Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:32, 2005 August 28 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

[edit] Description

(this description was completed on August 28)

As stated in description, but missed in response, no part of this RfC concerns any specific content question!

A vandalism complaint was filed against Monicasdude, at [1]. Administrator User:Ryan Delaney determined his actions did not qualify as vandalism, but protected the page while the dispute was ongoing. I accept the conclusion that Monicasdude's behavior does not qualify as vandalism. Ryan Delaney offered (on Talk:Bob Dylan, and user talk pages) to serve as an informal mediator, but Monicasdude declined the offer.

In originally characterizing Monicasdude's edits as vandalism, I realized the case was atypical of simple vandals. He certainly did not insert, e.g. "John Smith is a fag" or the sort of irrelevant graffiti that you see on some pages. But my complaint was also not a matter of any particular factual or POV issue in the article.

Judging by the changelog and the discussion page, since before I ever read or edited that particular Bob Dylan page, Monicasdude has shown a consistent pattern of "bad faith editing." His edit history is mostly on either the Dylan page, or on related pages (albums by Bob Dylan, similar artists), with a clear concentration on the Dylan page itself. It seems that Monicasdude has a great enthusiasm for Dylan; moreover, I think he honestly believes that his edits are correct and of high quality. But at the same time, his immersion in trivia around the particular subject has bred an exaggerated sense of his own writing skills and knowledgeability. Enough that he treats the Bob Dylan WP article as if it were "his page."

In the concrete, Monicasdude frequently removes most wording written by anyone else, and has done so throughout his edit history. Recently I have tried to make some (pretty minor) changes, and encountered unreasonable resistance. In the talk page you can see several past editors who banged their head against the same thing (and eventually left in frustration). When I make an edit (or before I first tried to edit, when other editors did), Monicasdude inevitably rolls back my wording to whatever he had himself earlier written about the same topic (it must only be verbatim his own words). If I try variations that seem to satisfy his stated concerns (with some additional concern for clear expression and factuality), he equally inevitably makes rude comments in the edit history, and again restores his "golden" version. Sometimes he writes long, rambling digressions on the talk page to justify his version, but while rich in trivial footnotes, they relate only very indirectly to the edit in question (not seeing the forest for the trees). His rollbacks are not always literally restoration of an exact prior version, which makes it harder to see if you haven't worked on the page—he might restore the paragraphs he himself wrote several versions back, not necessarily in the same order as other people have modified those paragraphs.

The net effect is that no single edit by Monicasdude is unreasonable if taken in isolation. They are not necessarily particularly good in either factuality or writing quality, but no worse than a lot of edits by good faith editors (on whatever pages, not speaking just of other Dylan editors). But taken together, Monicasdude editing stategy is "this is my page, and no one else is worthy to edit it."

So what to do? Is there an appropriate administrative mechanism to try to get the page to be a cooperative project rather than just Monicasdude's personal user page?

[edit] Additional Description by 2nd Certifying User

(Posted 20:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC) with additional paragraphs 20:30, 5 September 2005, 05:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC))

My part of this RfC refers to a slightly earlier time period than that covered by my co-certifiers (Lulu of the Lotus Eaters and Soul Embrace). Although the editing actions by Monicasdude were of a different type in the period I focus on, the upshot is the same: Monicasdude operates with an extremely anti-collaborative spirit, is too quick and heavy-handed in his use of the revert power, and generally behaves as a super-editor (a position that does not exist in Wikipedia). The net effect has been to stymie contributions by all editors other than himself, and this has now led to the placement of an editing block on the primary article involved (Bob Dylan). The block probably should not be lifted until Monicasdude, hopefully as a result of this RfC, makes a clear statement indicating he has heard and internalized the just complaints of other editors and is now willing to proceed in a more collaborative way. It must be noted that Monicasdude's knowledge of the subject exceeds that of other editors and that the article, once unblocked, would benefit from his assuming and maintaining a leading, but not dictatorial, role. It must also be noted that Monicasdude's acumen as a gatherer of facts exceeds his acumen as a writer of prose, and that the process of folding sourced information on the career of Bob Dylan in a smooth and engaging way into our article constitutes the major faultline in the collaborative difficulties we need to address going forward. Other editors should assume at least an equal role in this process, even as they defer to Monicasdude on questions of fact.

In this Description I will use a sort of inline linking to evidence (internal to this Description) so that I don't confuse the separate "Evidence of disputed behavior" section further down in this RfC. Evidence presented here should, however, be given equal weight with the evidence in that section.

