Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

1) Monicasdude, as party to this case, asks that the scope of this case be defined by the Arbitration Committee, either in terms of specific allegations of violations of Wikipedia policy or by restriction to the express terms of the complaint brought by Stifle and those matters directly related to it. The "evidence" presentation by User:Mailer Diablo is ridiculously lengthy, includes many matters that are obviously not appropriate bases for an arbitration request -- e.g., serving as the advocate for a party in a prior case, reporting another editor for violating ArbComm probation, removing uncivil hate speech posted by another user to my talk page -- and is really nothing more than a listing of virtually every occasion when I have disagreed with other editors and a blanket accusation of bad faith in every such instance.

Everyone accused of an offense, whatever the forum, ought to be presented with a clear statement of the offense(s) he or she is accused of, and a reasonable opportunity to present the opposing case. As this matter stands, that fundamental principle of fairness is being trampled. Monicasdude 14:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Reviewing the priciples below should help clarify the concerns that brought this RfAR and assist in preparing your case. The evidence is unfortunately lengthy since the alleged disruption of those principles spans a great length of time. The routine matters you mention as referenced in Mailer Diablos evidence are not cited for the tasks themselves, but for the disruption caused by the manner in which they are performed. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. This RfAR was brought over Monicasdude's alleged long-term incivility and accusations of bad faith, hence evidence over a long term should be provided. That the evidence is exhaustive and there is an abundance of it, does not follow that the scope should be limited.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. I tend to support this motion, mud-slinging and trying to pick up every tiny thing that he may have done wrong isn't entirely fair. Stifle (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. This is meant more to give a more complete picture of his disputed activities on Wikipedia, starting from the first RfC. It would also assist in the rationale behind the principles and findings that are proposed as of below. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. More to the point, while each individual episode in Monicasdude's history may not be disruptive enough to require the ArbCom's attention, the pattern of behavior is. Kirill Lokshin 00:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Civility and personal attacks

1) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other editors and to observe Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:Civility, and Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks. There is no excuse for personal attacks on another editor. This includes personal attacks left in edit summaries.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Consensus

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, some times in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view. Editors are expected to respect consensus in their edits. Consensus requires communication in good faith between Wikipedia editors.


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Assume good faith

3) Assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This keeps the project workable in the face of many widely variant points of view and avoids inadvertent personal attacks and disruption through creation of an unfriendly editing environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Edit summaries

4) Edit summaries should not be used to carry on disputes; debates and negotiation should be held on the talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Disruption

5) Users may be banned or otherwise restricted for editing in a way that constitutes clear and intentional disruption. In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area if it becomes disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Edit warring

6) Edit wars or revert wars are considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] What vandalism is not

7) Mischaracterization of another's good faith edits as vandalism is unacceptable and a breach of civility. Even undesirable edits, such as sweeping, undiscussed changes or perceived violations of the neutral point of view are explicitly not vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Article ownership

8) As stated in the policy No Article Ownership, Wikipedia articles are developed by the Wikipedia community at large. No editor may claim ownership of any article, or seek to prevent other editors from good-faith editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Removing content from user talk pages

9) Erasing messages from a user talk page can be considered incivil, especially if the message has not been responded to. See Help:Talk page#Can_I_do_whatever_I_want_to_my_own_user_talk_page.3F.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by me. Stifle (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Given that there is no evidence regarding any removal of warnings, or of substantive comments without discussion, this section is entirely inappropriate. Several of the parties to this case case have systematically made more substantial deletions to their talk pages, indicating that the claim here is simply a rhetorical pretext rather than a good faith assertion of violation of any pertinent policy or guideline. Monicasdude 18:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  • This may require clarification from ArbCom. WP:VAND currently states The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, and this has caused some confusion at WP:ANI over whether a user who removes warnings from his own talk page can be blocked for vandalism. There seems to have been a recent policy change. Thatcher131 03:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
It was a non-consensus change that has since been fixed. The policy still stands that removing warnings from a talk page is vandalism, though I don't think the penalty is a block, I think it's losing the privilege of editing your talk page. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good behaviour does not excuse bad behaviour

