Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Monicasdude

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Due Diligence 2 Earlier behavior 3 RFC Requirements 4 Outside comment by Ccoll 5 Format of RfC 6 Additional comment by Ccoll 7 Consensus, expertise and knowledge 8 Response by Monicasdude 8.1 Response by Monicasdude, again 8.1.1 Content and behavior 9 Please Note 10 Please Color within the Lines 11 Important qualifiers 12 Disappearing material 13 Requests for Summaries 14 JDG's own little rebuttal area 15 Proposal for disposition of text 16 0 mph down a dead end street 17 Sockpuppets and anonymous sycophants 18 We interrupt this inquisition . . . 19 Children are often the victims of family disputes 20 Ok so what's happening? 21 Remedies 22 Commercial agenda of Monicasdude

[edit] Due Diligence

Please note: I stand ready to join this RfC as a certifying user, but I am allowing the defendant another day or so to accept informal mediation by Ryan Delaney, as I advise him at Talk:Bob_Dylan#Informal mediation. I have almost no hope defendant will change his anti-collaboration practices as a result of informal mediation, but formal proceedings should be a last resort and I feel due diligence calls for one more good-faith informal attempt. JDG 07:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

Ok, those 24 hours have come and gone. Monicasdude has not used this extended time to avail himself of informal mediation. The RfC proceeds. Soul Embrace, I hope to see your vote and/or comments recorded on the RfC. I know you are one of the editors whose contributions have mostly been lost in all this tumult. Whichever way you go, the more expresssed opinions we get on this RfC, the more definitive its conclusions will be and the better chance we'll have of getting back to work on the Dylan article with a good new common understanding. JDG 16:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It is done. Soul Embrace 01:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Earlier behavior

JDG states on a talk page that the primary anti-wiki actions occurred back in early June. I tend to believe such based on the talk page; however, my first edit/view of the page was later than that. I would appreciate assistance (by JDG or others) in documenting prior behavior similar to that which I have documented for the August timeframe. Thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:33, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

As noted above, I am waiting to see if Monicasdude continues to refuse informal mediation by Ryan Delancey through the morning of 29 Aug.. If he does, I will be amending this RfC as a co-certifying user along with LotLE, and a full treatment of the offending June behavior as well as satisfaction of all remaining RfC requirements will be done at that time (about noon 29 Aug.). I trust no one will enact speedy delete during this short interval. JDG 23:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Requirements

This RFC needs to have all the fields filled out, including evidence of disputed behavior, applicable policies, and trying and failing to resolve the dispute. Otherwise, it may be speedied. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside comment by Ccoll

Am I being paranoid in thinking User:Ccoll's outside comment is a bit peculiar? Especially the fact that the user has made a very small number of edits (i.e. 18) prior to this comment (but going back over a month, so not created specifically for this RfC).

The other outside comments are somewhat critical of me, and I confess there is something to an accusation that I can be brusque in tone, and fail on WP:AGF. But Ccoll comment is peculiarly obsequious about Monicasdude, e.g. Monicasdude is one of the web's leading authorities on the subject of the article.. This certainly strongly suggests an acquaintance with Monicasdude greatly beyond what is suggested by a review Ccoll's edit history, or by what is in evidence in the RfC or in the changelogs of the page at issue. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:02, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

It appears User:Ccoll is most likely an online or real-life acquaintance or friend of Mdude's who also happens to be a Wikipedia editor. There's a chance Mdude introduced him to WP and he would not be here without Mdude, but none of this can be the basis for any real complaint. Mdude is apparently drumming up what support he can via non-Wikipedia means of communication, which is understandable. We should do the same, although I will merely be asking people to vote without pressuring them to vote in a particular way. This could well backfire with some Wikipedia "acquaintances". If so, so be it. JDG 16:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I only "know" Monicasdude from his contributions at Dylan web sites, including the one he runs, and from his posts at rec.music.dylan. I am barely on the map in these places, and I don't think he and I have ever even commented in the same thread. But I am an avid reader of online Dylan material, and it seems reasonable to expect anyone looking to create the Dylan article here would be, too. But Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has already derogated rec.music.dylan (though perhaps at an emotional moment), and the previous version of the article JDG prefers doesn't show much familiarity with more recent Dylan information and debates. If you came here familiar with online Dylan material, you would probably "know" Monicasdude. Assuming there must be a connection between us is classic paranoia! Not to mention checking up on my "profile." The thrust of my "outside view," which was to analyze the structure of the conflict so that the relevant policy could be applied, should have made it clear I am a relative newbie, since I don't know what is the content of the relevant policy. Ccoll 20:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think of rec.music.dylan as a "message board" which was the phrase at issue. I suppose it is, in a sense. But as an old guy who used Usenet since before there was a Web, I think of "message board" as having a different meaning (there are some technology distinctions that support my understanding; but I can see how it's reasonable for non-technologists to think of Usenet as a kind of message board).

I'm not sure how Ccoll knows Monicasdude does these other things, since his user page doesn't say anything about it. But my guess would be that the latter uses the same username in other places, hence making the connection (but I don't know for sure). The obsequious phrase still reads very oddly, especially since it only very tangentially touches on the RfC isssue (and is so hyperbolic). But I accept Ccoll's statement of his external familiarity (but not personal acquaintance) with Monicasdude. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:00, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Right, I'm making the connection based on user name. It could be an extremely unlikely coincidence. Your comments about different technologies again raises the interesting question of outsiders/insiders. But how can WP exist independent of other resources? This dynamic -- experts (sorry if you think that's hyperbolic) from other venues/web sites coming into pre-existing WP articles and not caring so much about WP in and of itself as the "old guard" of WP, must be happening elsewhere here -- that's the insight I'm trying to get across. There must be some precedents or lessons learned elsewhere. Ccoll 21:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree there are interesting issues about the role of expertise on Wikipedia vs. in other contexts. However, that is a discussion for elsewhere. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:32, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

You know, this "expertise" business might be the root of the problem. Very few newcomers, and I suspect a great deal of established Wikipedia editors, under stand these rules. See, under the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies forbid an expert from treating his opinion as inherently better than anyone else's. That some people think Monicasdude is an expert on Bob Dylan is totally irrelevant. That someone thinks you are an expert does not accord you any special authority over Wikipedia articles on that topic - you must still cite your sources, conform to established policy, and above all, be willing to work with others. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Amen. Ryan Delaney gets this exactly right!

