Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by Stifle

For simplicity's sake, all contributions I make to this RFAR are multi-licensed: I waive my GFDL right to attribution with regards to them. Stifle (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude's incivility

The following diffs represent instances where Monicasdude may have been incivil, in violation of official policy Wikipedia:Civility.

  1. AFD [2]
  2. AFD [3]
  3. AFD, calls nomination "frivolous" [4]
  4. Calls an article incompetent [5]
  5. Calls a comment an "obsessive personal attack", before deleting it from his talk page [6]
  6. Uncivil in edit summary [7]
  7. Uncivil in edit summary [8]
  8. Accuses editors of being "idiotic" in edit summary [9]
  9. Calls an article "lousy" [10]
  10. Impolite response to RFAR ("spank Messrs. Stifle and Ong and send them to bed without any supper") [11]
  11. Impolite segment of comment: [12]
  12. Accuses AFD participants of "aggressive ignorance" [13]

[edit] Monicasdude's assumptions of bad faith

The following diffs represent instances where Monicasdude may have failed to assume good faith, in violation of guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

  1. In his second RFC, accused the creators of same of bad faith: [14]
  2. AFD [15]
  3. AFD [16] (end of the edit)
  4. AFD [17]
  5. AFD [18]
  6. Prod removal [19]
  7. Prod removal [20]
  8. Prod removal [21]
  9. [22]
  10. [23]
  11. Accuses a newpages patroller of "vigilante vandalism" [24]

[edit] Inappropriate edit summaries

The following diffs represent instances where Monicasdude may have used edit summaries inappropriately, in violation of guideline Wikipedia:Edit summary#Use_of_edit_summaries_in_disputes.

  1. [25]
  2. [26]
  3. [27]
  4. "keep your politics out of it" [28]
  5. [29]
  6. [30]
  7. [31]
  8. [32]
  9. [33]
  10. Confusing edit summary: [34]

[edit] Removing talk page warnings and comments

The following diffs represent Monicasdude removing content from his talk page, which may be interpreted as hostile per Help:Talk page#Can_I_do_whatever_I_want_to_my_own_user_talk_page.3F

  1. [35]
  2. [36]

[edit] Other issues

The following diffs do not fit under any of the above headings.

  1. Monicasdude tells other people (in edit summary) not to remove other people's comments from talk pages, although he does it himself: [37]
  2. Listed an article under Questioned Speedy Deletions when it had not been deleted, in a possible attempt to damage Stifle's reputation: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Speedy_deletions&diff=prev&oldid=37784822
  3. Sarcasm which may be offensive to some editors: [38]
  4. Blanked a warning from an AFD page, and called an AFD nomination "spurious" [39]
  5. Blanked a warning to new users from an AFD page [40]
  6. Inappropriately removed a cleanup tag from an article [41]
  7. Nominates a proposed policy/guideline for deletion because he doesn't agree with it [42], [43]
  8. Accuses a contributor of vandalizing his talk page for posting a question: question reply

[edit] Evidence presented by TKE

[edit] Material Witness

I had a singular run-in with Monicasdude [44], one in which Swatjester and I agreed with the user. I find the response to my edit to be aggressive/passive in a confusing way that falls in line with the user's edit history. I have no issue with the user on a one-on-one level; I am here as a witness to the Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiffs as a majority of the cites happened on April 6, the day of my run-in with the user. I confirm incivility and assuming bad faith on Monicasdude's part; especially considering that Swatjester, Calton and Stifle have all agreed with the user at various times on various RfDs and that consideration is blindly ignored by Monicasdude.

[edit] Additional Link

A new incident against Monicasdude; including a charge against a user that very much showed good faith. Teke 06:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Monicasdude

[edit] First assertion

Stifle's allegations are frequently inaccurate or inappropriate, and show no significant violation of Wikipedia policies. Specific examples:

Incivility (4). My exact comment was "Incompetent as the article is, the subject is legitimately notable and the article therefore should not be speedied." The article involved, Marianne Curan, was a mass of incoherent text about a notable actress. Another editor commented "I was about to vote "undelete" when I looked at the content. This sucks so badly that it's probably better to just wait until somoene comes along with a better article." [45]

Incivility (6). Article nominated for deletion, supposedly with "no indication of notability" of its subject. The subject was correctly identified as a Harvard Dean for a decade, among other substantial credentials. I saw no good faith basis for proposing deletion.