Early in Wikipedia's existence, the Bob Dylan article was composed by User:GWO, a leading early writer of music-related articles. By mid-2003 I and another editor began adding significant content to Bob Dylan and by late 2003 it, along with a few other articles started by GWO and enhanced by others, attained the status of "Brilliant Prose", a title shortly to be changed to "Featured Article". In my opinion, and I suspect in most Wikipedians' opinions, an article that has attained Featured status carries with it a certain weight of consensus, by virtue of the vote elevating it to FA, which should act as a sort of moderate protectant against radical, undiscussed change. This is a whole topic unto itself and its encapsulation in Wikipedia policy is only now underway. Suffice it to say that by May of 2005, the Bob Dylan article was a longstanding FA, thus due a measure of respect that, in practical terms, meant any effort to substantially change its contents would, as a matter of good and fair collaboration practices, need to meet a level of scrutiny greater than that of most other articles.

This principle (that Featured Articles represent consensus and should not be changed lightly) is so obvious and grounded in common sense that it has not yet been enshrined in policy, just as those founding a town will not put a sentence like "Citizens, when walking down the sidewalk, will walk in such manner that those already walking or standing on the sidewalk will not be pushed off the sidewalk" into initial versions of their bylaws. It is taken to be so self-evident that there is no need to spell it out, yet, as with the growing body of law for any community, assumed behaviors eventually are made explicit and required because some in the community are so rowdy or inconsiderate or blinded by self-interest that what was assumed must now be codified. So it is with extensive, undiscussed changes to FA and I expect signatories to this RfC to rule accordingly. Common sense, people.

On 17 May, 2005, a new Wikipedian registered with the name "Monicasdude" and made his first edit to the encyclopedia, in the Sara Lownds (Bob Dylan's ex-wife) article. For the better part of two weeks, Monicasdude made smallish edits to Bob Dylan and other articles generally related to Dylan and to folk music and "folk rock". These edits did not give rise to any notable disputes.

Suddenly, on 30 May, Monicasdude, logged in anonymously, rolls out a radical overhaul of Bob Dylan with this edit summary: "Condensed first part of text (running roughly to 1975), corrected many errors, removed digressions & highly subjective commentary & excessive lyrical excerpts, normalized chronology. More to follow.". Nine minutes later, motivated by the principle stated above regarding the respect due to FAs, I revert with the edit summary: "Whoa, 24.2.207.183. This is a Featured Article. Even one significant change or deletion requires some Talk activity. Plz discuss your ideas in Talk. RV to last by JDG.". Fifteen minutes after this, Monicasdude, now logged in as Monicasdude, reverts in turn with the summary: "Restoring edit. The entry on "Featured articles" says "be bold in updating articles," not "ask for permission in advance." Article laced with long-standing errors. Read it before cancelling (sic) it again.".

We have arrived at the crucial moment in these disputes. A number of complicating factors existed. First, the fact that this radical overhaul to a longstanding FA was apparently being done by an anonymous user raised my sense of alarm. It is bad enough when a known user, even one of unquestioned ability as a researcher and writer, overhauls a FA without notice. An anon user doing so is, I'm sure you will all agree, beyond the pale. On this basis alone my reversion was 100% justified.

A second complicating factor was my somewhat erroneous assumption that Monicasdude (once he had identified himself as the author of this radical overhaul) was a somewhat experienced Wikipedian. As I have stated elsewhere on this RfC and in related discussions, Monicasdude came on the scene in an Athena-like way, springing fully formed from somewhere, wikilinking to other pages and outside sources like an old hand and "speaking" like someone with substantial familiarity with our project. I say "somewhat erroneous" because, as we have discovered, Monicasdude had, over the preceding year or so, used the wiki as an anonymous contributor and so had picked up the knowledge that made him "sound" like a contributor with a past. I looked up the list of "User contributions" under his name, saw they extended back only thirteen days, and concluded he was probably now using a new name for whatever reason. In the immediately ensuing struggle, I basically treated him as a co-editor with appreciable experience in the Wikipedia "culture". This turned out to be unfortunate because in most respects he was a WP neophyte and could not be expected to know the seriousness of his all-at-once reworking of such an established article. My tone would have been much kinder and gentler had I understood this.

To keep this Description under novella size, I will not continue giving a fine-grained account of the ensuing fireworks. You can click on the "Newer edit" links on the diffs already provided to see how it played out. I am confident that most of you will agree Monicasdude was moving too fast, was not displaying the degree of respect due a FA, and should have slowed down to address my concerns at least a little on Talk:Bob_Dylan. Unfortunately for me, I also believe most of you will feel my "tone of voice" could have been better and that Monicasdude can to some degree be excused for taking umbrage and resisting what may have come across as "orders" to an underling. At the same time, I trust you will see that Monicasdude was already displaying that "take no prisoners" approach which is a surefire harbinger of difficulties with all other editors of whatever temperament. The accounts given by other complainants on this RfC show this indeed came to pass.

I ask you to focus on what happened after the first bit of revert sparring here. A characteristic comment from me: "Monicasdude, edit summaries are not the place for 'substantive objections'. Talk is. Why do you not discuss?". A characteristic comment from Monicasdude: "You didn't read the revision before you reverted it. You don't cite any errors in the revisions...My contributions will continue.". As this shows, to this point I had been trying to move the dispute to the Talk page so that we could discuss changes on the merits instead of using the revert power as wholesale enforcements of our viewpoints. Monicasdude would have none of it and insisted his version of the article be "live" notwithstanding the objections by this other Wikipedian, who, as Monicasdude was by this time aware, had been a steady contributor to the article for years. Monicasdude tried to change the issue at hand from "slow down, this is a Featured Article that should not be overhauled in one shot without some discussion" to "you, JDG, are not raising specific objections to specific errors in my edit". But the content of his overhaul was not and should not have been the focus at that point: he was riding roughshod over this longstanding FA which had even been recognized outside Wikipedia for excellence. That was the issue, and the proper response from him would have been to allow the FA version to be "live" as we discussed his plans. Instead, in the face of his anti-collaborative intransigence, I backed off and let the matter sit for a number of days. It is plain who was being cooperative and who was not.

On June 5 I tried again. Another revert from me finally succeeded in getting Monicasdude to abandon his aggressive silence, but it turned out that trying to work things out in Talk wasn't much better than revert warring. He simply would not acknowledge that an all-at-once overhaul to a FA is not a good thing. Squabblng continued for the next few weeks, always with Monicasdude's overhaul live. As you may have read elsewhere, I am unfortunately quite ill (cancer at 42, blech) and I just didn't have the energy to keep challenging his rather obsessive grip on the article. In fact, I took an extended breather from Wikipedia starting in mid-July. By the time I came back a number of other editors were up in arms over Monicasdude's caustic and controlling editing habits. We tried informal mediation but, tellingly, Monicasdude refused to participate. And here we are at this RfC.

I will let the Descriptions by Lulu of the Lotus Eaters and Soul Embrace speak for themselves. They demonstrate that Monicasdude has not amended his attitude one jot since the difficulties with me in late May-early June. A casual look at some of Monicasdude's work on articles outside the main Dylan page yields the expected results: Wikipedians complaining bitterly. Here is a comment left by one of them, User:BGC, on my Talk page: "I was previously posting here as PetSounds until late July. My experiences with Monicasdude were extremely unpleasurable and even brought out the worst in me, which I regret. I left in frustration to return with a new identity because of all his stalking a few weeks later and have had a most enjoyable time thus far. One of my key claims was that he was targeting me on purpose. The fact that as BGC I have not been looked at by him, while everything I did as PetSounds was WHOLLY wiped and reverted proves it. Basically, he feels he owns the Dylan pages. I, not him, was responsible for creating proper album articles/infoboxes for many of Dylan's albums, to which I was rudely treated with the caption "stop screwing up the dylan pages!!" (because some of my material went against his views, which he considers to be the official ones) and it went downhill from there.[...] I've never encountered such a self-righteous, all-knowing, pompous and rude individual on these pages. Very narrowminded and impossible to work with. He wasn't even open to collaboration or compromise. I apologize for these last character remarks (I know it's improper), but if you wanted an indication of how I feel, there you are.". This is the kind of stultifying effect on other editors that we must find a way of getting past, without losing Monicasdude's valuable contributions.

For my specific rebuttals to Monicasdude's specific defenses, go here.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

In relation to trying to find a good phrase describing "Dylan's Christian period", Monicasdude repeated removed every wording variation. Each change to the wording was, in large part, an effort to incorporate the observations/claims Monicasdude made on the Talk:Bob Dylan page.