I think, based on what I've seen (i.e. only on WP), the alleged expertise Monicasdude holds is greatly overstated. I don't doubt he has a vanity website, or writes voluminously to "message boards" (category including, loosely, Usenet), but such genuine expertise is not in evidence. Still, let's stipulate for these purposes that Monicasdude really is "the world's greatest expert on Dylan." It still doesn't make a bit of difference to editing WP. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:22, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

The issue of respect (or lack of it) for expertise is a fairly hot topic. But I think Ccoll's assessment of the dynamic is pertinent to the RfC. Yes, it commonly happens elsewhere here. There are articles that suffer because experts are in charge, and don't see problems such as 'completism' (i.e. excessive non-notable detail) or the jargon of their own specialism. Which is why I don't accept that expert knowledge justifies rejecting consensus. Tearlach 02:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I also think that Ccoll (and Monicasdude) has a somewhat misdirected concept of consensus. Ccoll, on the RfC seems to be hinting at the idea that we should look at "the consensus of the world/experts." Somewhere in the Dylan talk, Monicasdude justified his edits because his version was allegedly the consensus of "Dylan message boards."

Consensus matters, but the only consensus that matter on Wikipedia is consensus among WP editors. Someone joining WP doesn't join as "the official representative of X outside group"... they join as themselves, and as themselves alone. Monicasdude is exactly one editor when he gets to WP, no better and no worse than any other one editor. Even if he is the "web's leading authority", that gives him exactly one "vote" (but we don't "vote", no more and no less. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:45, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

In any case, it's not consensus of the personal opinions of the editors themselves, but of their presentation of the sources that they cite. Assuming the summaries above are accurate, the "consensus of the world/experts" looks fine if it's solidly-sourced in the views of known and agreed experts. But the collective view of a Usenet newsgroup isn't very credible by Wikipedia standards. Tearlach 03:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, no, to Tearlach, I'm afraid. Consensus means consensus of human beings, in other words, their opinions. The facts/sources cannot "speak for themselves"—they need human beings to do the talking for them. However, the human being who participate in editing WP should bring not just opinions, but informed opinions, and also opinions that can be swayed by additional evidence. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:22, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

[edit] Format of RfC

Who has authority to enforce sectioning formatting of the RfC? It seems to me that the section currently titled "Additional comment by Tearlach" should simply be called "Outside view by Tearlach", and that the section now called "Additional comment by Ccoll" should not be there at all, but on this Talk page instead. Do we look to Ryan Delaney for formatting decisions? JDG 21:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I admit I don't know whether comments under signatures are allowed or not; I formatted that way to make it clear my comment was intended as a footnote to my endorsement of Ccoll's analysis. Tearlach 01:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a wiki :-). Anyone can edit.

I'd say that if you think some editor might object to a reformatting of their comment, check with them; but otherwise, be bold.

FWIW, I put Tearlach's comment under a subsection, because it seemed kinda like an elaboration of his endorsement of Ccoll's comment rather than an independent statement. And I think you're kinda right that Ccoll's extra comment is more of a talk thing; but I didn't want to move it to Talk without permission. I think JDG long outside comment endorsement (caveats, etc) might also go better as a subsection or the like. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

I don't have any special authority to enforce formatting decisions. My only power is to delete the RFC if it is not certified. If you want my opinion, I think this is not something that is worth arguing about. It's like a meta-meta-debate. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additional comment by Ccoll

Another way to look at it might be as an outsider/insider conflict. The concept "outside view" strikes me to think this way. My outside view was questioned by insiders to the conflict, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and JDG, because like Monicasdude I am a relative outsider to Wikipedia. Yet I am pretty knowledgeable about Bob Dylan from other venues (listening, books, elsewhere online). Does that disqualify me from giving an "outside view"?; maybe here, it does. What's supposed to happen between editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia but familiar with the subject of an article up to this point edited by, on the other hand, people familiar with Wikipedia practices and culture but less familiar with the subject? Again, is Wikipedia as an experience, a process, even a community meant to trump Wikipedia as an ultimately valuable resource? Tearlach rightly points to the important role of editing, but the content still needs to be fixed with consensus. --Ccoll 21:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's important to make one point on Ccoll's idea that there is perhaps some tradeoff involved when choosing consensus over a sanctioned dominance of the "expert". I would affirm that there is indeed a tradeoff and that the ideal approach is for less knowledgeable editors to master their egos and encourage the more knowledgeable editor(s) to take the leading role. In the case of the Dylan article, I was not even strictly insisting on fullblown consensus-building. I simply wanted Monicasdude to discuss his plans, as should always be done when such extensive changes are contemplated for a Featured Article, after which I may well have tipped my hat and said "please, proceed". But Monicasdude refused even to discuss. That is when the situation deteriorated, as it inevitably will when one user treats others that way (not just me, but by extension all the editors who raised that text to FA status). Also complicating this particular job: the expert's factual acumen far exceeded his compositional acumen. This is another reason why planned changes should have been discussed, allowing those with complementary abilities to raise the prose itself to the standard of the existing but less accurate text. JDG 07:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus, expertise and knowledge

(a thread on my user talk page moved here because it relates to above evolving discussion).

Thanks for the note. I'm learning a lot about Wikipedia through observing this conflict, and I agree that more discussion of what I brought up there might distract from resolving it. I am impressed by the concern you and the others involved show for "the Wiki way," though I'm beginning to think that honoring Wikipedia as a body in and of itself might threaten the quality of individual articles. This would mean it could be emotionally fulfilling to participate, but not necessarily to depend on the site as a valuable resource for learning, whether you're doing serious research or just browsing for common wisdom. I'm an academic, so I'm interested in what Wikipedia can provide (common wisdom is often inaccurate), and I am trained to see the value in expert knowledge over good-faith consensus-building. Academic research is peer-reviewed; Wikipedia has an equivalent process in place, but the qualifications are, like you say, open to all.

I cannot prove it, of course, but I honestly believe that a better standard of knowledge can and will emerge from the Wikipedia "radical democratic" approach to content creation than do from more hierarchical styles. In the concrete case that prompted these comments, I'd infinitely prefer the "emergent properties" of less expert collaborators than trusting one self-appointed expert such as Monicasdude; or even to some committee- or organizationally- appointed subject-area expert. "Experts" are often wrong, for reasons both ideological and banal (do you know Thomas Kuhn, btw?), probably more often than they're right.

I am an academic also. Well, kinda, I don't have a university post anymore; but I do have a Ph.D. in philosophy. Larry Sanger, who you may know is the one and only paid employee Wikipedia ever had (he calls himself "co-founder", but actual founder Jimbo Wales denies that title), is also a philosophy Ph.D. (in Epistemology) who has recently criticized the thoroughgoing anti-elitism of Wikipedia. I actually believe his take is mostly sour grapes, since Sanger's earlier Nupedia was a failure precisely because (IMO) it embodied a traditional academic peer review knowledge structure.

I'm not completely against a peer-review system. For original research (which is not the realm of WP), peer-review is probably important. Or at least a necessary sin. But for what WP is, I believe not in the force of authority, but in the force of the better argument (or the better evidence). Yeah, some people are wrong. Some people are idiots, truth be told. But enough people are more right than wrong that emergent consensus is asymptotically the closest we can ever get to real truths. It's not perfect, but that's the nature of the human epistemic plight. Moreover, in the concrete, pages that deal with specialized area attract editors with the right specialties (as an eventual trend, not necessarily in the short-term).

