Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please choose an appropriate header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

It is extremely important in order that your submitted evidence be considered by the Arbitrators that when you cite evidence to provide a link to the exact edit which displays the transaction, links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please voice your objections on the talk page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others.

Evidence against Netoholic[edit]

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

I don't mind Netoholic listing the page on VfD (I actually suggested he do this on his talk page [2] - 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)

  • 16:37, 11 Nov 2004.
    • Shifted some people's text right down the page [3]
  • 09:35, 12 Nov 2004
    • Shifted comments down the page [4]
  • 17:25, 12 Nov 2004
    • Netoholic decided to transfer the comments from the main page to the talk page [5]. This meant that the comments weren't seen on the main VfD page.
    • It was after the fourth time he modified comments that he decided to move all the comments to the talk page! [6]
      • After talking to Netoholic about this on IRC, I see that my assumptions that he did this to hide discussion were wrong and unfounded. See [7]; the edit summary is "for space reasons, all follow-up comments not directly responding to votes, have been moved to the Talk page" and it is clearly marked on the page itself what happened here. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • 16:14, 12 Nov 2004
    • Did it again [8]
  • 16:53, 12 Nov 2004
    • Did it again [9]
  • 17:00, 12 Nov 2004
  • 14:05, 14 Nov 2004
  • Comment All right. I've reviewed this evidence and talked to Netoholic about it privately. I can see why he didn't like his comments interfered with, but he never actually altered his comment to correct it. So I don't agree with him not correcting it, but I see why he got annoyed with text being added to the middle of the comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities[edit]

  • 14:20, 11 Nov 2004
    • Netaholic keeps making unilateral moves like blanking the page and redirecting it to a similar yet not quite related page [12].
  • 16:37, 11 Nov 2004
    • Reverted with the same edit summary [13]
    • ZenMaster asked him to "rv please discuss your changes on the talk page and give proper time for others to respond" [14]
  • 14:20, 11 Nov 2004
  • 16:23, 11 Nov 2004
    • First removal of Exit Polls vs. Machine Tallies, by State (9 States) [16]
  • 16:28, 11 Nov 2004
    • Second removal of Exit Polls vs. Machine Tallies, by State (9 States), done via revert [17]
  • 16:49, 11 Nov 2004
    • Another revert to remove same section [18]
  • 17:08, 11 Nov 2004
    • Reverted again (removed section) [19]
    • Netoholic moved this section to the talk page, but removed it. He had been told numerous times to talk first then remove.
  • 17:16, 11 Nov 2004
    • Reverted again (removed section) [20]
  • 17:24, 11 Nov 2004
    • Reverted again, this time lost User:24.10.172.190's edits (edit summary: "rvt. I am here to protect WP's data integrity". [21]
  • 08:36, 12 Nov 2004
    • Removed section again [22]

Modification of users' signed comments[edit]

Netoholic removed a user's signed comments in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

  • 04:38, 13 Nov 2004
    • Removed users signed comments [23] (edit summary: November 11 - format the votes section, and add Template:DoubleDisputed). Forced the reversion by FT2 [24]
      • Netoholic assures me he did this for reasons of maintenance. After talking to him, I can see his point. Note that this does not mean I agree with what he did, it just means that I don't think there was any malicious intent behind it. On IRC he said "I never mind someone refactoring my comments (except votes) for fixing spelling, links, or to move them... but I expect that they will not do it agan if I revert. I hold others to the same ideal." — well, the last word was "idea" but I'm refactoring his comment :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 17:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • 17:51, 15 Nov 2004
  • Note: I thought only admins were meant to clear this page. See [26]

Moving user subpages[edit]

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 [27]. 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 [28], 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, [29] - Raul654 was forced to do a copy and paste restore [30]), 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 [31]. I have explained this all to him already [32], only he cleared his own talk page and never responded [33]- Ta bu shi da yu 09:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll strike this as evidence. This whole thing is just a gigantic misunderstanding. I may have made a bad judgement call. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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 [34]. 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) [35]. 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 [36], but again he cleared this without responding [37]. 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)" [38]. Please note also that I also asked him what threats I made [39], however he cleared his page and never responded [40]. 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)

