Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic/Evidence

Formatting evidence
I would like to emphasize that the arbcom has (for our own sanity) decreed that evidence pages should look something like this - user:Raul654/Plautus. &rarr;Raul654 03:49, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Evidence from a different dispute
I am of the opinion that any evidence related to 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities presented here is unfortunately out-of-scope. There are many people involved, and it would be unfair to enjoin them in this Arbitration request, which was originally opened by Snowspinner over completely different circumstances. I worry that, in any evidence I would present to defend myself, many others might be subject to action, when they are not the ones bringing "election article" charges. I ask that the Arbitrators separate this case, let the election article dispute go through all the normal resolution attempts, and ensure this case covers only concerns mentioned in the originally stated request.

I also continue to hold that this arbitration itself was accepted prematurely against policy, as voiced on the other talk page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic. -- Netoholic @ 05:37, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)


 * According to Raul654, it's perfectly fine to add evidence. We've had this discussion before. Check Raul's talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it is apparently fine to add evidence, but the Arbitrators determine which evidence is relavent. That's why I'm asking them to (hopefully) suggest keeping the election article dispute separate, and encouraging you to seek out the earlier dispute resolution steps.  Do you think it's fair to open yourself, FT2, and others to evidence I would put up to defend myself?  I would think that earlier dispute steps would be a better way to handle all of this, since it really is unrelated to what this Arb was opened up for. -- Netoholic @ 06:37, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, the article, and any controversy over it, is not specifically germane and should not be specifically cited as an article. However evidence from any article's history may be relevant as evidence - and it is inappropriate editing in one form or another which is the heart of this ArbRequest. So whilst the actual article is not germane, I would guess that sample edits of untoward editing, are or could be. FT2 20:08, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * (By the way, the implied threat of "Do you think it's fair to open yourself, FT2, and others, to evidence I would put up to defend myself? I would think that earlier dispute steps would be a better way to handle all of this." isn't one I am swayed by. It's basically "Don't mention other evidence as you wouldn't like what I'd say in return, so why not do it how I prefer instead?" I doubt you care about "fair" to others, and your suggestion is mere self-interest, presented as mild benevolence. So either way I decline your invitation to value self-preservation over evidence. This isn't a court, and I'm content to let the ArbCom decide how they see things, and to have evidence for both sides adjudged neutrally by them. Are you?) FT2 20:25, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Evidence I would be obliged to include here, in order to provide a balanced perspective, would include:
 * POV edits and edit warring/reverts by Ta bu, FT2, Zen-master, and Kevin bass; which I was trying to balance
 * Original research by Kevin bass, including his self-fabricated statistics and images; which I was trying to de-value, since it is against standards
 * Personal attacks against myself, made on extremely public pages and levied by Ta bu, FT2, and Zen-master; which were meant to insult, embarrass, and harrass me, with the intent of discrediting my position on the article's poor value.
 * Please don't ask me for specifics, nor argue here about these points. That would be for later if it became necessary that I actually present them.  If you are sure that you are above reproach, and you wish to make that decision for the others, then feel free to continue in this Arbitration.  Consider though, that the article has a lot of energy around it, and other methods of dispute resolution might produce a better outcome.  My offer is still open to go through those other steps.  If you decide that's acceptable, then go ahead and clear the election article-related evidence from here, so we can go forward in a less volatile way. -- Netoholic @ 22:54, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)


 * By all means add this evidence, maybe to a section like "Counter evidence". I am happy for you to include this. However, we will ask for specifics on an evidence page. Please see evidence for what evidence actually is. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Considering Netoholic's recent, persistent, evidenced inability to fully understand and comprehend each of Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, Cite sources, and What_Wikipedia_is_not, and (mis)quoting these inappropriately despite clear repeated explanation, I have to confess I'm not exactly shivering at the prospect of other mis-citations and smokescreens. I look forward to reading such evidence Netoholic says he will add, and stand by my prior statement that at this point it seems to me that arbitration (and not lesser routes) is the most appropriate way given Netoholic's visible history. If there is evidence either way, then it should (and I trust will) be heard neutrally. FT2 02:10, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities
I am 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). 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). 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)


 * Why is the above (which looks like evidence) on this Talk page? -- If you've pasted here accidently, feel free to move it back and remove this reply also. -- Netoholic @ 06:37, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Removal of users' signed comments
Netoholic removed a user's signed comments in Templates for deletion See and  (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 and )! Not sure if that is actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:29, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Why is the above (which looks like evidence) on this Talk page? -- If you've pasted here accidently, feel free to move it back and remove this reply also. -- Netoholic @ 06:37, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
 * I placed this on here on purpose, because I need to reformat the page with a chronological order of your edits. This is more like commentary, and should be on this page. Don't touch this comment. You're in enough hot water as it is. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Question
Filing "evidence" against myself is not part of this arbitration, surely? Shouldn't Netoholic file it in another arbitration?! I don't see how this stuff is relevant here. I could be wrong. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The evidence you've filed against me has no correlation with the original complaint. How is this any different?  In truth, my evidence is going to prove that you have a bias against me and my views on the election article; and that, rather than addressing that article dispute, you have engaged in a campaign to discredit me openly.  This campaign is reaching its peak by your action of adding evidence to this arbitration, and even advertising this arbitration to as many people as possible to further discredit me.  I offered many times to take this dispute to different resolution steps, and you refused. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * Can't speak for others, but for myself I was unaware of Netoholic's existence until he began excessively and repeatedly reverting articles. I became aware of Ta bu's existence some time after, when it became obvious he was one of those seeking to revert and prevent this happening. I can't say what may be between them personally, but I can say that I myself, and my views, were swayed by no other person save Netoholic's own actions. FT2 00:07, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * There is nothing personal in any of this. I don't know him personally at all! I also voted against Netoholic's administratorship, but I did tell him I thought he was a good editor on his talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)