Incivility (7). The full edit summary reads "object to newbie-biting; slamming an article-in-progress one minute after a new user begins work is grossly uncivil. Give him a chance." The author of the article in question is 13 years old, and had been trying to use a template for the first time.

Incivility (8). I did not describe editors as "idiotic." I applied the term to the Blues article's devoting more space to Jack White than to any other musician, and I hardly think that comment inaccurate. Like a number of my comments that have produced undeserved hostility, it comments unfavorably (here implicitly) on the tendency toward institutional racism on Wikipedia.

Incivility (9). The full comment reads "object to deletion, lousy article about BBC TV miniseries. So fix it."

Incivility (12). Phrase extracted from a policy argument; opposing claim was that work in Broadway theater was insufficient to establish notability and that only actors with movie or TV credits could be notable. Aggressive ignorance is a major problem in the AfD arena, and sometimes the balance between honesty and politeness calls for honesty. No more uncivil, in context, that the regular charges that editors are "vain" and "self-promoting."

Bad faith (generally). The applicable standard is to assume good faith in the absence of evidence otherwise. In each example where I actually mention bad faith, I cite the basis. In most of these examples, there was clearly no reasonable, good faith basis for deleting articles on obviously notable subjects, and deletion would have damaged Wikipedia.

Bad faith (11). I described the far too common practice of tagging articles for deletion while their original authors were still working on them as "vigilante vandalism," particularly in cases where the supposed defects were cured in the finished product, but the nominator -- often a speedy nominator -- never rechecked the article. I think that's a pretty fair description, given the way such actions damage Wikipedia.

Other issues (1). User:Stifle simply misrepresents the facts here. My comment was "you shouldn't be deleting such comments from talk pages other than your own." The user it was directed to was changing another editor's statements in an AfD discussion. My comment was an entirely appropriate reflection of Wikipedia policy.

Other issues (7). The item in question was not a proposed policy or guideline. An individual user had inappropriately presented his own opinions on the subject in the format of a policy/guideline page, without taking any of the steps called for in the process for proposing policies or guidelines, and without placing any appropriate template on the page. The item was then repeatedly cited as though it were consensus policy in AfD discussions. I thought this disruptive -- a recognized standard for deletion -- and nominated the page for deletion, stating my rationale. Ironically, Stifle immediately accused me of "bad faith."

[edit] Second assertion

SWATJester has repeatedly made false claims of personal attacks. The applicable policy is quite clear: "It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks. Specific examples of comments that are not personal attacks include, but are not limited to . . . "

"Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user."

I commented that SWATJester's actions violated the WP:BITE guideline. That is not a personal attack, and the language of WP:NPA should make clear to every reasonable user that describing another editor's actions in the context of applicable policies/guidelines is itself not a personal attack, whether the characterization of those actions is favorable or unfavorable. SWATJester's repeated claims that such comments violated WP:NPA were clearly incorrect, and his repeated posting of demands that I retract my statements, personally directed and framed in increasingly harsh language, should be viewed as significant violations of WP:Civility.

[edit] Evidence presented by Swatjester

Stifle has provided already much of the evidence, however I'll throw in the parts related to me.

[edit] Monicasdudes incivility and personal attacks towards me

[edit] Incivility/personal attacks towards other editors

[edit] Response to claims that I am a wikistalker

Monicasdude claims that I wikistalk him on AfD. My only response to this ludicrous claim, is that there are only so many AfD's per day. It's inevitable that we come across each other. TKE summed this up well. Further: I've been nominating AfD's since February 1, and voting since before that.