10) Good work on Wikipedia does not constitute an excuse for bad or abusive behaviour on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Partially from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Xed; may be appropriate if FOF #5 or something similar is used. Kirill Lokshin 22:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Disruption to make a point

11) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by me. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Articles for Deletion

12.1) Except in cases of blatant vandalism, editors wishing to nominate recently created articles for deletion (by speedy, {{prod}} or AfD should notify the original or main contributor. Failure to notify is a breach of deletion policy and is uncivil toward the author.

and/or

12.2) Except in cases of blatant vandalism, editors wishing to nominate recently created articles for deletion (by speedy, {{prod}} or AfD) have an obligation to first try to improve the article, either by editing it, tagging it for the appropriate cleanup, or by contacting the author. Listing an article for deletion without contacting the author represents a failure to assume good faith that the author can improve the article, and is uncivil toward the author.

and/or

12.3) Except in cases of blatant vandalism, logged-in editors writing their first article should be treated with courtesy, welcomed to wikipedia, and offered guidance and assistance to help make their first article meet wikipedia's guidelines. Nominating an editor's first article for deletion without contacting the editor and offering assistance, or an explanation, is uncivil and a violation of don't bite the newbies, in that it gives the impression that editing wikipedia is reserved for "insiders" and discourages further contributions.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This is utter nonsense, particuarly 12.2; the whole point of speedy deletion is that it doesn't require extensive discussion (and certainly not "an obligation to first try to improve the article"). Kirill Lokshin 01:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's the speed of the process I'm referring to. This might be good advice for borderline cases (e.g. the "no assertion of notability" criteria); but in a wide variety of other cases, it's counterproductive at best. Things qualifying under CSD G5 and A6, in particular, deserve to be shot on sight; and other speedy criteria, like the copyright infringement one, explicitly require a fast turnaround. Kirill Lokshin 01:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For 12.2, 12.3, no way. Process will break down. PROD and CSD are there for a reason. - Mailer Diablo 13:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is completely at odds with policy and is probably not within the ArbCom's purview anyway. However, I'm going to propose an alternative principle which they will probably also not use, just to point out my own feelings. All three deletion notices have got prominent bold links to deletion policy pages or another place where the author can check how to improve the article — if you want to help someone through it, sure, but there is (and should be) no Good Samaritan law. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
If you want to change policy, there's a place for that, and its corollary: this isn't that place. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 00:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a chance. This is not under ArbCom's purview, as noted above. Furthermore, it's a moot point: There are 3 ways to delete an article: prod, which can be removed by anyone (and is only for uncontroversial articles anyway: no need for discussion). Speedy delete (which the whole point of is that it DOESN'T NEED to be discussed first, as per Kirill above), and AfD, which the entire process of which is a 5-day or longer discussion. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Quoting from WP:SPEEDY "Try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it. The word "speedy" in this context refers to the quickness of the decision making process and not the length of time elapsed since article creation." Further quoting from WP:RCP, "Don't bite the newbies. If you see a new user or IP address contributing, welcome them if you're so inclined, and include a pointer or two of feedback about how they can make their contributions even better. Most will gladly welcome the support." Also noting WP:DP What to do with a problem page/image/category which contains a large table of ways editors can help out other than by deleting articles. Thatcher131 01:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I thought it already was policy to be kind to new editors. Silly rabbit. You may strike or blank my suggestion if you wish, I will not object. Thatcher131 04:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ... recommended, not required

12.4) Except in cases of blatant vandalism, it is suggested that editors wishing to nominate recently created articles for deletion (by speedy deletion, {{prod}} or AfD) notify the original or main contributor.

Comment by Arbitrators
Comment by parties
A little more moderate. Certainly there is nothing in the deletion policy requiring notification. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm ambiguous on this. While the idea is sound, there's just far too many articles requiring deletion out there. Now, for a speedy deletion, where the author looks like they don't understand Wikipedia's article creation policies, sure, notify them so they don't mess up again. But for AfD's? There's so many of them....the notification is there, in the article. As for prod....I don't think so, it seems counterproductive to the concept of prod. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Btw, Stifle, I changed typo above: polocy to policy.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others

[edit] Tendentious editing

14) Users who engaged in aggressive, sustained point of view editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases, from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by me, seeing as there is a proposed finding of fact about it. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Monicasdude is uncivil

