Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 00:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 08:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Requests for comment

[edit] Statement by User:Stifle

I first interacted with Monicasdude in February 2006 when discussing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross C. DeVol. He voted for speedy keep, and I suggested [1] that this may not be a valid vote (although I admit now that it was at the time). Monicasdude replied [2] accusing the nominator of vandalism and accusing me of repeated bad faith AFD nominations. When I asked him to quote one such nomination [3], he replied with a cryptic comment [4] which did not cite any actual bad faith AFDing by me, before deleting [5] the entire conversation from his talk page with the edit summary "obsessive personal attack refactored". My request not to do this [6] was summarily dealt with the same way [7].

Monicasdude also regularly makes bad faith and/or vandalism accusations of nominators to AFDs, when voting Speedy Keep. [8], [9], [10].

He also makes personal attacks against people voting to delete on AFD [11], [12], [13] .

I also beg to incorporate by reference the evidence and accusations at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2.

[edit] Later addition
  • Monicasdude's first assertion is valid and I do not contest it — I unintentionally missed the problem to which he referred. The locus of the dispute remains. Stifle 18:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Monicasdude's third assertion refers to "refactoring". I would like to make clear that it was actually deleting the material from his talk page, rather than refactoring, which tends to imply moving to an archive. See Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Stifle 18:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section added by Stifle

Monicasdude is alleged to persistently assume bad faith in others, ignore consensus, make personal attacks, and remove warnings and messages from his talk page.

[edit] Statement by User:Monicasdude

I urge the Arbitration Committee to quickly reject this matter and, metaphorically, spank Messrs. Stifle and Ong and send them to bed without supper. I also urge the committee to state its disapproval of Stifle's electioneering, soliciting users involved in entirely unrelated matters to support his claims, as well as Mailer Diablo's parallel efforts at vote stacking. As for the RfA:

  • First, Stifle misrepresents the history of his dispute with me; it began after I opposed his speedy deletion nomination of Fly_(artist) here [14] and criticized the practice of tagging an article for speedy deletion while its initial author (a rather new user) was still writing it.
  • Second, since Stifle's dispute with is entirely unrelated to the previous editing disputes he mentions, there have been no previous attempts at formal dispute resolution in this matter, and an arbitration request is clearly premature -- especially given the frequency with which consensus in the relevant AfD discussions lines up with my positions. Mailer Diablo's recent addition claiming failure of informal mediation is misleading, and does not refer to the dispute originally cited in this RFAR. Monicasdude 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Third, Stifle made a series of posts on my talk page demanding that I change my vote in an AfD, with an increasingly rude tone and stronger elements of personal attacks. When it was clear the discussion was unproductive, and increasingly hostile, I cut it off and refactored the matter. Many users are much more aggressive in removing such material, and their actions are not seen as inappropriate. Since he now admits that his position there was incorrect, I find his insistence that his error be preserved for all to see rather, well, odd. Stifle does not like the term "refactored"; "redacted" will do just as well. I used "refactored" to indicate that the text remained in the page history, and that I had not asked an administrator to entirely remove offensive material, as other users have done.
  • Fourth, Stifle cites several allegations of bad faith he says I made. Alleging bad faith is not itself inappropriate, since Wikipedia editors regularly behave in bad faith, and he does not claim the allegations were incorrect or baseless. (Indeed, with regard to the first of three he cites, Mr. Ong made a stronger allegation of bad faith [15], where I had said only that the nomination gave the appearance of bad faith and asked the nominator to explain it.) Also note that in the third example cited, my comments are a response to a thoroughly uncivil personal attack by the AfD nominator, and I believe the bad faith in that situation is quite clearly demonstrated.
  • Fifth, Stifle alleges personal attacks in three matters where I comment on policy violations or criticize editing practices. Nothing about such statements is inappropriate, and they are not personal attacks. I believe that editors who summarily tag articles from new editors for deletion, without making any efforts to assist them or to verify the substantial accuracy of their own position, are violating WP:BITE and damaging the integrity of the Wikipedia project. I believe that editors ought to recognize an obligation to verify claims of non-notability that they make; to do otherwise violates their WP:AGF obligations towards the authors whose work they proposing removing, since there is so often no reason to believe the authors held a good faith believe that the subjects they wrote on were notable. And I believe that an editor who openly admits outright ignorance of a subject should not presume those involved in the field are non-notable and call for deletion of pertinent articles, as was the case in one of the disputes he cites.