Actually, I think the situation is most acute for topics like Dylan, about whom a LOT of people know at least a fair amount and almost everyone knows a little. Really, what's Wikipedia's purpose there? Wikipedia seems more useful as potentially a reliable reference for getting the basics of things like, oh, the Peace of Westphalia, than trying to build consensus on a topic about which everyone who reads the article knows the basics already. But maybe that's just a newbie's perspective! --Ccoll 04:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there's something there. Except not everyone knows something about Dylan (the world's a big place). But close enough. For topics where a lot of people know a little (and a fair number feel strongly), special problems arise. And where the "experts" are generally self-appointed, that hardly helps the consensus process. That's really the meaning of my somewhat sarcastic remark about "Dylan message boards"... people who "put the 'fanatic' in 'fan'" (so to speak) can well know a whole lot of facts (as Monicasdude does) without really synthesizing it into knowledge.

And still less does a raw collection of fact amount to a good encyclopedia article. As a professional writer, one slogan I know to be true is: "Behind every good writer is a better editor." Well, actually I don't follow that as much as I should in my paid work, but then I'm still looking for that great editor (apologies to my various quite good editors, I don't mean that so brusquely). On WP, I've contributed very valuable edits to topics where I have essentially zero subject-matter expertise. In part that's because I know what a reader needs, which isn't just a random recitation of "things that are true." Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:35, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

Excellent points, LotLE. It would help the project if you were to spend some significant time amending policies in this direction. JDG 16:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Monicasdude

On the RfC Mdude has written, "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."

To Mdude: It would be better if you were to begin your response immediately. You are as free to revise as we go along as anybody else. RfC's, as I understand them, are loose, rolling affairs and no one can really count on getting the last word. JDG 16:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It's good that Monicasdude has finally posted some response material. Oddly, he writes in it:

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.

In my own experience, I have never seen an RfC that was not periodically altered during discussion, nor ever seen one where the user whose behavior is addressed claimed to be unable to respond until it was "complete." YMMV. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:21, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

[edit] Response by Monicasdude, again

My mileage does not vary. I have never seen an RfC that was not periodically altered, or at least added to.

I received a response from Monicasdude on my user talk page. Rather than copy it, I will link it: User talk:Robert McClenon#RfC / Monicasdude comments. It is at least more of a reply than the statement that he will not reply.

I find the reply by Monicasdude troubling, in that he thanks me for my thoughtful analysis, but he does not address the substance of it, which is that I ask him to reply. I do agree with him Lulu is being confrontational. On the other hand, Monicasdude's failure to respond gives the (perhaps mistaken) impression of arrogance or superiority. Monicasdude does make one good point, which is that the length of the complaint makes a point-by-point reply difficult.

I have a suggestion. It is not entirely possible to separate content from conduct in this case. Can Lulu or one of the other signers please present a short summary of specific content issues that illustrate how Monicasdude is disrespecting consensus? I see that there is for instance a disagreement as to the extent of time in which Christianity was a major theme in Dylan's music. Could the nature of this disagreement be summarized? Monicasdude disagrees with the other editors. Is his disagreement based on original research, or on sources? Are the other editors basing their position on original research, or on sources? Since the RfC does contain a long list of complaints, can the certifiers summarize a few of them that can be discussed?

I hope that this case will not go to arbitration. The arbitrators will have a difficult time because it is hard to separate content from conduct. However, if it does, each party will be asked to present a statement of no more than 500 words. The certifiers need to present a short summary. Monicasdude needs to present a summary of why he disagrees with the short summary. Robert McClenon 16:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Content and behavior

Per Robert McClenon, I'll comment on his above remarks.

I do not want this RfC to be confused with a content dispute. Monicasdude's initial response (which he pretends is an outside view, for some reason), goes into painful detail about content, while not addressing the RfC issue at all. Basically the RfC can be summed up in a sentence: Monicasdude does not cooperate over page editing.

Let me try to sum up the content matter that prompted this very briefly. But a caveat here again: even if Monicasdude were to fully concede the content language and/or I were to become fully convinced of different facts (neither very likely), the underlying behavior/attitude would still be a problem. If not a dispute about Dylan's Christian trilogy, it would be over some other unrelated edit that someone tried to make.

• It is "common knowledge" that Dylan did three Christian albums in the late-1970s/early-1980s, but not before that or after that. The Dylan talk page contains a number of external quotes (or quotes on related WP pages) that say as much. I could easily locate hundred of other similar characterizations: basically any article, anywhere, that mentions Dylan in the last couple decades. Prior to this problem with Monicasdude, I have never even heard of anyone characterize the fact much differently.

• Monicasdude removes any external quotes as "unreliable" though. So in his worldview, the only "reliable" evidence is his own original research.

• Monicasdude has an extremly novel original research thesis that all the albums after this time are just as (proselytic/overt/explit/whatever) Christian as are the "Christian trilogy." It's, frankly, a really weird thesis; just listening to the respective albums pretty obviously refutes it. On three consecutive albums Dylan's lyrics are directly prosyletic, and explicitly mention Jesus, faith, heaven/hell, obedience to God, and why you better believe in that stuff. Those are good albums, albeit a bit preachy. Before and after those three albums, Dylan's lyrics are much more metaphorical and allusory, and like any artist from Western cultures, some allusions are to religious/biblical/xtian themese (just like lyrics of, say, Tom Waits or Leonard Cohen, neither of whom has ever been sensibly characterized as Christian).

• No one really knows what personal religious beliefs Dylan now holds, or held in 1985, or 1995, or whatever. Well, I suppose close friends might, and Dylan himself; none of the editors on WP are either of those things. As celebrities go, Dylan is private about that sort of thing. For myself, I really could not care less about Dylan's religious belief, apart from a moderate interest in its overt effect on his recorded material.

• In "support" of his original research thesis, Monicasdude cites obsessive details about every song Dylan has performed in concert since 1983. I guess that's all recorded somewhere, by fans. Some of those songs are from his Christian trilogy. And some of those songs are gospel(-ish) cover songs written by other people. Although Monicasdude doesn't mention it, Dylan also performed covers of religious songs going back at least to 1962 (e.g. In my time of dying on Dylan's aponymous album). The "evidence" Monicasdude cites is completely unrelated to the "common knowledge" sentence or two some editors have tried to put in the article. But Monicasdude thinks that a sufficient volume of similar irrelevant detail will somehow prove his thesis (what you can't prove with quality, you prove with quantity, I suppose).

