Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Outside statement and additional formalities
[edit] Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- User:Stifle == initiator
- User:Monicasdude [1]
- User:Swatjester- stumbled upon this, but I'm a party. -e- Was named party ex post facto by Monicasdude. Have been notified on my talk page.
- User:JIP - I'm not involved in the original argument, but I have had an argument of my own with Monicasdude.
- User:Terence Ong - party to the second RfC
- User:Jareth - party to the second RfC
- User:Kirill Lokshin - party to the second RFC
- User:mailer_diablo - party to the second RfC
- Ardenn - I've had arguments with Monicasdude
- TKE - I've seen what's been going on regarding the AfDs of the past several days between Monicadude and other editors.
- Calton (talk • contribs) -- added ex post facto by Monicasdude
- User:JDG - complainant in first RFC
- User:BGC - party to the two previous RfCs
- User:Nihiltres - tried to mediate a dispute between Monicasdude and Swatjester
- User:Abhorsen327 - Witness to Monicasdude's incivility on his talk page, in his discussions with Swatjester and JIP
[edit] Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Two RFCs: 1 and 2 have failed to cause any change in behaviour.
- Attempts to informally mediate has failed, and it is believed that any formal mediation will also fail.
[edit] Statement by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
While I have not been involved in the current issues leading to this RfA, my prior history of editing pages Monicasdude edited was very consistent with the complaints raised here. In all cases, Monicasdude was disruptive, belligerent, hostile to all edits he did not make, and quite willing to "game" the system in whatever way he could find (opportunistically claiming policies/guidelines, while disregarding the same ones when they concerned him). In fact, I ultimately simply gave up on editing or watching the article Bob Dylan because it was simply too much effort and frustration while Monicasdude was there (an initial RfC against Monicasdude seemed to result in a month or two of better behavior, but he returned in full belligerence). Generally, everyone I've "talked" to who has dealt with Monicasdude agrees that his pattern is to drive other editors away from whatever topic he has decided belongs to him, through creation of a hostile atmosphere on those pages.
I encourage arbitrators to consider this current complaint. I cannot speak to the specific merits of the latest issues, but feel that they do at least merit more careful consideration.
[edit] Statement by SECProto
I have been involved with monicasdude before, in regards to the article on Bob Dylan. While he originally seemed to be deleting things randomly, in retrospect he was making the article more encyclopedic. I think if he had used the talk page a bit more civilly, it would've been fine. I have no complaints about him. SECProto 16:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Statement by RGTraynor
There is a current case where a user has systematically removed dozens of prod tags. A second user has taken many -- but by no means all -- of those articles to AfD (per policy), in each case listing the reasons why the article in his opinion should be deleted. Monicasdude has been systematically filing Speedy Keeps on each and every such AfD discussion, explicitly claiming he is doing so for no other reason than that the nominations were filed in bad faith. He further states that any claims to violation on his own part are only "semantics" 1 2 and that any AfD filed where the nom doesn't discuss the reasons why an article should be kept infers bad faith by definition 3. While I have no personal complaints against him, his actions on AfD clearly flout WP:POINT, and I'm concerned at the prospect that he defines the validity of the rules based on whether or not they support his own position. In any event, he is seriously disrupting the AfD process. RGTraynor 18:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