Frankly, AfD is a cesspool of bad behavior, marked ongoing incivility toward, often personal attacks on, the authors (and sometime subjects) of articles targeted for deletion. Such bad behavior, whether malicious or grossly irresponsible, should be identified and criticized much more frequently than it currently is. The requesters in this case ardently and enthusiastically propose and support deletion on a virtually wholesale basis, too often in defiance of consensus guidelines and criteria; I suspect the real reason for this request is frustration in my success in opposing their positions. And their positions actively damage Wikipedia: driving away editors, especially new editors, acting in good faith; offending the subjects of articles who happen upon discussions in AfD disputes (often via Google) and find themselves maligned, and removing worthwhile subjects/articles from the project over defects in form, when Wikipedia policy and guidelines clearly call for improvement rather than removal. The Committee would do better to shut down the deletion processes entirely rather than give this pique-driven request serious consideration. Monicasdude 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few words of support from Jimmy Wales, quoted without authorization or permission

The things that turn up in one's email. Not written with regard to this case, of course, but months ago, and not intended as any claim or endorsement or personal support from the benevolent dictator. (And not sent to me by him or on his behalf.) Just an example of minds thinking alike. I quote the most relevant section and add a link to the full text

"We have gotten to a cultural state where "Gee, I never heard of this" seems to be a good enough excuse to nominate something for deletion, RATHER THAN raising legitimate issues on the talk page first to see if anyone can help improve the article.

In this case, the nominator should have said "Gee, I never heard of Fawcett or Playboy, and this New York Times thing sounds fishy, and I looked in Google and found only n listings for the name, so I wonder if there's a problem here.

Then, pop a note on the talk page. "Hey everybody, I don't know much about publishing or science fiction, but I never heard of this guy and had trouble verifying the information. It's probably my own lack of searching skills, so I wonder if anyone can help me out here. Is this article as good as it could be?" I went through a rather tortured process yesterday in which I had to really put my foot down to put a stop to a CfD vote which was taking place without _any_ community dialogue or discussion first. I do not know the exact solution to this problem, but this is part of an ongoing problem with have *most particularly with bios of living people and existing companies*. "I haven't heard of this" seems to be an instant excuse for "non-notable" and "AfD", which is offensive to the subjects, when the real approach should be _at a bare minimum_ and effort at dialogue with other editors *before* jumping to a "vote"." [16]

In the full text, the author describes this problem as "a sickness in the process" and described the AfD process (then VfD) as "ludicrous." I doubt I said anything stronger than that. But quite a bit that parallels it. I therefore modestly propose that ArbComm join Mr. Wales as a party to this case if it decides to take it up.Monicasdude 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to JIP

JIP posted a comment on my talk page which he admits came across as uncivil and insulting, whatever his intentions. I removed it and asked him not to make such posts in the future. He does not claim incivility in my response. I am baffled as to why taking his post at face value could be seen as objectionable, or why he believes any user has an obligation to immediately respond (or respond at all) to unsolicited comments. Monicasdude 19:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Swatjester

I believe Swatjester violated WP:BITE and said so. WP:BITE describes how new editors should be treated, and the guideline is not limited to prohibiting nasty posts to or about new editors. It calls on experienced editors to assist new editors in correcting their mistakes. Swatjester tagged a new editor's article for deletion while the editor was still writing it, made no timely attempt or offer to help, and has apparently driven the new editor away. I believe that is fairly described as a WP:BITE violation and have previously explained my position in more detail here [17] Monicasdude 20:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Jareth, Mailer Diablo, and Kirill Lokshin