It's certainly true that Monicasdude can and does produce "more facts" than I will ever have a desire to. Superficially, the overwhelming verbosity of these facts almost seems like it might somehow support his original thesis. But in fact, the facts are not even on the same topic as the sentence or two around which Monicasdude's intransigence prompted this RfC. It really has the same quality as conspiracy theorists who have some idea about the JFK assassination, or space aliens, or something: they can provide endless details on things that happened, or may have happened, and then demand a "refutation" of their voluminous collection of trivia. You cannot win in that game, some of the trivia really is true, and even if you can show some little snippet is false, they have a hundred more snippets to fill its place. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:41, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

[edit] Please Note

I'm afraid I've again taken ill (this will happen pretty often). I probably won't be able to get my full Description together before next Tuesday or so. In the days following that I hope to see Mdude's defense and then a relatively quick move on resolutions.

I'm going to give a quick description of the proposal I plan to make on this RfC. I post it now so that the rest of you can think it over and hopefully cast your "votes" quickly when the time comes. Proposal: Two sub-pages will be created off of Bob Dylan. One of these pages will be a new baseline Dylan article formulated by myself, LotLE and whoever cares to join us. The other sub-page will be a verson of Bob Dylan favored by Monicasdude and whoever he invites to join him. When all these editors declare that their sub-pages are ready, a vote will be held on the Dylan Talk page or perhaps a page created for the vote. The vote will decide which of the two sub-pages will be used as the new Dylan article. This vote will be organized and overseen by a volunteer Administrator who will decide, among other things, how long the voting period will be. At the conclusion of this vote the winning sub-page will become Bob Dylan and the edit block will be lifted. At some point prior to the lift of the block, Mdude will pledge that he will not save *significant* changes to the new Dylan article without prior discussion on the Talk page. A definition of "significant" will be arrived at and a volunteer Administrator will be chosen as an ongoing mediator. If Mdude does not agree to these terms, the winning sub-page will replace the current article, and the new article will remain blocked to editing until a consensus on how to proceed from there is reached. JDG 17:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I am disappointed that the initiator of an RFC which purports to be about cooperation can propose something so divisive: "whoever cares to join us" against "Monicasdude and whoever he invites to join him". So 'your side' is elective while 'his' is only by invitation? And just how is this helpful? Could we not build a single high quality new article together? —Theo (Talk) 22:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not on the same page as JDG on this idea of bifurcating an article, and having two versions "compete" for votes. I think that approach is unwikilike, and ultimately unworkable. In fact, in a way, it's anathema to cooperation, the refusal of which by Monicasdude is exactly the problem this RfC addresses. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:55, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Sometimes a little healthy competition is just the thing to cut through the over-personalized bickering. Sorry you guys don't see it that way. Any other ideas? Or is this RfC really going to amount to a bunch of people saying "Monicasdude, old chap, give a go at being a touch sunnier here on out, will you old boy?", and Monicasdude saying "I'll see what I can do on that front, fellas." ?? JDG 00:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I'm vehemently opposed to your idea, JDG. If some other editors, and especially administrators, really endorsed your approach, I'd be happy to give it a try. But it just doesn't match my initial feeling about what can or will happen. If Monicasdude actually did comment something like the above rather than continuing to act self-rightous and confrontational... well, that would go a long way in my mind. Pretty much (in my very limited experience), that's about the most that can come out of an RfC. Unfortunately, it does not yet seem headed even in that direction. Bleach. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:01, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

[edit] Please Color within the Lines

Please do not edit any other editor's portion of the article. Only Monicasdude should present a response. The response that Monicasdude posted on my user talk page is relevant, but was not intended to be his main response.

Please do not annotate another user's summary. Robert McClenon 16:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not transfer anything from any other page, FWIW (well, except my original statement, which I modified from a comment I had made on the Dylan talk page). I did try to modify the layout of the RfC slightly to put Monicasdude's response into the Response section. No words were changed in his comment, I just wanted the layout to match the RfC template. For some reason, Monicasdude does not want to follow the RfC template, and reverted that... and I'm not going to bother trying to argue about that too. However, it does seem like even this little thing is yet another small example of Monicasdude's intransigence about cooperating with other editors (a Wiki is different from a blog, which I think he hasn't quite picked up on). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:55, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Given the overt hostility shown towards Monicasdude, it does not seem unreasonable that he wishes to see the first full draft of the "case against him" before responding 'formally'. Lulu changes the presentation of Monicasdude's comments and then suggests that he is uncooperative when he objects to this unsolicited change. Part of this RFC berates MD for making changes without prior discussion. I see double standards here. —Theo (Talk) 22:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the part of this RfC that berates Monicasdude for "making changes without prior discussion". Certainly I have no complaint along those lines. My complaint is that Monicasdude refuses to cooperate with other editors, which the reversion of my minor correction of the RfC page was minor example of. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:50, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

Well, my part of this RfC is largely about that, except it is about the very narrow case of radically overhauling longstanding Featured Articles without any discussion while a fellow editor is asking to discuss, not just any old changes no matter how small. These important qualifiers seem completely lost on Theo, Mdude himself and a few others. Odd, they're bright guys and it's a very simple thing. JDG 00:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: Just don't edit stuff that other people have written. Leave discussion on the talk page. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Important qualifiers

JDG: It is not that I do not understand that your concern was about that radical nature of the original changes. Nor that you felt that the previous form of the featured article was of long standing. Nor that you were asking for those changes to be discussed. I agree that the original edit to which you objected was radical. I understand that you wished the change to be discussed because you feel that bold substantial changes to featured articles should be discussed before implementation. I disagree with you on this. I have no problems with bold changes to any article and I think that reversion in such a case is inappropriate. You complain that changes were made while you were asking for discussion. I see it that the original change was restored and modified after you reverted it and demanded that permission be sought. I wish to caricature the pertinent events to highlight the key points by exaggeration for brevity; if you feel this to be unfair, just delete it: MD made a radical overhaul; JDG obliterated all that work and told MD to present it piecemeal for approval. MD who sees things legally cites BE BOLD. JDG who does not recognise a newbie says not in this case: that is only for people we respect (a gross exaggeration on my part here). MD asks for third party help while an edit war rages. Both sides become angry and incivil. In my opinion the following were inappropriate: Monicasdude's radical overhaul without prior discussion (a newbie error); JDG's original reversion without comment at MD's talk page (too harsh); JDG's demand for piecemeal presentation (too highhanded: list the problems and suggest incremental change); Monicasdude's reversion (confrontational: move the new version to a subpage as a proposal). —Theo (Talk) 09:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Having written the above, I realised that I should start cooperative working. Please visit Bob Dylan/Draft. —Theo (Talk) 09:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disappearing material

What is going on here? Entire swaths of the RfC have apparently been deleted. I don't have time to track down who exactly did what, but entire large paragraphs were deleted from the RfC, apparently because they looked to someone like stuff that should be on this Talk page-- but they were not added to this page! What gives? JDG 05:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed a lot of stuff to stop the RFC from becoming a debate. I didn't put it back here because I figure that anyone who wants to move it here can do it themselves- not because I'm lazy, but because I didn't know whether the involved people would want it here. The RFC template says pretty clearly that there is supposed to be no discussion on the main article page, and yet some people have taken in upon themselves to argue anyway. I'm just trying to keep this under control. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 16:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Ryan, I am not familiar with dispute resolution mechanisms, so I'll just defer to you. I'd like to say, though, that the RfC format should allow for a few levels of rebuttal. These levels exist in things like formal debates and courtroom procedure for good reason. JDG 23:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttals go on the talk pages, as you have already been doing. I didn't make these rules, although I do agree with them. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for Summaries

Robert McClenon posted this on the main page, but it didn't seem to pertain to the RFC itself, so I am moving it here. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Monicasdude has a valid point that this RfC is a long series of points. Most RfCs are. However, since he says that he does not want to respond to the facts while the RfC is evolving, can the certifiers provide a short summary of the diffs that they think warrant the RfC?

