trouble. However, the current ban is, unfortunately, a Foundation policy. Other users are required to follow it, so it would be unfair to them to grant you a special exemption. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is fairly recent, yes, you put the pic on your user page before it was put into place but yes, I'm afraid you can't use it outside of article space. --Wgfinley 08:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Your "Wikistalking" contribution to Wikipedia:Assume bad faith

It would work a lot better (and be less likely to be reverted) if it were given a lot more negative spin. "The fact that I've reverted every single one of his edits in the past week, regardless of their actual value, is irrelevent", perhaps? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 09:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The main point was to use an exact quote that I saw recently. -- Netoholic @ 09:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Several times, yes

Let me count the erroneous conclusions you've jumped to recently... Moved? That was by your own suggestion, on the talk page. Protected? Yes, for all of 18 minutes, because you were just knee-jerk reverting (while under 1RR and in a namespace you are banned from, no less) rather than responding to what people are saying. Blocked? Yes, you were being disruptive and you know it. Stalk? Wrong, I pay attention to anything that is mentioned on ANI, as well as anything involving {{guideline}}, and have had people complaining to me about you. Bot? If you had been paying the slightest amount of attention you would see that I have defended your bot, which is easily perceived as illegal even though it's not. Spend a lot of time? Hardly, I have better things to do. All of this has been pointed out before and you insist on being paranoid. That makes six blatantly wrong assumptions on your part. HAND. >Radiant< 10:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Mouse

ROTFL. I like your new picture :-). Thanks for that joke! Seems like you're not that dangerous any more :-)... --Adrian Buehlmann 18:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

Thank you for removing the fair use pictures from your user page. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, I'm sorry about accidentally deleting your ForestFire comment on WT:AUM. I simply did a revert without realizing that that would delete your comment as well. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Blind eye

I am frankly shocked that you're choosing to belittle me. I have raised a very serious concern. Nobody has said reading someone's contribs is wrong, far from it... what Locke is threatening is to treat me no better than a vandal, and "correct" things he doesn't like. Are you really endorsing that behavior? Is making sure that I am injured more important to you than encouraging a pleasant working atmosphere? You may not like me, but that doesn't mean you should turn a blind eye to Locke's bad intentions. -- Netoholic @ 04:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to see anyone "injured," but you do very little to encourage "a pleasant working atmosphere." You frequently force your preferences against consensus, using whatever type of manipulation is necessary to push them through. You treat fellow editors with utter contempt, and then you wonder why conflicts arise.

I don't believe that Locke's intentions are bad. Regardless of who's right, this is a content dispute, not harassment. Locke believes that you've made inappropriate changes to various templates pages, and has decided to revert them. This being a wiki, that's a valid option. In the end, the consensus-backed versions (whether yours or Locke's) shall prevail. If, in the meantime, edit warring reaches the point of major disruption and/or 3RR violation, all involved editors will be subject to temporary blocks. —David Levy 05:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute over changes to templates... it is broad-spectrum harassment. He's followed be to an article (Leet), he's suddenly become a "fair use" image hunter and picked my user page to revert war on, and he got involved with a discussion on Template_talk:Infobox_CVG that had nothing to do with the template content (it was about using tiny flag icons). This isn't about whether I made "inappropriate changes to various templates" as your defense of him states. I made a point of showing examples of harassment that had nothing to do with template content and the WP:AUM dispute. Please do not encourage that behavior by implying it's all right. -- Netoholic @ 05:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So Locke looked through your contributions and found some stuff with which he disagreed. Big deal. No offense, Neto, but I can understand why someone would scrutinize your edits. That isn't tantamount to stalking!

Oh, and that user page issue is an absolute joke. You've been gaming the system for months, so don't act as though Locke was the first person to take issue with (and eliminate) your deliberate policy violations. —David Levy 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said on WP:AN/I, the only page I've come to via your contribs is the Ship table template (which is part of our "dispute" over AUM). Am I going to have to explain how we cross paths every time we do? Because that'll get tiring really fast (as will your baseless accusations of wikistalking). What I'm doing re: your contribs is absolutely right. You made a number of templates inaccessible to disabled users, that absolutely must be corrected. I'm sorry if you feel offended by this, but it was your own efforts with AUM which lead to these issues and so far you seem unwilling to go back over your "modifications" to try and correct the issue yourself. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Notice removal

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC reform

Feel free to comment on Wikipedia:User RFC reform regarding my proposals. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop attempting to move WP:URR to other locations. WP:AAP, a similar straw poll, was in the main Wikipedia: namespace, and I see no reason that this should not be. I'm trying very hard to assume good faith here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

table hack

[1] smart solution, thanks :) dab (ᛏ) 20:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

See my reply

See my reply at Template talk:Further. --Khoikhoi 07:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Change to {{oldafdfull}}

Your edit to {{oldafdfull}} broke the uniform appearance of talk-page notices, which was the point of the whole WP:TS process, and I thought was the point of your enthusiastic endorsement of CSS. You might not have noticed, but there is a difference between how a <div> tag and a table display (something to do with margins and borders) which means that the template in your version is slightly wider than others of the same nature. This coupled with the unusual lack of picture ("eye candy" I think was your rather pejorative term) makes the notice rather stand out, instead of blending in. Maybe you could point me to the extensive discussion which has resulted in your decision to change this template, because I must have missed it. I have reverted to using a table pending substantive discussion. Please let me know where such discussion will take place. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So now you've reverted me, on the grounds that {{ and <nowiki>{{</nowiki> are so fundamentally different that I should have taken care to incorporate the latter into my edit. Given that the side-effects of that are negligible, and the side-effects of your change are so obvious, I would think that you would reconsider your changes and possibly discuss them, preferably with the person whom you are reverting. Someone not used to dealing with a small, tempestuous child (I refer here to my daughter, who has special needs and therefore some excuse) might be suspicious that you were deliberately tweaking them. Given your previous stance on the deletrsiou effect on the servers of excessive wheel-warring over templates, this is a surprising stance for you to take. I'm about ready to leave for the night: I hope that you might have considered your attitude by tomorrow. —Phil | Talk 17:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

So switch it back to using table syntax if you must... but leave the image out and don't revert other unrelated changes, no matter how minor. Several standard talk templates have forgone decorative images where they add no value. this one in particular simply takes up too much space vertically. Even Wikipedia:Template standardisation#Chosen scheme mentions images without requiring their inclusion ("A picture, if one is used, is ..."). -- Netoholic @ 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Infobox templates

Your change here is reasonable, neutral wording. I would only change "It may be possible to incorporate text..." to "It is preferable to incorporate the text...". Perhaps you could restore the section? -- Netoholic @ 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to stop the edit war with compromise wording, but failing that I don't want to contribute to revert warring. I'm still hopeful that we will get built-in conditional logic and this will then all be largely academic. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 15:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring vs. compromise

