Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic/Evidence/Temp

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities

Several things concern me. Netoholic decided to transfer the comments from the main page to the talk page [1]. This meant that the comments weren't seen on the main VfD page. He also shifted some people's text right down the page (see [2] , [3], [4], and [5]. It was after the fourth time he modified comments that he decided to move all the comments to the talk page! [6]). I don't mind him listing the page on VfD (I actually suggested he do this on his talk page [7] - don't bother looking on his main talk page however, because he "archives" all negative comments to the page history, which though valid sort of makes me wonder what he's hiding!) but I do dislike him shifting around my comments from the VfD page. It's never been correct to shift comments to the talk page, and I question why he did this. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities

Netaholic keeps making unilateral moves like blanking the page and redirecting it to a similar yet not quite related page [8]. He also engaged in an edit war with me (for which I'm sorry I participated, however I was also the first person to ask people to put this on talk!) He just revert with the same edit summary (see [9], to which ZenMaster asked him to "rv please discuss your changes on the talk page and give proper time for others to respond" [10], to which he (ironically) reverted again with exactly the same edit summary [11]. Netoholic forced me to revert him because he didn't bother to discuss this on the talk page come to some sort of consensus. Then he moved the text to the talk page [12]: however he could have copied it into talk and not removed it. This was reverted [13], and Netoholic again reverted this with the text "(rvt. do not re-insert un-verified data. source it in the Talk, and then re-add)" [14]. He then reverted again, only this time he was so eager to revert that he removed another users edits! [15] I note that he wrote: "(rvt. I am here to protect WP's data integrity)". I find this ironic. Later on Netoholic did it again!!! [16] I requested that he stop this on his talk page, however it's very hard to continue conversation on there as he keeps blanking all comments that might make him look bad.

I am also concerned that Netoholic used IRC as a medium to make decisions regarding significant changes to the page. Though not directly related to the page in this section, Netoholic has stated that "both sides are talking on IRC" (was to do with the In the news edits) [17]. There is no accountability on IRC as logs can be forged (if they are kept at all!). I'm not saying that he did this, I'm merely pointing out that talk pages are to be used for resolving disputes. I beleive that this article was discussed on IRC and decisions were made there.

I have also found Netoholic unwilling to use the talk page. When he did decide to try to use the talk page, it was to remove some disputed text (which, ironically, I find to be somewhat dodgy myself) [18]. In my opinion, this was not done to assist with debate but to try to remove the text in order that people forget about it. However, I am well aware that my opinion is not assuming good faith, so this comment may be disregarded. What I will say is that the reverts that Netoholic has done on the page have caused a great deal of controversy and caused a great many people to become annoyed. He appears to have taken the whole be bold philosophy too far and has made changes that I find to be unacceptable. Removing whole sections numerous times after being requested to take them to the talk page (see above) is quite bad, IMO. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removal of users' signed comments

Netoholic removed a user's signed comments in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion See [19] and [20] (edit summary says "format the votes section, and add Template:DoubleDisputed"). He is well aware that he should not do that. He has also removed my comments from his talk page several times in the middle of me talking to him (see [21] and [22])! Not sure if that is actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:29, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moving user subpages

Originally Netaholic wanted his archive pages deleted. I wanted to keep them so I moved one of them as a subpage off my own page. Clearly this was a mistake, and I apologise without resevere to Netaholic for moving the page. What I should have done was copy and paste them to my own page. Which I did, and in fact I informed him of this, but he cleared this from his talk page without responding [23]. When I wanted to look for them again I had discovered that Netaholic had moved these archive pages. The pages in question are archive1, archive2, archive3 and archive4. These were moved to Netaholic's page (see [24], you will not be able to see the history where he did this for User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/NetoholicArchive2 as he moved and got the redirect deleted by an admin. I've restored this, but regrettably Wikipedia is still not showing it, [25] - Raul654 was forced to do a copy and paste restore [26]), and then he cleared the pages and added a {{delete}} tag. He did this several times. I started restoring and locking the pages to stop him from doing this, however because he had setup a redirect I accidently locked one of his subpages. This was a genuine mistake, and only happened because of the actions Netaholic was taking with my own talk subpages. I am quite unhappy he did this because he has licensed his talk pages under the GFDL, and I am well within my rights to copy and paste his pages as subpages of my own. Also, the reason I am doing this is because he constantly clears his own talk pages when you are trying to message him about his actions - this makes talking to him about anything extremely difficult. So I made a copy of his own archives. Please note also that he has threatened to place evidence of me placing subpages on this page [27]. I have explained this all to him already [28], only he cleared his own talk page and never responded [29]- Ta bu shi da yu 09:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect information about this evidence page and threats against Ta bu shi da yu