  1. [2]: An anonymous editor, 203.208.119.32, adds a phrase about "Christian period", but with some extraneous information. Removed in whole by Monicasdude.
  2. [3]: LotLE restores the core element of edit by 203.208.119.32, skipping extraneous part.
  3. [4]: Monicasdude removes core phrase.
  4. [5]: Monicasdude again removes (clarification of) core phrase.
  5. [6]: Same thing as last (with sophistry in edit comment).
  6. [7]: One more.
  7. [8]: LotLE adds longer and more nuanced description to address Monicasdude's stated issues (using much of the language Monicasdude provides on talk page).
  8. [9]: Monicasdude removes entire description (that had been tweaked by several other editors in the meanwhile), and inserts long, run-on, rambling, and only semi-relevant rant.
  9. [10]: LotLE incorporates some material from Monicasdude ramble, but mostly restores version last tweaked (and agreed to) by several editors.
  10. [11]: Monicasdude restores his identical rambling section.
  11. [12]: Monicasdude again restores rant.
  12. [13]: LotLE tries again to incorporate additional issues suggested by Monicasdude's edits (e.g. clarify public->proselytic).
  13. [14]: Monicasdude again restores verbatim rant.
  14. [15]: LotLE attempts quotation from external source rather than his own words.
  15. [16]: Monicasdude removes whole of external quote, stating Allmusic.com is "unreliable."
  16. [17] and [18]: LotLE moves some of Monicasdude langauge to later section (1980s) and tries yet another variation on the language tweaked by several editors (and tries to be clear on exact scope of description).
  17. [19]: Monicasdude block deletes all words attempted by other editors (even the unrelated clarification of "classic songs").
  18. [20]: And again block deletes.
  19. [21]: Yet again.


Pushy editing around the use of the word "apocryphal" (see Talk:Bob_Dylan#Seeger.2FNewport_.2765)

  1. [22]
  2. ...find the rest

[edit] Applicable policies

Chiefly:

  1. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

To a large extent:

  1. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  2. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

To lesser extents:

  1. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
  2. Wikipedia:Civility (I have been guilty of this also; sincerest apologies. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters)
  3. Wikipedia:Editing policy
  4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  5. Wikipedia:No original research
  6. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  7. Wikipedia:POV pushing
  8. Wikipedia:Consensus

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Talk:Bob_Dylan#Informal_mediation
  2. Talk:Bob_Dylan#Abusive_personally_directed_header_deleted
  3. Talk:Bob_Dylan#Abusive_personally_directed_heading_deleted_2:

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:03, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
  2. JDG 13:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Soul Embrace 01:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. GWO
  2. BGC 10:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC) (used to post as PetSounds but had to adopt new identity due to Monicasdude's incessant badgering and stalking)

[edit] Response

  • Monicasdude does not. Monicasdude 01:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC) NOTE: This comment was a reply to an inaccurate statement placed here by user: Lulu, who removed it several days later.


This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}


User: Lulu tranferred comments that I made in response to user: Robert McClenon here earlier today and falsely presented them as my response to this RfC. I will present my response when user: Lulu and user: JDG complete their initial presentations. Both state here that they are preparing additional material, and I await it. Monicasdude 01:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It is now over three days since this page was started, and the initiators have still not completed it; it is therefore not yet appropriate for me to respond to the substance, particularly given the significant revisions that have been made so far. Monicasdude 05:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It is now nearly five days since this page was started, and the initiators have still not completed it; it is therefore not yet appropriate for me to respond to the substance, particularly given the significant revisions that have been made so far. Monicasdude 15:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Response by Monicasdude [in progress]

First, it is now evident that this RfC has not been properly certified, and should be subject to speedy deletion. An RfC may not be brought over multiple disputes that various editors have with a single editor, but must be brought by two (or more) editors who have tried and failed to resolve a particular dispute with another editor. "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users."

Here, User: Lulu has a dispute with me over the characterization of what he calls Bob Dylan's "Christian period." User: JDG had a dispute with me, some months ago, over a general revision of the Bob Dylan article. The third supposed certifier, User: Soul Embrace, was not involved in either dispute, and his certification is therefore ineffective.

Second, the central premise of the RfC, as framed by user: Lulu, is demonstrably false. He declares in his description that "Monicasdude frequently removes most wording written by anyone else, and has done so throughout his edit history." This is simply not true.

Between June 30, when I finished making revisions to the first half of the article, and August 19, when the revert war which led to this RfC began, there were over 150 individual edits made to the Dylan article, by several dozen editors (including quite a few anons). In that time, I made approximately 12 individual edits (in comparison, user: Lulu made approximately 18). 3 of my edits reverted vandalism. 1 removed a newly introduced error, without dispute. 2 added new entries to the links section, and 1 removed an inappropriate link to a sales portal. 1 edit, in response to discussion initiated by others on the talk page, deleted unsubstantiated/unsourced lists of "best" and "famous" songs. 1 was a minor, uncontroversial "cleanup" of the "fan base" section. 2 discussed the proper way to describe an "urban legend" regarding Pete Seeger's actions at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival, in an editing debate which ended with the legend being deleted entirely, without subsequent objection. And 1 deleted a factually unfounded comment that Dylan had returned to practicing Judaism.