Why are you unwilling to compromise in any way on the content of templates? Also, WTF was with that bizarre non-sequitur you popped on my user page? I have attempted to craft sensible compromises on Template:Infobox and more recently on the ex-AFD template you were edit warring on, but you have shot down any attempts at compromise. Please reconsider. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I call you on your edit warring and incivility, and the best you can do in response is spurious accusations of sockpuppetry? Stop wasting my time. I have articles to work on. You might want to try doing that - of your last 50 edits, only *three* are actually to articles. If you prefer to make trouble for other editors instead of working on the encyclopedia, stay out of my way. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

lived template

Question: since when is {{lived}} template obsoleted? I see NetBot scouring WP and wonder. Pavel Vozenilek 21:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't "obsolete", it's subst'ed. -- Netoholic @ 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

lay off it already

wtf is it with you and "leet"? you leave it for a couple weeks and then go and revert it when you think nobody's looking? why on earth are you carrying on so? can you maybe just leave the template and/or the article alone? i don't want to have yet another stupid "war" over this. it will have either the language box or the dialect box. you cannot possibly believe that it is neither. it is one or the other, please make up your mind, and stop reverting things. aa v ^ 18:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Forking, Templates

I would fork, but unfortunately I don't have the technical expertise. Perhaps you could assist on letting me know what i'd need to do so. Also, i've never made a template within user space before, i'll check around on how to do this, but since that seems to be you're specialty, I was wondering if you could assist in that. If I can't find an easy and quick way to place my welcome message on, i'll just recreate it regardless of the TFD discussion. Nobody seems to give a damn about deletion process anymore anyway... Karmafist 12:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Background

Well, he wasn't the only editor requesting undeletion, although admittedly the DRV 'debate' was really pretty minimal. You can take it back to TfD if you like, or try redirecting it or something. At present, it's barely in use. -Splash^talk 15:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with re-deleting the template. I am not sure on what grounds it can be justified that I would be able to defend in subsequent debate. That the DRV was misled? Then someone should have pointed that out at the time. That the TfD was valid? Yes, it was, but DRV overturned it. I restored it on the basis of three editors' opinions, and would be re-deleting on the basis of only one editor's opinion. I can't really do that. -Splash^talk 23:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Firebug

Earlier today you made an edit on WP:AN suggesting that Crotalus horridus (talk · contribs) was a sock of Firebug (talk · contribs) [2].

Do you have any evidence for this? --Tony Sidaway 19:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)

Neto, thank you for your contributions for the TV naming conventions poll. I just wanted to make sure that you know why I was removing your insertions on the convention. I absolutely agree that it is a wiki, but based on the comments at the top of the page.

This convention was written based on discussion as of [17 August 2004]. A previous poll failed to generate consensus on its status.

It is left here, rather than being blanked out, so that some frame of reference is available for immediate situations. Feel free to ignore these suggestions until a convention is fully discussed.

Your recent insertions do not reflect those discussions and gives the impression that these issues were considered prior to the poll which they were not. Furthermore, there is an ongoing poll discussing different options for naming conventions. The talk page for the poll is actively discussing options outside of the poll. I don't think that substantive changes such as your addition about game shows and adding "(television)" for non television programming is appropriate while the poll and discussion for future options is still open. Please leave your suggestions for the talk page. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I think that they are appropriate suggestions and would support them, but please wait until the polls are over until changes to the actual convention page is made. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I just found out that you have been banned from wikipedia namespace and are restricted to 1RR. Please do not make further edits to this page. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You've made an assumption of my status that is, understandably, incorrect. I have gotten clarification from several Arbitrators that, where my actions are not disruptive, I shouldn't be sanctioned for them. Your aggressive stance on the convention page is unbecoming. The things I documented are not part of your poll, but are good suggestions. Polls are a means to help determine consensus, they are not a legislative tool. I am going to ask that you take back the ad hominem comments on the poll's talk page, and to please restore my convention suggestions. This is a wiki, and changes to pages do not automatically all need to be discussed beforehand. If you disagree with those changes, comment on the talk page or to the contributor directly. Remove them only when they are damaging. To reject changes based on the timing of your poll is flawed in several ways; polls are a means to an end, polls sometimes show consensus well before their arbitrary end date, the changes I made are acceptable, and the changes were not part of the poll (and so, the poll's "outcome" doesn't change them). -- Netoholic @ 17:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made the change to the talk page as you have requested, but I stand by the inappropriateness of you action and think that they are disruptive. You are known to push forward your ideas counter to the community (even when you may be right). Placing your new suggestions at a archived rejected convention, then changing that convention when it is being cited by an active poll is disruptive. The changes you suggested were within the purvue of the poll as "game show" fits under content produced for television. Had you simply left it as a comment on the talk page, I would have no objection, as it is a good one and would have likely been incorporated into the convention, but you WRONGLY assume that it is up to YOU to change it prior to the poll being finished. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic, I mean this in the most sincere, AGF way, it is not intended as a criticism, simply a statement of my feeling. I honestly do not know how to deal with you in a constructive manner. I have written and rewritten several responses to your comments, none of which seem appropriate, so I am going to let the matter rest. Best of luck in your future editing. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 07:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Simple English vandalism

Mass vandalism from 82.23.255.111 on Simple English. Got User:Pg2114 already helping out, but my monitor keeps going so I can't revert and he needs blocking for at least a month. -- Archer7

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Evidence

As you mentioned something about Crotalus horridus, I thought you might like to know that the arbitration case is open and you can present evidence. --Tony Sidaway 10:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up poll

I think that the success of the last poll at moving this naming convention forward shows that polls work, particularly in this situation where there are many acceptable ways of moving forward. The poll options are there to generate discussion and reflect the community's opinion about what options are to be considered. The previous poll said if that there was no consensus reached that there may need to be a follow-up poll. There are also as yet unresolved issues about naming that should be addressed and the poll was an effective means of doing so when they have been previously discussed. Please see Wikipedia:Process is Important. As far as I can tell, you are the only one objecting to these polls. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to emphasize the point. The poll is designed generate discussion FIRST, then polling will follow, that is why the poll options are open for editing and disucssion. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To make sure I do not start an edit war. I am going to link the follow up poll with the emphasis on discussion prior to any vote, with the poll options as items I see as needing addressing. It is intended as a structured presentation of unresolved issues to drive discussion (as was my draft naming convention), and not necessarily as a poll. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

After I saw your comment, I tried to rollback my changes, and I see that you had beat me to the punch. I want to make sure that we are working well together. I am trying hard to respect your opinion, please do the same for me. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion will have to wait a little bit for news shows. I need to go. If TV/television and television movies are resolved satisfactorily or removed from the convention, this can be a guideline. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 00:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Firebug

If Firebug is still around around in another account, it's a different case; he isn't involved in the dispute central to RJII anymore. It's not like he's evading any ban we've put on him, we actually decided restrictions weren't necessary, other than a warning, so I don't see what's to be gained by waiting on closing. It won't change the outcome of this case. Dmcdevit·t 00:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUM

I see between you and LOcke Cole, that you've managed to get this page protected due to protracted editwarring. This is not acceptable. I have therefore unprotected the page. I am going to block each of you as soon as you begin edit warring there again. Go and talk, go and fume, go and have a cup of tea. But do not continue edit warring, for it is not an acceptable mode of conduct or policy generation. I'm not interested in complaints about 'the other side', either, since that doesn't justify the recent behaviour on AUM. You in particular are not even supposed to be editing in Wikipedia space, let alone warring there. -Splash^talk 00:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Firebug

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: unhelpful

This is unhelpful. The current "Scratchpad" design is terrible, but I just wanted to get things started. I see a lot of value in creating an unobtrusive reminder for people when the edit talk pages (sign your posts, be nice, etc. ). -- Netoholic @ 18:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

But I don't see any value (though I could change my mind if it turns out to be really useful). I thought pointing it by erasing the proposed template (which is what I should do if I were to edit it like it were the main page) would be impolite, so I opted to add a comment below it instead. I agree with your way to get things started; it's just unfortunate that my proposed change is to simply erase it. --cesarb 19:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Qif

What's your take on this now? Interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

vote images

Do not remove content from other people's subpages without their consent unless or unless it contravenes policy, doing so is considered vandalism. If they want to listen to you and remove them themselves that's up to them but it isn't up to you to make that distinction. I have reverted all of your removals. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, please see my response to your statement on my talk page. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about them I suggest you file an RFC Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know I don't and won't hold any grudge against you for trying to get them deleted (though I'm pretty sure you will fail) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've always been a big believer that there should be a way to force substing on certain templates and as a standard matter I always subst certain templates (including my voting ones) but there's no way your gonna be able to get people to entirely abandon images in templates and such. As it is I know of at least 5 or 6 prominent Wikipedians who have images in their sigs which means that every page they sign has that image which comes to a lot of images on pages like AN and AN/I. I wish you the best of luck in your quest though as futile as it may be. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but you've been here long enough to know that telling people not to put images in their sigs will just make more people want to do it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to assume good faith until you unilaterally removed images from people's subpages when there's very little backing you up. Granted there's very little backing up having images as well but I think that giving the other people the reason of the doubt on this one wouldn't have been too much to ask especially since you just went ahead and removed them after asking them nicely (the correct move btw) to remove them themselves which seems a bit odd. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You're edits are paramount to vandalism. You have no right in editing my userspace. That is mine. There is no reason why I should stop putting in images on my votes. If you can think of something that is remotely close to a reasonable justification, than please inform me before meddling where you have no right to be.

If you even bothered to read through the arguments you would see that an investigation to the server drain was undertaken and it was found to be absolutely minimal and no reason to not use the template. Further more, most of support for the deletion of the templates were "vulture" votes - no regard to arguments (set out by mainly myself) in the defence of the template, just a mob frenzy of deletionists. I mean it's pretty hypocrictical talking about the server drain on the miniscul png's when I have to put up with huge "Crush by elephant" etc votes sporting much larger jpeg's. Please cease your persecution! --Fir0002 www 10:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox

please tell me that people aren't still edit warring at the Infobox template. That has to be the longest running continuous edit war on Wikipedia. Please leave me a message if you think the template should be protected... by just looking at the history it looks like protection may be needed. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have protected Template:Infobox due to the constant edit warring. Please note that this is entirely unrelated to my other disputes with you and the fact that I disputed on a version that was not yours was not on purpose as I do not let outside disputes affect how I perform my admin duties. As I noted on the template's talk page please work out nicely among yourselves a solution so that the edit warring can stop. Thanks. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

re: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Good idea. I'm at my 3RR limit anyway and I try to not even go as far as two reverts if I can help it. I kind of lost myself for awhile there. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy listings

I have removed those speedy listings you placed since him using it in his own userspace is not cut and dry speedy criteria. I also think that it's sleezy to try to use speedy instead of using MFD which you said was your intentio. Go to MFD if you think that people will with agree with you trying to get them deleted. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll strongly oppose any attempts you make to continue to do a runaround on process. You stated that you were going to take the pages to MFD and I expect you to do just that. If you are indeed right and people shouldn't be using them then there will be a consensus to delete and it will be over and done with. BTW, mine are substed versions of Fir's which are substed versions I assume of the original template back when it existed. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been asking you to do. Put it up on MFD or put up an RFC on them and get input from other people on it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not he's substing them or not is totally unrelated to the TFD debate and is irrelevant in that sense even though I agree with you that if he is using them he should be substing them so it doesn't do a double hit on the servers. Again my suggestion is to wait a reasonable time to give him a chance to at least respond or act on your request and/or start an MFD on his, mine, and whoever else is using the images since that seems to be the bigger issue your after which is images being used on votes. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I went to the ones you just changed and replaced the images by substing through all the templates including fixing the one I just accidentally broke. This way it stays the same without having transcluded templates to deal with. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know I have blocked NetBot since your using it innapropriately. I would have been fine if you had just been substing the templates since that is well within general standards to do so but you were removing the images as well which was blatantly innapropriate. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 09:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm enforcing the fact that bots are not supposed to be making controversial edits. I will unblock if you will make it only subst such templates instead of removing them and replacing them with text equivalencies since substing them is entirely non-controversial and is well within what your bot is allowed to do. Until. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 10:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop the bot and take this to MFD. If it goes your way then I'll help you myself purge every single instance of these templates and tags from the page. The alternative for the moment is to set your bot to just subst the templates which is my personal recommendation. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 10:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am going to unblock the bot with the good faith that your bot will stick to only substing the templates and will not remove the images until this can be taken through MFD. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 10:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've also stopped rollbacking. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 10:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have just been discussing the issue of his templates with Fir and it ends up he did not know how to do substitution so I have now told him how substitution works and asked him to do that in the future with his templates so hopefully those won't be an issue in the future. I'm not sure about the other person who was using transclusion though. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 10:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Babel Box Questions

I plan on nominating the following templates for deletion–

• Template:Babel-0
• Template:Babel-1
• Template:Babel-2
• Template:Babel-3
• Template:Babel-4
• Template:Babel-5
• Template:Babel-6
• Template:Babel-7
• Template:Babel-8
• Template:Babel-9
• Template:Babel-10
• Template:Babel-11
• Template:Babel-12
• Template:Babel-13
• Template:Babel-14
• Template:Babel-15
• Template:Babel-16
• Template:Babel-17
• Template:Babel-18
• Template:Babel-19
• Template:Babel-20
• Template:Babel-21
• Template:Babel-22
• Template:Babel-23
• Template:Babel-24
• Template:Babel-25
• Template:Babel-26
• Template:Babel-27
• Template:Babel-28
• Template:Babel-29
• Template:Babel-30
• Template:Babel-31
• Template:Babel-32
• Template:Babel-33
• Template:Babel-34
• Template:Babel-35
• Template:Babel-36
• Template:Babel-37
• Template:Babel-38
• Template:Babel-39
• Template:Babel-40
• Template:Babel-41
• Template:Babel-42
• Template:Babel-43
• Template:Babel-44
• Template:Babel-45
• Template:Babel-46
• Template:Babel-47
• Template:Babel-48
• Template:Babel-143
• Template:Babel-L3 (this last one is identical to Template:Babel-3 I believe, except it's left aligned)

I was wondering if you could setup your bot, assuming the TFD is successful, to go through and convert all uses of these templates to the more reasonable {{userboxtop}} and {{boxboxbottom}}?