1) Monicasdude has frequently been uncivil to other editors and administrators, including making personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I changed "uncivil" to "incivil", I think that's the correct negation. Stifle (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
dictionary.com has incivil as "obsolete". I don't think it matters much either way. Oh, and I agree. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Ardenn 16:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
From what I know, "uncivil" is what we commonly use, and what I normally see in arbitration cases. Johnleemk | Talk 18:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. RGTraynor 14:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude assumes bad faith

2) Monicasdude has, both implicitly and explicitly, attributed the actions of others to bad faith and/or vandalism. These assumptions of bad faith have often been stated inappropriately in edit summaries.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added "and/or vandalism". Stifle (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree Ardenn 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Agreed. RGTraynor 14:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude ignores consensus

3) Monicasdude feels strongly that his opinion of policy is correct. This assumption often leads him to ignore consensus or discussion of disputed issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I'd like to see a subsection of this, on allegations that Monicasdude's actions on AfD are disruptive to the AFD process. I'm not exactly sure how to say it. It's a combinations of the repeated contrary votes, abusive comments and edit summaries, repeated removal of prod's with incivil commentary, as well as the fiasco at the Theatre Intime AfD. Someone better than I at Arbcoms could maybe piece together what I mean.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Agreed. RGTraynor 14:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ... at AFD

3.1) Monicasdude has disrupted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion debates by frequently making contrary votes and tendentiously arguing with anyone who disagrees with him.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Created by me, in response to Swatjester's suggestion above. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Agreed. RGTraynor 14:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...but not contrary

3.1.1) Monicasdude has disrupted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion debates by tendentiously arguing with anyone who disagrees with him.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Another version, take what you like. Stifle (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm gonna go with this one. Try as I might, I can't justify a contrary vote as "disruption" without assuming bad faith: there's just too much opportunity for it to be used the wrong way. I think this one gets it right well enough. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Monicasdude has refused attempts at dispute resolution

4) Monicasdude has refused to participate in the dispute resolution process in good faith, making only argumentative responses to his Request for Comments and Arbitration. Requests to participate in the second RfC were met with personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Dunno who came up with this one, but I agree. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
I agree. Ardenn 16:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude has saved many articles on notable people from deletion

5) Through careful patrolling of AFD, CSD and PROD areas, Monicasdude has saved articles on notable subjects from deletion which might otherwise have been deleted quietly. Many of these nominations may have been caused by hasty, albeit good faith, action by other users.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by me. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, with the caveat of section 3.1, that Monicasdude has also voted contrarily. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
Agreed, with the comment that MD has been accused of acting in bad faith by removing prod tags, including on articles that were later kept after AfD. Thatcher131 00:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. AnonEMouse 20:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. We all know how contrarian principles work, and for every worthy article MDude has "saved" -- although this presupposes, absent any evidence, that no other editor on Wikipedia would have done so -- how many has he endangered by AfD oppositions levied in bad faith. The pendulum swings both ways. RGTraynor 14:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, his comments on AfDs are quite informative. He seems to do more research than most voters (myself included). His only issue is civility. JeffBurdges 14:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Disagree per RGTraynor. Ardenn 15:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude has tendentiously edited

6) Monicasdude's edits at Bob Dylan constitute tendentious editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by me. Stifle (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed 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 probation

1) Monicasdude is placed on probation. Should he make any disruptive edits, attempting ownership of Bob Dylan and personal attacks, he can be restricted from editing selected pages and it may include a general ban up to a year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support. Teke 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] ...for one year, more specific

1.1) Monicasdude is placed on probation for one year. He may be banned for up to one year by any uninvolved administrator from any page he disrupts.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by me. Stifle (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] ...for indefinite, second option

1.2) Monicasude is placed on probation indefinitely. Should he make disruptive edits, he may be banned up to one year by any uninvolved administrator from any page he disrupts.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] ...sockpuppet probation

