User talk:Vacuum/Netoholic RfC

On Rhobite's alternative view, as I substantially agree with it I'd like to work on merging it with mine by discussion. Could we agree that Netoholic's behavior is annoying and not best practice? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe there should be multiple outside opinions encouraged on RFC pages, but merging opinions is a good idea if we agree. I'm not sure that's the case here, I don't believe Netoholic did anything to warrant an RFC. We can lecture him about good manners, but if he doesn't listen to it on his talk page what's the point of doing it here? Rhobite 14:17, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Well, a RfC is nothing special, it's just an opportunity for a number of people, who have tried to resolve a problem but haven't gotten very far through other means, to put the problem to the wider community and make some comments in a manner that would likely get some kind of resolution. Netoholic has at least read the complaints and responded to them--which I suspect is more than happened before the RfC was raised. Though it's difficult for me to verify this precisely because of Netoholic's problematic habit of wiping without archiving.

If what you mean was that Netoholic's behavior doesn't merit anything more drastic than a public airing of grievances, well I agree. He hasn't broken policy, except perhaps by being a little brusque or dismissive, and even there he has obviously done so because he thinks he is being trolled rather than because he has not developed the ability to cooperate.

I think this RfC is useful because it does allow Netoholic to see just how much his behavior annoys people who, really, don't wish him any ill, but get ticked off at the abrupt and unexplained disappearance of stuff from his talk page. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also hope this RfC will be useful. There are other related issues to Netoholic's behvaior, though I perhaps agree deleting user talk page discussions is not against policy, strictly interpreted. First, Netoholic's edit summaries stated he was "archiving" comments when really he was deleting them, so his edit summaries were made in bad faith at least. He only switched his comments to "archived to page history" after I and perhaps Ta ba shi da yu noticed his deletion actions. Secondly, Netoholic never seems interested in debating anything, he believes as he does and acts accordingly, he seems to be oblivious to the fact wikipedia is a community. Is there a stats page that lists the number of talk page edits, project page edits (by type of project page), and main article edits for a particular user? I wonder what Netoholic's stats would look like there. Thirdly, as has been flagged before in arbitration and previous RfC's, deleting his user talk discussions is just one aspect of Netoholic's behavior that is best described as "annoying" and "inflammatory". From what I have experienced, without him ever actually debating anything on talk pages he has listed articles he disagrees with on VfD, plus listed templates, images, sub pages of those same articles for deleting (just to damage the quality of the article), not to mention deleting/"moving" VfD comments, votes, and talk page discussions. Basically every available option and tactic that can be used "against" an article he has used. Fourthly, he must have assumed I was a "newbie" on IRC when I first met him as he tried to convince me he had guessed my wikipedia password and he said he would "bury" me if I disagreed with him about an article (I didn't take him seriously at all then, and I have the IRC chat logs if need be). All these actions are certainly violations of at least the spirit of wikipedia policy in my opinion, though they may have already been dealt with. And I must admit he has seemingly been quiet or even improved starting as of a few weeks ago, as far as the articles I've been following editing wise is concerned. However, there really needs to be a place on wikipedia for the (objective) "history" of user, like we do for anonymous IPs, which lists troublemaking behavior from that user, so new users, or user's new to such tactics, will 1) not be surprised, and 2) know what is right and wrong about those tactics wikipedia policy wise, and 3) know the best way(s) of going about dealing with them. The more people that are aware of history, the better. zen master 18:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see how many of these issues you bring up would be cause for a serious RFC (misattribution of edits, threatening on IRC, etc.). I myself have butted heads with this user in the past. However, I only feel entitled to comment on the behaviors enumerated in this particular RFC. I think that any discussion of edits not related to the specific transgressions mentioned in the evidence section would not be productive here. As it stands, the actual evidence cited in this particular RFC seems merely bad wiki-etiquette (sp?), I don't think that any major action needs to be taken on this particular one. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:09, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the purpose of RfC is simply to gather community feedback on the behaviour of a particular user and to gather consensus on whether the behaviour is Good, Bad, or Bannable. Netoholic would probabably fall in the second category. RfC is not just a filtering process for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. RfC is for discussion. Vacuum c 02:05, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Advice for Netoholic

Whether you mean to or not, I feel that your treatment of your talk page is annoying. It isn't private space, any more than this page is. I agree that the other users were in the wrong when they engaged in revert warring; however prior to that you didn't attempt to engage with them. I gather you believed they were trolling or otherwise attempting to harass you, and I accept that explanation. However, I strongly advise that you investigate my own talk page and its archives to see how it is possible to maintain an accessible, useful record of your dialogs with other editors. Harassment attempts would also be recorded. I archived about nine days worth of talk this morning (here) and from examining the page histories it's possible to calculate that it took me less tha two minutes including updating the archive navbar. The advantage is that both I and anybody else can instantly inspect a full record of past dialogs; user history is transparent and trust is enhanced. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for any misunderstandings caused by my initial post on your talk page. I want you to know that I do not wish any ill of you, and that I sincerely wish for a compromise suitable for all. I apologize for reverting your talk page, for I had no legitimate reason for doing so. I realize that you are not violating Wikipedia policy, and you have every right to archive your pages in the fashion in which you are now doing. All I ask is that you consider the advice of the Wikipedia community when making your decision. Vacuum c 03:32, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Keep this RFC