On a separate note, I noticed {{boxboxtop}} was moved to {{userboxtop}} and agree that the name makes more sense. But {{boxboxbottom}} was moved to another name ({{boxbottom}} I think); I think it should have been {{userboxbottom}} for consistancies sake. I'm not 100% sure if template redirects work past more than a single redirect, so I'm hesitant to move {{boxboxbottom}}/{{boxbottom}} again. But if you agree that the naming would be more consistant (and if the double redirects are an issue for templates), your bot could convert all the references to {{boxboxbottom}} to the new name a lot quicker than I could. =)

BTW, here's some other templates that we might want to try and get rid of if there's a way to duplicate their functionality (seems to be multi-column babel/user-boxes)–

• Template:Babel-2-4
• Template:Babel-2-5
• Template:Babel-2-6
• Template:Babel-2-7
• Template:Babel-2-8
• Template:Babel-2-9
• Template:Babel-2-10
• Template:Babel-3-4
• Template:Babel-3-10

Finally, these two templates seem to be reasonable alternatives to the existing Babel-box mess (so should probably be kept for now)–

• Template:Babel-N
• Template:Babel-X

BTW: if you agree, and you want to mass-nominate that large group at the top, be my guest; let me know if you've done (or are going to do) this and I'll support their deletion. Let me know what you think. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding this, I began attempting to orphan Babel-1 and got my ass chewed. Considering that such a response came from the userbox amateurs, I'm hesitant to proceed any higher until I've got some kind of backup. — Feb. 28, '06 [05:17] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Blocked for violation of arbcomm

I've blocked you [3] for 48h for violation of your arbcomm judgement, as per WP:AN3 William M. Connolley 16:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification before, and the Arbitrators have commented as such:

• link Netoholic is technically prohibited from editing in the Wikipedia and template namespaces. However, several arbitrators (myself and David Gerard in particular) have expressed approval of what Netoholic has been doing vis-a-vis killing metatemplates. - Raul654
• link A strong caution about dealing gently with policy should remain - but he seems to be getting this point, which is excellent. - David Gerard
• link He's enforcing an oft-disregarded policy and taking the time to do it properly, and a majority of members of the arbitration committee have given him their explicit consent to do so - preventing this sort of activity was not what anyone had in mind with the original ban. - Ambi
• link If Netoholic's actions aren't disruptive, but are in fact aiding the project, then I see no particular reason to go ahead and prevent him from contributing so; OTOH, were Netoholic's actions to become disruptive, then the ruling would be appropriate to be used to block him from such actions. ... It is up to the blocking (or deciding-not-to-block) sysop to come to their own conclusion as to whether their common-sense-o-meter has pinged. If in doubt, don't. - Jdforrester
• link while Netoholic is behaving usefully, he is not to be blocked for a technical violation of the terms of his case - Sam Korn

Other editors have expressed similar feelings about my status.

• link He has improved dramatically, and his current behavior is in no way worthy of any sanction. - Snowspinner

Please don't block me on the basis of the strict letter of the old ArbCom ruling. I'm not being disruptive, so please unblock me. -- Netoholic @ 17:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You are being disruptive. —David Levy 17:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

They meant that so long as I am not being disruptive, as in clear Disruption as described in the Blocking policy, to the point of recklessness. This current block seems to have been based on the strict letter of the ArbCom ruling, rather than looked at from a wider perspective. -- Netoholic @ 18:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense, and you know it. What you're describing is tantamount to a complete termination of your parole, which obviously hasn't occurred. Administrators were instructed to set aside your restrictions, provided that your edits were constructive (and not disruptive). The edits in question were quite disruptive, and they resembled the type of behavior that led to these sanctions in the first place.

Also, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that most of the above quotes are from back when WP:AUM was mistakenly believed to be a developer-mandated policy (and before we learned that the hiddenStructure hack was harmful, as confirmed by Brion). Obviously, the situation has changed significantly, but you continue to act as though you've been given blanket permission to revert war without any consequences.

And what authority do you believe Snowspinner possesses?! —David Levy 18:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner was involved in the Arbitration, and it seems even he thinks the sanctions are inappropriate. I think that makes his opinion worth quoting. -- Netoholic @ 18:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The belief that your recent behavior has not been nearly as bad as "the sort of shit [you] used to pull" is hardly a glowing endorsement, nor should this opinion automatically be applied to all of your subsequent actions. —David Levy 18:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi - can someone please point me towards what actual offense Netoholic was blocked for? i.e. what edits? Phil Sandifer 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was a result of comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Locke Cole. -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So it seems. Unless someone can point me towards a very good reason not to in the next two hours, I'm going to unblock - the arbcom did suggest that the ruling should be used when Netoholic is actually being disruptive. I see nothing here that wouldn't be tolerated were it to come from absolutely any other user. Professor Cattleprod is annoyed at his misapplication. Phil Sandifer 18:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't believe that revert warring (for the purpose of restoring code that has been declared harmful by the lead Mediawiki developer) while citing an unpopular proposal as policy is disruptive?! —David Levy 18:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Net - could you explain why you made those reverts? Phil Sandifer 18:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Sam Korn has opined that both Netoholic and Locke Cole (who also was blocked) were being disruptive. —David Levy 19:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I won't bother discussion why meta-templates are evil (conditional ones especially). Specific to the Template:Infobox Software, Locke failed to propose his Qif conversion on the talk page, nor did he provide an explanation why Qif is better than hiddenStructure in this specific case. When I reverted, he still did not explain his rationale on talk, but instead reverted me three times with the edit summary "rvv", where my edit was clearly not vandalous. Since my edit was not vandalous, I wanted to restore this template to the way it has been for quite some time. He should have explained his rationale on talk, and let the regular maintainers decide, rather than impose his preferenc. Please note that the hiddenStructure method has been in use since November/December, and it was not me that put it there. -- Netoholic @ 20:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I think I'm going to leave the block in place - the arbcom clarification can't really be taken as a blanket endorsement either, and the CSS hacks were pretty explicitly slammed by Brion, and revert warring is bad. I do think, in the future, 24 hours is more appropriate than 48, though. Phil Sandifer 20:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

While there has not been the same level of dispute over Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television) as with WP:AUM, I did have some problems working with User:Netoholic. Specifically he tried push a convention that was not accepted by the community. There was a small revert war between myself and Netoholic, but we were able to work to some level of agreement. However, I sometimes found it extremely difficult to work with him and would sometimes characterizes his actions as disruptive. While I do not think this current level of "disruptiveness" would be problematic for other users, I think he has a history of action that needs to be addressed. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I blocked Neto, for a clear breach of his arbcomm judgement. IMO being involved in a revert war counts as disruptive. If any of the arbitrators want to unblock (or indeed any other admin who feels strongly enough about it) I don't object William M. Connolley 20:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC).

