Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Netoholic

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 ~. This page was certified within 48 hours of its creation as required, but the validity of this certification is disputed.


 * (Netoholic | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

Description
Netoholic is edit warring to promote his deprecated version of Template:Infobox Biography which is now at Template:Infobox Person, which includes features that have been changed by the consensus of Template_talk:Infobox Biography. During this war he has repeatedly ignored the consensus of the page, accussed 3 sysops of using unauthorised bots, listing one as a vandal, and is now adding a boilerplate request to the bottom of all the pages that use the template in order to gain support for his POV. He was blocked by Mintguy for disrupting Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), but Snowspinner had to overturn this as Mintguy was involved in the dispute. He has also become increasing rude in his manner (see evidence).

Nethoholic has also attempted to subvert the Votes for Deletion process by removing articles listed on that page without justification, and removing "Votes for deletion" headers from articles which were listed on the VfD page.

Netoholic has also moved all of the craters of the moon articles to new pages without discussion, and, when asked why, deleted the question on his Talk page without replying.

Netoholic also deleted polite requests on his talk page to follow the Categories for Deletion guidelines.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * - removing poll which led to block by Mintguy
 * - Blanking of question regarding his renaming of craters.
 * - Sarcastic reply to request for apology.
 * - Listing of JamesF on Vandalism in Progress as using a bot.
 * and - Erased polite requests to follow the CfD guidelines.

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Wikiquette
 * Refactoring - Blanking an active conversation. ("avoid refactoring when a conversation is still going on")
 * Ignoring consensus
 * Deletion policy

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * - Official warning from Snowspinner regarding personal attack.
 * - One of many clear explanations by JamesF of the consensus against quotes in the box.
 * - Attempt to explain technical reasons for the requested chagnes to the infobox.
 * - Multiple explanations of how to use Mozilla Firefox's tabbed browsing to set up multiple edits in a short period of time, rebuttle of uninformed accusation of bot usage.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * ed g2s &bull;  talk  00:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * RickK 19:11, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 07:43, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC) After discussion, I withdraw my complaint; just a bad mis-understanding. James F. (talk) 08:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 14:55, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 12:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Kevin Baas | talk 17:37, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)
 * Snowspinner 19:33, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC) With an added note to Netoholic that, instead of engaging in pointless legalisms to try to "invalidate" the RFC, he might want to just stop being a dick. Snowspinner 19:33, Sep 26, 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.

{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}

'''None of the certifications is valid. These people are involved with different disputes, and none of them "tried and failed" to resolve all the disputes.'''

'''User:Ed g2s's original certification is particularly invalid. He provides no evidence of himself trying or failing to resolve any situation. Only negative evidence after he contacted me would make it valid.'''

Submitters, please organize your section better. I'm not sure which of these random charges I am supposed to answer, since this RFC seems to have combined multiple minor issues and none of signers above are involved in the same one. I'll try though.


 * Craters - The article were named "SuchAndSuch crater". That is neither a proper name, nor agreeing with any standard written convention. I started moving them to "BetterName (crater)".  Noone has complained (actually, the opposite) except for User:RickK, who doesn't seem to be a very friendly sort of editor.  In any case, I did not move "all" the articles - User:RJHall (originator of most of those articles) has continued along that path.
 * 1) My user talk page - the word "blanking" does not appear in Refactoring, and I like any other user can reasonably maintain my user page however I choose. I found User:RickK's accusation snide and flamebait.
 * 2) Template:Infobox Person is a legitimate "fork" of a similar template . View points sometimes clash, and so I did the civil thing and took it off to the side.  Here is some early evidence of me inviting discussion in an attempt to work together.
 * 3) "Sarcasm", even if that could be interpreted as such, is not against any policy.
 * 4) There is no "emergency" method of posting about unauthorized bot use. Listing on WP:VIP seemed to be the only way to communicate that suspicion. JamesF made 22 suspiciously similar edits within 8 minutes in order to enforce his and eds ideal version of the Template. His history also shows other very bot-like, rapid, and repetitive edits.  After conversation with JamesF, I now believe that his edits in this case were appropriately done, but due to misunderstanding on his part that extra parameters like "quote=" can be harmlessly left on the related articles.  -- Netoholic @ 08:31, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

Good faith attempts to resolve both situations:


 * On Template:Infobox Biography
 * This change should be discussed first on the Talk page. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.
 * removal of the quote= lines from related articles broke this. recommend restoring them until this is decided.


 * On Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)
 * While well meaning, I'm sure, your poll format is hopelessly confusing. Work on User:Gtrmp/TV draft poll until this current vote expires.
 * Vote is valid, and can sit side by side with the other poll while it's being designed]
 * Development of new poll show in the history of User:Gtrmp/TV draft poll.

User:Neutrality's charge seems a bit minor, but I will grace it with a response:
 * That guideline (about not clearing categories) has been changed dozens of times, since User:gracefool first added it. The last I time I saw it on CFD, it read the way it currently does (making it a suggestion).  It is a nice guideline, but not a requirement.  It is certainly a hinderance in many cases.
 * Neutrality seems to be very much in favor of removing comments without explanation from his own user talk page - 1, 2, 3, 4, et cetera, et cetera. This double-standard negates his frivolous charge.
 * Neurality may have a grudge, since I posted on his previous RFC.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Netoholic @ 01:57, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
 * 2) [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 22:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I find this inquiry fallacious to say the least.  Mintguy's friends at Wikipedia are trying to make it difficult for Netholic to challenge their wikicabal.  I spit on their mob scene to discredit Netholic for using legitimate references of Mintguy's misuse of sysop privileges against me in Requests_for_comment/Mintguy.  Kenneth Alanson 12:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) ugen64 00:31, Sep 22, 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.

Frankly, I find both parties involved to be rather suspicious. There's not a lot of evidence here that has held up to my close scrutiny on either side of the debate, and I am finding that this RFC is turning into little more than a mudslinging match. It would be nice if everyone involved could go about things a little bit more politely than it seems to be going right now. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:22, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:22, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
 * 2) --Niteowlneils 18:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) Also, Netoholic REALLY pissed me off with some of his early actions--he's one of the few Wikipedians I named (briefly--I soon decided naming names wasn't approriate) as reasons I took a Wikivacation for most of September. However, it's now late Nov, and I am not aware of any recent (last 30, or probably 60 days) complaints about his behavior, and he has publically stated he regrets some of his actions back then. What does it take to close this thing out and move on?

I would like to add another outside view -- while blanking from the user page might be considered rude in most circumstances, regardless, I think it is still within Netoholic's perogative to maintain his user page as he sees fit (within certain limits that I don't think he's violated). No comment on the other issues. --Improv 18:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) --Improv 18:29, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) --Niteowlneils 18:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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