If the committee elects to take up the grievances of this growing crowd of ochlocrats, I hope it pays careful attention to the entirely spurious RfC these three users framed. I would be ashamed of myself if I had let it change my behavior. The three of them insisted -- quite explicitly -- that Wikipedia's core policies of NPOV, NOR, and verifiability, were subordinate to consensus, and could be disregarded by agreement of editors. I think the response I gave then, at the link Lokshin provides, states my position as well as I would do now, and commend it to the committee's attention. The RfC itself is an outright cry of defiance against clearly established Wikipedia policies; it cites such mortal Wikisins as reporting an undisputed 3RR violation by another user and reporting a user (the same user) for violating the probation imposed by this committee. I am surprised they have come here at all; their complaints are more appropriately directed to a Committee on UnWikipedian Activities, since they propose ignoring Wikipedia's core policies and repressing disagreeing views, or perhaps to a comité de salut public. Monicasdude 23:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response regarding BGC and JDG

Both of these users are retaliating after ending up on the short end of disputes (let's be frank here); and both have been subject to admin warnings, sometimes significant blocks, for violating substantive Wikipedia policies. JDG was recently given a one-week block for deliberately defying Wikipedia copyright policy [18], then, under a sockpuppet account, posted extreme personal attacks on the admin who imposed the block [19] [20] [21] [22], following up with taunting comments on Kiefer's talk page (from both accounts) [23], [24] as well making odd, sometimes threatening comments on the talk page of another admin involved in the same dispute [25] [26]. User:JDG has repeatedly made clear his unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia's core content policies -- Verifiability [27] [28], neutral point of view [29] , and no original research [30]. He has been quite clear about his refusal to accept the no personal attacks policy [31].

I had several disputes with BGC, aka PetSounds, principally over his refusal to comply with WP:NPOV and his practice of using misleading edit summaries to disguise substantial and controversial changes; he also rather often made abusive comments to editors who disagreed with his editing. Other users and admins made similar complaints, and he was regularly warned about those practices -- warnings he systematically deleted from his talk pages. He also engaged in an extensive war with several editors. including myself over an effort to replace an existing template with a new version without seeking or gaining consensus and without resolving the nontrivial "fair use" issues involved. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

[edit] JDG Comment on Monicasdude's all-but-libelous Response regarding BGC and JDG

Mdude, I can only think you are relying on my laziness, as the above is easily grounds for another RfAR. What makes you think Jim Tour is me? The one week block was handed down by an admin with all sorts of problems and dozens of (justified) detractors. He has now apparently left Wikipedia. Plus, using the fact of a block to attack a Wikipedian's position on this or that is an odd maneuver for one freshly off a block!... The statements to JKelly have nothing threatening about them. I'm simply trying to piece together why you go to him when you're in trouble and why he would be sympathetic to an editor who causes so much grief and wasted time... And "retaliating after ending up on the short end of disputes"? You've very much got it backward. I can't think of a single disagreement we've had in which you've prevailed. And finally, BGC is known as a good, energetic worker despite all your attempts to bring him down. JDG 23:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Nihiltres and Abhorsen

While I respect Nihiltres' good intentions in attempting to settle the dispute between Swatjester and myself, I believe he has gone seriously astrayin his conclusions. Not every dispute is susceptible to resolution by consensus. I believe that Swatjester's treatment of new user Tardonut violated WP:BITE, and I said so. He believes that my statements regarding his treatment of Tardonut were uncivil personal attacks and said so. Nothing in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines requires that every difference of opinion between editors be resolved; the best course of action is generally to accept that people hold different opinions and respect their right to disagree. The dispute Nihiltres was attempting to mediate was one such; both parties to the dispute had stated their positions, and neither was willing to change. I chose not to comment further in the talk page dispute, since the discussion was sterile and hostile. I believe that Swatjester's making seven posts to my talk page in seven hours, demanding that I agree with him on a point in dispute, is a much more substantial civlity violation, "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress," than the comments he complains of. I also note that while Swatjester said he would place encouraging comments on new user Tardonut's talk page in an attempt to assuage my concerns [40], he did not do so [41]. I believe that places his protestations of good faith in perspective; actions are at least as important as words. Abhorsen's comments disappoint me; when he was a new user and his efforts were treated as badly as Tardonut's were, I supported him and helped keep his worthwhile article(s) from being deleted. I do not understand why he thinks other new users do not deserve the same consideration. I also believe his comments that I made personal attacks on Swatjester to be unfounded, and I ask him to either cite diffs showing those attacks or withdraw that particular statement. Monicasdude 14:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to User:TKE