You were 100% correct to block, and we now have a statement by an ArbCom member (in fact, one of those quoted above by Netoholic himself) indicating that Netoholic's edits were disruptive. —David Levy 20:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Further: the arbcomm ruling is this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Netoholic_2#Namespace_and_revert_restriction. Not only has Neto broken the no-template bit, he's broken the 1RR/d bit. See-also [4] from Sam Korn William M. Connolley 20:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not impressed by N's answer to PS above. I admit to knowing something about skating close to arbcomm rulings myself, but in this case N is totally ignoring them. Or trying to. William M. Connolley 20:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Which is more disruptive -- reverting a clearly non-vandalous edit with "rvv", or restoring that reverted edit? In that regard I did nothing that anyone else wouldn't do if they were incorrectly reverted as "rvv". -- Netoholic @ 20:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So...you're arguing the two wrongs make a right theory? —David Levy 20:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I am saying it is not wrong to revert a couple of times when someone calls your edit vandalous, when it clearly is not. I reverted his "rvv" assertion twice, but did not violate 3RR. I was not disruptive. -- Netoholic @ 21:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring without discussion is disruptive. Citing a proposal as policy is disruptive. Inserting harmful code (while claiming to remove harmful code, which actually is far less problematic) is disruptive.

You were eager to quote Sam Korn's stance. Now that he has condemned your behavior, you're distancing yourself from his remarks to the extent that you actually removed a notation/link (along with some other unflattering comments, only one of which you restored) with the edit summary "reply to phil." —David Levy 22:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The point N seems to be missing is that it *is* wrong to be editing in total ignoring-ance of the arbcomm ruling. The arbcomm banned you from editing templates. At the very least you should be extremely cautious in editing templates, and arguably you shouldn't do it at all. But if you really must, then you can't possibly justify getting into a revert war William M. Connolley 21:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Amazing Race flags

Please don't remove the national flags from The Amazing Race 9 location list. The flags are helpful for indicating the countries visited; note similar examples for 2002_World_Cup#Teams, Total Olympics medal count, etc.

If you believe otherwise, maybe you should gauge the popular opinion on the Race's talk page before removing the flags again. Because from my recollection, other editors have never had a problem with the current layout.

Cheers, --Madchester 21:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've created a poll gauging the opinion of your proposed removal of country flags. Feel free to vote, when your block expires.

Cheers, --Madchester 22:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've been unblocked, feel free to leave a vote or comment regarding country flags in TAR articles. See Talk:The_Amazing_Race_9#Straw_poll_on_removal_of_country_flags

Cheers, --Madchester 07:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been temporarily blocked for disruptively violating the one-revert restriction imposed by the ArbCom. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. —David Levy 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you really feel like you are being neutral in your dealings with me? -- Netoholic @ 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Revert warring is disruptive. Not only did you make no attempt to discuss the disputed content, but you actually condemned Madchester's failure to do so (as though the onus was entirely on this user).

Again, your parole has not ended. The ArbCom expressed a willingness to bend the terms, purely as a means of allowing you to rewrite the conditional templates (back when it was believed that this was advisable). You have not been given permission to engage in article edit warring.

Even in the absence of an ArbCom decision, any editor who demonstrates this type of pattern can be blocked as a result. Quoth the 3RR:

"This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."

—David Levy 22:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant do you really think that -you- are neutral enough to treat me fairly? -- Netoholic @ 03:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Despite what you seem to believe, I don't dislike you. In fact, I believe that you're a valuable contributor, and that's one of the reasons why I've been reluctant to block you in the past (despite several instances in which it would have been justified, including one in which you literally asked for it).

Unfortunately, you've left me with no choice; you seem you be reverting (no pun intended) to your hold habits, and that's unacceptable. I blocked you because you were disruptive. I hope never to do it again, but I will if I have to. Please reform, Neto. —David Levy 03:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective, this doesn't seem true. You've blocked me while WP:AUM is under active discussion,

And it will be under active discussion for at least a little while longer. Please join in (instead of edit warring).

arbitrators have asked that admins shouldn't be too strict on the exact wording of the ruling,

You've been violating the "exact wording" for months. Have I blocked you before?

your interpretation of "disruptive" is a great deal too strict,

Again, revert warring is widely regarded as disruptive, and anyone can be blocked for repeatedly engaging in this type of behavior. Do you believe that the ArbCom has elevated you to a special level of immunity?

you blocked me without warning,

You've been warned on countless occasions. You knew exactly what you were doing.

and you aren't offering to assist or mentor me,

That isn't my responsibility, and you've been here longer than I have. Nonetheless, if there's some way that you think I can help you, please let me know. Keep in mind, however, that the manner in which you exploited your mentorship was entirely inappropriate.

and you are just too close to me to really act impartially.

You've ticked off quite a few people, Neto, and you can't honestly expect all of them to ignore your misdeeds (purely as a means of avoiding the appearance of impropriety). I would never block someone with whom I was engaged in a current conflict, nor would I seek retaliation for past disputes.

Believe me, if I were looking for an excuse to block you, it wouldn't have taken me nearly this long.

Would a neutral admin, knowing both about the ruling and the clarifications, have made the same block?

Some would have (not all, of course). It depends upon the particular admin's judgement and his/her familiarity with your history.

Did you even investigate Madchester's actions around that page to see if things weren't a bit more complex than first appeared?

I saw that you twice reverted an article without any attempt to discuss the disputed matter, and you actually criticized the other user's "pattern of snap reverts with no Talk page discussion." What do you think you were doing?

I warned Madchester because he has shown ownership over Amazing Race articles before and been blocked for 3RR violations. His snap reverts of my edit are along those lines.

So now we're back to the two wrongs make a right theory?

My note to him was to prevent future problems... in other words, I needn't explain my edit, but he needs to work on explaining his reverts and cooling down when people make minor changes.

You needn't explain your edit, but another editor has to justify reverting it? What makes your preferred version special?

Again, this was more complex than you are aware, and your non-neutrality to me is starting to show through - especially so soon after your other vehement arguments involved in the 48hour block....

What was I supposed to do? Pretend that I condoned your actions? Even Snowspinner refused to unblock last time (though I see he's come to your rescue this time).

removing my unblock tag was totally improper.

