Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Evidence

The deletion process
This is not exactly evidence, however I would like to give my perspective on the deletion process as I have observed it since joining Wikipedia in February, to provide some context for Monicasdude's actions on AfD. If someone thinks this should be on the evidence page, let me know and I will move it.

Not only does the current deletion process bite newbies, it macerates, digests and excretes them. I know I don't have to quote AfD etiquette to arbitrators, but it does say Notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article when nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised I checked the first ten articles on today's (April 12, 2006) list; 7 were created in the last week and had one main easily identifiable author, in only one case was the author notified.

To give a specific case I was involved in (but Monicasdude was not), the article Trout Bum was tagged for speedy delete just 3 minutes after it was added by a new editor. It was then tagged for prod and AfD within two hours. The result of the debate was keep due to no consensus, but the editor left the project after the first day. No one (except me) offered to improve the article or offer the author any support. How can this possibly benefit the encyclopedia?

I have seen people on AfD argue that editors should not create new articles unless they can back them up with references and prove they are notable on the first edit. That's fine for experienced editors who know how to use subpages and citation templates, but you might as well change the project slogan to Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia anyone can edit, as long as you get it right the first time.

I know that Monicasdude is an aggressive patroller of AfD. I offer no opinion on the specific allegations against Monicasdude, but even though AfD often treats new editors badly, I don't think that justfies any sort of uncivil or disruptive behavior on the part of experienced editors. Thatcher131 00:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi! I, too, am concerned about the deletion process and how it affects newbies. You may want to read my proposal regarding this issue at Village pump (policy)/Archive Z. I'm glad that others share my concern. If you have comments, additions, etc. please add them to that page. Abhorsen327 00:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Effects on others
I'm butting in here, I know, but I've quite glad to have come across this RfAr. Having in the past nominated a couple of really obvious candidates for deletion, I figured I really ought to learn more and think about participating in the AfD process. I quickly became depressed at the unreasonable level of strident inclusionism of some people.

Or, that was what I thought I was seeing. It so struck me that I started examining the history of one editor and was hard-pressed to find even a couple 'delete' votes. I pressed on and finally decided the ratio was only about 30 or 40 to 1 'keep', even though _most_ of those articles were strong delete candidates, at least to my eyes. I started to note down the hyperbolic phrases used, but then got totally depressed at that.

Now I see that that one editor, User:Monicasdude, was not so much ultra-inclusionist as simply ultra-'opposed'. I'm glad to see that this was in fact an extreme case of ... behavior. I now regret some of my earlier comments on delete votes, as the hyperbole previously seen is indeed not 'usual'. I was reacting to that behavior ... and distorting my own! Shame and shame. Shenme 09:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mel Etitis
Good grief, if this is an accusation of racism then I guess I should nominate myself for an RFAR for thinking the same thing. You're the one who assumed he was accusing you of racism. It could just as easily have been a comment about the difference in perceived cultural importance of advertising and television compared to memes used by notable speakers (whoever they are). I think it's systemic bias, and the longer I watch AfD the more I am convinced it is a problem there.

Here is a case of a black church that asserts in its very first version, "In 1923, at the time of its founding, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was strictly segregated along racial lines, mirroring American Society. Until Gulfside, there were no accommodations of any kind for any person of color along the entire Gulf Coast."   It was prodded after two hours with the reason ''unreadable. non notable church in mississippi''. Now, leaving aside that unreadable is a reason to clean up, not delete, I find it hard to understand that the first religious conference center established for blacks in the South would not rate some consideration as notable, at least a comment to the author's talk page requesting additional info. I don't think this was intentional anti-Black racism but a result of the fact that most wikipedians are white and college educated (or college-bound) and may not immediately recognize the cultural importance of such a facility in that time and place. (Needless to say the article was kept after AfD but the author seems to have been driven away). Thatcher131 15:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it an accusation of racism, but one can easily see how it could be interpreted as an insinuation of racism against the nominator and anyone who voted deletion. At best it is an example of how alot of the contentiousness here could be avoided if people chose their words more carefully.--Isotope23 19:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thatcher131 19:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)