I strongly believe that the statements made by TKE regarding the current state of the Afd process are grossly inaccurate. I therefore have reviewed roughly the last two dozen AfD nominations on which I voted keep, to see which view of the process is more accurate. There should be little doubt that the description I provide is more accurate than that presented by User:TKE:

The Handsomest Drowned Man In The World Talk page activity: none

N. Namasivayam Talk page activity: none

Idar Kreutzer Talk page activity: none

Bernd Sebastian Kamps Talk page activity: appropriate

AJ Roach Talk page activity: none

Sean Hood Talk page activity: none Afd nom 3 minutes after last edit by initial author

Ben myers Talk page activity: none Afd nom 1 minute after last edit by initial author

David Haugh Talk page activity: none

Chris Skrebowski Talk page activity: none Initial prod 14 minutes after article creation

Bernard Ramsey Talk page activity:none Initial prod 4 minutes after last edit by article creator

Prison Planet Talk page activity: none relevant Initial prod 12 minutes after article creation

Girl Power Talk page activity: none Initial prod 25 minutes after article creation

Robert Colin Boyd Talk page activity: none

Eire Og Talk page activity: none

Hamblen Elementary School Talk page activity: none

Emanuel Wynn Talk page activity: some

Lakeshore Catholic High School Talk page activity: none

Real bills doctrine Talk page activity: request for peer review, but not by nominator

Fred Carama Talk page activity: none Afd nomination 7 minutes after last edit by article creator, tagged as minor edit w/no mention of AfD

Insurance hall of fame Talk page activity: none Prod 1 minute after last edit by article creator

Timothy Kanold Talk page activity: none

Tari Schreider Talk page activity: none Prod 3 minutes after article creation

Thomas Bannister Talk page activity: none Prod 3 minutes after article creation

Subbaraju Raju Gokaraju Talk page activity: none

Rick Telander Talk page activity: none

Kristen Ghodsee Talk page activity: none (despite 2 prods)

Hikari Hayashibara Talk page activity: none related to deletion

Ernest Rides Again Talk page activity: none Prod 7.5 hours after last edit by article creator

I would think it quite clear that the practices I cited, and that Jimmy Wales earlier criticized, remain substantially unchanged. Monicasdude 05:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Monicasdude regarding Wikistalking by User:Swatjester

After adding his statement to this request, User:Swatjester went to virtually every AfD on which I had voted in the last 24 hours and cast contrary votes, mostly without any substantive explanation. [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] He did not "vote" on one AfD where all "votes" except the nominator's were in accord with mine. He did not make comments or "votes" on any Afds other than the ones I had addressed during that time. I would hope this resolves any questions of good faith, at least as between my actions and those of Swatjester. Monicasdude 20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Monicasdude regarding User:Calton

However civil or uncivil I may have been, it should be clear that Calton has violated the civility standards far more often and far more severely. [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] and bites new users with particular enthusiasm [62] [63]. He has also been wikistalking me since the RFAR began, most conspicuously tracking down "PROD" nominations I had objected in good faith to, tagging them for speedy deletion even when speedy deletion was clearly inappropriate (example: [64] [65] [66]. But the one that I find most disturbing is this one [67], where Calton curtly brushes off the efforts of a young, enthusiastic contributor without any attempt to suggest how her work could fit into a more appropriate article (say, a Simpson discography, or the existing songlist, or the individual articles). Would it have killed him to do something like this? This is behavior that Wikipedia and Wikipedians should be ashamed of. Monicasdude 03:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section appended by Monicasdude

Swatjester has wikistalked Monicasdude and cast bad faith AfD "votes" in an attempt to offset Monicasdude's position.

Calton has edited this page several times to remove or alter statements by Monicasdude, and included personal attacks in his edit summaries. Calton is persistently uncivil and makes personal attacks.