Monicasdude states that he has provided sourced material that has been deleted. Can he provide specific examples in a few diffs?

[1] [2] [3] User: Lulu has deleted my proposed text regarding the continuing religious themes in Dylan's writings, and is particularly disparaging about the citation of published commentaries which contradict his opinions. Monicasdude 04:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

There was an informal attempt at mediation. It did not succeed. The mediator states that Monicasdude refused mediation. Monicasdude disagrees. Can Monicasdude state why he thinks the mediation failed?

I believe the mediation attempt failed because the person who presented himself as a mediator did so in a manner which gave both sides reason to doubt his impartiality (pleasing one of the two sides, of course). His refusal to respond to the question I raised prompted each side to harden its position. Monicasdude 04:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I am placing this symbol under blocks of commentary that will be of particular interest as we move on to remedies. Here we see the respondent trying to blame failure of mediation on the mediator. All other parties agreed to this mediator, who is an Administrator in good standing. The would-be mediator said nothing prejudicial beforehand. Monicasdude siezed on a neutral request to sink the mediation attempt while trying to make it look like he wasn't. Note that mediation never even started. Monicasdude wouldn't let it. This adds bad faith in mediation to the general charges of anti-collaborative editing and heavy-handed reverts. JDG 01:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Mdude stated his objection plainly here and on the talk page. He wished the mediation to concern a particular subject and not be an open-ended "gab-fest" as you put it. He asked on the Bob Dylan talk page what the subject of the mediation would be, but the proposed mediator never replied. The design of the RfC and the ex parte discussions here and elsewhere seem to me like attempts to overwhelm the subject with various accusations so he'll be forced to concede something, rather than to pose serious inquiries about his conduct. Mdude was thus entirely justified (and I should add quite prescient) in his concerns about focusing on a particular subject. 64.154.26.251 17:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Well Mr.64, you and I are looking at all of this very differently and never the twain shall meet, so I'd advise you to spare yourself any further efforts directed at me. To me, a user who's kicked up a veritable little whirlpool of other editors complaining bitterly about his behavior over months is just being transparently obstructionist when he holds up informal mediation on one small point of clarification, pushing the would-be mediator (a busy Admin and frequent contributor) to painstakingly justify this small point as a basis for the overall mediation when it was totally obvious the mediation involved many other larger points. Mdude might like to pretend that the overarching issue of "anti-collaborative habits" is no basis for anything, but Wikipedia policy is very clear that it is and Ryan Delaney knew it. Why should Ryan have gone on with these bloviations when it was plain Mdude was just stalling or trying to derail things by defining-down the grounds for mediation into something none of the objecting parties even considered a major issue? Ryan just moved on and got the inevitable underway and did nothing prejudicial in the least. You say "The design of the RfC and the ex parte discussions here and elsewhere seem to me like attempts to overwhelm the subject with various accusations so he'll be forced to concede something, rather than to pose serious inquiries about his conduct". This is way off the mark. Our problems with Mdude's behavior are tied to very specific incidents with very specific transgressions of good and fair collaborative practices. You fall into the blind zone Mdude does, or else you both willfully ignore specific charges. How many times will I have to repeat that rolling out a giant, undiscussed overhaul of a FA in one shot while a fellow editor is asking to discuss, and then engaging in a revert war to keep the ill-advised overhaul "live", is prima facie anti-collaborative? That overhaul should not stand. The editor who does this needs to rethink his approach. Until he rethinks it, he will not be free of disputes like this. And this is just one example of Mdude's anti-collaborative actions. This RfC is so long not to "overwhelm" but simply because the respondent's offenses are so many that the mere cataloging of them requires space. Do you think your dancing around the specific offences makes the offenses disappear? That would be a neat magic dance, if only it worked... I'm curious, why have you invested so much time and effort defending Mdude? Do you find his position in all this so compelling? Are you a big fan of his non-Wikipedia Dylan-related stuff? What is it? You're under no obligation to answer, I just can't fathom it. JDG 19:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Can this case be taken to the Mediation Committee for formal mediation to focus on how to improve collaboration between these editors? Robert McClenon 21:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JDG's own little rebuttal area

Rebuttal the First

In his RfC Response, Monicasdude writes: "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."

REBUTTAL: I guess predictably, we have Monicasdude going for a legalistic way out rather than listening and reflecting on whether he can change his ways. This call for a speedy deletion is like a motion from a desperate lawyer asking for a case to be thrown out on a technicality nobody is going to fall for. This RfC is about one ongoing dispute, manifested over dozens of separate edit actions. That dispute is Monicasdude's anti-collaboration habits. All arguments and all incidents described by all certifiers are about that single, overarching, ongoing dispute. Technically, the dispute is with Lulu of the Lotus Eaters. The other descriptions provide relevant history and corroboration-by-example. End of story. JDG 17:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for disposition of text

This is a mess. Lulu and Monicasdude are moving all these chunks of text back and forth. It's impossible to keep track of anything. It looks like Lulu is in the right, as his changes uphold the recognized RfC format. Mdude apparently has either no conception of or no respect for that format (and skips blithely on, as usual). I propose that no one other than Ryan Delaney touch any text on either the RfC or this Talk page. He's an Admin, he's already familiar with the case, so let's just let him take care of formatting... Do you agree, Ryan? It would mean you'd have to stay on top of it like 3 or 4 times a day... JDG 15:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no way to enforce such a proposal unless the parties agree to it themselves. Frankly I don't think either side is following format perfectly but in the spirit of "ignore all rules", that's no big deal. What I don't like is someone editing what other people wrote for content. That is vandalism. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 03:44, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

So, can we get these pledges? Lulu? Monicasdude? JDG 03:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I have never modified one single word Monicasdude, or anyone else, has written within the RfC page. I did try to put some material under proper headings and sections, but always retaining the entirety of the texts intact. If anything I have placed in the RfC page is in anyway mismatched with the RfC format, I would greatly appreciate any editor correcting my error (not changing my words, of course, but anything about headers, endorsements, sections, etc).