Aside from these limited edits, I tried to encourage other editors to provide their own input to the page [[23]] ; [[24]] . I also tried to have the "featured article" tag removed from the page, in hopes its removal might encourage other editors to contribute -- an action that was mildly successful, even though the tag remains. [[25]] ("the article needs more work and more contributors").

Third, while I'm not going to go into the substantive details of the underlying dispute here, one point should be made clear. User: Lulu insists that the Dylan article state, as fact, that since 1983, Dylan's songwriting has been "predominantly secular," and has only occasionally written songs that "obliquely suggest Christian themes." While he says that my rejection of this claim rests on my personal, "extremly (sic) novel" thesis, significantly stronger versions of the position I take are found in the last two major book-length Dylan biographies (Sounes' "Down The Highway" and Heylin's "Behind The Shades Revisited"), and the position is reflected in Christopher Ricks' "Dylan's Visions Of Sin." (Ricks is a reasonably distinguished academic, and his book was reviewed in the New York Times Book Review by Jonathan Lethem.) And, on the more down-to-earth level, although user: Lulu avoids mentioning it, I was not the only editor to object to the comments he inserted. [[26]]

Fourth, with regard to user: JDG's lengthy comments, nothing he alleges -- and quite a few of his allegations do not accurately reflect what transpired -- indicate that the edits he complains about violate Wikipedia guidelines or policies. The dispute was aired at length on the article's talk page, and no other users supported his position regarding editing policies. Several editors attempted informal mediation, and I complied with all their requests; but user: JDG chose to withdraw rather than presenting his position on the substantive dispute. An RfC is not an appropriate action for an editor to initiate after withdrawing from mediation. And, after three months, for all the time he devotes to tirades, he still hasn't pointed out a single factual error or inappropriate component in the edits he objects to.

It should also be clear, given the misrepresentations described above, that the proponents of this RfC have also violated the applicable RfC guidelines by presenting a laundry list of unfounded charges of policy violations and "then getting their friends to help certify the RFC, or finding people who have had arguments elsewhere with the accused, and inviting them to certify or endorse the RfC in an attempt to snowball the process." Examples: [[27]] [[28]] User: Lulu ; [[29]] [[30]] User: JDG .


(To be completed as rapidly as practicable) Monicasdude

[edit] Outside views

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

[edit] Outside view by Theo

REMOVED because it is characterised as biased by JDG (see below) and I am unwilling to devote further time to this. —Theo (Talk) 21:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Theo (Talk) 13:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. SECProto 12:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC) - this timeline is accurate up until the point where it stops, which, i think, is where the scope of this RfC comes in.
  3. --Sambostock 21:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Note on Accuracy by JDG

Please note, the first item in Theo's list of vignettes above ("26 Jul 2004: Bob Dylan becomes a featured article.") is incorrect. The Dylan article became FA long before that, in early or mid `03 I believe... Update: Theo has changed the above to read "# 15 Feb 2004 Article gains featured article status. [and] # 26 Jul 2004: Article categorized as a featured article." This is still incorrect. "Brilliant Prose" was the forerunner of "Featured Article", and on this page, dated 2 December 2003, we see that Bob Dylan is already listed as Brilliant Prose/FA. The logging of the actual vote seems to have been messed up. I'm pretty sure now that it happened in October `03. Also note, Theo is now giving a selectively skewed view of the dispute (for instance, he makes no mention of my warning to editors on the Dylan Talk page that their edits could be lost due to Monicasdude's constant reversions-- Monicasdude was so quick and adamant in his reverts that his version tended to be "live" most of the time, thus other editors' unrelated changes were usually made while Monicasdude's version was active and were, as warned, subject to reversion). I am forced to withdraw my endorsement of his Outside View. JDG 20:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Ryan Delaney

I still strongly disagree with Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' characterization of User:Monicasdude's edits as bad faith or vandalism, which appears to be a failure to apply Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Therefore I cannot certify this version or endorse Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' summary.

However, I believe that Monicasdude has been, despite being a good faith editor, extremely stubborn and disinterested in negotiation or consensus building. He has displayed an overall lack of concern for the views of other editors, and disinterest in resolving the dispute. When I offered to mediate the dispute, he was the only editor who refused mediation. Monicasdude seems to believe that the article Bob Dylan is his, or that he has a greater privilege to write articles than other editors do. Simply put, he does not play well with others. Hopefully this RFC will be a wakeup call for all involved, and bring things back to the mediation table.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Ryan Delaney talk 18:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. JDG 06:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC) - with only one caveat this time: I agree Monicasdude cannot be seen as a vandal, but his behavior at least borders on bad faith. To meet calls for discussion during his extensive rewrite of a Featured Article with silence (aside from utterly counterproductive, untrue edit summaries) and to in effect block most other editors for months certainly approaches bad faith, and we'll need some recognition from him of this for this RfC to achieve anything.
  3. GWO 09:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC) -- good edits made in bad faith are worse for wikipedia than bad edits made in good faith. This is a co-operative project, and the co-operation is the most (only) important thing needed.
  4. Soul Embrace 01:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Outside view by Ccoll

