Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2

Similiar dispute (Dinosaur FAC)
This section could do with some diffs as evidence of the allegations made. I'm kind of surprised anyone is supporting it in it's current state. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In which section in particular? Seems like Mailer has consolidated all the diffs into the "Evidence of disputed behavior" section, with a smashing 105 of them.--Huaiwei 14:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Dinosaur FAC. I didn't do the writeup for them at that section. - Mailer Diablo 16:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure they know how to do it; Spawn mentioned this was his first experience with RfC. Perhaps some assistance is in order?  Unfortunately, I wasn't aware of the prior dispute, so I'm not sure where to look. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's a whole bunch of diffs, in roughly chronological order:


 * 


 * There are probably some that I missed.
 * I don't really think they prove much; but if anybody can make something meaningful out of them, feel free to add them where appropriate. &mdash;Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoops...sorry didnt notice earlier. Are those of us (the five already involved in the first case discussed) who agree to it able to endorse it as well?--Huaiwei 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course. We can endorse as many as we can, the only limitation is the number of statements. I'll be endorsing the Dinosaur one once I finished reading through again. - Mailer Diablo 21:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting some diffs in there, now to go check it out. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Failure to respond
Monicasdude has plainly decided to simply ignore proceedings like this. What happens if an RfC respondent fails to respond? JDG 05:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The next step is usually to file an WP:RFAr if there's enough evidence of poor behavior. This is what was done with Pigsonthewing, for example (see Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing; towards the bottom of the RFC, and note the lack of response). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Monicasdude is not going to respond until the proponents of the RfC have finished it, and they say they have not. Monicasdude 05:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to wait for anyone to "finish" before authoring your response. In any event, if that's your intent, you should at least say as much in your response area so people will know you intend to respond at some point. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In his first RfC Mdude made a few perfunctory responses (basically attempts to get it deleted on contrived technicalities), wrote that he would give his full response when the certifiers had "finished" and then, when they had finished, made nary a peep. He's gaming the system (although the first RfC turned out to be worth the bother because it brought together many who'd been grappling with his anti-collaborative habits and they have effectively neutralized his itchy-revert-finger, at least in the articles at issue at the time). RFAr should be brought immediately. JDG 23:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are, as usual in these discussions, not telling the truth, as anyone who reviews the relevant history page will determine for themselves. Monicasdude 00:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? Do you now claim you made a full response to that RfC despite your own words there to the opposite effect? JDG 07:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am simply pointing out that you, as usual, are not telling the truth and leaving others to reach their own conclusions after reviewing the actual pages. Monicasdude 14:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What was untruthful in my statement above? I'm very careful about the statements I make and in close to 4 years of Wikipedia activity only one user has accused me of willful deception: you. Simultaneously, boatloads of Wikipedians have run into conflict with you and have been moved to bring arbitration. What does that tell you?... I don't say these things for insult value. I just think you should sit down and go through some honest introspection. You could well come out of such a process with an approach to editing that would make your activity here much more rewarding/pleasant, above all for yourself. JDG 20:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * All one has to do is look at the page history involved to see that you are not telling the truth. Monicasdude 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Standard tactic from you: "just look at the page history", "just read such and such book", always without a specific cite. This is less than non-persuasive, it actively engenders further distrust of statements from you. JDG 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm a sleazy so-and-so who cites evidence rather than spewing invective. You've said that before.Monicasdude 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah: "Look at the page history". That's citing evidence alright. JDG 19:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * JDG, You've correctly identified the tactic, there's no need to keep feedi^H^H^H^H^H responding to each of MD's points. He'll either respond properly or he won't, and we'll all be able to see which it is --- GWO

Could you clarify if you are intending to respond now that the RfC has been officially finished? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I said I was going to; apparently you've decided you're exempt from the "assume good faith" policy or something. There were four or five of your guys working on this for about a week, and it's hardly appropriate for you to demand a response within about 24 hours of your finishing. There'll be an appropriate response to your abuse of this process in a shorter time frame than the time from the first comments about it by Mailer Diablo to your announcement that it was finished; but no partial response until it's completed. Monicasdude 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * According to your reasoning, you have less than 3 days. just an FYI, im not really involved here. SECProto 23:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? It was roughly a week between the time the page was posted and the announcement it was finished, and diablo had started talking about it well before he began posting the formal RfC. Monicasdude 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Roughly a week from him being complete(january 5) is janury 12th, ie, 3 days from now :) i'm just being annoying. SECProto 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I think it would be in all your best interests to quit this ridiculous bickering and rather concentrate on the specific issues raised by this RfC. We anticipate your response, Monicasdude. --Comics 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, I can understand why Monicasdude maybe hasn't begun to present his answer; its quite possible because he feels that regardless what he says, the minute it posts, its going to get picked apart, or that more charges are going to get lumped on top of him. While I lauded this RfC for its completness, it would take anyone a bit of time to step back and form an answer that addresses each point. Give the guy some breathing room, and then after its posted, take a breath and hold it for 24 hours before disecting what he has to say.

Part of a RfC is allowing people time to think before before they comment, and then taking as long or longer to think about the response and how it changes (or does change) your view opinion of the disagreement. OnceBitten 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said above, i am just being annoying and am not involded in the RfC. I havent even read it or most of this page. SECProto 01:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Remedies?
It looks like 14-to-1 in this RfC. Do the certifiers have any remedies in mind or is there nothing for it but to move on to RfAr? JDG 00:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't think so - That's the purpose of RfC, to seek the community's suggestions for remedies when our own attempts have failed. They are not binding though, but you may be interested in Requests for comment/Enforcement on this matter. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thx, Md. I'm gonna read that page carefully and hopefully come up with a few suggestions for "motions". JDG 07:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think remedies and the need for them would depend on whether the behavior in question has continued. If the behavior has stopped, no further action should be necessary -- if the behavior starts again an RfAr could be opened.  Since I haven't had further involvement with Monicasdude, could someone else comment about whether the problems have been resolved? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Having said that, I became aware of Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and subsequently and .  It appears that the rules lawyering, attempts to game the system and assumption of bad faith are ongoing. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 15:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is more of a sabotage, and does not look fair at all. Monicasdude, please stop finding fault with other editors. You are assuming bad faifth. We should file Monicasdude for arbitration, since his attitude hasn't changed a bit since RFC. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 16:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the response I just got and the response on the RfC itself which I had missed before, I believe this may well require RfAr. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't be possibly allowing bad faith editors continue like this. Monicasdude's comments are assuming bad faith. This can't be here any longer. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 16:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * His response on the RFC itself is basically a monumental assumption of bad faith in itself. Unless the RFC enforcement proposal suddenly becomes policy (and I doubt it will), the ArbCom may be the only recourse here. —Kirill Lok s hin 16:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm prepared to devote some real effort to a RfAR. This person is burning up tons of time/energy that should be going into article writing. JDG 19:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I will join in that, an RFAR seems to be required. Stifle 11:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This user is wasting a lot of time instead of writing articles. His attitude has not changed a bit even after the RFC. Now RFAr is the only solution as Mediation will not help at all. He has assumed bad faifth throughout the RFC and still gives trouble to Wikipedians when articles are up for FAC --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 08:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to file an ArbCom case against him, any suggestions. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 06:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Motion to Close
I'm proposing to close the RFC and file an Arbitration case for him. --Ter e nce Ong 15:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree Ardenn 19:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)