[edit] Evidence presented by Mailer Diablo

[edit] Monicasdude's Conduct On Bob Dylan Article

[edit] Edit warring & ownership of article

[edit] Repeatedly assumes bad faith against other editors

[edit] Disruption to illustrate a point

[edit] Monicasdude's Conduct On Dinosaur's FAC

[edit] Repeatedly assumes bad faith against other editors

  • Assumes bad faith on Spawn Man's reply, when concerns on FAC are being addressed
    • Calls Spawn Man's reply inappropriate - [88]
    • Questions Spwan Man's personal integrity - [89]
  • Accuses Kirill Lokshin of giving ill advice on the issue
    • Kirill gives advice - [90] [91]
    • Monicasdude's accusations - [92]

[edit] Incivility and personal attacks

  • Personal attacks on Spawn Man
    • Calls Spawn Man an "adolescent" in edit summary - [93]

[edit] Repeatedly removes comments from usertalkpage without reason

[edit] Monicasdude's Conduct On MRT's FAC

[edit] Rules lawyering in disregard to the spirit of the policies/guidelines

[edit] Gaming the system, ignores consensus

[edit] Repeatedly assumes bad faith against other editors

[edit] Repeatedly removes comments from talkpage without reason

[edit] Incivility and personal attacks

[edit] Harassment aganist disagreeing editiors

[edit] Pages involved

For completeness's sake.

  1. Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)
  2. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
  4. User_talk:Mailer_diablo/Archive_G
  5. User_talk:Jareth
  6. User_talk:Kirill Lokshin
  7. User_talk:Monicasdude
  8. User talk:Terence Ong/Archive 1
  9. User_talk:Huaiwei
  10. User_talk:Raul654

[edit] Monicasdude's On Shiloh RfAr

[edit] Monicasdude's Conduct on AfD Debates

  • Note : Only AfD voting dating back to March and April 2006 is included here, due to the scale of the user's involvement and for bevity.

[edit] Incivility, repeatedly assumes bad faith against other editors

[245]

[edit] Misuse of Speedy Keep voting

[edit] Disruption to illustrate a point

[edit] Monicasdude's Conduct on this RfAr

[edit] Disruption to illustrate a point

  • Has counterfiled charges on Swatjester in accusation of harassment in response to this RfAr, after being originally charged for conduct AfD involvement
  • Has counterfiled charges on Calton in accusation of modification of comments during the RfAr
    • Calton clarifies Monicasdude's charge on Swatjester to avoid misrepresentation - [277]
    • Revert - [278]
    • Calton's statement - [279]
    • Counterfiles charge in further response - [280] [281] [282]

[edit] Edit warring

[edit] Addeum

[edit] Checkuser evidence

(Copied from Requests for checkuser)

Monicasdude is currently in an ArbCom hearing, where the Proposed decision is likely to result in Monicasdude being banned from the deletion process. A finding of fact will probably find that Monicasdude is uncivil, which Visions1965 certainly is. While Visions1965 only currently has 3 edits, 2 of those are viciously defending a link to http://www.angelfire.com/wa/monicasdude in Bob Dylan, an article Monicasdude has edited a significant amount of times, and the account could certainly be used in the future to bypass any remedy placed on Monicadude by the Arbitration Committee. Visions1965 actually knew on his second edit ever that "You and your weird friends may hate the guy who runs it," despite never even editing a project or even article page. In addition, Visions1965 was created at 13:56, April 27, 2006. Monicasdude started editing that day at basically the same time, with a short break around the time when Visions1965 was created. --Rory096 18:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Run CheckUser. Please. Probably somebody's sockpuppet, given the vendettas that are going on, but not mine. Looks to me more like somebody who wants to stir up trouble for me, given the clumsiness of it. And "viciously"? Come on. Why isn't that a WP:NPA violation? Monicasdude 14:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I'd say it's highly likely. Mackensen (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Jareth

[edit] Basis

My first interaction with Monicasdude was in regards to a 3RR report [285]. After having reviewed the report, it appeared that both parties were handling the situation poorly, but since the dispute was almost an hour old, I chose to warn them and encourage discussion. Monicasdude appeared to be bothered by my decision and felt that the second party (Huaiwei) should have been blocked.[286] I explained my decision and advised him that he was welcome to have the decision reviewed by other admins if he still felt I was incorrect.[287] Monicasdude continues to assert that removing a referenced statement and making contested edits doesn't require consensus or discussion. He claims the issue was verifiability, the statement wasn't supported by the reference, and yet failed to explain his opinion or support it in any way. Monicasdude appears to have a pattern of changing his argument as soon as the fallacy of his previous argument is pointed out.

Later, Monicasdude inserted himself into an RfAR I was involved in by soliciting one of the involved parties to allow him to be advocate. While I mentioned that I had reservations about this decision, I chose not to object. Shortly after joining the RfAR, he made controversial edits to the article in dispute to advance his clients POV (directly after his client was *blocked* for edits disturbing the same picture). I found this incredibly disturbing and said so in the discussion on the RfAR. [288] And again, he responded by refusing to acknowledge my concerns and attacking [289].