  • This wasn't entirely clear to either party. I'm striking this evidence as I no longer think its valid. I ask the arbitrators to take this into consideration. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:31, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Case study #1[edit]

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 removed links from related articles such as Electronic voting linking to this one sample
  5. then revert warred over its tags when these were amended
  6. then VfD, citing reasons which he had already been told were inaccurate, non-policy and misrepresentative (see "opposing view" on the VfD page)
  7. then deleted opposing views and corrections of fact from VfD
  8. then revert warred those same deletions until both myself and others had to put a watch on the page for improper edit attempts.
  9. when the article was given a template tag which reflected more accurately the actual dispute, he TFDed that template
  10. 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)
  11. 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[edit]

Netoholic filed an request for arbitration style "poll" that proposed that [41]:

"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 [42] and then sent me a message telling me not to close his "poll" [43]. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Responses from Netoholic[edit]

This section is still a "work in progress".

Template:In the news[edit]

November 10
  • After seeing the Main Page "In the news" section change to point to the Election controversies article, which had been protected until recently and was still marked as disputed, I reverted that template at 22:32 back to the version before User:Neutrality added the election article. My edit summary was appropriately "rvt If the target article on irregularities is disputed, it should not be front page". From that time, approximately 10 editors became involved in an edit war over that template, including violations of the Three Revert Rule by some. A short time later, User:Ta bu shi da yu reverted the template three times (1 2 3), and then inexplicably added the NPOV tag to "In the News".


2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities[edit]

Below is a record of every edit made by me to this article, along with references which substantiates my motiviation here.

November 10
  • 22:41 - I leave a comment on the Talk page noting the "In the news" problems, and describing my view of the article. I noted while reading the talk page sections "Excel Spreadsheet", which shows User:Kevin baas working on providing data of his own compilation and analysis.
  • 22:50 - I add the {{TotallyDisputed}} to the article after reviewing the information presented on the Talk page, and the article itself.
  • 22:57 - I create a section on the Talk page noting what appears to be original research going on in this article. Follow-up edit made at 23:07.
  • 23:33 23:34 - I make an edit to the article introduction which, I feel, was representative of the issues, and balanced with the coverage this "controversy" was getting in main-stream media. I also replace the "TotallyDisputed" template, which was replaced with "Dispute" when the stop sign image in "TotallyDisputed" was vandalised.
    • At 23:39, User:Neutrality makes an edit ("Rewrite lead.") in which he makes an un-announced removal of the "TotallyDisputed" notice, and also largely returns it to a much more unbalanced summary. Other editors critical of the election continue.
  • 23:56 minor - I try to restore the more balanced introduction, again having to replace the disputed tag. My edit was largely reverted by User:FT2 (he removed the disputed tag again), and I reverted back at 00:02 Nov 11.


November 11

At this point, let me interject a bit, because it is important. From the time this article was being contested on the "In the news" section until beyond this point, an extremely spirited discussion was happening on IRC about this article. Participants included article authors Neutrality and Zen-master, both of whom during this discussion expressed extremely strong views in line with the edits they had made to the article. Although in the minority in the discussion, they both indicated that they were zealously going to continue editing the article to address their own POV - even with a lack of primary sources. I will admit that the decision to redirect it was an odd one, based on my perception of the discussion, and desire to move the work back to the main article and to prevent Google-bombing (with all the blog links, etc.). I, and many editors, felt the article was in a very POV state. I also desired to prevent external sources from referencing something that would put Wikipedia in a very poor light. Passions were very high on all sides, and my passion was to keep Wikipedia from looking foolish.

