Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Proposed decision/TClarke summary

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). 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) 15 Feb 2004Article gains featured article status.
 * 2) 26 Jul 2004: Article categorized as a featured article.
 * 3) Over the next ten months 335 edits introduce changes to almost every paragraph including some significant rewrites.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) 19 May 2005: Monicasdude corrects the anonymous insertion of encyclopedically-styled fiction with the edit summary "rv vandalism".
 * 6) 19 May 2005: Monicasdude reverts substantial blanking by an anonymous user.
 * 7) 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."
 * 8) 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.
 * 9) 24 May 2005 JDG restores a paragraph deleted by Monicasdude with the edit summary "restore paragraph deleted by anon user with no stated reason".
 * 10) 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".
 * 11) 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."
 * 12) 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.
 * 13) 28 May 2005 JDG copy edits early paragraphs.
 * 14) 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".
 * 15) 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.
 * 16) 30 May 2005 Monicasdude (editing as User:24.2.207.183 because he was 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.
 * 17) 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."
 * 18) 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."
 * 19) 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.
 * 20) 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?)".
 * 21) 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. [&hellip;] 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."
 * 22) 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.""
 * 23) 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."
 * 24) 30 May 2005 Monicasdude requests mediation.
 * 25) 30 May 2005 Monicasdude 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."
 * 26) 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".
 * 27) 4 June 2005 Monicasdude (as 24.2.207.183) 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.
 * 28) 5 June 2005 Monicasdude explains one of his changes to another user.
 * 29) 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." Monicasdude reverts. JDG reverts again. Monicasdude reverts again. JDG reverts again. Monicasdude reverts again. Three all!
 * 30) 5 June 2005 JDG threatens a "giant reversion" if Monicasdude is not resisted now.
 * 31) 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 [&hellip;] I will be bringing fullblown arbitration to bear on this article."
 * 32) 6 June 2005 Monicasdude responds to JDG's criticisms.
 * 33) 6 June 2005 JDG reverts main article again with edit summary "rv to last by Tix. We all know why. Probably last revert by me until formal dispute resolution."
 * 34) 6 June 2005 JDG reverts himself with the edit summary "Oops, rv to last by Monicasdude. Hadn't noticed I was at limit."
 * 35) 6 June 2005 Monicasdude makes new changes in addition to several changes by other editors with the edit summary "revised discussion of Dylan's leaving MN for NYC. Underlying account was based on long-discredited Bob Spitz account".
 * 36) 6 June 2005 Monicasdude makes further new changes with the edit summary "Conformed article to transcript of Dylan's remarks".
 * 37) 7 June 2005 JDG reverts all Monicadude's changes and those of other editors with the edit summary "rv to last by Tix. This is a final try for sanity before time/energy is sunk into arbitration."
 * 38) 8 June 2005 Monicasdude (as 24.2.207.183) reverts again with the edit summary "rv, moral equivalent of vandalism. As has been noted here and on talk, JDG is trying to impose a personal policy and override Wikipolicy".
 * 39) Monicasdude identifies himself as 24.2.207.183 and makes six changes between 8-12 June. Eight other users contribute 12 edits over the same period.
 * 40) 12 June 2005 JDG reverts all 18 edits by 9 users with the edit summary "RV to last by JDG, which represents responsibly built version since FA status. Assistance with dispute has been called for." Note this: an initiator of this RFC accusing Monicasdude of treating the pages as his own reverts the contributions of eight editors to his own version.
 * 41) 12 June 2005 Monicasdude reverts again with the edit summary "RV; thuggery and vandalism. No user has a right to demand veto rights over all others, or to remove otherwise undisputed edits for failure to gain his permission".
 * 42) 12 June 2005 JDG reverts again with the edit summary "RV. Laughable. You are vetoing me no less than I you. My changes are also undisputed by all but you. "Thuggery" (whistle)".
 * 43) 12 June 2005 Monicasdude reverts again with the edit summary "RV: Thuggery, vandalism, and dishonesty. You're removing edits you don't dispute, and some you have acknowledged correct".
 * 44) 12-13 June 2005 Monicasdude and two other editors make six edits.
 * 45) 13 June 2005 JDG reverts all 6 edits by 3 users with the edit summary "Again restoring to responsibly built version until we get some disinterested assistance."
 * 46) 13 June 2005 Monicasdude reverts again with the edit summary "RV to last edit by NeilC; moral equivalent of vandalism".
 * 47) 13-14 June 2005 Three edits by three different editors including Monicasdude.
 * 48) 15 June 2005 JDG reverts all 3 edits by 3 users with the edit summary "RV again, for well known reasons. Editors, please help us out of this deadlock by giving your opinions in Talk."
 * 49) 15 June 2005 Monicasdude reverts again with the edit summary "RV to last edit by 64.48.78.49; moral equivalent of vandalism. JDG refuses to address substance of article/".

At this point Monicasdude has been on the project for just four 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. JDG's subsequent insistence on reverting all changes to his own version and his occasionally derisive edit summaries were disrespectful, incivil and disruptive. 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.

(copied from RFC, Revision as of 06:09, 16 September 2005, not placed here by Theo Clarke and not intended to represent or suggest any opinion he may have of the current matter)