[edit] Statement by User:JIP

I have seen Monicasdude vote "keep", or even "speedy keep" in many AfDs, where I and most others have voted "delete". This morning I remembered I had never, ever, seen him vote "delete", so I decided to ask him about it: [68]. He reacted to this by removing my comment entirely from his talk page and accusing me of vandalism and insulting him: [69]. I admit my original message was formed very badly and read like an insult. This was not my intent. I was genuinely curious in a neutral, academic sort of way. I replied to him: [70], but so far he hasn't either replied to me or removed the comment from his talk page.

While I admit I came across as impolite in my original message, I feel that Monicasdude assumed bad faith and overreacted, resorting to terms like "vandalise". I don't know whether this makes me an involved party or not. JIP | Talk 17:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Swatjester

While I was not involved in the initial bringing of this case, I found it and feel the urge to join as a party. Monicasdude recently attacked me for my actions in an AfD. (My action was to nominate the article for deletion, I in no way spoke to the articles author). Monicasdude repeatedly attacked me personally and with an uncivil tone, accusing me of Biting the Newbie (impossible since I never spoke with them), questioned whether I was a deletionist "clown", accused me of doing "no shred of research", directly called me a "busybody editor", and refused to refactor the personal attacks when asked nicely. I have at no time been less than civil, even thanking him for his criticism, but Monicasdude still refuses to refactor his personal attacks and incivil tone. Monicasdude has a nasty habit of attacking other editors rather than attacking their positions. It's been shown time and time again on AfD. Enough is enough. 50 million elvis fans can't be wrong....Monicasdude assumes bad faith in everyone. I endorse Stifle and JIP's positions as well. I haven't provided diffs: the appropriate comments are still up on Monicasdude's talk page, and on the AfD page shown above. I will provide diffs upon request. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

in regards to explaining the situation to Tardonut: At this point in time I am not sure if I should answer on Tardonut's page. I will concede that I said (per Monicasdude's diff above, number 57) that I would leave a message on Tardonut's page. I have not done so at this time (per diff 58). It slipped my mind, whether due to the stress of this situation, my civil and military obligations, or just plain lack of memory. I would like to, per Nihiltres' suggestion (and good manners) leave a message belatedly explaining things but I will refrain from doing so at this time until I have assurance from an Arbiter that this will not negatively affect these proceedings. I do not want to make the appearance of "stalking" Monicasdude, or trying to badger the newbie, etc. On the other hand, if the powers that be feel that doing so will not negatively impact the proceedings, I'm more than happy to do so. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 02:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Jareth

I belive the second RfC summarized the bulk of concerns rather well. Monicasdude has a long history of biting most editors he comes into contact with, especially if anyone dare disagree with his viewpoint. After he disagreed with my assessment of a 3RR report things escalated over several days until he was blatently attacking instead of his usual snide and sarcastic remarks. The prior RfCs seemed to produce no effect on his behavior, so I believe this RfAR will unfortunately be necessary. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Kirill Lokshin

As quite extensively documented in the second RFC, Monicasdude has a history of assuming bad faith towards anyone who disagrees with him (or even indirectly agrees with someone disagreeing with him). Once this has occurred, he acts in an incivil and confrontational manner—even more so than ususal—often descending to accusations of incompetence and outright personal attacks, particularly on administrators. His response to the RFC, unfortunately, was to further attack those bringing it, so it appears that arbitration is the only remaining option here. Kirill Lokshin 21:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Mailer Diablo

From my previous dealings with Monicasdude (in which I filed the RfC), I strongly recommend that ArbCom accept this case to have a look at his behaviour, which has not changed in any way since. - Mailer Diablo 21:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by BGC

My experiences with Monicasdude read virtually word-for-word identically as Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's. The editor concerned here has been nothing short of rude, hostile, manipulative of facts and Wiki guidelines (to suit his own ends), obstinate, belligerent and extremely uncooperative. I have personally been stalked by this user and the recipient of edit wars instigated by him. His near-megalomanical control of the articles he favors has had a smothering effect on the works themselves, leading myself and many users to - sensibly - walk away. I urge immediate action on this issue.