  • After the redirect was reverted (which I didn't contest), I largely orphaned this article from the more visible pages, to avoid vandalism and viewing while problems were being fixed. I left a note to that effect on the Talk page at 04:46.
  • 05:52 - I removed Image:20004 us voting machine problems.png from "Voting machines" which in particular had not verifiable source. It was generated by User:Kevin baas using his own original data. It also is statistically misleading because it only shows that higher population states reported more voting machine problems, as one would expect.

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

I maintain that I have done nothing remotely wrong related to this page. Any heat generated was due to the actions of primarily two people - both of whom disagreed with my view on the election article, and had a vested interest in discrediting, harassing, or embarassing me. -- Netoholic @ 17:34, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

  • I asked that my comments be left un-interrupted, and two people insisted on forcing their way in. I made edits which moved those comments only insofar as to protect my original statement. This is certainly not any pattern of abuse, nor anything remotely controversial except in the minds if two people. Normally, these kinds of interruptions are not a problem, but certainly, when one has reasonably asked that their comments not be broken up in this way, it should be honored. Please see the #Evidence against Ta bu shi da yu sections for detailed evidence of their discourtesy.
  • At one point, when the discussion was growing on the VfD, User:Geogre suggested moving to a sub-page, since things were only going to get bigger and affect the usefulness of VfD. My solution was to move all comments, not responding to a vote, to the Talk page [44]. This has been done before, and seemed entirely non-controversial. That change was undone by TBSDY and FT2, and I left it alone though I disagreed.

Evidence against Ta bu shi da yu[edit]

For the most part, I believe that the evidence presented against me in this Arbitration by User:Ta bu shi da yu is over differences he perceives in political viewpoints. I was recently an opponent of certain aspects of the 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities article. I firmly believe that the "attention" I have recently gotten from TBSDY is politically-driven, and part of a coordinated attempt to poison the well in the article disputes, by making grand accusations, pestering edits, and outright attacks against me. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Specific personal attacks[edit]

  • 03:20, 2004 Nov 12 - "Had you gone about your editing in a less abrasive manner (yes, that's right, "abrasive" — my vote against your adminship was right all along!) then this article would not be such a hot-bed of controversy."
    • At one point during my RFA, I asked TBSDY on Nov 3 on his talk page why used the word "abrasive" in his vote. He responded the same day with "Perhaps abrasiveness was the wrong word. I just don't think you're ready for adminship yet. I think you are a good contributor, however.". The Nov 12 comment was on a public talk page, and competely unrelated to the Nov 3 exchange.
  • 15:17, 2004 Nov 12 - "I see what you mean by "Antisocial to the extreme. Regularly does controversial things unilaterally. Would very likely end up a rogue admin." on the WP:RFA page! Damn."
  • 08:30, 2004 Nov 16 - "The author has an agenda."

Template:In the news[edit]

Unprofessional revert warring, and an odd action.

  • Ta bu participated in a revert war over the Main Page "In the news" section. It was changed to point to the Election controversies article, which I reverted due to my feeling that the article was not appropriate for public viewing. Soon after, approximately 10 editors became involved in an edit war over that template. User:Ta bu shi da yu became involved on the side of re-adding the Election article to the template three times (1 2 3), and then inexplicably added the NPOV tag to "In the News".

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

Harassment of Netoholic, including repeated, spiteful edits.

  • Ta bu shi da yu inserted a comment in the middle of my opening statement. I moved it to the "Summary of opposing view:" section, to preserve my signed comments as I presented them, but Ta bu used rollback to undo it.
    I specifically asked that my comments be left intact, and moved the intruding comments to just after my opening section. Ta bu revert warred over this five times ([45] [46] [47] [48] [49]). It is commonly accepted that when someone reasonably asks specifically that their signed comment be left intact, it should be honored.

Netoholic's user subpages[edit]

On 12 November, I marked four of my user subpages for speedy deletion. These pages were archives I had not particularly maintained in some time, and were incomplete. Like many other users, I decided to simplify things by discontinuing this, instead choosing to maintain everything just within my Talk page history. Immediately after marking them for deletion, I saw in my watchlist that Ta bu shi da yu, rather than abide by my desires, had moved these pages into his own user space, and then deleted only the redirects. He then edited them to remove the {(delete}} template.