How so? Your request was denied by two uninvolved admins. "If there is a legitimate reason to remove the block, please do so; otherwise, please leave a note to that effect on the user's talk page. In either case, please remove this template once you're done." (emphasis mine)

Please consider again whether you can really treat me fairly. -- Netoholic @ 03:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please consider accepting responsibility for your actions (instead of blaming everyone else for the natural consequences thereof). —David Levy 05:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe that if people stopped fretting about every breach they see me making, and instead try and speak to me like a human being, then I'd be a lot better off. Blocking me was not a "natural consequence", because it is my understanding that, while revert wars are generally disruptive as a concept, I reverted that page only twice... and the reverter was someone whose had a good deal of trouble competitively editing of that article. -- Netoholic @ 05:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You point out that you "reverted that page only twice," as though that's indicative of commendable restraint. Even setting aside your "one revert per page per day" restriction, the 3RR clearly indicates that the three-revert threshold is not an entitlement. And once again, you're citing another editor's behavior as an excuse to edit war (as though two wrongs make a right). —David Levy 06:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I try very hard to not work under logical fallacies like "two wrongs make a right". Indeed, in this instance, I've not even said whether I was "wrong" or "right". For "two wrongs make a right" to apply, I'd have to admit I committed a wrong and did it for retaliation. Instead, I am trying explain why you made a casual oversimplification. The circumstances were not as clear-cut as you thought... which is why you took my comment on Madchester page wrongly. You thought I was setting a double standard, whereas I was speaking from interpersonal experience. Just 24 hours before, Madchester was also snap-reverting other good-faith changes on that page, and he's had recurring problems with ownership before, so that's why I left my comment. -- Netoholic @ 06:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to investigate further, because I'm assuming that your claims regarding Madchester's behavior are 100% accurate. This makes no difference, because YOU were revert warring. Your only defense seems to be that he did it too. The fact that you just reported him for a 3RR violation is utterly flabbergasting. —David Levy 07:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm lifting this one. The parole on Netoholic is not to be used to bully him into silence, and I'm very distressed to see it being used for that. Phil Sandifer 04:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm distressed to see an admin assuming bad faith on the part of another admin (despite the latter's detailed rationale) and unilaterally overruling his decision without discussion. —David Levy 05:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job.

• "If you disagree with a block placed by another admin, please contact that admin to discuss the matter. ... Bear in mind that blocked users commonly e-mail several admins claiming to be the victims of persecution by a biased admin. Because it is not always obvious from the blocked user's edit history what the problem was, it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking admin, rather than performing the unblock yourself. Wikipedia:Blocking policy
• Since Wikipedia works on the spirit of consensus, disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than wheel wars. Wikipedia:Wheel war — Omegatron 04:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wheel warring really implies more than one overturning. This isn't even a wheel border skirmish. Phil Sandifer 04:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How reassuring. — Omegatron 04:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You've totally ignored the first quote, Phil, but you're correct about the second one; this isn't a wheel war, because I won't allow it to become one. I will, however, solicit outside feedback on this matter. —David Levy 05:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll address the first one then... if you're going to insist that Phil should have contacted you before unblocking me... why couldn't you have contacted me first before blocking me? -- Netoholic @ 05:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted you, Neto, and explicitly warned you that this type of behavior was likely to result in a block. I could have blocked you in the past, but I didn't.

Please don't plead ignorance, as it's an entirely implausible defense. —David Levy 06:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You did not contact me today until after the block was on. Had you, I would have explained what was happening on that page, and also asked that you take a look. I'd also have asked that you not do the block yourself, due to how dogged your criticism of me has been recently. -- Netoholic @ 06:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I did "take a look," and I saw clearly disruptive behavior on your part.

2. I criticize you because you do stuff like this. Again, I have nothing against you on a personal level, and I would never block anyone with whom I was engaged in a current dispute. (And I'll note that I've never edited that article or any related articles.) —David Levy 07:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to this page, comments directed at me, are enough to show you are anything but uninvolved. -- Netoholic @ 07:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in this dispute, nor am I presently involved in any other conflict to which you're a party. Once again, you've assigning blame to everyone but yourself. You blame Madchester, and you blame me, but you refuse to accept any responsibility for your own revert warring. —David Levy 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lynchers rarely see fault in what they are doing, and instead attribute blame onto the person they are lynching. I do not blame anyone for my actions... I point out that Madchester has had his own revert problems on these articles before. I also point out that you are non-neutral. Your block is an independent action from my reverts, but some would see your action as "wrong" because of how much you have been involved with my actions. -- Netoholic @ 07:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I would disagree. That's irrelevant to the fact that you deny having done anything wrong. —David Levy 08:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have not made any moral assessment as to whether I was right or wrong. -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Well, you really should. —David Levy 08:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You should as well, which gets back to my original question... Do you really feel like you are being neutral in your dealings with me? -- Netoholic @ 08:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

For the third time, yes. —David Levy 08:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Even when people disagree with that assessment, as they have in your section on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? So far, I see three people (me, Snowspinner, and Alai) who think you were non-neutral. No one has yet stepped forward to say that they feel you were totally neutral. -- Netoholic @ 08:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You can spin the remarks however you please, but I don't need other people to tell me what thoughts exist within my own mind. Call me a liar if you wish, but I assure you that I based my block purely upon your disruptive actions (and not any sort of grudge). —David Levy 09:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I have seen David's interactions with you thusfar, and wholly support his actions. You are technically restricted from editing in wikipedia and template namespace until May 2006. In response to your constructive edits in those namespaces (in violation of the decision) some ARBCOM members informally allowed you to edit if you were not disruptive. He respected that position and choose not to block you for technical violation of your mediation and has only blocked you after repeated disruptions. David has interacted with you before and despite your rudeness on his userpage 1 2, he gave you a barnstar for your efforts at WP:AUM. The complaints about you have been legitimate, longstanding and entirely relevant despite your claims to the otherwise. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Updated 16:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes "repeated disruption"? I'm constantly being dogged by the same few individuals, who are the only ones complaining. He blocked me on a technical violation (for reverting twice on one article). Two reverts on an article are rarely considered disruptive... I'm being subjected to unnatural scrutiny and standards which are too strict. I respect the goal here, but the implementation is simply alienating me. -- Netoholic @ 16:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you truly respected the goal, you would get less complaints and criticism and blocks. You CHOSE to edit in violation of the ARBCOM. You continue to CHOOSE be involved with edit wars, pushing your own interpretation. The "unnatural scruity and standards" were necessary because of your previous actions and resulted in two ARBCOMs for you 1 2 because of your actions. You have brought on these restrictions. Do not blame anyone else for your actions. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The first RFAr was closed amicably, and with no sanctions, after I spent some time discussing with the other involved party (User:Ta bu shi da yu). He and I are now good wiki-friends. As for the 2nd RFAr, Snowspinner brought that, and he and I are also developing a better relationship. In both cases, it took positive action and mutual respect to resolve the differences. Do not blame me for getting complaints and criticism, when it is I who spend more time than anyone else trying to come to a reasonable understanding. My kind overtures have been dismissed. Draw no conclusion from the vehement compliants of a few editors, and instead base your assessment of me on the sum of my actions. -- Netoholic @ 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

So you know, I am not judging my opinion of you based on the complaints of others. I saw this kind of editing when working with you and saw it confirmed in you interactions with others. I didn't know or care about WP:AUM until after the discussion at the TV naming convention.

