Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

On December 19, 2005, the abovementioned user places an objection against an on-going Featured Article Candidate against Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore). Several attempts have been taken by various editors to address this user's objections, but the latter repeatedly rejects any form of reasoning, compromise, and new evidence that is presented. He has also attempted to unilaterally edit the article (possibly to impose his own POV), ignoring consensus among editors (believing that because it is not official policy) and despite being reverted several times. He is believed to be holding the belief that the objection will stand as follows :

"The responsibility for bringing an article up to FA standards rests on those who advance the candidacy; those who object are not required to do more than identify problems."

Before and after 28 December 2005, when Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) was promoted as a featured article, the abovementioned user has repeatedly started and aggravated incidents against editors who disagreed with the objections in the FAC, and has repeatedly attempted to provoke these editors into breaking policy and receiving punishment. Even after its promotion, the abovementioned user has continued disruptive editing in the article.

The plaintiffs of this RfC believe that the abovementioned user has done the following, in summary, that violates both Wikipedia policies and the spirit/goodwill of editing that has made what Wikipedia is today :

  • Rules lawyering and gaming the system, including the 3 revert rule
  • Repeatedly assumes bad faith against other editors
  • Incivil behaviour
  • Harassment against disagreeing editors
  • Ignores consensus and acting unilaterally, despite discussion initiated by other editors
  • Repeatedly removes comments from usertalkpage without reason

It should be also noted that this is no sporadic incident about the above-mentioned user. Another incident, reagrding Dinosaur has also undergone a similiar treatment. (See below section for statement of involved editors)

We ask the Wikipedia community to offer comments, ideas and solutions in dealing with the abovementioned user's conduct, as well as the ongoing disputes, in hope that the situation will not worsen after this RfC is filed and force the plaintiffs no choice other than arbitration.

Respectfully signed,

(Users certifying the basis for this dispute, see below)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] Pages involved

  • In case any evidence is accidentally missed out in error, the following are the pages that involve the incident :
  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:Terenceong1992
  9. User_talk:Huaiwei
  10. User_talk:Raul654

[edit] Applicable policies

  • Rules lawyering and gaming the system, including the 3 revert rule
  • Repeatedly assumes bad faith against other editors
  • Incivil behaviour
    • Civility
      • defined petty examples includes "belittling contributors", and "ill-considered accusations of impropriety"
      • defined serious examples includes "calling for (suggested) bans and blocks", and "taunting"
    • No Personal Attacks
      • "...Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom...."
  • Harassment against disagreeing editors
  • Ignores consensus and acting unilaterally, despite discussion initiated by other editors
  • Repeatedly removes comments from usertalkpage without reason
    • Talk page guidelines
    • including Etiquette
      • "...Actively erasing personal messages without replying will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil..."

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  • Mailer Diablo
    • See under "Repeatedly rejecting consensus and evidence of other editors, claiming that it is not policy"
  • Jareth
    • See under "accuses inappropriate behaviour against Jareth, questioning his integrity, bordering on contravenes no personal attacks"
  • Huaiwei
    • See under "Repeatedly rejecting consensus and evidence of other editors, claiming that it is not policy"
  • Kirill Lokshin
    • See under "Accuses Kirill Lokshin of giving ill advice when an opinon of a 3rd neutral party is seeked from"
  • Terence Ong
    • See under "Terence's advise to archive the user talkpage (which is 111k long) has been removed thrice, calling it an 'inappropriate graffiti'."
  • Also see : Pages involved

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Mailer Diablo 15:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. —Kirill Lokshin 15:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Terence Ong Talk 15:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Huaiwei 15:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. BGC 17:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. While Monicasdude may raise legitimate points, the attitude in which the user goes about it is absolutely unacceptable, and spiteful. -- Natalinasmpf 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Even disregarding the content dispute itself, this editor's behaviour (especially calling other editors' comments inappropriate graffiti, et al) is quite unexcusable. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 21:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 02:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Dan100 (Talk) 17:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. JDG 08:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Comics 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Stifle 20:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  11. t_lem 12:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Similiar dispute (Dinosaur FAC)

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute on the article in question itself, but have been involved in a similiar incident involving the defendant's conduct and the Dinosaur FAC.

Awaiting for R.D.H. and Spawn Man to file their claims here.

Monicasdude, seems to have the impression that the Dinosaur article claims that Dinosaurs and humans COULD co-exist. This is utter nonesense. The section on Dinosaur#Bringing dinosaurs back to life mentions a well known fictious work built on this premise, Jurrasic Park, but clearly states it "is probably impossible" and explains why. The main article itself makes no such claim. Perhaps he is also, understandably, confused by the entire Bird-Dinosaur controversy. But this is no excuse for his incivil and hostile behavior, and further illustrates the pattern of misconduct established above.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I thought that this argument was minor, with both myself & Monicasdude being responsible, his conduct was questionable & extremely provoking. A few things annoyed me in my discussions with him. One was that he actually argued with me concerning my age. I would think that I would know my own age! Another was how he attacked my friend Kirill Lokshin for posting congratulation comments on my talk page for getting dinosaur to the main page. Kirill should be allowed to congratulate anyone he wishes to. Finally, although it could have been simply a misunderstanding, but when I presented my completion of tasks to him on the Dinosaur FAC, he told me I had not finished them properly, & in my opinion created a giant fuss about scratching, & in the end I don't really recall him giving me any real reasons for his denial of my completions. Although I don't want anything to happen to him, or her, I feel the obligement to write my thoughts here. I hope I've put what I've meant to here, I'm new to this thingy, but it did say "Awaiting for R.D.H. and Spawn Man to file their claims here", so I put mine here.... Spawn Man 07:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

[114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. --BGC 17:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Hope this is right, Spawn Man 05:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. And the diffs are up, thanks to Kirill! :) Mailer Diablo 21:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Thanks for the diffs —Locke Cole • t • c 03:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. --Terence Ong Talk 03:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. —Kirill Lokshin 03:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. --Huaiwei 06:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I've been waiting for some time for ArbCom to complete action on a motion involving one of the endorsers of this RfC, but it appears unlikely that will happen in the immediate future. Therefore:

This RfC is evidently brought in bad faith; it clearly violates the standard that "RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community. Repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process."

