Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Monicasdude

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is done. Soul Embrace 01:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Due Diligence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Earlier behavior 

message: 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. --causa sui talk 18:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC Requirements 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Additional comment by Ccoll 

message: 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)
thread_title: Important qualifiers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --causa sui talk 16:50, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Rebuttals go on the talk pages, as you have already been doing. I didn't make these rules, although I do agree with them. --causa sui talk 05:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearing material 

message: :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. --causa sui talk 05:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Requests for Summaries

message: 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)
thread_title:  JDG's own little rebuttal area 

message: 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)
thread_title:  0 mph down a dead end street 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's probably not productive to make these kinds of accusations without evidence. --causa sui talk 08:35, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sockpuppets and anonymous sycophants 

message: . . . 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  We interrupt this inquisition . . .  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ok so what's happening? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Remedies