While the people who have brought the complaint against you may have changed, I never felt positive action and mutual respect from you in my interactions with you. Instead I felt that you would continue to advocate a position that you thought was reasonable in spite of my objections. It is this kind of editing I think is at the heart of complaints and frustration with your actions. You will often continue to revert to the version of your choice while expecting others to justify their actions to you, rather than the other way around. In some cases you are convinced by their arguments, in others you are not convinced and will continue to advocate a position despite opinions shared by other editors. In some of these cases, you complain about the unreasonable actions of others wanting the article their way and will continue to revert, sometime leading into a war. We had a small edit war and then I chose to leave the version you wanted rather than have it escalate again because I knew you would revert me and I couldn't change your mind. I think you feel that your edits are completely justified and reasonable but others may not think so despite your best arguments [5]. You often bring valid points to a discussion and are a valuable editor, but that does not mean that you are always right. It also means that you do not have to be proven wrong to have an article changed from the way that you want it. If you are right the article will be changed ultimately because you were right, not because you were arguing the point. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

block by Zscout370

Zscout370, I've asked for clarification before, and the Arbitrators have commented as such:

• link Netoholic is technically prohibited from editing in the Wikipedia and template namespaces. However, several arbitrators (myself and David Gerard in particular) have expressed approval of what Netoholic has been doing vis-a-vis killing metatemplates. - Raul654
• link A strong caution about dealing gently with policy should remain - but he seems to be getting this point, which is excellent. - David Gerard
• link He's enforcing an oft-disregarded policy and taking the time to do it properly, and a majority of members of the arbitration committee have given him their explicit consent to do so - preventing this sort of activity was not what anyone had in mind with the original ban. - Ambi
• link If Netoholic's actions aren't disruptive, but are in fact aiding the project, then I see no particular reason to go ahead and prevent him from contributing so; OTOH, were Netoholic's actions to become disruptive, then the ruling would be appropriate to be used to block him from such actions. ... It is up to the blocking (or deciding-not-to-block) sysop to come to their own conclusion as to whether their common-sense-o-meter has pinged. If in doubt, don't. - Jdforrester
• link while Netoholic is behaving usefully, he is not to be blocked for a technical violation of the terms of his case - Sam Korn

Other editors have expressed similar feelings about my status.

• link He has improved dramatically, and his current behavior is in no way worthy of any sanction. - Snowspinner, who brought the case to Arb in the first place

Please don't block me on the basis of the strict letter of the old ArbCom ruling. I'm not being disruptive - the reports on WP:ANI are spurious and being made by specific people to make repeated trouble for me. Please unblock me. -- Netoholic @ 15:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If the arbitrators felt the way you're suggesting then they'd have reopened your case and removed your ban. As they haven't, they clearly don't (despite your many difflinks to quotes suggesting otherwise). Also note that those difflinks largely come from before WP:AUM was determined to not be policy. You do not have a license from the ArbCom to be disruptive. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not trust your interpretation of "disruptive". My edits are always well-reasoned, and I try to explain them. You in particular are going to great lengths to make it seem like what I'm doing is somehow wrong - but you need to look within yourself. The Arbitrators issued their clarifications... I'd have liked things to be re-opened and the santions dropped fully, but that didn't happen as they felt their clarifications were enough. I invite you to stop harrassing me. -- Netoholic @ 17:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I need to look within myself for what? The arbitrator clarifications are moot since WP:AUM is no longer a concern (and that was overwhelmingly the only reason they allowed you to violate your namespace bans). And what you've done was wrong. What you try to continue to do is wrong. Forking templates then trying to deprecate the more widely used one is wrong: gain consensus for your changes, don't try to side-step the rejection by being disruptive to Wikipedia. That's disruptive. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The people involved with the previous Arbitrations (arbitrators and the other parties) have said that I've improved. You're hounding me at every turn and trying to make a strategic move against me, even when I've offered to work and discuss with you. I've extended my hand, and you've slapped it away and kicked me in the balls. As for those templates, creating a transition template is normal operating procedure. To change how the parameters are used, each article must be edited and migrated. This cannot be done immediately, even with a bot. Indeed, the sheer number of parameter name changes and the way they are phrased, makes using a bot risky and complex. These were being converted manually. This is in no way disruptive action on my part. -- Netoholic @ 17:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

You know full and well you can have multiple parameters, for example– {{{foo|{{{bar|}}}}}}. It's not pretty, but it would be fairly straightforward to modify Template:Ship table to use both names, have a bot go over pages that use it to try and handle the easy cases, then create a list of those remaining that need to be done by hand. There's no need to fork and a lose edit history. It doesn't help when you knew your forked template was up on WP:TFD and you decided to try and mark the original template as deprecated. The ArbCom put you on notice regarding your behavior, hence the namespace bans and the 1RR. Instead of trying to blame everyone else for simply catching you, why not admit that you've lost your cool and need to reconsider how you handle yourself? It's not hard to be civil. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, how is it possible you know what I "knew"? You speak like you read my mind.

Anyway, the double parameter method is fairly ugly, and people would not be able to use Whatlinkshere to see which articles still need conversion. Also, there is no need to lose edit history, as the original can simply be redirected OR the histories can be merged later. Lastly, I replaced the tdeprecated tag after discovering that it had been removed - I'd put it there once long ago (see my talk page note also). I never noticed it had been removed, but it looks like it was removed about a week later, without any talk page justification. Again, the meta-templates were only one reason for the migration... parameter names were meant to be changed as well. This is all in good faith and with good reason. I think I handled this well. -- Netoholic @ 18:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This suggestion might be a little strange, but why not just take a break for 24 hours and discuss this when your block expires? Moe ε 22:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Great suggestion, except for the fact that I've basically been blocked for a four days here over these trivial literal interpretations of my sanctions. I'm feeling a bit bullied. -- Netoholic @ 23:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How so is it five days? (Sorry for butting in) Moe ε 23:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Zscout370's response

I got Neto's email in my inbox, and I looked over it. While I did not notice the blocks the four days before that Neto has mentioned, but as it was brought up earlier, the current ArbCom rulling that I used to determine the block is still standing (I would have been told or seen on AN/I (where I found this out)). Your welcome to see if the ArbCom is willing to clarify the ruling or remove the restrictions all together. But, will I block for this again; probably not. I did it once, for 24 hours, and that is it from me in this debate. I am going to unblock now, but I am going to ask you, Neto, to please go to WP:RFAr and ask to see if the ArbCom is willing to clarify Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Netoholic_2#Namespace_and_revert_restriction (you have about 2 months to go on this, according to the ruling). Though, to my detriment, I should have mentioned something to your mentors (which was required by the same ArbCom case remedies; is Snowspinner one of them? If so, then I can see why the unblocking was done). I hope that you, and everyone else in this dispute/issue can just relax, move past this block, and try to get this situation clarified so we might not have a small-wheel-war over this? Capice? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I have posted on WP:RFAr twice for clarification... a few of the links posted above are Arbitrators comments from those requests. I'll see what I can do. Thank you for this consideration. -- Netoholic @ 09:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

TAR 9

Re: info on upcoming episodes, it was already discussed that those details are perfectly acceptable, as long as there are verifiable sources. If you happened to review the sources provided for each leg, you'd realize that they're perfectly legitimate pieces of information. The details are no different than future episode sypnoses on other television series articles. The spoiler tags are sufficient in warning readers. --Madchester 17:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikistress level