That said, I give up. I no longer have the energy to try to prevent Monicasdude from scribbling at random all over the RfC. In fact, he's now taken to looking through my edit history on completely unrelated pages, and inserting random reverts and nasty comments wherever else I edit. I've given up any hope of this RfC resulting in any recognition by Monicasdude that WP is based on cooperation and assumptions of good faith. Exasperatedly yours, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:25, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way; if this ever goes up to RFAr, as I suspect it will, ArbCom would be more inclined to side with you if they see that you had been trying diplomacy at every step of the way. In a couple weeks, I will unlock the article, and if the disputed behavior continued I will suggest this go to RFAr. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I might still be willing to participate in an RfAr, which has a bit more teeth. But my real hope in writing the RfC was that Monicasdude would appreciate that it was more than just two editors who thought something was wrong, and that such included both admins and people uninvolved in the original Dylan page. All of the antecedent happened. Yeah, some of the outside views rightly opine that I'm also too hot-headed, and they might disagree with some details of my characterization. But basically there's a lot of sentiment that Monicasdude is not very cooperative in editing. Rather than get that message, as far as I can see, Monicasdude just wants to endlessly quibble about some factual issue that occured on the Dylan page, and promote petty squabbles over editing (even of the RfC page itself; or chasing me around if I edit elsewhere). I feel like he's simply fractious, and has no wish to develop cooperative skills. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:53, 2005 September 7 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's looking more and more like RFAr is the only choice. This RfC could go on interminably without having the slightest effect on Mdude. He's already shown his basic response to be "Stuff it, suckas!" and there's not much more to say. I doubt I'll be staying active in this battle. The returns look to be very slight, if that. If the project is at a stage in which the Mdudes are going to run rampant for a while, so be it. Wikipedia will self-heal in the long run. You'll be able to find me working quietly on articles like Agriculture and Thioester, staying away from entries like Bob Dylan. Bob himself, to his own chagrin, has always attracted a lot of pushy inexplicables as fans, so it's no surprise one runs into them here, too... I guess I'll be keeping tabs on things and if it goes to RFAr I'll be lending my four tildes to the cause, but no way will I be putting together big presentations as on this RfC. JDG 15:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 0 mph down a dead end street

Just reading the RfC and this talk page is enough to drive away even the most ardent editor. This whole thing has taken a long time to go nowhere and is in danger of losing momentum. Monicasdude has not stated anywhere (that I can find) that he is willing to cooperate on the article and other editors have continued to demonstrate their frustrations, often in ill-mannered ways. The pity here is that each editor is probably a "fan" willing to share knowledge in one way or another. If any editor cannot cooperate, and play nicely whilst cooperating, there is plenty of room on the net for solo projects. Perhaps now is the time to say "yea" or "nay". As someone once said, "Please get out (of the new one) if you can't lend your hand". Soul Embrace 23:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets and anonymous sycophants

Aside from the overt sockpuppet Monkeyman1235, there's also something a bit disturbing about the "outside comment" by "216.119.etc.". Also known as 64.154.26.251. I can't help but wonder if Monicasdude happens to live in Houston, Texas.

Sure, there's the point that Mr. 216.119.139.12 completely misses the issue in the RfC, and instead heaps praise on Monicasdude's alleged all-knowingness. But OK, fine, editors make of RfC's what they will. What is even more disturbing to me is the subtext of:

As Dylan himself phrased it, Monicasdude "can't help it if he's lucky"...

Y'know, in this metaphor:

They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy,

She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me.

I can't help it if I'm lucky.

Who exactly is meant to die so that Monicasdude may "inherit" the Dylan page?!

It's not who, it's what. The man named Gray represents the old version of the page. Certain people came up with a story that Mdude altered it without due care. After Gray's wife died (the consensus for the old version of the article ended), he was accused of inheriting a million bucks (being in a position to control of the article as he wished). 216.119.139.142 03:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It's, well, deeply threatening to think just a tiny bit about what is apparently going through the mind of Mon^H^H^H216.119.139.12. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:19, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

It's probably not productive to make these kinds of accusations without evidence. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If there's not a rule against anons taking part in dispute resolution, there oughta be. I'll be back to take apart Mr. 216's spew, and it is eminently take apartable. JDG 09:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Remember the Wikipolicy bullet points on "clues that you are engaged in megalomaniac editing"? One of them reads "You say you're going to leave--and then don't"! 216.119.139.142 03:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This edit [4] takes away any shadow of doubt I had in my mind that 216.119.139.142 is another name for Monicasdude. The wording change in removing headers is identical to what Monicasdude has done in the past. Normally I think users have every right to post under whatever user names, or anonymous, as they wish. But as a way to fraudulently represent an outside view in an RfC against a user, that feels like abuse. Would an admin do an IP check on Monicasdude's account to confirm that the sockpuppets really are him? (and also I guess the sockpuppet Monkeyman1235) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:03, 2005 September 13 (UTC)

Lulu your initial behavior was bad, but now you are netting only horse-laughs with what appears to be attempts at pre-emptive strikes. Readers please note this quote by Khaosworks WP:TIAC in evaluating Lulu's fanciful suspicions (or clouding of the issues). P.S. If I am supposed to be Mdude "beyond the shadow of doubt", why did you restore the insulting header? How can Mdude be a sycophant of himself? 216.119.139.33 01:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We interrupt this inquisition . . .

. . . to deny, for the record, that I've been sockpuppeting as any anon user, as Monkeyman, or whatever. There have been two people posting under false flags here, both supportive of the proponents of the RfC : a semi-sockpuppet who's changed his name and done his best to erase his history of extensive abusive editing and conflicts; and user: Lulu, who posted a faux response to the RfC over my signature. And to express regrets to those editors who've posted comments here in good faith, and been subjected to personal attacks (bordering on the delusional) from the proponents of the RfC. Monicasdude 02:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Now that was easy, wasn't it? How about you post again promising to cooperate with everyone? Soul Embrace 22:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Another potentially actionable habit of the respondent's, shown here and elsewhere. Ironically, he breaks the no personal attacks policy while accusing others of personal attacks. In all these cases, other editors are merely trying to stand up to his aggression or rule-breaking without verbal abuse and are met with continuance of the behavior and actual verbal abuse (in this example, respondent calls user:Lulu "delusional"). JDG 02:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Calling two users identical "beyond the shadow of a doubt" simply because they happen to be on the same side of an argument, and because one of the users uses the same boilerplate text the other did after being subjected to bizarre accusations and insults does "border on the delusional", and I should add at least one other commentator on the RfC agrees (see Outside view by Sambostock). 64.154.26.251 17:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Please provide quotes for these bizarre accusations. Until this latest suggestion that Mdude might be sockpuppeting, I can't recall a single accusation that hasn't been affirmed by at least three other editors, usually more. Are we all so bizarre, or could it be that whatever motivates you to defend Mdude also blinds you to his bullying? JDG 02:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Children are often the victims of family disputes

I have become an unwitting victim in this ongoing controversy. On June 11, 2005 Monicasdude removed a link I had posted in the Commentary section of the article on Bob. He stated at the time that he had removed some "inexplicable" links, and mine was on of them. I have posted some things in this regards on the Dylan Talk Page, but have not found a resolution to the matter there. I have been directed to this RIC thing by Soul Embrace, and am therefore stating my case here. This also may be the wrong place, but time will tell. Forgive me if this is the wrong forum. All I would like to do is to repost my link that was posted under the heading, "Come in," She said, "I'll Give You Shelter From the Storm." I have received one objection from someone regarding the content of the link (actually, it seems like his/her objection was more on who the writer thought the article was from, rather than what was in the article). Another editor, JDG, suggested that I write a brief statement about the content of the article. I assume that he means as a leadin to the link. This I would do if allowed to repost the link.

