User:Vacuum/Netoholic RfC

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:12, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (Netoholic | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
Netoholic is blanking his talk page inappropriately.

Description
Netoholic is blanking his talk page to hide criticism, 'archiving' them to the page history where finding them is nigh on impossible. When warned against this behavior, Netoholic immediately deletes the comments. Netoholic uses misleading edit summaries to hide the nature of the deletions.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * One section of the page history involves him 'archiving' the talk page four times in the space of three hours:


 * 1) (cur) (last) 22:23, Nov 11, 2004 Netoholic m (archiving) -deleted comment critical of your 'archives'
 * 2) (cur) (last) 22:21, Nov 11, 2004 Ta bu shi da yu (I'm not trolling)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 22:18, Nov 11, 2004 Netoholic
 * 4) (cur) (last) 22:14, Nov 11, 2004 Netoholic m (archived to page history) -same
 * 5) (cur) (last) 22:10, Nov 11, 2004 Ta bu shi da yu (Archive4?)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 21:28, Nov 11, 2004 Ta bu shi da yu m (Edit summaries)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 20:44, Nov 11, 2004 203.35.154.254 (Edit summaries)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 20:44, Nov 11, 2004 Zen-master (Archive4?)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 20:35, Nov 11, 2004 Ta bu shi da yu m (Edit summaries)
 * 10) (cur) (last) 20:34, Nov 11, 2004 Ta bu shi da yu
 * 11) (cur) (last) 20:12, Nov 11, 2004 Netoholic m (archiving) -same
 * 12) (cur) (last) 20:03, Nov 11, 2004 Ta bu shi da yu (Edit summaries)
 * 13) (cur) (last) 19:02, Nov 11, 2004 Netoholic m (archiving) -removed critical comments related to adminship.
 * Comment posted by Kate: Deleted:
 * Comment posted by User:Vacuum:

Deleted: (Netoholic claims to be 'clearing some old items' one hour after comment was posted)

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * User page, in particular "Please avoid deleting discussion merely because it is critical of your actions - doing so will only make people repeat the same criticism, and will make you seem like you are ignoring criticism."
 * Edit summary, in particular "Edit summaries should accurately summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it may be controversial; if the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert in the edit summary."
 * Editing in good faith.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links) Please note my evidence is removed after speaking with Netoholic. It's only fair. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * To Netoholic's response: It is impossible to resolve a dispute if you are performing the very same disputed action while we are negotiating it. You showed that you have no interest in resolution by deleting my comments the second you read them. Vacuum c 02:50, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Vacuum c 03:12, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ta bu shi da yu 04:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * zen master 04:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Shane King 05:07, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Challenging the certification
I challenge the certifications based primarily on the fact that no assertion that any policies have been broken - the only citation is of a general guideline. Also, I challenge the individual certifications as follow :
 * Vacuum - has decided that, within the space of one day, he has tried and failed to resolve this. He has provided no evidence to this effect, but rather considers revert warring on my Talk page (as himself and User:198.169.140.30, a known IP of his) in an attempt to push this from minor disagreement into open conflict.
 * zen-master - has not offered any evidence of himself "trying and failing" to resolve this issue.

As such, I ask those editors directly to withdraw their signatures. If they fail to do so, I ask the community to agree that the certifications are invalid. -- Netoholic @

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Direct response
I consider my User talk: page as my "Inbox". It is there as a transient record of on-going collaboration efforts. When a conversation, or informational post, has outlived its usefulness, it will be removed. Comments left on my talk page of a trolling nature, or actions such as improperly restoring it after I've cleared outdated topics, are things no user can be expected to tolerate. If a comment left on my page deserves a response, I will respond on the other users page, since that is how the notification system works. Long term conversations are eligible to be moved to the appropriate namespace Talk pages.

Quite a few editors here follow this same principle, or at least respect that viewpoint. That being said, User page is not policy. It is a loose guideline which I feel I am not abusing. Certainly, I am not engaged in an effort to hide critical views of me.

The user's certifying above have committed worse offences in pursuing this subject. In particular, all are guilty of trolling and revert warring on my user page. -- Netoholic @ 08:44, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) CheeseDreams 20:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) jguk 00:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) Whilst I myself only clear out my talk page periodically, and then I achive it, I do note that User:Jimbo Wales clears his talk box periodically (and without archiving). Nothing wrong with following the message from the top.
 * 3) Very Verily 15:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) This is ludicrous.  People can remove what they don't want from their own talk page.  (Caveat: I can't comment on the accuracy of the last paragraph.)
 * 4) anthony &#35686;&#21578; 19:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Netoholic does seem to clear items from his talk page with an alarming high frequency sometimes, and this makes it difficult to locate parts of older dialogs. A more appropriate way to clear a talk page is either to move it bodily to an archive page, or to cut and paste items into an archive page created for the purpose. These methods require a minimum of maintenance effort and provide you and other users with a complete record of conversations on your talk page.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Blanking and speed-archiving criticism is bad form, but not against policy. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 17:56, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Like, duh. Johnleemk | Talk 03:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with Solitude. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:25, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) --Conti|&#9993; 15:10, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Outside view 2
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Most editors don't mind a little criticism on their talk page, so they refrain from removing comments in the interest of preserving discussion. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with blanking one's own talk page. It's your inbox, it's in your user space, and you have full control over its contents. While blanking one's talk page may not be considered nice or acceptable by most of us, Netoholic didn't do anything against the rules.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Rhobite 05:35, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Unless Netoholic was blanking serious accusations from his page (such as plagiarism, or blockable offenses), he was merely being anti-social.  I fail to see evidence of a major transgression here.  DropDeadGorgias (talk) 15:42, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) It's his talk page. If he doesn't want to, he doesn't even have to archive. - Vague | Rant 05:21, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Very Verily 15:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) This is ludicrous.  People can remove what they don't want from their own talk page.
 * 5) Carrp 23:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) People should have control over their own talk pages. Perhaps it's better etiquette to archive, but it's not against the rules.

Outside view 3
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Netoholic challenges certification. He has documented his challenge properly in the response section of this RfC, a move which I welcome. However he has also taken it upon himself to move the RfC listing out of the "accepted" list and back into the list marked "Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold". The problem with this is that, if acceptance by the subject of the RfC is a criterion, no RfC will ever make it into the accepted list.

I have every reason to believe that those who brought this RfC did so in good faith although I think some aspects of their own behavior was questionable. The way for us to bring this into the open is to treat a good-faith RfC seriously and not play games with whether it is or is not a valid RfC. Netoholic gets right of reply and that is enough.

I am coming to the conclusion that complaints against Netoholic have a valid basis--that he is given to unilateral actions of this type, and then is reluctant to discuss them afterwards and just wipes them from his talk page. This is not proper behavior for an administrator. I caution him that if he continues to act in a dictatorial manner he is likely to bring administrators in general into disrepute, and may accordingly suffer the censure of his fellows. (see below) This pattern is the cause of his problems.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) (Not an endorsement) Netoholic is not an admin. See Requests for adminship/Netoholic, in which he was defeated 3 to 27. Vacuum c 03:37, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC) I don't think you're supposed to endorse an outside view if you're a certifier or endorser of the dispute. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) * That's a bit of a low-blow, don't you think? In any case, this RFC was moved to "Accepted" by the person who opened it in the first place (note the minor edit flag used and lack of an edit summary).  That is improper, and should only be done by an uninvolved party who has looked at the certifications and my challenge.  Tony, why not ask me first before assuming such bad faith on my part by raising this "Outside View"? -- Netoholic @ 03:48, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.