User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/RfC/Monicasdude

Hello LOTLE, hope you're having a fine weekend. I've decided to make the RfC against Monicasdude into a little project for the next few days, pouring more time/energy into it than previously planned. I think your Description under "Statement of the Dispute" is good but was probably done in a slightly off-the-cuff way by you (understandable-- who has the time to do hyper-detailed work for Wikipedia dispute resolution?). Would it offend you if I were to give it a thorough rewrite, or, if a rewrite is against RfC rules, if we were to withdraw this version and collaborate on a powerful new version to be posted no later than noon tomorrow (Monday)? I just think that if we're going to bother with this at all we should maximize our chances for a good result. Mdude hasn't committed the sorts of offenses that will lead to even a short-term user ban. The most we can hope for is something like a temporary ban on his use of the revert power on the Dylan article. That would allow us enough time to get the article back into shape, to produce a version that a properly chastised Mdude could then help us improve going forward. I don't think we'll get even that with the existing Description, which encapsulates grievances against Mdude quite well but which does not plot Mdude's offenses over time in the most compelling way. JDG 15:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Generally, as I understand it, the original statement doesn't have to be 100% perfect, since there is room for supporting/supplementary statements by other folks. If you are willing to certify my statement as it exists (sure, correct any typos, or anything obvious), you can add your own supporting statement and/or evidence; and I can sign on in agreement with the amendment.  But that gets things rollings.  Discussuion within an RfC is likely to last several weeks, so it's not as if whatever version is certified in 48 hours becomes some kind sacred and exclusive source for all decisions.


 * It's true, of course, that I basically just copied my description from the talk page to the RfC. But I wrote that description with a sense that it might, unfortunately, need to wind up in RfC.  So I was fairly careful, I think. I haven't yet provided/located all the diff links and other things.  That would be good, but basically, I don't think editors/admins are trying to award a prize to the party who can be more pedantic and hair-splitting; rather, I think they're trying to see the real issue, which I think my general description allows. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:07, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

Your recent change to the Monicasdude RFC entirely addresses the concern that I raised. You misunderstand me if you see my characterization of Monicasdude's editing behavior as "mostly favorable". My contributions to the RFC have as yet only covered what I see as the woeful mistreatment of him when he first arrived. In his first three weeks here he was remarkably tolerant of substantial harsh treatment and responded with admirable courtesy. This does not excuse his later behaviour, but it explains the basis for that. I think that if you look at those first few weeks, he did not insist on reversion to his phrasing per se: he was reacting to harsh reversion of his work citing misunderstood policy. Imagine how you would feel if someone reverted corrections of factual errors on the grounds that they had been in place for months (I paraphrase and oversimplify to emphasise the point).


 * Well, OK. I think everyone's first few weeks are a bit of baptism-by-fire though.  The history you pointed out showed a bit of rudeness toward him, but not particularly good responses by him.  And in any case, it's been a number of months since he joined, and Monicasdude has gotten worse, not better.


 * I did not first edit the Dylan page until... whatever, about the beginning of August. So I was not following that earlier edit history.  From my later looks at the history and the talk comments, I don't think Monicasdude ever acted particularly respectfully towards other editors.


 * FWIW, one of my first edits on the Dylan page, or its talk page, was in response to a suggestion by JDG to add a link to his "golden version". In a sense, I supported Monicasdude over JDG then; that is, I said the page needed to move forward, not restore some past snapshot.  Monicasdude thanked me for the "support", and my first comment to him was that while I didn't want to go backwards, nor think there was any fundamental flaw in the page, I could see too much belligerence in the talk history... and that the page would work better with cooperation.  That was before I made any edit beyond maybe a typo fix.  I don't remember exactly which talk pages this was on, but the history must be there.