But as far as this controversy with Monicasdude and others is concerned, I really can't speak informedly, as I can only discern the highlights of the matter. But as a victim of Monicasdude's heavy-handedness, I naturally am opposed to his methods,as are others. So while you all have had to send him to his room (so to speak), I have been locked in there also. It would be a different matter if I wanted to post something new, but as my link was one of his victims, it would only be fair to repost my link. After all, the changes he made to everybody else's edits seems to be have been reverted, but mine has been left bleeding in limbo.

I would appreciate some input on this situation (other than saying "tough luck"). I would even like Monacasdude's explanation of his specific action regarding his removal of my link.

I have also posted to things on the Dylan Talk page which I will not post here, but will refer the reader to them. One is on the question of religion inderlying Bob Dylan's work, and the other is on the matter of my link. They are titled: Protest removal of Shelter link; and More on Shelter and Monicasdude, and Christian Controversy. Thank you. Anyone 7, 9:47 PM CST,14 September 2005. 64.139.233.231

[edit] Ok so what's happening?

It's time to wrap up this gabfest. We've been awaiting Mdude's full response for over a week now. I propose we set a date after which we proceed to possible remedies (the likeliest of which, in light of Mdude's total failure here to even grasp why others object to his habits, would be the institution of an RfAR), whether he has finished his response or not. I would say Wednesday 21 Sept. is fair. JDG 21:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Although i have not been a terribly active person in this RfC, I have been reading. I feel that this paragraph here, by jdg, accurately sums up my feelings on the whole deal, and agree with it completely. SECProto 00:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

I'd like to see proposals on what to do from here. After we get a few proposals maybe we can have an informal poll on this page on which to recommend. Who are we recommending it to? The answer is: to all editors. If we can move ahead with a majority consensus from this RfC, the Dylan page can be unprotected and editors who have pledged to follow the RfC consensus can act in accordance with that consensus, referring back to the adoption of this proposal as the basis for their actions.

Here's my proposal: I, Lulu of the Lotus Eaters, Soul Embrace, GWO, BGC and any other goodfaith, non-anonymous editors who endorse the RfC will announce that they have reached an agreement to act in concert after Bob Dylan is unprotected. Members of this "team" agree that Monicasdude's anti-collaborative editing, proven in this RfC, has made work on this article exasperating and unfruitful and they are pledged to keep a watch on the article and to support one another in the likely event of Monicasdude's resumption of dictatorial behavior. In practical terms this means they will act as a reversion tag team. In an editing dispute where Monicasdude is using the revert power to enforce his views, team members will revert back until Monicasdude is at the 3-reverts-per-24-hours limit. This will be the mechanism used to ensure collaboration on the article. Normally, of course, such a tag team would itself be anti-collaborative and against policy. But in this case the team has grown from the dispute resolution process, constitutes the majority opinion in the RfC, and has been forced to this extremity by Monicasdude's failure to pledge any behavior change.

Other proposals? JDG 23:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This seems ridiculous to me... I agree - Mdude needs to engage, but this kind of attidude from JDG is surely just going to put him off? --Sambostock 16:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Monicasdude engaged at length with user:JDG some months back, and the consensus on the article's talk page was that my edits should stand. That's what JDG calls "dictatorial behavior." This isn't a dispute over content or compliance with Wikipedia policies. As far as the dispute with JDG goes, it's pure personal hostility that spills over into his comments directed at other users who don't support him (as with the initial comments he made on your talk page about "suspicions" that your comments weren't made in good faith, but that you'd "simply been recruited to help [me] out." Monicasdude 00:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Pure rubbish. There was no consensus in the slightest for Mdude's changes. As for suspicions of recruitment, those were voiced by another user and I simply and politely invited Sambostock to expand on his views... Sambos, if you don't like the proposal, do you have one of your own? JDG 21:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial agenda of Monicasdude

This general discussion has spread over various user talk pages (as most RfC's probably do). I think it was JDG on some talk page who made an astute observation (sorry I forget where the original occurred). The basic idea was that Monicasdude apparently has one or more personal web sites devoted to Bob Dylan. On those personal sites, he has complete editorial control over content; but those sites receive far fewer hits than does Wikipedia. So Monicasdude has either by mistake or with malice, decided that the Bob Dylan article, and various other articles concerning Bob Dylan, should be simply more widely read versions of Monicasdude's personal web site(s). He has not made any adjustment to his editing style when moving off the sites where he has sole control... apparently with a personal conviction that his knowledge and writing ability are something wonderful, perhaps reinforced in his mind by positive feedback he may have received for his personal pages over the years (neither belief is true, of course; Monicasdude writes poorly, and his knowledge is mostly heaps of trivia rather than helpful understanding [forest/trees thing]).

Most lately, Monicasdude has taken to trying to subvert Wikipedia into being simply advertising for his personal sites. I had not noticed that there was such a link in the Bob Dylan page itself (one of a large number of links at bottom); I'd really like to get rid of that, first thing, when the page is unlocked. But just today, he has littered Live at The Gaslight 1962 with many spam links back to his own site. Aside from the vanity and WP:NOR issue, Monicasdude's personal sites really must be considered commercial sites since they are brimming with paid ads (mostly those google determined ads). As such, links to commercial material is highly frowned upon (though not per se excluded). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow. This is ...quite true, and definately not a good thing. and i noticed monicasdude reverted the deletion of the links to his site on the gaslight 1962 page without a second thought or even comment on the talk page, but with the simple title "RV; vandalous deletion of information", when the version he reverted to actually had less info - no track lengths. anyway. anyone else comment? SECProto 02:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's all keep an eye on the pages, and revert any vandalism or blind reversion by Monicasdude. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

What a fragrant batch of hypocrisy. User: Lulu, who rarely misses a chance to point out his expertise on relevant matters, knows perfectly well that the sites involved -- personal pages hosted on the Lycos network -- are not commercial, that Lycos, like other hosts (e.g., Yahoo/Geocities) actually forbids users from receiving revenue from advertising, and that whatever advertising appears on the page is placed by Lycos and is out of the user's control. While he wants to delete any links to the sites I operate, he does not object to links to the allmusic guide, which is a sales operation akin to Amazon; to www.bobdylan.com, operated by Sony and actively selling merchandise, to www.bobsboots.com, which is a pure commercial site selling memorabilia, advertising, and promoting commercial bootlegs; to expectingrain.com, which has much more prominent sales links to itunes, Amazon, and other retail operations; or to BobLinks, which has its own retail section. Just check out almost any Wikipage related to popular music; you'll see that the majority of external links go to sites with some commercial component, and that the majority of fan sites are financed by ad banners like the ones on my sites -- from which the site operators get no share of the revenue. The internet's not free. Some people finance their sites with retail operations; folks like me carve out a niche where the sites are financed by banner ads that hawk stuff no prudent user of the site would ever be interested in. (Until earlier this year, when Google found a way to screw things up for us.)