[edit] Personal attacks and incivility

The discussion over the 3RR report quickly degenerated; Monicasdude was incredibly hostile and often very misleading in his comments. The facts simply did not support his version of events, even to the point that he contradicted himself several times.[290], [291], [292]

Several days later, Terence Ong left me a message concerning Monicasdude's continuing behavior [293]; I simply referred him to our dispute resolution process [294]. I was surprised to get a message from Monicasdude shortly thereafter claiming my behavior continued to be inappropriate [295] and again the situation rapidly dengerated when Monicasdude didn't get the result he wanted. A sample of some of the comments:

  • It's just too bad that you don't like accurate criticism over your poorly-thought-out actions and comments , but you'd be far better advised to take more care in your own behavior than to make inaccurate criticisms of others'. [296]
  • choosing to make comments regarding me that bordered on violations of the personal attack standards. And you're repeating that behavior again [297]
  • As somebody else here pointed out in response to poorly advised comments, not unlike yours, regarding supposed incivility, "I was occupied with the idea that we had an encyclopedia to write, and ranked the function of Wikipedia as a discussion forum second to that function." [298]
  • since it's not Wikipedia policy to require consensus for changes in general, or on FAC candidates, or on FAs...you're obviously not qualified to be an admin...'Are you even reading this material? [299]
  • your inaccurate, sometimes bordering on the dishonest, set of comments [300]

The RfC brought after this incident followed the same pattern:

  • Upon being notified of the RfC, his only response was to quibble about the use of the word approved to indicate that it had been certified, call it spurious again attack someone's role as an admin adding another one out of spite isn't consisting with your role as an admin. [301]
  • Requests for him to take the RfC seriously were met with more semantics and refusal to consider it more than a personal attack RfC is not a venue for personal attack," which is far more applicable to this case than the nonsense you signed onto [302] It culminated in more attacking; You are, I think, an extremely bad admin, and a person who does not behave terribly honestly. [303]
  • Notification that remedies were being considered was called a malicious, dishonest, and a crude attempt at intimidation, like the RfC itself [304]
  • The response on the RfC itself included statements like
    • claims in this RfC are nonsense
    • deeply flawed the process of selecting admins and ensuring that admin action is consistent with Wikipedia policies
    • RfC otherwise contains a set of ridiculous accusations
    • That sort of accusation is just silly
    • two admins whose actions encouraged incivility and defiance of Wikipedia policies
    • admins who resent criticisms of their actions to collaborate on a spurious, retaliatory action against any Wikipedia editor is clearly unacceptable behavior
    • You are, as usual in these discussions, not telling the truth
    • I'm a sleazy so-and-so who cites evidence rather than spewing invective. You've said that before
    • apparently you've decided you're exempt from the "assume good faith" policy or something


I was hoping to be able to come by and say that Monicasdude's civility had improved since the start of this RfAR -- I've run across several very toned down prod removals and helpful AfD discussions. Unfortunately, a quick glance through his past 20 edits brought up two more incredibly rude comments:

  • Thank you for the manifestation of aggressive ignorance.[305]
  • ...a foolheaded and uncivil attempt to discredit the claim of notability...Such enthusiasm for a most dubious proposal is disturbing at best. (please note that the editor, in the comments Monicasdude refers to, also admits being rather new to the process - biting the newbies must be ok in this case?</irony>) [306]
Thatcher131 was kind enough to point out that the newbie comment was actually an unsigned comment by an editor other than the one that nominated the article, I apologize for having missed that. As usual however, Monicasdude did not give me time to respond to the note Thatcher left me before jumping off the good faith bandwagon again [307]. For the record, the user who posted the AfD has been here since all of February and a quick glance at his less than 700 contribs soundly defeats Monicasdudes insistance that he's conspiring to "cleanse Wikipedia of subjects relating to African-American matters and, more broadly, subjects and individuals which fall outside common Anglo-American and western European circles"; it would also appear that the editor feels that he was harassed over the nomination [308]. In fact, looking rather closely at Monicasdudes statement, it would appear that not a single sentence in that diatribe had a shred of truth to it - so perhaps I should change my statement to "biting everyone but the newbies must be ok"? ;)