To me, at the core of this dispute lies a clash in visions for what Wikipedia is to be. JDG was fond of the general style and tone of a previous version of the page; Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has said more than once that for him, WP is about "cooperation." Monicasdude is one of the web's leading authorities on the subject of the article. All of his changes are either plainly correct or in line with the latest research on Dylan, as he has substantiated. I would agree with others' comments about his manner, but Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's turn toward insulting him for his superior knowledge -- as well his suggestion that users of rec.music.dylan "get a life" -- should raise questions about what WP is for, whom it is meant to serve. JDG and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters enjoy using WP, and maybe that's all the site should do; Monicasdude perhaps enjoys it as well, but he provides superior content. Is WP meant to be a fulfilling process to participate in for its users, or the best information resource of its kind? Should better information be eliminated by a consensus of less well informed editors? Should it aim to apprise general readers of the common wisdom about its topics, or to think critically about the common wisdom? I imagine this debate has been carried on at some higher level toward a policy that could be applied here.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Ccoll (Talk) --Ccoll 03:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC))
  2. Tearlach (talk • contribs) Tearlach 13:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Sambostock 21:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additional comment by Tearlach

I don't see any problem with coexistence of editors of different levels of knowledge, since superior/inferior knowledge is not the sole criterion for usefulness of edits. I wouldn't put the stylistic criticism as extremely as Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters did, but I think there's a deal of subjective purple prose in Bob Dylan that needs editing. For example:

The song "A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall" occupies a plane perhaps above even "Blowin' In The Wind", with its hard-hitting imagery and almost God's-eye perspective. It represents a nearly alchemical moment in modern songwriting in which time-tested folk structures are reworked into a latter-day idiom encompassing world events and deep personal reflection...

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Tearlach (talk • contribs) Tearlach 13:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:16, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
  3. Ccoll 21:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Akamad 01:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  5. GWO 09:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC) -- Good example of an awful paragraph. I wrote the original long Dylan article, almost out of the whole cloth and (even if I say so myself) as the factual content has increased, the overall prose quality has tended to go into the toilet.
  6. Ryan Delaney talk 15:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Soul Embrace 01:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. BGC 10:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. SECProto 12:35, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Robert McClenon 17:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  11. JDG 18:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  12. --Sambostock 21:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by McClenon

I see three parts to this dispute. The first is disputes about the accuracy of content, such as about the extent of continuing Christian themes in Dylan's music in recent years. I don't claim to have any basis to judge who is correct or who has more knowledge. I see that there are factual disputes between Monicasdude and the other editors, and haven't read the talk pages in enough detail to konw whether they reflect original research, unsourced work, or disagreement as to reliability of sources. I would like to know what Monicasdude's explanation is for these content disputes.

The second part is disputes about the stylistic quality of prose content. The paragraph that is cited above, for instance, is a sort of poetic commentary that may or may not be appropriate in a critical essay, but is not encyclopedic. The issues of prose quality illustrate why even superior knowledge should not allow an editor to claim ownership of an article.

The third part, and the only part that is directly relevant in this Request for Comments (or Request for Corrective Action, as user conduct RfCs should be called), is user conduct, in particular compliance with policy. What I do see is a disregard for consensus and the community. I see Monicasdude's failure to respond to this RfC because it is evolving is a troubling and all too telling sign of what is wrong. It appears that Monicasdude does not understand the concept of works in progress either in encyclopedic articles or in the dispute resolution process (which is inherently incremental).

Could Monicasdude please respond to this Request for Comments or Request for Corrective Action?

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 17:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:38, 2005 September 2 (UTC). With the caveat that this dispute is in no way about factual accuracy. Yes, Monicasdude wants a pedantic 10k words of convoluted details about a universally recognized matter instead of a fair (and true) two sentence generalization; but even there, the problem is solely a refusal to cooperate and compromise.
  3. JDG 18:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Soul Embrace 01:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. Tearlach 18:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] additional comment by Monicasdude

I have not responded substantively to this RfC because, according to its initiators, it has not been completed. Both user: Lulu and user: JDG say that they have not finished presenting their side of the matter. I have not seen any other RfC framed as series of periodically altered, running complaints against a user. Nor have I seen another RfC where the person complained of was asked to respond before the RfC was completed.

