Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Proposed decision

message: Just a comment, it would be an extremely bad idea to ban him from the deletion process, as he does a lot more research than many other people, IMHO.  JeffBurdges 13:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be quite effective at totally eliminating all the problems that have led to this RFAR, though. Stifle (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its better to just force him to be civil.  You could ban him from actually voting if you liked, as one vote doesn't matter, but you really really should not ban him from commenting on the AfD.  He's often quite informative.  Just make him be polite.  JeffBurdges 18:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would still not solve the problem. Incivility and personal attacks can be made just as easily in a comment than a vote. You can't just MAKE someone be polite, else Wikipedia would run a LOT smoother. ⇒ SWATJester Ready  Aim  Fire! 21:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats wrong with the proposed solution where admins apply 24 hours block for incivility quite liberally?  My point is, the issue here is incivility in several parts of the wiki, not just deletion requests.  And it seems quite silly to ban people from parts of the wiki for a general problem.  An arbitration committee ruling that admins should apply 24 hour blocks for incivility means that he can't participate in any part of the wiki  as long as he's rude.  JeffBurdges 11:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I assume the enforcement section is making a distinction between a parole (remedy 1) and a ban (remedy 2), but I could be reading too much into the wording here. Kirill Lokshin 13:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Monicasdude does no research, all he does is arbitrarily remove any PROD tag he finds, then attcks the people who take the articles to AfD.  User:Zoe|(talk) 02:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * While I disagree with Monicasdude does engage in many attacks Jeff and AnonEMourse are correct in that Monicasdude really does often find sources and details that justify keeping. Now, if Monicasdude could just present them and not need to add comments about bad faith and such we would be fine. I strongly agree with Jeff's suggestion. JoshuaZ 03:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'd have to disagree Zoe, Monicasdude does research PRODs, at least in the cases I've seen -- if there are examples where he has been arbitratily removing tags, please provide the references -- that would considerably change my opinion on the ban from the deletion process.  Ironically, Monicasdude doens't take the few seconds to add the information/references he finds to the article -- this would considerably lower the number of his de-prods that get taken immediately to AfD and probably resolve a lot of the surrounding issues.  I do however completely agree that once an article is taken to AfD, or generally if he feels his judgement is being questioned, his civility is greatly lacking.  I would think the civility parole would cover that problem even during the deletion process. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if there are examples where he has been arbitratily removing tags, please provide the references How about this, for Thomas Bonney, an article which makes not the slightest claim of notability: prod does not cite valid grounds for deletion . Perhaps some of his much-vaunted research skills could be spent on WP:BIO or even Wikipedia:Speedy deletions. --Calton | Talk 03:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

message: I've been mostly ignoring the proceedings, but seeing outright falsehoods like ...except there the nominator additionally manifests an intent to deceive by misrepresenting the contents of the article. Calton stated that there was no basis for treating the subject as notable except that he "gave a bunch of money to his alma mater. That's it." leads me to comment.
Dude, do you believe yourself to be a mind reader? Or just have problems with English-language vocabulary? "Manifests"? You know my intent how? As an example of "bad faith", this is just about perfect.
I meant what I said, and what I said was accurate: the article said his claim to fame was giving money to his alma mater, for which they named some buildings after him, and as an otherwise non-descript high-level executive at a finance company. The article mentioned no actual philanthropic work (foundations, charity boards, etc.) and legacy at his company: any legacy he has came from his checkbook, not his work or accomplishments. That you're unwilling to accept this or even listen to it shouldn't be my problem. --Calton | Talk 03:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Faith, indeed

message: Two questions:
#How long is this ban intended to last?
#Doesn't a ban from removing prod-tags run counter to the very spirit of prod? They are for uncontested deletions, if anybody has an objection to deletion, then they may remove it.
Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban from deletion process 

message: *Zoe on ANI 
*My response 
*The editor who prodded Bill Dedman first deleted references including the Boston Globe and the New York Times, and Monicasdude caught him  Thatcher131 03:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another reason a complete deletion ban is a bad idea