This from FeloniousMonk is one of the best you'll find.
Pretty much everything in it applies to Monk himself rather than the target editor. And provably so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...r:FeloniousMonkQUOTE(FeloniousMonk)
Editor Y has engaged in a long-running pattern of harassment of editors he dislikes designed to drive them away from Wikipedia, or at least to make them feel very uncomfortable and weaken whatever esteem the community holds for them and thus render them unable to oppose him. This pattern of harassment includes wikistalking by inserting himself into content and other disputes his marks were involved in but he was not, and targeted personal attacks meant to fan the flames at these minor disputes to turn them into larger imbroglios, and recruiting others to join in.
....
His focus on editors he dislikes is sustained, obsessive and aggressive and has had the effect of threatening or intimidating not only his intended targets, but also has had a chilling effect community as a whole. Editor Y's use of RFC, when viewed outside of context may appear to be reasonable and expected attempts at dispute resolution. But when viewed in the context of his long-running harassment, his use of RFC is clearly meant to be an extension of his pattern of harassment. Going beyond the simple use of non-neutral tone, his descriptions of conflicts in RFC are wholly biased against their subject. Instead of resolving disputes his RFCs have perpetuated them through polarizing and divisive rhetoric, resulting in a bunker mentality in those who are targeted while fanning whatever flames in others that suit his ends and are handy in the community.