Seeing this, I moved the pages back into my user space, and re-marked them for deletion, which, for some reason, lead to Ta bu re-moving them, and even protecting the redirects under my user space. Only after other admins (Raul654) got involved, was the mess of page moves and redirects mostly fixed.

Evidence for this is largely hidden from my view, since I'm not an admin. Please check entries from 12 Nov in the Wikipedia:Deletion log, Wikipedia:Protection log, and the deleted histories of the following pages:

From the visible history of TBSDY's "NetoholicArchive#" files, you can see that at 04:47-04:49 there is a record of my moving each one to my user space. It is only after that time that TBSDY used those redirects to create copy and paste archives. Until that time, all of the pages were my original ones, which he had moved.

Frankly, I find this extremely insulting. It is clear that it is a user's right to maintain their own subpages. Ta bu could have created his own via copy and paste from the start, but moving mine and deleting the redirects when I specifically requested deletion is not appropriate. I firmly believe that he thought that I would not see this action. He also has not explained what relevance these older archives hold for him. It is honestly very strange that he would do this, and I offer it as evidence of both abuse of admin rights and of his recent "obsession" with me. -- Netoholic @ 07:37, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Rollback function misuse[edit]

work in progess
  • 16:23, 2004 Nov 19 - rollback reverted two sequential, non-related edits ([50] [51]) by Netoholic. When asked about it, TBSDY replied with an accusation - "Delibertaly tricking me into doing a rollback does not count. When you restored the templates for deletion I counted this as vandalism. Therefore I rolled back. You have only yourself to blame (though I should have noticed your sneakiness)."

Rebuttal from Ta bu shi da yu[edit]

Netoholic's user subpages[edit]

Shows you how important perspective is, doesn't it? I initially moved one of his user subpages he wanted to delete. That is true. Then I discovered how unhappy he was about this, so I copied and pasted the articles into my own userpage. When I had done this, Netoholic (possibly not realising what I had done) decided to move it to his own userpage that had already been deleted and put the pages for speedy deletion. An admin deleted it. So I eventually restored, did another copy and paste, locked my page to stop him from moving my subpage (precisely the thing he's complaining about here) and then deleted his old subpage. So hopefully that clarifies what happened here. If you don't beleive me, ask Raul654. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I can't see how this has anything to do with this arbitration. I mean, I didn't actually do anything wrong with my copy & paste into my own subpage. Netaholic's text is under the GFDL, after all. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

P.P.S. Oh, and the protection of the redirect on Netoholic's userpage happened because he did a move of my subpage, I didn't notice this, it redirected and I locked the page. I can hardly be blamed for this mistake, as it was Netoholic who moved my subpage from under me! It was unlocked by another admin, however had I realised what had happened I can rest assure everyone that this would have been speedily unlocked. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities (moved/deleted comments)[edit]

Well, initially Netoholic shifted it down the page well away from the introduction. I am not the only user who reverted him on this one, and in fact I don't feel sorry I moved it back numerous times. The record needed correcting, and Netoholic never bothered fixing his statement. Why shouldn't another user point out his mistake? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Template:In the News[edit]

What Netoholic says is true. I've already stated that I was sorry about this in several places, however I'll state it here for the record: this was a mistake, I am sorry for doing this, and it won't happen again. I don't see what that has to do with this arbitration. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Specific personal attacks[edit]

  • 12:52, 3 Nov 2004
    • Netoholic asked me for my comments on his nomination! I responded. [52]
  • 15:17, 2004 Nov 12
    • I hardly see how "I see what you mean by "Antisocial to the extreme. Regularly does controversial things unilaterally. Would very likely end up a rogue admin." on the WP:RFA page! Damn." [53] is a personal attack. I was commenting on the behaviour of the editor in question, and how I agree emphatically with Ambi that he would make a rogue admin. I still maintain this! Ta bu shi da yu
  • 08:30, 2004 Nov 16
    • Based on the edits the user was doing (see rest of evidence) I saw this user as having an agenda, which was to win the VfD at any cost [54]