Here is an image for in case your Wikistress level goes up any further: [6] :) Lambiam 22:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case: IPTV

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before you begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures. --Fasten ^talk|med 13:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for one hour

Because of an ArbCom decision, you are restricted from making edits in the Template and Wikipedia namespaces until May 4th, 2006. Because you made the following edits:

• 04:08, March 7, 2006
• 04:08, March 7, 2006
• 04:09, March 7, 2006
• 06:54, March 7, 2006

you are blocked for one hour for a technical violation. Please feel free to contribute to other namespaces once your block expires. Stifle 15:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What's a "technical violation"? --Tony Sidaway 16:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a violation of the letter of the ArbCom's injunction, which I considered to be minorly disruptive. Stifle 16:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Check the section below, where I refer to some pronouncements in which, in response to requests by Netoholic, the Committee clarifies its intent. If he was being disruptive, that's another matter. --Tony Sidaway 17:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to think that just doing mass reverts of all my edits could be categorized as disruptive. Call it a hunch. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It's disruptive to engage in a crusade, rather than accepting that every template needs to be looked at separately to see if hiddenStructure is better or worse than the alternatives. I've not added hiddenStructure to any new templates lately... so why are you compelled to remove every occurence? Let the status quo be until something better than both options comes around. -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

People tried to reason with you in precisely the same manner when you embarked on your "crusade" to eliminate all instances of {{qif}}.

The key difference is that the main argument against using {{qif}} has been deemed invalid by Brion Vibber, while the main argument against using the hiddenStructure hack has been deemed legitimate. Implementing {{qif}} doesn't break pages. The hiddenStructure hack breaks pages for some users by generating nonstandard code. Under no circumstance is the latter not worse than all of the alternatives. —David Levy 19:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about the past as if we had today's knowledge. Today, hiddenStructure is not automatically worse than Qif (and the ugly HTML it requires to work) ... in fact both are "worse" than avoiding conditionals completely. Neither is the long-term solution, and neither needs to be removed immediately. We'll all look like fools later when a better solutoin comes along. -- Netoholic @ 19:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, people told you the same thing when you insisted upon replacing all occurrences of {{qif}}, and you ignored them. And again, the hiddenStructure hack is automatically worse than {{qif}}, as the latter doesn't break pages. (If you want to discuss "ugly HTML," I'd say that HTML that breaks pages for some users is rather ugly.) —David Levy 19:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I ignored anyone that contradicted Jamesday, since he was a developer and this was his request. Proper use if Wikipedia:HiddenStructure means to make sure the template looks and works fine without it. -- Netoholic @ 20:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You ignored anyone who contradicted your interpretation of Jamesday's vague remarks. But despite your "historian's fallacy" claim, I'm concentrating primarily upon the present. We now know that the supposed developer mandate to stop using {{qif}} doesn't exist, and we also know that the hiddenStructure hack is harmful. Why are you ignoring concrete evidence and unambiguous corroboration on the part of the lead developer?

I don't know what your "proper use" statement is supposed to mean. —David Levy 20:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrator responses to your request for clarification

I've added the arbitrators' responses as requested [7]. Please let me know if I've missed anything. --Tony Sidaway 15:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Get over it.

"It's a wiki. Get over it." [8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avriette (talk • contribs) 16:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning

You are well aware of the fact that the "hiddenStructure" hack breaks pages for some users (and has been explicitly condemned by Brion Vibber). Stop inserting this code into templates, or you will be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. —David Levy 19:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Avoid conditional templates

I took the liberty of moving your latest proposal (Wikipedia:Avoid conditional templates) to your userspace (User:Netoholic/Avoid conditional templates). If the results of the AUM straw poll are any indicator, this will just get rejected too. Also, as you are aware, you are restricted from editing in the Wikipedia and Template namespaces. As this seems like another attempt at disruption by you, I'd strongly urge you to stop immediately and reconsider how you conduct yourself on Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not erase or change what I have written. You have done this several times. It is very hard to assume that you are action are in good faith when this repeatedly happens. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You asked for examples - Here you replace my comment with you own, unnecessarily moving my vote upwards. [9]. Here you remove my comments and William M. Connolley [10] --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Instead of accusing me of not assuming good faith, perhaps you could have apologized for removing my comment, even if unintentionally. That would go a long way for me thinking that you had not done it intentionally. I think you are to quick to accuse people of doing something against you. Plus I didn't say anything the first time, I simply reinserted my comment. This time I asked you not to change my words. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the apology, edit conflicts happen. I understand you have the right to remove comments from your userpage and do not have to apologize for that. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Reflex Reaction:

That deletion vote is premature and, I feel, trollish. Any similarities to WP:AUM you see in the present draft are coincidental. Indeed, some sections are still blank and to be written shortly. Please withdraw your nomination, as good-faith proposals are never deleted from Wikipedia: space. -- Netoholic @ 22:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Coincidental?! How stupid do you think we are, Neto?! Clearly, this isn't a good faith proposal. —David Levy 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I used the format from AUM as a base, but it's still an early draft. Read it carefully, and you'll see that the content is quite different from AUM. I am trying to address the real concern... that conditionals (by Qif, hiddenStructure, or whatever) are being over-used. I want a central place to discuss best practices, a place to bring discussions and make every template as simple to edit and present information as uniformly as possible. -- Netoholic @ 23:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You aren't fooling anyone. This is nothing but a repackaged version of WP:AUM, designed to circumvent clear consensus and continually force your will on the community. —David Levy 23:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no power to force my will on the community... All I can do is present arguments as to why some practices are worse than others. It's a shame you're judging this page before it's even fully developed, and instead leaping to conclusions about my intent rather than speak to me like a fellow editor. I should think, if you investigated, you'd see that the growth of both hiddenStructure, Qif, and other nested templates is growing unchecked... and often for frivolous (though well-intentioned) uses. "Just because we can" is not a good rationale, and I really think that we can avoid a lot of problems by tackling templates and seeing why conditionals were added. I offer no blanket solutions, and neither do you. Qif, by your own admittion is not the long-term solution... so why are we expanding it's use? That just makes our job more difficult. It's been two months since Brion talked about addition conditionals support... where is it? Did you really think it was a high-priority for him? -- Netoholic @ 23:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You've already presented your arguments, and the community has rejected them. You have no right to restart the debate under a different name, and you will not be permitted to drag this out for another year. —David Levy 23:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw the clarification, so I didn't block you. But it was an unwanted fork as everyone else in the MfD debate attested to. Ashibaka tock 00:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid conditional templates

You should assume good faith. An edit summary defining the previous edit as "as disruptive and non-productive" is never the right way to go. As you propably know at this time, you don't own that page. _→AzaToth 23:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Leet

We've got a vote going on Talk:Leet (language)#Requested move. I thought you might want to add to that, since you commented, but haven't put in a vote. -- Netoholic @ 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to. I didn't vote only because the vote section was in a little bit of an edit war at the time. Pagrashtak 01:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)