I was told by Netaholic that I cannot place further evidence on this page, because he says that the evidence is not directly related to this [30]. He also threatened that he will raise evidence of my own "edit wars" on the news page (something I will publicly take responsibility for, and will publicly state for the record will never happen again) [31]. I feel he did this to make me retract the evidence for this page. He has also stated that I am a troll, to which I have responded [32], but again he cleared this without responding [33]. I do not appreciate threatening comments, particularly in the case of this user as he stated "Please don't leave threatening warnings on my talk page. Kindly asking goes a lot farther. -- Netoholic @ 06:46, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)" [34]. Please note also that I also asked him what threats I made [35], however he cleared his page and never responded [36]. I very much dislike being threatened and being accused of making threats when I am messaging someone. Especially when they accuse me of making the threat, then I ask them for clarification so that I can clarify what happened, then they never respond and clear my message off their talk page! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Case study #1

I myself have had to revert many times Netoholic's deletion of points he did not like (including deletion of others posts in TFD and VfD).

Case study: 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities

(The following is a tentative summary, there hasnt yet been time to dig up examples as much as I'd like. When I have done so I will edit this, removing anything I do not feel fair, and adding detail or sample links to those I feel are. The article status is best described as controversial, messy, sourced, but in serious need of cleanup. Netoholic went a long way beyond cleanup)

1. He made significant edits to the article in a controversial manner not reflecting consensus
2. then revert warred these edits
3. then tagged it as "NPOV" later changing it to "totallydisputed", which was not in accordance with the consensus.
4. then revert warred over its tags when these were amended
5. then VfD, citing reasons which he had already been told were inaccurate, non-policy and misrepresentative (see "opposing view" on the VfD page)
6. then deleted opposing views and corrections of fact from VfD
7. then revert warred those same deletions until both myself and others had to put a watch on the page for improper edit attempts.
8. when the article was given a template tag which reflected more accurately the actual dispute, he TFDed that template
9. then deleted or moved comments and opposing views from TFD (I got a note on my talk page from Amgine to advise me of this as I hadnt noticed until then)
10. netoholic's deletions of my own and others comments from VfD and TFD got so repetitive I ended up adding notes about it. Others did too.

At present the above is visible in history and in comments others have left on the pages cited and left on talk pages. There are many links, but it will take time to dig them out. At present I have seen enough that I have gone in the space of one week or so from not knowing him, to agreeing his editing seriously damages articles and that he has been asked to stop numerous times but remains unchanged. FT2 01:22, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Filing an arbcom dispute on a talk page

Netoholic filed an request for arbitration style "poll" that proposed that [37] "User:Zen-master, User:Kevin baas, User:FT2, and User:RyanFreisling have shown an inability, through their edits and comments, to work according to established community standards (such as Neutral point of view and Verifiability) on articles related to 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities. It is asked that, in the best interests of the community, the users mentioned above desist from editing the related articles for as long as the majority of editors support this proposal. This vote does not endorse any particular viewpoint on the article; rather, it is meant only to address the specific edits of the listed users. It also is not a commentary on the edits of these user outside of this subject. Only votes by accounts with over 100 contributions as of the start time (03:27, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)) shall be considered valid for the purposes of this poll, in accordance with voting standards." When I striked this out and told him to go through to Arbcom, he reverted my edit and removed my comment on the talk page [38] and then sent me a message telling me not to close his "poll" [39]. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)