Rollbacks[edit]

Netoholic is correct that I'm a bit too fast on the old rollbacks. I'm restricting myself to using if for vandalism efforts. The two rollbacks that were done, however, were done pretty quickly when I realised that Netoholic had not removed the text I thought he'd removed from the page. I rolled back again to put it back as quickly as possible! I don't see how its a valid complaint if I realised I made a mistake and then put back his text.

The second rollback was for deliberately placing back my decisions in WP:TFD. I had decided to keep based on consensus. There was no clear consensus to delete! My decision was to keep, and for him to put the text back [55] shows a serious mistake in judgement. I maintain that he knew I was going to rollback and so added a further comment just so he could file this. Netoholic then reverted my rollback to readd his comment but also readded the removed template [56]! This forced Rhobite to remove the template from WP:TFD [57] with the text "Consensus to delete Monty Python is not reached, regardless of inconclusive vote".

Again, however, I fail to see what this has to do with the arbitration. He should be taking this up on another arbcom page! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments by FT2[edit]

(1) A section above discusses Ta bu's addition of a comment in the middle of Netoholic's opening statement on VfD, which Netoholic includes under the heading "harrassment" and " repeated spiteful edits". This is what I saw happen. The background was this:


Netoholic had stated as a fact in passing that the article was a split from a previous one. I corrected this incorrect factual statement 22:45, Nov 11, 2004 saying simply "(correction-this article was at no time a split off - FT2)", since I knew as a fact it was mistaken and misleading.
Netoholic not only didn't correct this error, but immediately moved the correction of fact far from the point in his VfD header it addressed [58]. At the same time, he also moved the entire VfD 'opposing view' to the very end of the page, far from immediate sight, effectively leaving only his own claims (including all mis-statements and errors) easily visible to people voting.
It was this action (ie, the deletion of a correction of fact, and the undiscussed removal of the entire opposing view from the header of an already suspect VfD) by Netoholic which (I believe) finally caused Ta bu to say that removal of others corrections and comments was not an isolated incident, as Netoholic had done similar elsewhere.
In response,
He did not seek agreement once. In each case Ta bu and others were obliged to revert Netoholic's deletion of the self-same correction. Somewhere in the middle of this I put up a heading to ask others to watch for inappropriate deletions of comments by Netoholic. This indicates my increasing concern at Netoholic's persistent reverts in a) deleting both my corrective comment and various others' comments at various times, and b) continuing to revert a statement which he had been told numerous times already was inaccurate and misrepresentative within his VfD request. FT2 04:51, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
(discussion of move of above text commented out, not relevant as "evidence" - FT2)


(2) My main issue with Netoholic is that regardless of motives, the effect is that he lacks a sense of feeling what the rough consensus of contributors is on an article, when to edit and when to ask, so he makes significant unilateral edits which others find a problem. In respect of articles, he appears to:

  • Use weasel words and mistaken references to policies to justify points of view which are somewhat extreme,
  • See things his way and accordingly fail to fully appreciate, discuss, seek or accept mutual consensus,
  • When frustrated, use tactical methods (VfD, tags, TFD, edit/deletion/moves of users text) to discredit others or promote his own idea how it should be.

Put these together and in effect, he sometimes acts as if he neither understands how to handle controversial matters in a balanced manner, or takes a unilateral autocratic view to them. FT2 00:24, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)


(and on a side, my understanding is that Kevin baas says he did not [as Netoholic claims] use "original data". He has said he cited the sourced data which he then mapped using a standard mapping program. I can't confirm that since Im not him, someone else'll have to ask him. I know I asked for sources and he did gave them, some in the article, and some at various places in the talk pages) FT2 07:13, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Netoholic/Evidence&oldid=431108539"