[edit] Summary

I believe Monicasdude's responses to his previous RfCs and this RfAR illustrate his pattern of behavior better than all the evidence in the world ever could. Quite simply, he refuses to acknowledge any lack of courtesy or disruption on his part and cites a host of invented grievances against anyone who attempts to address his disruption. He appears to believe that only his opinion of how policies should be applied is correct and will use any tactic nessesary to enforce his viewpoint. Far too much fruitless time and energy has already been spent attempting to encourage him to review his behavior, to say nothing of the immense strain his constant disruption causes.

Monicasdude can make very constructive contributions, particularly in catching prod or speedy noms that are simply little-known or poorly worded. Unfortunately, the constant disruption caused by his abrasive and even abusive comments while performing these actions far out weighs the good he has done in saving these articles.



[edit] Evidence presented by Thatcher131

The evidence that Monicasdude is uncivil in deletion debates seems to center around a few editors, and is only seen when Monicasdude votes to keep articles where community consensus is divided or in favor of deleting. The statements made by these other editors also verge on incivility and do not contribute to calming the situation. For example,

When these editors are not present Monicasdude seems to get along fine with other editors even when his opinion on deletion is different from theirs. For example,

[edit] Monicasdude accused of acting in bad faith by removing {{prod}} tags

Monicasdude is frequently accused by other editors of acting in bad faith by removing {{prod}} tags. Some editors revert {{prod}} tags placed by Monicasdude in violation of proposed deletion policy. These actions by other editors verge on being uncivil and do not contribute to the well-being of the encyclopedia.

These examples were found by examining articles which Monicasdude deprodded between April 1 and April 15, 2006.

  • [312] edit summary: reverted article. please do not assume bad faith and participate in discussion when it is proposed by fellow editors
Note no discussion on article talk page by anyone. Article prodded 1 hour after first edit, editor was not notified until 24 hours later (by me). Likely to survive AfD.
  • [313] edit summary: reprodding.... Monicasdude never met an article he didn't think was notable
Note Currently at AfD.
  • [314] edit summary: restoring tag removed in bad faith - short stories generally not notable enough for inclusion here
  • [315] edit summary: restoring tag removed in bad faith
Note Article tagged {{userfy}} but has not been nominated for AfD yet.
  • [316] edit summary: rv to db-attack -- it's been prodded before, but User:Monicasdude removed it. I don't trust his judgment, though
Note redirected to substantial article at José Ángel Gutiérrez.


[edit] The "Gee, I never heard of" formula

Monicasdude has frequently used this formulation on AfD.

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 {subject}, 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 {subject area}, 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?"

When used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin foxe, no one had a problem; the ultimate result of the debate was keep.

When used at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor Abdul Hakeem, it prompted an angry reaction from the deletion nominator, Strothra. Please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH; it seems that you have a serious problem following these policies but they are not just good policy, they are decent practice as a human being. [317] Strotha also questioned or commented on three other keep votes in that Afd.

Monicasdude used the same formulation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keif Llama. Calton suggested MD needed anger management classes [318] and DreamGuy voted "strong delete for both this article and Monicasdude editing ability. " [319]

[edit] Biting newbies at Theater intime

Theater intime was nominated for deletion one minute after its first edit by a new editor. There was no effort to contact the editor Tardonut (talk · contribs), the first edit to his talk page was made after it was listed on AfD, and no effort was made to help improve the article. Monicasdude criticiized this behavior, largely by quoting the deletion policy that advises improving articles before deleting them. The entire debate should be read but this exchange is illustrative:

  • Keep, ...This Afd nomination, while the original author was apparently still writing the article, with no effort at research or attempting to contact the author to ask for improvements, is a perfect example of a WP:BITE violation. It ought to be policy that when a new user is in the process of writing an article, busybody editors should allow more than 30 seconds to see if the author is done. Monicasdude 20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. This AfD is about the article and not about the editors. --Alan Au 21:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Response. An inappropriate nomination is fair game for comment, and this is a very inappropriate nomination. The tag was added while the article was being written (which ought to be seen as uncivil, but somehow isn't, by a new editor. Per WP:BITE, appropriate reactions would include:
snipped quotation from deletion policy
There's nothing in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, consensus, or whatever that suggests that summarily tagging a new editor's chosen subject as nonnotable and undeserving of Wikipedia's attention, without doing a shred of research, without any signs of bad faith on the new editor's part, and without making any attempt to contact the editor to see whether the objection can be satisfied, is anything but entirely inappropriate behavior. Monicasdude 22:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Monicasdude: While I appreciate your comments, accusing me of WP:BITE ing and being a "busybody" editor is rather uncivil. The article completely fails to meet any notability standards, let alone asserts them. It perfectly fits the criteria for speedy deletion but I put it on AfD instead to gather a consensus. Attacking me is not the way to go. I'd appreciate it for you to refactor your comment. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. I thought your behavior violated WP:BITE, and said so. That is certainly no less appropriate than your comments here. It is a perverse facet of deletionist behavior that editors feel free to criticize editors whose articles they would like to delete, but feel themselves immune from criticism. Monicasdude 21:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester's comment about the article failing to assert notability was made about 4 hours after its creation. It should be no surprise that new editor Tardonut has apparently left the project even though his article was kept.

  • From Swatjester's evidence: Monicasdude accuses me of violating WP:BITE. In that same diff, Monicasdude calls me a "busybody editor", claims I've made no effort to investigate the AfD. I, however, have not had any contact with the new editor. Therefore, how could I possibly violate WP:BITE?
Swatjester nominated the article for deletion exactly one minute after it was created and did not attempt to contact the author to offer guidance or assistance in improving the article. This goes against the spirit of the deletion policy and certainly seems to violate WP:BITE. Trashing somebody's first article without ever speaking to them first is probably more harmful than offering gentle advice and then nominating the article if it isn't improved. Swatjester's entire evidence section Monicasdudes incivility and personal attacks towards me is about the AfD for Theater intime and it is simply astonishing to me that Swatjester does not even acknowledge the possibility that nominating a new editor's first article one minute after it was created (and then trying twice to speedy delete it) might be seen as biting a newbie, and seems to think that not contacting the author is a valid defense. [320] (nominating a one-minute old article by a new editor because it does not properly prove notability is fixing a mistake

More examples of newbie biting

[edit] Some of the diffs used against Monicasdude are cited in a misleading fashion

  • From Stifle: Monicasdude tells other people (in edit summary) not to remove other people's comments from talk pages, although he does it himself: [321]
Ardenn removes a comment critical of him from an AfD debate he initiated. [322] Monicasdude restored the negative comment. This was not a user talk page but an AfD discussion.
  • From Stifle: Confusing edit summary: [323]
Monicasdude removed a non-notable tag that was placed on the article while the author was in the midst of editing it, without having first contacted the author's talk page or explaining the tag on the articles talk page. Monicasdude's summary ("per WP:BITE") seems entirely appropirate.
  • From Stifle: Listed an article under Questioned Speedy Deletions when it had not been deleted, in a possible attempt to damage Stifle's reputation: [324]
Stifle did try to speedy delete the article, 9 minutes after it was first created [325] and without notifying the editor; Stifle removed the speedy tag after Monicasdude contested it.
  • From Swatjester: Monicasdude accuses another editor of bad-faith nomination for Speedy Deletion, without providing evidence of said bad faith.
The "other editor" is Swatjester himself who twice tried to speedy delete Theater intime after it had been nominated for AfD, which could be interpreted as an attempt to stifle debate on AfD by speedying it first. Clarified below. Thatcher131 16:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Patently untrue. I've only made two edits to that page ever: 1 was the initial AfD, and 1 was a reversion of Monicasdude's WP:BITE allegations. I direct you here for evidence⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the other editor, was NOT me, it was Sandstein. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
By reverting to Rory's edit with the speedy tag, you endorsed speedy deletion even if you weren't the original nominator (although you only reverted it once). Monicasdude's rationale for removing the speedy tag was given in the edit summary two reversions earlier as "again remove inappropriate speedy tag, organization no less notable than other student groups surviving deletion process as notable". Monicasdude's edit summary when he removed the tag after your revert was, "as before; it's inappropriate (if not bad faith) to speedy a page with the same issue being debated on the merits." I assumed the comment was directed at you, not Sandstein, although it could be taken either way. It seems like a borderline accusation of bad faith, and a reason was given, even if the other editors involved disagree with it. Thatcher131 16:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I did endorse the speedy deletion. But not for the reasons you mentioned above: I endorsed it because it met the criteria for speedy deletion in my eyes. I don't see it as bad faith to speedy a page that's being debated at AfD. What if I made a page called Swatjester.com about my website that gets only 10 hits and contains nothing but pictures of my truck? One could nominate it for AfD, but one would be just as justified giving it a CsD No Context tag. It has nothing to do with a stifling of argument. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
If the article was only 1 minute old I would contact your user talk page, advise you of the relevant guidelines, and wait to see if you were willing to follow them. The article in question did eventually establish notability. Thatcher131 19:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The article should have established notability first, but that's beside the point. the point is, that it still was not a WP:BITEing the newbie, because I had no actual contact with the newbie. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Zoe