On your substantive points. First, with regard to the differences between editors: there were four editors who made comments regarding the supposed existence of Dylan's "Christian period," after which he returned to "predominantly" secular music with no more than "obliquely" religious content. Editors Lulu and SECProto generally took the position that such a period was well-defined and should be noted in the article. Editor Tixity and I opposed the position. (There was a fifth editor who stated that Dylan had returned to practicing Judaism, without commenting on the nature of the music.) I do not believe that this can fairly be termed consensus.

I'd note that I have extensively cited sources which document the points I've made, both from published Dylan biographies and from online resources. User: Lulu has cited only a selection of superficial opinions, none of which actually support the broad claim he advances. My position, as stated on the talk page, is that, given the differences of opinion on the matter, that if the article addresses the idea of a "Christian period" at all, it should present all significant points of view fairly, rather than presenting a simplified, conclusory statement representing only one stance in an ongoing debate.

Second, with regard to the quality of prose: If you compare the article as it stood before I began editing it and the version after my major edits, to date, were completed, you will see, I hope, that I removed much of the effusive, "purple," non-encyclopedic prose. [[31]] I'd also note that the prose which has drawn attention above was originally written by user: JDG, and the effusive content is essentially unaltered from his original edit.

Third, I would note that the substantive issues in the underlying edit dispute should have been resolved by admin: Ryan Blanchard's comments on the article's talk page, that characterizations of musical works as "religious" or "secular," without any citation of external references or commentary, are inappropriate under the "no original research" Wikipolicy since they represent only the opinions/conclusions of the single editor. "According to WP:NOR, [you] may not insert your own interpretations into Wikipedia articles, only the published and peer-reviewed interpretations of others. You may say 'Rolling Stone said this song means X', but not 'This song means X.'"I have accepted this standard; the two proponents of this RfC have not. Under this standard, the sections repeatedly (and variously) proposed by user: Lulu should not be inserted. Edits which substantively violate established Wikipedia policy are not acceptable, whatever the nature of the supposed "consensus" which supports them.

I would also note user: Lulu's comment that "factual accuracy" is not involved in the dispute is hardly accurate. His early versions of the disputed text made plain factual statements which could be verifiably disproved. If, as he now maintains, the disputed text is not subtantially factual, it represents opinion or commentary; a range of opinion on the point should be presented, not simply the POV he agrees with -- a POV that, for example, authors of the two most recently published major works on Dylan (Heylin's "Behind The Shades Revisited" and Ricks' "Dylan's Vision Of Sin") reject.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Monicasdude 21:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. 64.154.26.251 16:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View By Monkeyman1235

"What is this shit"? Bill Monica's Dude Clinton has been one of the point men about Bob on the WWW for at least 10 years. He is The Man to go to when you need the word. 3 weeks ago he complained about the credits on the new BobBootleg 7 and Columbia Records corrected them. You guys are just jealous that a man who knows what's up has come along and showed you up. Or else you're bootleg pimps who he's putting out of business.

Note: This user is a sockpuppet (self-described as such on his/her user page; no edits elsewhere).

Users who endorse this summary (sign with &lt;nowiki>Sambostock 23:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)</nowiki>):

  1. Monkeyman1235 19:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View By 216.119.etc.

Note: I am the same user who endorsed Monicasdude's Additional Comment to McClenon's Outside View (using the user:64.154.26.251 sig)

JDG claims his dispute with Monicasdude was based on a certain editing principle, expressed in this claim: "Monicasdude tried to change the issue at hand from 'slow down, this is a Featured Article that should not be overhauled in one shot without some discussion' to 'You, JDG, are not raising specific objections to specific errors in my edit'. But at the beginning of the dispute on May 30, 2005 as rehearsed by user:TheoClarke, it's JDG who claims "you introduced probably more factual errors than you fixed," so really it's JDG who changes the subject from complaining about Monicasdude making a large edit without the advice of past editors to claiming the presence of specific errors.

Despite JDG's May 30th claim, there has never been any undisputed evidence in talk that Monicasdude's large edit has diminished the quality of the featured article, and such evidence, if it exists at all, certainly hasn't been provided in this Request for Comment. Indeed, the Bob Dylan entry remains a featured article.

Also, there is no evidence that Monicasdude isn't willing to defend any of his edits if they are specifically challenged.

JDG, on the same day he made the claim about "changing the issue at hand", insisted that any changes made to the article "will have to be on a statement-by-statement basis". Why JDG supposed this to be the case is not known. But had Monicasdude defended his large edit in such a way, and successfully maintained his changes, he probably would have been even further subjected to such charges implied by User:Lulu that the only reason why he was changing the article was because he likes to have things his own way.