1.3) ...[whatever is approved of the above] Should he create a sockpuppet established by checkuser to bypass any remedy, he may be banned for up to x.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Support per recent evidence to show disruptive sockpuppet usage. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 12:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This is utter nonsense. No "evidence" was ever presented to show sockpuppet usage. I edit out of a single, fixed IP address which has previously been geographically traced here. The supposed sockpuppet is a transparent fake; it's beyond insulting to suggest, as has been suggested, that a fake ID which has been so obviously constructed as to suggest my involvement is something I created as an attempt to deceive. The allegation is obviously bad faith; it is pathetic that some users here are sufficiently afraid of me as to organize this nonsense. Did someone netweok to find a nearby fratboy brother to start this charade? Monicasdude
Comment by others:
Per recent additions to the evidence presented by Mailer Diablo, this is probably a good idea. --Rory096 04:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at the edit history of alleged "sockpuppet": Visions1965 (talk · contribs) the only edits he made were arguing, violently, but very unpersuasively, to get a link to monicasdude's personal site on an article. Come on. MD has been around here more than long enough to know that the only way to actually get such a link in is to persuade people, or to just put it in. Can anyone honestly read Visions' edits, and think this would be the way an experienced WP editor would try to genuinely get his way? Of course not. Visions was a sock, but not a sock af anyone who loved Monicasdude, instead, he was a transparent attempt to pile more dirt on MD. AnonEMouse 18:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
And so the checkuser lied? --Rory096 08:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude banned for a year

2) Monicasdude is banned for a year for disruptive editing at FAC processes, attempted ownership of Bob Dylan article and removing {{prod}} tags at articles as well as personal attacks at users who disagree with him.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I support this resolution, and as well would like to add into it "disruption of the AfD process, and bad faith accusations". Update: I support a 6 month ban. 12 months is too long.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 20:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

:If this is a ban from Wikipedia, I would be strongly against it. Monicasdude has done nothing warranting such a severe action. Especially when you're supposed to remove {{prod}} tags from articles if you disagree with them. Stifle (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC) I withdraw this opposition, with only the comment that removing {{prod}} is a valid editorial activity. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Re-enter opposition, given the proposed remedy of banning Monicasdude from the deletion process. Stifle (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say this remedy would be meant more for repeated personal attacks, incivility in addition to the servre disruption of Wikipedia processes. It should not be limited to actions on AfD and PROD itself. - Mailer Diablo 23:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
How exactly is removing {{prod}} tags a bannable offense? If you think Monicasdude has used uncivil edit summaries when removing prods, then make civility the basis of the proposed ban. Thatcher131 21:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not. What I feel IS a bannable offense is the repeated disruption of AfD, repeated personal attacks and incivility, repeated assumptions of bad faith, etc. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Monicasdude, a new user, should not be banned. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Monicasdude is not a new user. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Monicasdude should be given a chance to learn to be civil, not banned. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 08:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Monicasdude is not new. My thing is, the editor passed probably 90% of AfD edits with no conflict, probably 65% space edits without conflict. This is fine. The problem is the user's response to criticism and challenge. I understand that y'all are upset about being attacked in such a way in RfC and this RfArb. I don't think banning is a lesson in civility and AGF; in fact, I feel it is the opposite. Do unto others, and f*ck how they treat you. Teke 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude placed on civility parole

3) Monicasdude is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be incivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week. After five such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist. Kirill Lokshin 14:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I am completely for this, and I would think it would take a lot less then a year. The user does not deserve banning; Monicasdude's good edits far outweight the bad. It's the (perceived) bad ones that are rocking the boat so hard. Good user, some questionable judgement calls in response to challenge. TeKE 22:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
I agree with Teke, Monicasdude should not be banned. --User:ElectricEye (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I concur. I don't think a soft approach will actually work in this case -- in my experience, people this belligerent seldom change their ways -- but it is unjust to impose a serious sanction such as a year's banning without attempting lesser sanctions first. RGTraynor 13:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
We're on the same page here. I said basically the same thing on the origional RfArb, but it was rightly removed as argumentative prior to case opening. Probably irrelevant to the outcome, but I'd like to mention that RGTraynor and I rarely agree on RfDs. So this is a nice concensus for myself to see on a process level. Teke 04:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, don't get me wrong. I have very little use for Mdude, and firmly believe his (well documented and longstanding) antics have caused much more harm than any positive contributions he has made have done good; there are thousands of editors who do perfectly good work without poisoning the atmosphere. Regardless of that, it's only fair to give the fellow a chance. I've no objection to being surprised by a turnaround. RGTraynor 13:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I support this, his comments on AfD are helpful, and more people would read them if he wasn't so rude. JeffBurdges 15:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude required to use proper edit summaries