[edit] Statement by Ardenn

This user has frequently insulted me and acted uncivil towards me. I have left comments on his talk page and he removes them citing "grafitti". He also insists on allowing personal attacks [71] [72] to stand. --Ardenn 00:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Calton

1) Says User:Monicasdude: Frankly, AfD is a cesspool of bad behavior, marked ongoing incivility...

Hmm, maybe he has a point. Let's see some examples:

  • another pointless, ineptly researched Afd nomination. [73]
  • As for "original research," nominator has track record of applying inappropriate tags in AfD discussions, and contents of article verifiable by simple Google search. [74]
  • When an Amazon check shows that Amazon physically stocks an author's books, you should presume that the author's ales meet the notability requirements. And if your instinct says delete, take the 5 minutes required to actually to the research. [75]
  • Given the verified CV, why do you argue he isn't notable? [76]
  • Nomination appears to be part of a "Get as Many Academics Out of Wikipedia as You Can" campaign [77]
  • Nominated for deletion one minute after being written, a sure sign that the nominator has made no effort to check out the NN claim. [78]
  • ... You can say that as often as you like, if you're insistent on demonstrating your lack of competence in using Google. Though it looks more to me like you just dislike her politics and want Wikipedia censored to remove references to somebody whose ideas you don't like, even though she's well known, treated as notable in press and commentary, and her activities are often reported. Looks more like censorship and badfaith than any real question of notability. [79]

Yes, it's Cheap Rhetorical Trick #3: Using the Debater's Own Words. There's more (many more) , but I'm getting tired of cutting-and-pasting them. This ought to be enough to give the flavor of the hostility, insults, high-handness, light paranoia, and -- given his whining about "cesspool of bad behavior" and "marked ongoing incivility" -- hypocrisy.

2) Also seems to have some residual bitterness over an AfD nomination he "lost" (didn't get his way on, or whatever you want to call it) over one "Air Force Amy", given how often he brings it up:

Inevitably mentioned, indeed.

3) Bad faith: slipped into the original introduction to this request Swatjester has wikistalked Monicasdude and cast bad faith AfD "votes" in an attempt to offset Monicasdude's position. [90] Note that he didn't even provide the common courtesy of "alleged", just stated it as a fact. I inserted the "alleged" and a note to the effect that Monicasdude had put that there [91], but he reverted that, preferring to keep his handiwork unannounced. [92] I have removed it entirely: if he wants that charge on the table, he needs to take responsibility for it instead of sneaking it in.

Update: Note that Monicasdude keeps attempting to slip in his own addition to the original charge, unmarked. [93] [94] [95]. Maybe it's an overweening sense of entitlement, or maybe he hasn't quite grasped the whole "Response by" format thing. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


--Calton | Talk 00:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:TKE

Over the past several days as I have been watching the AfD page, I saw this happen real time.

First, neither Swatjester nor the other editors have been "wikistalking" Monicasdude. They are all regular contributors to the AfD page.

Second, Monicasdude has been a reversal of WP:BITE, in a new user attacking other editors. The user doesn't like criticism, plain and simple. Any disagreement sparks hostility and invites trolling, the examples have been provided above so I won't waste time repeating those. The user does not assume good faith nor want to be civil, as the responses here demonstrate. Mediation and arbitration are about settling disputes which requires compromise. The user's responses to this RfArb suggests that they will settle at nothing but "I'm right and they're wrong;" which is not a value to be held by the Wikipedia project.

Third, regarding the AfD process: I'm not sure why Monicasdude has such distate in the AfD process. The quote from Jimbo is nice, and that's exactly what the process is. The page is nominated, step two is to provide reasons why on the talk page, third is to list it. Now if you see just "NN Fancruft" as the reason, go to the page and see what's up in the history. Usually PRODs or SPEEDYs have been removed by the creator. Then check the creator's talk page; odds are a reason was given for the previous two steps and the editor hasn't listened. I rarely vote on articles listed that way, simply because it's not necessary. The serious AfDs have citations and whatnot provided immediately. It's a process that actually is followed well; I thanked User:Commander Bubble yesterday for civility in dealing with the deletion of their first creation. I'm really not sure why any of us are even here having this talk.

[edit] Statement by User:JDG

My keyboard is messed up so I will add only a tiny statement in support of disciplinary action against Monicasdude. He is unrelentingly disruptive, seeks to control articles and uses the revert power as a bludgeon. This is especially sad because he has a great deal of knowledge in certain areas and would be a standout contributor if he would only learn to collaborate. Two RFCs have failed to reach him. Now the ArbCom simply must do something to get his attenton. Far too many personhours are beng burned up in needless disputes with this editor. JDG 09:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Terence Ong

Since I was the one who proposed the closing of the motion and bring this to Arbitration, I would like to say once again Monicasdude is a Wikipedian who assumes bad faith at users who disagree with him, incivil and disrupts editing. He also makes personal attacks at users and admins at his second RFC. He called my comments inappopriate grafitti (which he removed on his talk page) and later accused Jareth of inappopriate behaviour. He has this style of biting users and trying to have an edit war with them thus filing a 3RR against them. I strongly support the ArbCom case as his behaviour hasn't change a bit since his last RFC. He makes things hard for me and many other editors which is definitely unacceptable. Arbitration is the last resort for him, unfortunately. --Terence Ong 10:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Nihiltres

I'm here for comment late due to a hardware problem, but I was involved for a brief time trying an extremely neutral method of dispute mediation between User:Swatjester and User:Monicasdude, which is still visible on his talk page. I asked for each party to consider conceding mistakes to each other, and I noticed that Monicasdude did not respond when challenged with a request for a statement of his goals in the dispute. Swatjester, on the other hand, responded quickly and calmly with well-defined reasons detailing why he thought that his actions were appropriate and in line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I am therefore inclined to believe that Monicasdude is the party at fault, without even consiidering that Monicasdude's talk page contains several disputes - a sign that he is, as a user, prone to cause problems. I support disciplinary action against Monicasdude, but hope that he recognizes that unless he is given an indefinitely long ban, there is opportunity for redemption in the assumption of others' good faith. Nihiltres 02:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Abhorsen327

I'm here to say that I was a witness to the discussion between Monicasdude and Swatjester, on Monicasdude's talk page. I witnessed this grow from a civil comment by Swatjester asking for Monicasdude to remove false allegations to an all-out war, with Monicasdude growing less and less civil, accusing Swatjester of personal attacks and Wikipedia violations. Also, after Nihiltres attempted to mediate between the two, Swatjester responded civilly, according to Wikipedia etiquette, while Monicasdude absolutely refused to consider mediation. I was also witness to Monicasdude's conflict with JIP. To my mind, both then and now, JIP's initial statement asking about Monicasdude's AfD vote history was made more out of curiosity than hostility, and Monicasdude was in error when he deleted the message rather than asking JIP to clarify his tone. After JIP clarified his initial message, also, Monicasdude has, up to the time of this message's posting, failed to comment. As per Nihiltres, I support disciplinary action against Monicasdude. I hope that, after any disciplinary action has been taken, Monicasdude sees the value of being a friendly and civil Wikipedia editor, whose actions and statements do not cause discord or anger among fellow Wikipedians. Abhorsen327 04:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note, as per above, that this is my understanding of events as they occurred, from my POV as an outside viewer. Monicasdude's comments to Swatjester may not, under some definitions, be construed as personal attacks, but his tone throughout the conversation was hostile and incivil. I also wish to note that Monicasdude removed a speedy delete tag from my first article, Odds Bodkin. As of my current standpoint as a somewhat experienced Wikipedian, however, I feel no sense of loyalty to him for this action, and admit that, in its first incarnation, the aforementioned article was poorly formatted, poorly cited, and asserted no notability whatsoever, all criteria for submission to AfD, if not Speedy Delete. Again, my above statement is that of an observer to Monicasdude's dealings with both JIP and Swatjester on his talk page, and is my understanding of events and tones of discussion during those conversations. Abhorsen327 15:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:Natalinasmpf