  • Eusebeus (talk · contribs) has been systematically reviewing the edit histories of Kappa and Monicasdude to find articles that they have "de-prodded" so that he can nominate them for AfD. While Eusebeus believes he is acting on good faith, he does not seem to appreciate that his actions could be viewed as a deliberate provocation. Zoe's diffs should be examined carefully because not all of them prove what she alleges they prove, for example [326] [327] [328]. Monicasdude's use of the vandalism warning on Eusebeus' talk page came after Eusebeus made comments on Monicasdude's talk page that MD felt were personal attacks, and then restored them after MD blanked them. [329] [330] [331] [332]; this sort of reversion had happened the day before as well [333] [334]. Thatcher131 11:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by W.marsh

[edit] Disruption to illustrate a point

I guess I'm late to this party, huh? Anyway, today Monicasdude has pasted the same comment to at least 34 AfDs in the span of 21 minutes, flat out accusing User:Eusebeus of bad faith because he nominated a lot of articles where the WP:PROD tags were removed. Ironically, Eusebeus provides a unique rationale for all of these nominations, he's clearly looked at the articles and agrees that they should be deleted, and is taking them to AfD perfectly in line with process, and Monicasdude is the one making bad faith comments - some as many as 3 a minute and all identicle - I find it highly unlikely he's really given much thought to the articles, so his comments to speedy keep can't be in good faith.

There's even more evidence that he wasn't paying a lot of attention as he pasted the comment to at least one AfD Eusebeus didn't even nominate [335]. --W.marsh 14:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I am identifying deprods made by User:Monicasdude, bringing those that I feel are marginal candidates for retention to AfD, not because I'm stalking (I have had no contact with the user), but simply as an expedient mechanism for identifying deprodded articles (since the user is an active deprodder). I regrettably failed to advise him ahead of time that I would be doing so and thus I suspect that when he saw all of his own deprods coming to AfD by my hand, he rather understandably reacted violently and flagged all my nominations as bad faith. They are not, but my failure to notify him in a timely fashion should be taken into consideration with respect to his subsequent actions. Eusebeus 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, although the issue is more that instead of taking it to AN/I or any other of place where a good resolution could have been reached, Monicasdude elected to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --W.marsh 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I should have read through this before posting my response. In light of the evidence presented above as well as the user's subsequent accusations against me on my talkpage and that of others, it is clear that my assumption of good faith above is wholly misplaced, and that his reaction is entirely in keeping with an established history of a highly disagreeable and a misplaced confrontational approach. I still regret not advising him ahead of time, but I doubt it would have made the slightest difference. Eusebeus 20:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by AnonEMouse

I see I'm not only late to the party, but crashing it, when everyone's about to go home. :-) I don't even remember how I found this place, I certainly wasn't invited.

First, let me agree strongly with everything Thatcher131 wrote above, much better than I could do.

I only "met" Monicasdude by reading WP:AFDs, so can only comment on those -- but on AFD, his contributions to save what others call "hasty, albeit good faith" nominations are invaluable. It's amazing how easily people nominate or vote "delete" on an article without doing the most trivial research... and think they're "helping the Wikipedia". Can you who actually write articles imagine how frustrating it is to have the work put in to writing a good article casually disappear hastily, albeit in good faith? I can well sympathize with the feelings MD expressed, and would make "hasty, albeit in good faith" nomination more of a censurable offence than resisting it.