I'm thinking we can keep this RFC and refer people to it if someone else engaged in the same practices that Netoholic does. Firstly, I wish to make a few things clear: all talk comments are licensed under the GFDL, so the can be copied, used, whatever. It also means that Netoholic can remove talk from his page. What I would like to make clear is that anonymous users should not be allowed to remove talk from their IP address talk pages. We need this to keep a track of warnings, etc. I've already had to warn an anonymous user to stop clearing his talk page because of the potential for them to wipe a certain Oxford University president's details. To the extent that I've placed that page on my watchlist. My $0.02. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I want this RFC deleted, since certification is invalid and Vacuum said "I realize that you are not violating Wikipedia policy, and you have every right to archive your pages in the fashion in which you are now doing". If there needs to be a broader talk about this subject, take it to Wikipedia talk:User page. -- Netoholic @ 03:15, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Then I think that's fair. I'll support you on this. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have recently communicated with Zen. I request a short delay for him to reply before this is deleted. Vacuum c 03:27, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

If the consensus is for deletion, would you be OK with me putting an anonymized version on WP:UP? Vacuum c 02:09, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

WP:RFC disagrees. It says "This section is for discussing specific users who have allegedly violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines." You have broken a guideline, not a policy. Vacuum c 03:32, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

I have not "broken a guideline" since the guideline is worded as a suggested action, not a firm direction. Also - "The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page". Zen-master has not done this. Simply signing is not enough - he must have added evidence. Since this was not done, the certification is invalid. -- Netoholic @ 03:41, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Why would WP:RFC have that wording if it is impossible to violate the spirit of a guideline? For evidence, see Zen-master's comment above, and the snippet of page history on the main RfC page. There is a consensus on this page that it is a good-faith RfC, why waste time in silly semantic quibbling? Vacuum c 03:47, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Zen's comment is just a string of random complaints. The fact is that hs did not add evidence regarding this dispute within the 48 hour time-frame. He has made two edits total to the RFC page - first to "certify" and then to comment (later moved here to Talk. He has not met the obligation. I respect everyone's input, but this RFC is just not valid. -- Netoholic @ 04:01, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

If this page is deleted, I shall request its undeletion. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not this RFC is valid, it opens a useful channel of communication. Why close it? Vacuum c 04:22, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

I don't object to the open discussion, but there is a very well established requirement for RFC certification, and subsequent deletion - it prevents frivolous RFCs. Why not take this up on a policy Talk page? Why does it have to be in the context of my actions, which are clearly not violating any policy? -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

It's clear by the size and number of comments that this is not frivolous. Once again, you are contravening the spirit of the guidelines, not policies. Vacuum c 04:31, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

And, whether you like it or no, there are a fair number of people watching this discussion; its outcome may affect every user account. - Amgine 03:05, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The RfC was signed in good faith by two users who were annoyed enough by Netoholic's behavior to want to do something about it. I'm a third party who just happened to leave on or two messages on his talk page[1], [2] and was surprised to see them wiped without acknowledgement (I'm not in the habit of making frivolous comments on user talk pages). I think this is one of those borderline niggles that tend to raise WikiStress. It's appropriate to get it out into the open when it occurs. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Notes added after page was archived

Thank you for keeping this page archived. I've also experienced the disputed behavior by the disputed user, and I find this page useful. --Ben James Ben 03:08, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

As viewable in the archived history, my actions were disputed, but community consensus was such that I acted fully within policy and acceptable behavior. This is why this page exists only as an archive, and the original was deleted. -- Netoholic @ 03:23, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Since this page belongs to another user, I believe that the decision to keep or remove this page belongs to them. If the page owner wants to keep a copy of this page in their personal subpages, I believe that they are allowed to do so. If consensus was that the disputed behavior was acceptable, then it would be to everyone's benefit that this page remain available for viewing. --Ben James Ben 03:40, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Uncertified RFCs are deleted because they tend to inflame, more than add value. This one in particular is being kept more for intimidation, than reference, in direct conflict with that stated procedure. As such, it is important that it be made clear that the page is not a "live" one, but an archive. -- Netoholic @ 04:15, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

I disagree that keeping this copy of the RFC does not add value. However, I agree that the page might be better if it were clearly marked as an archive-only page. Perhaps adding prominent text to the top of this page is warranted. An example might be, "(Original Request For Comments page name) was closed on January 1 2004. This is a private copy of that page, kept for archival purposes only. Please do not add any more coments to this page. If you have any questions or concerns, please add them to the (link to talk page)."

Of course, this is a personal user page, so the decision to edit the page is up to the owner. --Ben James Ben 01:26, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)