The claims in this RfC are nonsense.

The central issue is simple, because, as the RfC states, I claim "that consensus is not policy." Consensus is not policy. Consensus is a guideline. As the consensus guideline states, "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy)." As the Verifiability policy states, "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. The three policies are complementary, non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editor's consensus.

For three admins to frame a RfC on terms that reject Wikipedia's core content policies shows how deeply flawed the process of selecting admins and ensuring that admin action is consistent with Wikipedia policies has become.

This RfC otherwise contains a set of ridiculous accusations. Reporting an undisputed 3RR violation on the article in question is described variously as "harassment" (in an "unrelated dispute," no less) "rules lawyering," and "Wikistalking."

That sort of accusation is just silly. Far more serious, in terms of the damage it does to Wikipedia, is the claim, over and over, that criticizing admin action which encourages bad user behavior and policy violations is a forbidden sort of personal attack. Wikipedia has neither policies nor guidelines concerning lese majeste. I critized, quite explicitly, two admins whose actions encouraged incivility and defiance of Wikipedia policies. The actions and comments of admin Jareth, in particular, encouraged user Huaiwei to continue edit warring, incivility, and violate his only recently imposed ArbComm probation ruling. The behavior of these admins -- Jareth, Kirill Lokshin, and Mailer Diablo -- deserves, at the very least, strong community censure, if not stronger action. For admins who resent criticisms of their actions to collaborate on a spurious, retaliatory action against any Wikipedia editor is clearly unacceptable behavior.

Finally, the claim made in the RfC that citing content policy violations is an unacceptable "provokation" of other editors is disgraceful. It should be the seen as the responsibility of all editors, including admins, to take whatever actions are necessary to assure that Wikipedia articles conform to Wikipedia's core content policies. Misciting sources, writing opinions into articles as facts, weighting discussions to promote the "official" government line and slighting public complaints and criticism should never be acceptable.


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Monicasdude 03:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. BostonMA 17:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users neither directly involved with the MRT FAC dispute, nor the Dinosaur FAC dispute, but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

[edit] View by UserName

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] View by User:Derex

Fundamentally, this seems to be a content dispute, followed by some acrimony. Take the content problem to mediation. The acrimony should then resolve itself. If Monicasdude isn't willing to accept mediation, or if mediation fails, he should leave the article alone for a couple months to let things cool down.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Derex 19:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside Opinion by OnceBitten

First I would congratulate those who built this RFC. Its well organized, well documented and provides enough back information to understand the pattern of behavior warranting this action. On the other hand, the number of examples is truely huge almost to the point overwhelming, and in cases like these, my first question is, how is this person going to answer the points brought against them in a sane manner. Still, this is an incredible job of documenting the behaviors and producing concrete examples.

Secondly, I've done a little back research to see if the picture presented is clear (disagreements have two sides, yours and the other persons) and again I really feel that this RfC is warranted.

User:Monicasdude has some real issues with ownership and opinion that cross the line. I also see that this user has an issue in seeking help and opinion from other Wikipedians and then slamming them and their opinion if they don't one-hundred percent affirm him. Likewise the user has a very real perception problem of what working through disagreements means and this is well documented through the instances above. Even reviewing his talk page reveals that Monicasdude has asserted himself in a very defensive way almost since his first exchange in that forum.

The question here is, even if the concensus opinion is that Monicasdude does lack control in setting limits with his own behavior, is any action taken here going to make this user stand back and appraise themsleves toward constructive personal growth? I just don't see it. OnceBitten 23:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):#

  1. I fully agree with this statement, having also been the subject of harrassment by Monicasdude for months. As far as he is concerned, WE are the problem, not him. BGC 12:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. I fully agree with this statement. Monicasdude's consistent bad faith and repeated failure to play well with others (the worst wiki sin there is) have made keeping Bob Dylan NPOV a horrifically tedious chore. GWO 19:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ditto with BGC and GWO. I have not been involved in the disputes of this RfC, but have a prior history with Monicasdude showing real problems around his perceived ownership of articles. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Agree. I have witnessed unresolvable disputes and harrasment by Monicasdude towards BGC and Lulu, amongst others (including myself). --Comics 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Robert McClenon 16:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  6. Stifle 20:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. Chowbok 18:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. Ardenn 06:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Ifnord 05:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  10. t_lem 12:49, 04 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

[edit] Motion to Close

Monicasdude still assumes bad faith, and does not take his RFC seriously. His attitude has not changed at all even after the RFC is filed, still removes comments. He still claims that concensus is not policy, and the RFC is a joke. His behaviour is unacceptable by the community, and refuses to accept concensus. I believe that arbitration is the only way to solve the dispute resolution. --Terence Ong 15:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support the motion

  1. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. –Comics (Talk) 03:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Ardenn 04:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Ifnord 05:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Mailer Diablo 01:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. t_lem 12:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose the motion

  • Comment I closed the RFC and archived it, feel free to go higher now --Jaranda wat's sup 01:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)