OK, enough general commentary, let's investigate a few of the points that people are trying to hang MD with:

[edit] From Stifle

MD writes: "*Obvious Keep. "I'm pissed off at the author/subject of the article and don't care whether it meets the criteria for deletion" is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion; instead, it's arguably a WP:POINT violation. Monicasdude 15:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)"

Incivil? Possibly, but not heinously so. Correct? Absolutely. The argument MD was apparently responding to was based on the fact that the creating user had participated in an argument on another article's talk page. That's just not a criteria for deletion. This nomination could have lost WP a very interesting article, about a researcher in the origins of all human music. That's not yet-another-garage-band, or even Pokemon, that's something that could be read with interest 200 years from now.

AFD, calls nomination "frivolous"

Well, yeah. It was frivolous. It was worse, but MD restrained himself. Read the nomination and first feedback:

"Laurance Rudic the page is full of irrelevancies Cairoguy 19:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

* No Vote. I'm confused. You're the original contributor and, as far as
I can tell, except for the tags, it's the same as what you originally 
created. Why is it now irrelevant? -- JLaTondre 01:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)"

I can't see how it's not civil to call that nomination frivolous - it seems to be a restrained and completely accurate description of that nomination.

  • Calls an article incompetent [338]

Not being an admin, I can't say if that was accurate, but note that the reason given for deletion was "G1". [339]. G1, as far as I understand, means, "patent nonsense" WP:CSD - that's the official wording. From that, it's pretty clear that attacking an article is not to be considered uncivil, only attacking a contributor is. Or is "patent nonsense" somehow civil, while "incompetent" not? Is everyone who marked a page as G1 going to be on RFAr as well?

[edit] From Mailer Diablo

  • Incivility and assumes bad faith against Calton [340]

Well ... yeah. Look at the very first response to that AFD nom, from one of the people very active in this AFD, no less: "google shows [1] about 20,000 hits on his name, including publications and external interviews from some apparently notable websites and publications.... SWATJester" Calton didn't take the time to do a simple Google search on the name? It's not as if the guy was named "Smith" or something you'd expect a zillion hits on, "Skrebowski" is a rare enough name. If it wasn't a bad faith nom, it was at least a really, really lazy nom.

  • Incivility and assume bad faith aganist SchuminWeb [341]

Again, well, yeah. Look at what happened there. SchuminWeb nominated the article, Strothra rewrote it to improve it and answer the objections, and left perfectly polite, civil notes to the objectors. The objectors read the notes, looked at the improved article, and changed their votes to keep en masse. Proper response to that action is something like "Thank you very much Strothra for improving the article, helping the encyclopedia, etc, etc." That's what the objectors wrote, after all! Instead, SW writes "It appears that Strothra has been engaging in some vote stacking". Pfeh. And MD is supposed to read "good faith" into that?

These accusations go back for months and months, and some are valid, some of them he can be properly wrist-slapped for. But, the soup has clearly been oversalted. And, frankly, if we have a choice between keeping one Monicasdude or some of those he's been uncivil against, above, I propose that we keep MD and be very glad for it. -- AnonEMouse 18:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Zoe

A campaign of removing PROD tags:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Monicasdude (see the night of April 27), in which he removed 14 PROD tags (as of this writing)

Personal attacks:

Several attacks on the nominators of AfDs for the items he had removed the PROD tags on:
[342] [343] [344] [345] [346] [347] [348] [349] [350] [351] [352] [353] [354] [355] [356] [357] (and at this point I got bored with his boilerplate personal attacks)

Bogus vandalism warnings on other User's talk pages when he has disagreements with them on article content:

[358] [359]. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfounded accusations of racism against me because of a content dispute: [360]. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Mel Etitis

I should stress that, until very recently, I'd not thought of Monicasdude as a problem. Having experienced a case of his assuming bad faith (in a rather unpleasant way), my attention was attracted by his name, and I found myself here. I've only one piece of evidence, therefore: after I'd nominated By any means necessary for deletion, Monicasdude left a sarcastic comment that implied that those wanting to delete or merge/redirect the article were doing so for racist reasons: [361] (my reading was confirmed when he replied to my objection — he claimed to be talking about "patterns of behaviour" rather than accusing indiviudal editors, but how one can do that is beyond me). This was uncalled for, based on no evidence, and fitted ill with the the discussion so far. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)