 * In retrospect, I think that even that constructive criticism (by someone then uninvolved in any edit dispute) was insufficiently obeisant in Monicasdude's mind. I really think his belief and attitude is that he demands unquestioned recognition that he is sole and final authority on all matters Dylan.  Obviously, that's not going to fly on a Wiki.  The more I tried to give Monicasdude the benefit of the doubt, the worse his behavior got.  And yeah, I can be brusque, and suffer fools poorly. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:16, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

[While I am here: I appreciate your apology in the RFC for your incivility ("I have been guilty of this also, even if not so much as Monicasdude. Sincerest apologies.") but I feel that it is diminished by your self-comparison with Monicasdude. Please consider removing that. Also, I am completely happy for you to delete this counsel from your talk page: It is my unsolicited opinion and it is your prorogative to disregard it if you so wish. If you choose to not to act on it, then I would prefer you to delete it rather than risk being characterized unfairly as obstreperous.] &mdash;Theo (Talk) 23:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Theo, I must take strong exception to your characterization of the treatment Mdude received in his first few weeks. Nothing I did or said came close to "woeful", and your portrayal of Mdude as "responding with admirable courtesy" is far, far off the mark. Mdude's basic mode of response in those weeks was silence as he changed and deleted longstanding material, probably the most aggressive kind of response possible in that kind of situation. I did not insist on reversions of his factual corrections on the grounds that the errors had been in place for months: I reverted because a major, entirely undiscussed overhaul of a FA should simply not be done. It is anti-collaboration and shows no respect for the judgment of the many editors who elevated that work to FA status. It so happened some of his corrections were contained in that all-at-once overhaul and so were reverted when the whole was, with complete justification, reverted. Also, Mdude did introduce new factual errors (which persist to this day) as well as many misspellings and extremely clunky composition which, all in all, seriously lowered the article's overall quality. Theo, your pleas for peace are admirable. But they need to go hand-in-hand with an accurate portrayal of who did what. JDG 00:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Lulu: I am gratified and impressed by your prompt unqualification of your apology. I see the initial treatment of Monicasdude as more than "a bit of rudeness" and I think that we bit a newcomer. He was not silent; he asked for clarification of the problem and received threats and interpretations of policy that he did not understand (and with which I disagree, as did Rhobite at the time). Your perception that Monicasdude demands some form of worship does not gel with my experiences with him on other articles. He is immovable on matters of fact but will yield on matters of opinion and style. Since he backs up his facts with sources and is prepared to discuss the relative merits of sources, I can live with that. I have yet to look in detail at the behaviour of any other parties after early June. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 01:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

JDG: Thank you for acknowledging my attempts to find a peaceful, mutually acceptable resolution to all this. Please remember that I have as yet only studied Monicasdude's first few weeks in any detail. And at the end of those first few weeks I can imagine how a well-meaning newcomer could have become aggrieved. Again, I emphasise that I do not consider his later behaviour to be appropriate but I hope that you will understand that I do not consider the least wrong person to be necessarily right. I am sorry that you disagree with my opinion that our treatment of this newcomer was "woeful". Monicasdude showed no discourtesy before receiving a warning that he was "headed for serious trouble", threats of arbitration, and suggestions that his behaviour was "iffy". When I wrote "Imagine how you would feel if someone reverted corrections of factual errors on the grounds that they had been in place for months (I paraphrase and oversimplify to emphasise the point)." I was paraphrasing and oversimplifying to emphasise the point not that you had "[insisted] on reversions of his factual corrections on the grounds that the errors had been in place for months". The point that I wished to emphasise was that that is probably how it felt to him. He saw an article that had been edited hundreds of times since FA status and that contained errors of fact. You reverted his changes wholesale. You did not ask for sources. You did not differentiate between fact, structure and style. You reverted citing policy that you did not appear to follow yourself (remembering that you were dealing with a newbie): consider two consecutive edits on 30 May: first you delete some text and add some analysis, then you restore a deleted paragraph saying that the deletion should have been discussed&mdash;a deletion that Monicasdude had explained twice in different phrasings. You mention above that Monicasdude was showing no respect for the judgement of previous editors; have you forgotten that he had been welcomed with an exhortation to be bold? On that same day you implied that he did not deserve respect. How is he expected to then deduce that Wikipedia is founded on mutual respect? I accept that my understanding of the various circumstances may not be complete. I am doing my best to work it out. &mdash;Theo (Talk) 01:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Theo-- your ability to study and reconstruct situations like this is impressive. I'm afraid though that many of your conclusions are quite off base. You have the quotes and the dates right but somehow the real tenor of most of these transactions was much different than you say. Are you interested in a point-by-point commentary on your reconstruction? I believe I could demonstrate, mostly objectively, why your analyses drift from true north, so to speak. I'd be glad to do it but it will have to start tomorrow (I'm falling out of my chair here). JDG 03:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do provide such a commentary. I am always interested to improve my understanding. &mdash;Theo  (Talk) 06:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)