Monicasdude has the potential to become an appreciated and valuable contributor. However, his belligerency and hostility is increasingly unbearable for many editors. It seems that Monicasdude perhaps has high standards for professionalism, but he often goes about it the wrong way, and uses bad faith accusations instead. This is in regard to my experience regarding the FAC at Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) and many other articles. I hope the arbitration committee will find an appropriate remedy for the situation. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 04:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by User:JzG

I find Monicasdude to be a pain, but undoubtedly a necessary balancing force. I concur with much of what has been said above, but if we censure Moincasdude we need to be very careful not to drive him away, because we need people who are prepared to stand up to the herd mentality. If Dude can just count to ten before commenting I wold suggest the problem would be non-existent. Just zis Guy you know? 22:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment to User:JzG: I agree with much of your statement. It's obvious that Monicasdude, when considered in isolation from that little entity known as "other editors", has the skills and knowledge to be among the most valuable contributors. But it's far more than a matter of "count(ing) to ten before commenting". It's taming the urge to outright own articles. It's controlling a blazing fast revert finger (sans Talk of any kind) such as this project has never seen. It's relearning the definition of "consensus" from the ground up, and learning to use our standard base-10 counting system rather than the base-Mdude system which equates 1 Mdude opinion with 10 other opinions in tallying consensus. It's controlling a need to always have his version live while disputes are waged [96]. If I can find time I will add dozens of diffs (to the scores already there) in the evidence section showing these anti-collaboration practices in action. The committee needs to find a way get a deepfried contrarian to suddenly go contrary on himself. I'll be an avuncular monkey if they manage it, and immediately mount an effort to replace the UN Security Council with them. JDG 09:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment to User:JzG: I agree that we need people to stand up to the herd mentality; I just disagree Monicasdude suits the role. I have seen, and am seeing, a chronic willingness both to subvert the process and scream bad faith at anyone with whom he conceives a feud. That sort of extreme behavior almost never results in people rethinking the validity of a position; instead, it results in knee-jerk "Oh YEAH?" responses, thus polarizing public opinion even further, and is deeply counterproductive. Monicadude has shown far less willingness to work towards changing consensus to his POV than to obstruct those opposing it. IMHO, proponents of the "There are two ways to look at this, my way and the wrong way" POV very seldom change their outlook. RGTraynor 20:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both the above: Monicasdude appears to exemplify poorly the traits he requires of others. I must say that others are more productive in keeping content, preferring to fix the article and then comment rather than hurl abuse at those who have failed to remedy the article editors' own poor work. However, I stand by the fact that we need people prepared to stand up to the herd, even if they are a pain in the arse. Maybe not quite as much of a pain in the arse as Dude, though. Just zis Guy you know? 21:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Courtesy

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. All users are instructed to refrain from this activity. Admins are instructed to use good judgment while enforcing this policy. Personal attacks are not acceptable. See Wikipedia:Civility.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Assume good faith

2) Users are expected to assume that other editors are acting in good faith unless there are reasonable grounds to believe otherwise.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Disruption

3) Editors may be blocked at the discretion of administrators for disruptive editing. Repeated disruptive behavior may lead to bans or other restrictions.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Findings of Fact

[edit] Monicasdude is uncivil

1) Monicasdude (talk • contribs) has been frequently uncivil to other editors including making personal attacks, particularly at nominations for articles for deletion and regarding proposed deletions. [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]

Passed 6-0

[edit] Monicasdude assumes bad faith

2) Monicasdude persistently assumes bad faith of others, particularly regarding deletion debates. [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112], etc.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Monicasdude disrupts the deletion process

3) Monicasdude's aggressive style of commenting on deletion debates by making assumptions of bad faith constitutes disruption.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Monicasdude placed on civility parole

1) Monicasdude is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Monicasdude banned from deletion process

2) Monicasdude is banned from making edits related to the deletion process (excepting obvious vandalism and copyright problems) for one year. This is to be interpreted broadly, and includes, but is not limited to, commenting on articles for deletion nominations and removals of nominations for proposed deletion and speedy deletion. He may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Enforcement

1) Should Monicasdude violate any ban imposed by this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Monicasdude#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 6-0

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Monicasdude_491f.html"