Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Monicasdude: Difference between revisions

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: 02:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC).

---

• (Monicasdude | talk | contributions)

---

Statement of the dispute

Description

(description tuned slightly in response to comments)

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?

Additional Description by 2nd Certifying User

I am putting together my description now. I post this in the meantime so that if this approach is a breach of the RfC format, someone can so advise me and let me know the best way to make my position known as a co-certifying user. JDG 18:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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:

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)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Response

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.}

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

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.

Outside view by Theo

Although toned down from its original form I consider the tone of this RFC to remain exaggerated and polemic. I see no evidence of bad faith on the part of Monicasdude. I have cooperated with him on several articles and, although I find his style abrasive, I have no doubt that he seeks to make Wikipedia the best that it could be. His focus on Dylan is no basis for criticism and I do not see "an exaggerated sense of his own writing skills and knowledgeability". Nor do I see him treating Bob Dylan as his page (although I do see him treating aggressive editors as opponents). In the light of his statement that he has used no other account and made a few anonymous edits before establishing User:Monicasdude, I see the phrase "since he began editing on WP (under the user account in question)" as a veiled assertion that he is not new here (a suggestion, in effect, that he has lied). The assertions that he "inevitably" reverts Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' changes to his "'golden' version" seem unduly combatative to me. Likewise, the suggestion that he considers other editors to be "unworthy".

This seems like yet another case of an editor (in this case Monicasdude) overreacting to the dismissal of their efforts implicit in reversion (back in June). Where the article is Bob Dylan unless otherwise stated, I see the key events being:

1. 26 Jul 2004: Bob Dylan becomes a featured article.
2. Over the next ten months 335 edits introduce changes to almost every paragraph including some significant rewrites.
3. 17 May 2005: Monicasdude registers his accounts and makes fifteen edits starting with a copy edit and expansion of Sarah Lownds, Dylan's former wife, which survives essentially unchanged and including a wide-ranging copy edit of Bob Dylan .
4. 19 May 2005: Monicasdude corrects the anonymous insertion of encyclopedically-styled fiction with the edit summary "rv vandalism".
5. 19 May 2005: Monicasdude reverts substantial blanking by an anonymous user.
6. 23 May 2005 JDG changes the spelling of "Elston Gunnn" to "Elston Gunn" with the edit summary "Whoever keeps adding the third "n" on Elston Gunnn, please provide evidence. I have seen many references to name, all with two n's."
7. 23 May 2005 Monicasdude changes the spelling of "Elston Gunn" to "Elston Gunnn" with the edit summary "Why do people keep changing this spelling? It's been documented by Bobby Vee, in a Goldmine interview http://expectingrain.com/dok/who/g/gunnnelston.html" Note: He does not simply revert; another editor's intermediate edit survives untouched.
8. 24 May 2005 JDG restores a paragraph deleted by Monicasdude with the edit summary "restore paragraph deleted by anon user with no stated reason".
9. 24 May 2005 Monicasdude reverts JDG's restoration with the edit summary "reverted page to delete paragraph w/o factual basis. No citation of "news reports," no reference to supposed debates. Comments about interviews, reclusiveness, etc not factually supported as current".
10. 25 May 2005 JDG restored first half of deleted paragraph with the edit summary "Restore part of deleted paragraph. Needed for graceful conclusion of major section. Monicasdude- these news reports are well known. Over-citation is sludge."
11. 26 May 2005 Monicasdude removed the restored partwith the edit summary "removed paragraph without sound factual foundation, which juxtaposed events separated by more than a decade as though they were roughly contemporaneous". Note: He does not simply revert; other editors intermediate edits survive untouched.
12. 28 May 2005 JDG copy edits early paragraphs.
13. 30 May 2005 JDG makes substantative changes with the edit summary "Remove cluttering trivia about 1966 drummers. Add mention of 'Music from Big Pink' and some related analysis".
14. 30 May 2005 JDG adds the paragraph debated 24-26 May with the edit summary "Yo Monicasdude- this is a longstanding part of this Featured Article. Either go to Talk and fully justify your problem, or desist, k?". Note: The paragraph was part of the article when it gained Featured status.
15. 30 May 2005 User:24.2.207.183 (believed to be Monicasdude when not signed in) made widespread changes with the 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." Note: There is no reason to suppose that this anonymous edit is deliberate secrecy, particularly given the open edit summary. This is the first edit associated with this IP address.
16. 30 May 2005 JDG reverts 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."
17. 30 May 2005 Monicasdude reverts with the edit 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 it again."
18. 30 May 2005 JDG reverts with the edit summary "Reverting. Monicasdude, we are headed for serious trouble. Please see Talk and respond there." Note: This comment is addressed to a user who has had an account for less than two weeks.
19. 30 May 2005 JDG posts a talk page message addressed to Monicasdude in which he says "I can tell you that if we have to go to arbitration on this you will not come out ahead", "you introduced probably more factual errors than you fixed", and "If you persist in the revert war without discussion, your work will be reverted immediately on my return and arbitrators will be called in. (Also, why don't you have a User Talk page? It's your choice but it's another iffy kinda thing, you know?)".
20. 30 May 2005 Monicasdude responds on the talk page in which he says "You didn't read the revision before you reverted it. You don't cite any errors in the revisions. […] It's plain from your comments to other users here that you lack respect for opinions which do not conform to yours. My contributions will continue."
21. 30 May 2005 Monicasdude reverts with the edit summary "Reverted. JDG, you make no substantive objections to the edits. If an admin finds I've gone beyond the "be bold" practice, I'll listen to him/her. Stick to the substance, don't threaten "trouble.""
22. 30 May 2005 JDG reverts with the edit summary "Monicasdude, edit summaries are not the place for 'substantive objections'. Talk is. Why do you not discuss? Reverting. Counting your anon edits you are on verge of breaking 3RR."
23. 30 May 2005 Monicasdude requests mediation.
24. 30 May 2005 Monicasdude [23] with the edit summary "Reverted. Dispute resolution contacted. We've now both reverted three times; this process should stop. You still haven't cited an errors or policy violations."
25. 3 June 2005 Monicasdude makes further changes with the edit summary "Rewrite Street Legal paragraph NPOV, correctly date Last Waltz concert to 1976 and reorder discussion".
26. 4 June 2005 24.2.207.183 (Monicasdude) makes further changes with the edit summary "Put discussion of 1985-88 events in roughly chronological order. Corrected omission of 2d Wilburys album. Condensed HOF plot summary. Removed unsupported claim re 1997 illness." after several edits by other editors.
27. 5 June 2005 Monicasdude explains one of his changes to another user.
28. 5 June 2005 JDG reverts 16 edits by 9 editors over 5 days with the edit summary "rv to last by JDG. Policy violation: major overhaul of FA without discussion."
29. 5 June 2005 JDG threatens a "giant reversion" if Monicasdude is not resisted now.
30. 5 June 2005 JDG [comments on the talk page]: "Monicasdude has embarked on a very unfortunate, undiscussed major overhaul to a very popular, recognized article and his intransigence has resulted in messy reversions that can't help but endanger the work of more responsible editors. Judging from his past behavior, the current version will soon be knocked back to his private concoction […] I will be bringing fullblown arbitration to bear on this article."
31. 6 June 2005 Monicasdude responds to JDG's criticisms.