4) Monicasdude is required to indefinitely refrain from using edit summaries as a vehicle to carry on a debate or express an opinion of other editors. This provision is to be considered widely.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by me, with apologies for the split infinitive. Stifle (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
I disagree on the debating element; this is overbroad, and could be construed against any editor who uses edit summaries to explain the reasons for the edit. RGTraynor 14:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we can get a more specific version of this, such as "Monicasdude will provide proper edit summaries when he removes a prod" or "Monicasdude will contribute content to any article he de-prods"? It's been pointed out that many many of his de-prods are correct, but he doesn't explain them or add the information to the article. If he did, many fewer would end up sent to AfD. JeffBurdges 08:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Excellent idea from JeffBurdges. I like requiring that the reasons a PROD was removed be entered in the edit summary, or, if they're longer than that, in the article talk page. Also, if they rely on references not in the article, they must be added to the article. That would be far better than banning him from removing PRODs outright. AnonEMouse 12:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude may not edit his own talk page

1) Monicasdude may not edit his own talk page except to archive it. The penalty is a block of 24 hours, and after 5 blocks is a block of up to 6 months.

Monicasdude may not delete information from his own talk page except to archive it. The penalty is a block of 24 hours, and after 5 blocks is a block of up to 6 months.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Even users who are blocked indefinitely are allowed to edit their own talk page. (Unless they are really nasty about it) Fred Bauder 16:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No good when your own talk page has "Vandalism and other offensive commentary/trolling will be deleted expeditiously." Fred Bauder 21:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about me though, it's about MD. Ardenn 21:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Added by me. Ardenn 16:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
'Support. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 12:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
I imagine you mean "...delete information from..." not "edit". That someone should not be able to answer a question on his own talk page seems ridiculous. AnonEMouse 16:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd support this with AnonEMouse's caveat; not otherwise, which is unreasonably strict. RGTraynor 17:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant. Sorry. Ardenn 20:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude banned from the deletion process

6) 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:


Comment by parties:

This was added by Dmcdevit. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed. Several have chimed in as to how skilled MDude is in article creation, while by contrast his participation in the deletion process is not only highly controversial but nothing that a hundred other editors aren't already doing. It seems reasonable to let him go on doing something he's good at, while directing him away from something which is causing many hassles. RGTraynor 14:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

  • This was put on "proposed solutions" before "workshop", and got a LOT of negative feedback there. Look at the "proposed solutions" talk page. The basic point is that Monicasdude is very useful in the deletion process, rescuing articles nominated without a lot of thought. Oh, and oppose, for what it's worth. AnonEMouse 17:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I made a few more moderate suggestions above in the edit summeries section, mostly suggesting that he be forced to justify his de-prods via improvments to the article. The major problem I have with this ban is that it blocks good and bad AfD edits alike, indescriminantly. Conceivably your even blocking him from editing any article in AfD, as such edits might impact the deletion process. Just be more specific about what AfD behavior you'd like to prevent, which IMHO are de-prod without justification and incivility in AfD discussions. BTW, you could double the block times for civility parole violations in AfDs if you liked. Also, for what its worth, I've seen a lot of people, both deletionist and inclusionist, behaiving rudely in AfDs, so I really don't see a problem with trying to clean up people's behavior in there, but bans arn't likely to achieve that goal. JeffBurdges 13:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monicasdude must justify his de-prods and improve the articles

1) When Monicasdude removes a prod tag, he must state his reasons in the edit summer, or on the article talk page. If those reasons require additional reference or notability assertions, he must add them to the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
JeffBurdges & AnonEMouse feel that this, plus civility parole, is a better solution than a total bad from the deletion process. JeffBurdges 13:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1) [text of proposed remedy]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) If Monicasdude violates any of the remedies in this decision, he may be briefly blocked for up to one week. After 5 such blocks the maximum block length shall be extended to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Added by Stifle (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others: