User:Zen-master/Netoholic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities
The neutrality is not disputed. Nor is the content. The title, scope, and layout is disputed. We are all in strong consensus here. All the material is cited and verified. Kevin Baas | talk 22:50, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)
US Election issues
Do you and maybe a couple of others working on this article want to meet on say wiki IRC, to discuss it, so we can try and mutually agree a consensus on its progress? FT2 00:21, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
A Note from a Sockpuppet
Your comment on the Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion/Vote page labels me as a likely sockpuppet. Well, I'm not. I understand why Wikipedians should always be aware that some users are unscrupulous and will create alternate identities to get their agendas implemented. I assure you that I am a unique individual, although fairly new as a registered member of the community. Before registering I made several edits, and since I have tried to make myself as useful as possible to the community, while learning as much as I can about it. I do not appreciate your inaccurate assessment of me as a puppet, because your quick appraisal was obviously not well-researched. Please amend the comment you made on the Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion/Vote page and rescind your condemnation of me, which undermines my vote and my voice as a member of the Wikipedia community. Anything else you accuse me of can be brought up on my talk page. Niceguyjoey 01:33, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Netoholic, I think that your actions of accusing users of invalid votes on the Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion/Vote have harmed Wikipedia. I recognize that preventing fraudulent votes is important. However, your actions cause more problems than they solve, and all in all, you have done more harm than good. Specifically, your actions work to taint the vote (by wrongly suggesting that votes are invalid), disenfranchise community members (by taking away their right to vote), and intimidate new community members from participating. This makes Wikipedia look bad to new users. I've already made some comments on the vote page, but because of continuing actions, I feel the need to mention this now on your talk page. -- Ben James Ben 03:34, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
Template: In the news
By whom? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not acceptable. Do not make these sort of changes on IRC! There is absolutely no transparency if you do it this way!!! Take this to the talk page!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I still don't see any talk on the talk page. This is news. I'd advise discussing it there. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And now I notice you blanked the page. Stop pushing your POV! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Specific feedback
You wanted to know why I didn't think you were ready for administration yet. This edit is a good example (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=2004_U.S._election_in_progress&diff=7327138&oldid=7327011) - Ta bu shi da yu 04:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I feel no remorse. As I said before, that section is duplicated elsewhere. -- Netoholic @ 06:14, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
Well, taking such unilateral measures on controversial subjects (even when I beleive some of your edits to be right) does not help. Stop reverting edits! The dubious tags are a good solution though. If you are happy to keep them there then I'll remove my request to have the page locked. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities
Maybe I'm wrong here, but you seem to think it shouldn't be there at all. I don't mind that opinion, but have you considered taking this to VfD? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
IRC logout response
(04:24:25) Netoholic: I have +- 6000 edits (04:24:26) Netoholic: you ? (04:24:29) Netoholic: bye (04:24:59) zen-master: please forgive me then for interpreting your behavior this evening as coming from someone that has no knowledge of wikipedia's policies on controversy resolution (04:24:59) User is not logged in
I Stand By My Unilateral Statement
I stand by my assertation that your actions the last 24 hours on the election controversy and related articles have been extremely unilateral. You made premeditated changes and hidden reverts with the knowledge that more that one other person would disagree with you. You have yet to actually discuss or debate much of anything on talk pages, which hurts your case because you do have some valid concerns about the page. Please work towards consensus. Zen Master 17:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why is it those that are most greivously working towards their own ends make demands for "working towards concensus"? -- Netoholic @ 17:47, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
I will gladly accept a third party investigation as to who works towards consensus and who does not in this matter. Your edit history is there for the world to see. Zen Master 18:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
VFD format issue
Hey Netoholic, I wanted to ask if there is a reason you organize the vfd discussions you start and vote on early into three sections (delete/keep/comments). I feel like that setup is less conducive to discussion. —siroχo 20:14, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
I do see your purpose, but I still think its better to leave the vfd pages more threaded, to encourage discussion. Even with a poll, there is a period of discussion before the poll is ever started. —siroχo
Also, in reference to my vote, I don't have a problem leaving histories visible unless there is a copyright violation or something else that could put wikipedia in some sort of danger due to legality. In the case of original research leaking into page histories, or even false information, I think that it can be benificial. People can check the history to see the evolution of the article and keep track of what is has been removed as original research, or unverifiable information. —siroχo
Surveys
This is an old issue, but I've recently decided that it might be useful to bring the Wikisource conundrum to a conclusion. I have belatedly added termination dates to the polls at Wikipedia talk:Sister projects and Wikipedia talk:Wikisource. I thought it fair to let you know (naturally, this need not bring about any action if you're no longer interested). If you disapprove of the current phrasing of the polls, it will be only proper if you mention this now. -- Itai 23:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Netoholic
If a VfD is used (in someone's perception) as a backdoor for discrediting an article which you are not pleased with, then that becomes a breach of policy and the like on Wikipedia. You do it at your own risk. As it happens 2 people now have said you do this, and I'm inclined to agree with them. That makes 3. The fact that 3 people believe the VfD is being used improperly and spuriously certainly belongs on the Vfd, because VfD is neutral like all of Wikipedia, and all views are relevant is sourced. FT2 00:08, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC).
Update: I have respected your wish not to reformat your text, I have left the vandalism warning as its relevant, and the opposing view because that is too, and the points on you... well, I stand by them, and feel them releavnt to the VfD. If im wrong others will say so. But so far 3 people agree. FT2 00:28, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
"I feel that you are perpetuating a major disrespect to me. If that is your goal, I feel sorry that you've had to go that far. -- Netoholic"
The issue here is evidence. Not personal desires. The two people who have commented that you are acting this way have specified evidence.
* It's in the article history, where you edit without consensus.
* Your talk pages, where others say similar and I am inclined to believe them as it fits rather well
* My own experience of you, that you cite rules you have not read neutrally (such as "original research", then cite it again even though it is clearly not applicable.
* Its in how you delete then retag against consensus, and the above (including your own posts in history on other articles) suggest you edit in a vadalistic manner. Alternatively if charitable, it may mean you have too rigid a sense of what "source" or "research" or "neutral" means, and that meakes you delete/edit more ruthlesly than good judgement would do.
If this is mistaken, I will be glad to change my mind, for emnity and upset isn't my goal. But I've seen your talk history and edit history, thats evidence. I've seen your revert history, thats evidence. I've seen you fail to read wiki guidelines and misquote them, thats evidence. You may be well meaning, but you need to learn to be more collaborative and trust others may be right sometimes. Or you are not well meaning in which case you are a vandal.
I don't know which it is, so I'm not naming either. All I say at present is, your behaviour is regularly far outside acceptable wiki conduct which is why you are progressively getting more people taking a tougher line. That can change if you want to meet and talk on wiki-IRC or something. FT2 00:51, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Edit summaries
I'll certainly do this. However, maybe you can:
1. Stop removing whole sections of articles without discussing this on talk first 2. Practice what you preach - you also misused the edit summary - see [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities&diff=7332608&oldid=7332514) Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
* Further to this (I notice you archived this after like 1 hour on your page!) Perhaps you could stop making unilateral moves like blanking the page and redirecting it to a similar yet not quite related page [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities&diff=7326581&oldid=7326474)? Also, more things to look out for: don't just revert with the same edit summary (see [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities&diff=7331447&oldid=7331314)), to which ZenMaster asked you to "rv please discuss your changes on the talk page and give proper time for others to respond" [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities&diff=7331314&oldid=7331168), to which you (ironically) reverted again with exactly the same edit summary [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities&diff=7331447&oldid=7331314). You forced me to revert you because you didn't bother to discuss this to come to some sort of consensus. Then you moved this text to the talk page [6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities&diff=7332119&oldid=7332082): however you could have copied it into talk and not removed it. This was reverted [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities&diff=7332285&oldid=7332119), and you again reverted this with the text "(rvt. do not re-insert un-verified data. source it in the Talk, and then re-add)" [8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities&diff=7332337&oldid=7332285). You then reverted again, only this time you were so eager to revert that you altered removed another users edits! [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities&diff=7332608&oldid=7332514) I note that you wrote: "(rvt. I am here to protect WP's data integrity)". I find this ironic. Later on you did it again!!! [10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=2004_U.S._Election_controversies_and_irregularities&diff=7359451&oldid=7359416) Stop that! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:34, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Archive4?
I noticed you archived (removed) most of your talk page discussions from the last fews days but I can't seem to find a link on this page to that data? Will it be known of as Archive4? Just wondering. Zen Master 02:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If Netaholic likes, I've taken the liberty of archiving it as a subpage off my talk page. See User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/NetoholicArchive4. He can just move it. HTH! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