As Dylan himself phrased it, Monicasdude "can't help it if he's lucky", that is, lucky enough to have the aptitude for the skills to digest Dylan's biographies, chronologies and works, come to appropriate conclusions and write about them articulately.

There is also no evidence presented here that Monicasdude "made deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories" which is the caveat to the WP admonition to "be bold" in editing Featured Articles.

Therefore, I don't see any basis for JDG's insistence that Monicasdude now should hold, or should have in the past held, what would amount to some kind of four-king summit where the participants bloviate on the merits of each and every change he introduced. For all we know, this could simply be a trap to force Monicasdude to either retract some of his appropriate changes or to create an appearance that he's bossing everybody around, an appearance fostered by everything about his edit being up for discussion (implying falsely that everything about it was subject to doubt to begin with) and by Monicasdude's ability to succeed in such discussions simply because of the fact that he was right or mostly right in the first place.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. 216.119.139.12 19:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sambostock 21:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View By Sambostock

I have been asked by JDG on my talk page to provide some reasons for as he sees it, supporting Mdude. I respond to this RfC as someone who stumbled upon the Dylan article, and then ploughed through the discussion page, and then this page. I am not qualified to comment on factual accuracy, and I have not compared the different versions, so have no position on writing style etc.

It seems to me that:

1. There are two issues here: a) JDG disputed with Mdude about keeping the article in substantially the same state that it was when featured, and Mdudes heavy handed edits. b) Mdude and Lula have various disputes culminating in the Christian period debate. I do not suggest that these issues are not linked, but they are different disputes, and will require different resolutions.

In respect of a), Mdude's edits appear to have been factually correct (I find no dissent), made in good faith, and according to JDG, well writen. Mdude's defence of the drastic nature of the edit - that to untangle the chronology needs a single big edit - seems reasonable to me. JDG's oft-repeated complaint that Mdude should discuss changes in the talk page actually seems to have been taken on eventually by Mdude, as he certainly discusses changes with Lula. I suggest that Mdude's edits, while perhaps a little brash, seem useful, should stand, and we should move on.

In respect of b), using the Christian debate as exemplar of this issue, Mdude does seem to have been unconstructive by not suggesting his own wording (at least, as far as I can see, in talk). However, he does have a point regarding whether or not Bob's Christian era has ended. Based on my knowledge, it seems pretty obvious that 3 of his albums are especially religious, but perhaps this needs to be described less absolutely than 'the Christian era'. I hope and trust that all sides agree that whether the Christian era has ended or not, or more likely something in between, is controverted. I suggest that Mdude drafts phrasing about this issue, as I have not seen any from this user, and then this can be modified from there.

2. Some general points just to smack both sides around like a teacher:

a)There is a LOT of hypocrisy floating around this debate! As an example, Mdude has been charged with acting as a guard over 'his' page. It seems to me this is just what JDG was doing initially. No doubt JDG will respond saying he was open to constructive change, but so will Mdude, so get over it.

b) JDG and Lula both seem to be quite agressive to what is a newish user. Their paranoia on the talk page of this page seems ridiculous - they should remember that this is not a war should not round up wiki friends in response to some supposed sockpuppeting!

c) Mdude for his part has a tendancy to take affront, but not advice, and to resond with pedantry rather than constructive comment.

d) JDG and Lula fear that all that will come out of this is resolution that Mdude should play nicer. I'm afraid that that is surely all they can reasonably expect from bringing a RfC against an individual whose edits, they admit, are not, taken individually, a hinderence, but collectively seem somewhat brash. I feel that JDG and Lula's tones throughout this dispute have been very similar to Mdude's, just that their arrogence is that of experienced Wikipedians, whereas Mdude's is that of the hardcore dylanologist.

3. The good thing about this dispute is that it is a clash of styles that, if this conflict is resolved, should be complementary. To polarise their skills, JDG and Lula represent the experienced wikiers, while Mdude's got the knowledge (not that Lula and JDG appear to particularly lack it, just that Mdude seems to have corrected them a few times). Work it out, and don't blame each others' intransigence, please!

Users who endorse this statement:

  1. Sambostock 23:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC). I'm more-or-less on board with Sambostock's characterization. Except it's not that I "fear that all will come out of this is ... Mdude should play nicer". Such is the most I ever hoped for; and so far, Monicasdude has only contemptuously dismissed the notion of "playing nicer" (well, also the minor claim that Monicasdude ever "corrected" any fact I added, but I limit myself to those edits I know factually). FWIW, though I've been a fan of Luiz Inácio da Silva since his 1989 unsuccessful candidacy, my username is actually "Lulu".

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Monicasdude_d9ab.html"