As for relative site usage, my Dylan sites are doing quite well, thank you -- I doubt the Wikipedia Dylan sites got 20,000+ page views yesterday -- and the increase in average use since the Wikilinks were added, months ago, despite what user:Lulu says, is under .7% They've been around longer than Wikipedia has. I started them the better part of a decade ago after the RIAA and similar arms of the copyright police (mostly in Europe) forced a fair number of music fan sites to shut down, and, in a few cases, actually raided collector's homes and seized significant noncommercial archives. I've faced down several attempts to shut them down from parts of the music industry. And an important part of doing that is keeping them as noncommercial as possible.

Now do you want to see something really hypocritical? Follow a few of the links user:Lulu put into the vanity Wikipage he wrote about himself. Aside from all the "Hire Me!" type stuff that you'd expect from a not-quite-working academic, you'll find him promoting IBMdeveloperworks. IBM. IBM. Tell me about commercial spam. So when user:Lulu talks about keeping "commercial spam" off Wikipedia, something Bob Dylan said in 1966 comes to mind. "I don't believe you. You're a liar." Monicasdude 03:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I may have missed some links in my recent endeavor to get commercial advertising out of WP articles. A lot of stuff is borderline: more-or-less commercial sites that nonetheless provide some informational content (often slanted, but not empty). This isn't a Dylan thing, I've been working on the same thing at e.g. Digital Rights Management, Tattoo, or Homosexuality (and there are 600k pages I haven't yet made any effort in).

In terms of the specific sites Monicasdude mentions, his is certainly advertising laden. If he says Yahoo or someone puts the ads rather than him, I guess that's so (though the sites added are at "anglefire", maybe that's a subsidiary of something else). In any case, it's quite thick with annoying ads.

Allmusic is an OK resource, but I would mostly want to avoid too much linking to it; internal linking on WP is better. I just looked it up; and it doesn't look like I've ever created a WP link to Allmusic (I once, in this dispute, tried quoting from it as an external source, but the only link I created was to Allmusic.com (i.e. WP internal).

If "bobsboots.com" is commercial, we should probably remove that. Unfortunately, I think we can't entirely avoid mentioning the record lables that musicians are distributed on, though even there linking to WP articles about the labels is better. But for some stuff like specifics on releases, the labels are the definitive sources for some information.

I'm not sure why Monicasdude hosts at an effectively disabled site (ubiquitious obtrusive ads) when you can get a shared server for $5-10/mo. But that's up to him. Let's just minimize any WP links to that type of thing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, if Monicasdude is happy with his page views where he has sole editorial control, why doesn't he just stay there, and leave WP editing to editors who are willing to cooperate... heck, who even think cooperation is a virtue, not a sacrifice. The basic truth is that Wikipedia is worse for Monicasdude's involvement. There are not many editors I'd say that of, but in his case the balance is clear. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Monicasdude is talking about my personal, non-Wikipedia web page or what. My user page doesn't contain any external links, except one to the root of my "vanity" web site (and a mailto: link). But even so, y'know, it's a user page! FWIW, yes IBM is a commercial entity; and they are (indirectly) my main client when I do paid work (i.e. writing). If I saw any WP article that shilled for IBM products, I would certainly remove the link (if it was more commercial than informational)... of course IBM has many products that merit WP articles (none of which I've started, nor I think even edited), and I would imagine minimal mention of IBM pages associated with those products would be appropriate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You know perfectly well what I'm talking about, the vanity encyclopedia entry you wrote about yourself as soon as you arrived here. It's OK for you to have a self-promoting page and use links to pimp your employer, promote your own projects, link to your own website, declare yourself a 20th century philosopher in the same category as Gandhi, Chomsky, Rawls, Strauss, and Whitehead, and hype your book. But people you have diagreements with are held to different standards. Monicasdude 16:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I made an article about myself when I arrived here, as well. The difference is, we seem to have learned from the experience. SECProto 18:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

How absurd, to equate a page in User space to link spamming on an encyclopedia page. The False Moral Equivalence is right up there in the top 3 tricks utilized in Mdude's Bag O' Tricks. JDG 06:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

As I've said twice, I'm referring to the encyclopedia page Lulu wrote about himself (as the category reference makes clear, even if you miss the plain statements). Ignoring the facts seems to be the main item in JDG's bag of tricks. Monicasdude 15:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I think now that Monicasdude might be trying, ever-so-clumsily, to refer to the fact that there is a WP article about me, per my noteriety outside of WP. I did not write very much of that page, however, and it does not contain any commercial links. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Monicasdude, i see you ignored my comment that we seem to have learned from our ... frankly, your argument isn't making sense. SECProto 20:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

user pages on wikipedia are, i would say, exempt from such a rule. The problem i have is not that you've added a link to your offsite pages in the context, but that the links you have added, are firstly too numerous, and secondly, full of trivia and info not relevant to the articles that they've been linked from. I also notice you only respond to lulu, and have yet to respond to my comment in which i asked for a response :) lighten up a bit. SECProto 15:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, the observation you allude to, LotLE, was on Ryan Delaney's Talk page. Ryan has a lot of rules about his Talk page, so he blew it away. It read "What's happening here is this: Mdude is an amateur Dylanologist who for years has maintained extensive Dylan material on the WWW. He is accustomed to the absolute editorial control he has over his web pages, but is not satisfied with the low traffic on those pages. He is aware of Wikipedia's enormous readership and wants his Dylan writing to get that kind of exposure, so, brushing aside the nature of wikis, he has come to Wikipedia to be the author of its Dylan material. He deals with the little problem of other editors by abusing the revert power with such energy that they say "screw this!" and move on. But now his Dylan article is frozen and he's treading water. His strategy now is to wait out the edit block and then to reclaim the main Dylan article as his in a gradual enough way to avoid disciplinary action. Several editors are onto his game and now an Admin is onto it too. Let's see how it plays out." JDG 21:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting comments, but my talk page was getting too chaotic. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 13:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)