At this point Monicasdude has been on the project less than three weeks. I will add the diffs for when his behaviour becomes combative when I have more time.

In my opinion, Monicasdude is stubborn, abrasive, and responds to hostility with hostility. The same can be said of Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. This is not a constructive combination and User:JDG's response to Monicasdude's abrasive response to his harsh interventions exacerbated matters. In my opinion, Monicasdude behaved appropriately upon his arrival and was badly bitten as a newcomer. I believe that all parties should be more courteous in their interactions with other editors, and that Monicasdude should let go of his apparent irritation at the lack of respect that he has been accorded, and accommodate the comments of his opponents. Unqualified apologies from all those involved would provide a sound basis for future cooperation.

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

1. Theo (Talk) 13:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
2. JDG 23:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC) - with some caveats (if that is allowed). In hindsight I must agree with Theo that my choice of words at times exacerbated the problem and that I did not show a proper sensitivity to a new Wikipedian (to be honest, I assumed Monicasdude was an experienced user under a new name because he spoke and used sophisticated wikilinking like an old hand... the guy is no simpleton). I also agree that Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's tone sometimes drifts from pure civility. However, my caveat to this endorsement is that these minor criticisms of LotLE and me basically amount to "tone-of-voice" problems and they should not be considered even-in-the-scales with the behavior that landed M in this RfC. I ask readers to put themselves in my shoes in early June. An unknown user comes along and, after a few minor edits, rolls out an entire rewrite of an article that embodied a lot of careful work over the years and which had even been recognized outside of Wikipedia for excellence. This user refuses to discuss any of his many and deep changes. This refusal persists for days. Since then he has used the revert capability to shoot down nearly all edits by all other editors. Theo criticizes my and other editors' "combativeness" during this, but it is nearly impossible to proceed with pure equanimity in the face of silence and then constant reversion. So, yes, "all parties should be more courteous", and I sign on to Theo's primary message. I do not sign on to the moral equivalence he seems to draw between the two parties, however. Monicasdude's actions were far more anti-collaborative, and as such I think we need to see something from him about whether he plans to approach this article differently as we go forward from here. I am most emphatically not asking to be appointed Monicasdude's boss on this article. Indeed, he should have the lead editing role on the article, as no one else even approaches his level of knowledge of the subject. But factual knowledge and acumen are not the only ingredients of a top-notch article, and Monicasdude will have nothing but continued difficulties if he fails to put into practice the advice given even by his supporters regarding his excessive reversions and his "tone of voice".

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.