User talk:Soul Embrace

Welcome!

Hello, Soul Embrace, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 19:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Monicasdude

Started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude. Please help certify it and flesh it out.

Monicasdude is very knowledgeable of Dylan and I would not want him to leave. There is a place for (mostly) everyone here. My sentiments are similar to those of JDG.I would like to keep this from formal proceedings in the hope that he will agree to collaboration but this agreement must be within the next 24 hours. Soul Embrace 00:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't imagine that Monicasdude will blocked, certainly not for more than brief duration. But at the same time, I believe that an RfC is about the best shot at getting him to engage in more cooperative editing behavior. AFAIK, an RfC cannot lead to a block directly, but requires an issue moving on to an RfAr. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:16, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Hello Soul. You have listed yourself as a co-certifying user on this RfC. Usually co-certifiers contribute a Description of their dispute with the "defendant". Are you planning to do so? Also, I thought you might want to reconsider your Endorsement of Theo's Outside View in this RfC. He has added statements that are purely partisan (not to mention skewed and misleading) in favor of Monicasdude. I withdrew my Endorsement of his View, which is now the only consistent position for an editor who also endorses the overall Statement of the Dispute. JDG 20:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly welcome any statement Soul Embrace may wish to make on the RfC. However, it is not a rule that co-certifiers must make any statement. Simply endorsing a description is also fairly common, in my experience. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:09, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Soul, I hope I'm not being pushy here, but I continue to find your support of Theo's now completely biased and misleading Outside View a little inexplicable. With the material he has added, it's now downright inconsistent for any certifier of the RfC to also be endorsing his view. The endorsements of Theo's statement are now the only real support Mdude has garnered in the entire RfC and could prove a stumbling block as we try to move on to remedies. Please consider removing your name from that section, as I did a few weeks ago. I too was initially taken in by Theo's Mr. Rogers schtick, but it's clear now that he's simply a backer of Mdude and as such occupies a position in direct opposition to yours. JDG 21:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monicasdude RfC 2

A second RFC has been filed for User:Monicasdude's questionable user conduct. Please join in at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude 2.

Cheers, Mailer Diablo 15:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr Monicasdude

As one of the advocates of the first RfC, you may be interested in having a look at this. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 21:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...

If you still use this page, please contact me. You know where to find Us.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]