Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jkelly (talk | contribs) at 05:32, 5 December 2005 (→3 RR violation reported: Thank you for the advice on being a good Wikipedian. Best of luck.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1

Dispute resolution and talk pages

I'm myself seeing a worrying trend of arguments on talk pages, user talk pages etc. where, at some point, people begin making broad attacks as to other people's nationality (or alleged philosophical or political positions).

Another worrying trend, and I agree with you on this, is the increasing recourse to dispute resolution processes, i.e. RfC and similar procedures. I consider these as losing valuable contributors' time.

As a consequence, I tend to try to defuse such discussions by reminding people not to engage in things like name-calling or tossing of words like "decadent" etc. This prevents the discussion from degenerating into mutual insults, and then later into RfC, ArbCom etc. By suggesting to people that they keep a civil attitude, much anger and agitation is avoided. David.Monniaux 17:58, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll second David's comments here. Most of the time, hostile and personal debates rarely accomplish anything productive, but rather generate lots animosity and resentment and waste a colossal amount of time and energy for the people involved — in this regard, Misplaced Pages:Civility is as much a pragmatic policy as a moral one. — Matt Crypto 18:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I see your reasoning. I'll crank up the self filter a bit. Lately I've been getting into debates on things like Policies and Templates, very out of the norm for me. Usually I just have my head down researching and writing because, aside from being the main thing we're supposed to be doing here, it serves as good practice for my commercial writing...I've been thinking of going into activist mode on a few issues (among them the banning of photos of sex acts). No doubt this will attract a lot of ire (as you can see on the Talk page you reviewed, Rama has now lost it and gone purely ad-hominem), so I need to find ways of stating things forcefully and, yes, even provocatively, without being insulting. It's quite a challenge, really. Good luck David. JDG 18:38, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Dylan jams with campbell.jpg

Hello JDG,

I'm currently working on the german Article on de:Bob Dylan and I was wondering if you could upload your image of Dylan jamming with Larry Campbell to Wikimedia Commons so that we could use it in our Article. Alternatively, I could do it myself - with your permission, of course. It's a great picture, by the way and I would be happy to be able to use it in the german article as well.

Greetings, Michael.

Hi Michael. Please feel free to copy it to Commons. I suppose some excessively nervous WikiPeople may worry that it's an illegal photograph, as photography from the audience is supposed to be forbidden as a precondition of attendance of the concert. But really that's properly looked at as bluster by Dylan and similar "stars". They are public figures and there's a huge body of US and international law that says they can't sit back and get all the benefits of being public figures and expect to control every last bit of media. JDG 02:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Template:Featured

Hi - following the reversion contretemps, there has been some discussion at Template talk:Featured on the text of the template, to reach a compromise between the positions you and User:Neutrality have been taking - I'd be grateful for your views. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Be Timid!

Perhaps this comment should have been made on the Talk page of this guideline page

Yes. You've been too bold.

but I opted to place it here because I believe the problem is quite pressing. I have no objection to moving this to Talk

I strongly suggest that you move it to Talk yourself, pronto. I happen to agree with much of what you say, and I'd like it to get a good hearing rather than for it to be deleted as vandalism. (No, I don't think your posting it where you did constitutes vandalism, but others could exaggerate what you did as disruptive or unilateral, which, they may claim, is tantamount to vandalism.)

In the meantime, you may add something unobjectionable but informative to the project page, such as "There is some disagreement over this; see the Talk page."

No need to reply to this; but if you want to, please do so here. -- Hoary 23:44, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Thanks Hoary. I stoop to move. For Pete's sake please help me wrestle back the influence of "Be Bold". JDG 01:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well done. As I've said, I agree with much of what you said there. Right now, time doesn't permit me to say so on that page (also my right hand is starting to ache). If you think this issue deserves more attention, you could post a short summary, with link, to Village pump (policy). -- Hoary 02:49, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Whoops

Whoops - sorry, it looked like vandalism to me. I didn't go into the history to see who added it. Regardless, refs would still be a good thing. →Raul654 19:48, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you are going to put him there, I think the sentence should be rephrased -- " by authors as diverse as...Pope Benedict XVI" -- Although he may have published some work, it's a bit of a stretch to categorize Benedict as an author →Raul654 19:50, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

It is sort of surprising I guess, which is why I thought it would be interesting to include... I must disagree with you about "it's a bit of a stretch to categorize Benedict as an author". As Cardinal Ratzinger he kept up an incredible rate of writing and publishing. I'm not talking about internal Church stuff-- I mean books you can find on Amazon. He's authored or co-authored around 50 commercially sold books. In fact, you can see here that he's even been making some bestseller lists. JDG 19:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bye, folks.

6/15/2005 -- Bye, folks. It just ain't what it used to be. As so often happens, a new breed comes in with little knowledge of or respect for what made the thing so great in the first place. Inevitable, I suppose. Maybe down the road the worm will turn... JDG

Awww, I'm sorry to hear about that...I hope you come back after a while. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 03:04, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above - take a wiki-break, and come back when you're feeling better again. →Raul654 05:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The return of the toccolours

See Template:Infobox Pope. 64.12.116.201 10:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

File:Autumn.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Autumn.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Thuresson 20:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Monicasdude

If you are willing to do some of the administravia, I'll certainly support an RfC on Monicasdude for his obnoxiousness on the Dylan page. (Actually, if you want to watch his revisions on the xtian period thing; we can at least report his 3RR to get him off for a little while). Unfortunately, it's not just one single and overwhelming incident that makes him an RfC problem, but a long serious of obnoxious and arrogant editing. His individual edits don't look so outrageous if taken in isolation though. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:20, 2005 August 22 (UTC)

Well there's no doubt Mdude will get a comeuppance, either from us or someone else. I'm not able to really pursue things like I used to (very serious health problems). Unfortunately, your comment basically supporting him in the vote for removal from FA would be mighty hard to play down in an RfC. His greatest transgression was his all-at-once, undiscussed overhaul a few months back, and you basically sanctioned what he did.

Nah, I didn't sanction (or not sanction) anything; that's not within my power to do. I voted in a poll about a WP page... which is utterly unrelated to "voting" on any editor (even if an editor happened to contribute to a page). Don't confuse the two things.

The current tit-for-tat between the two of you doesn't really look actionable in itself. It's hard to get someone slapped with real discipline just for being arrogant... I think the best policy is to wait another week and see if this guy is capable of even a little reflection on his own heavy-handedness. So many people are complaining about him he just might begin to get the message. If nothing has changed by then let's talk about doing some concerted editing. It's a shame this kind of game has to be played, but what else can be done in the face of a guy who's bright enough to keep himself just this line of actionable offense but whose overall effect is a steep worsening of the article? He's dogged and succeeds by wearing people down. Time to wear him down. JDG 03:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

But yeah, you're certainly right that Monicasdude skirts the line of what would get him banned. Each edit by itself is a bit obnoxious, but just shy of outright vandalism. And his arguments are dishonest, but show just a glimmer of relevance to the point argued (if you haven't studied too much logic, as I have :-)). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:31, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

Arbitor

See Ryan Delaney's comments on my talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:26, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

Hi JDG... Offering my help

I was previously posting here as PetSounds until late July. My experiences with Monicasdude were extremely unpleasurable and even brought out the worst in me, which I regret. I left in frustration to return with a new identity because of all his stalking a few weeks later and have had a most enjoyable time thus far. One of my key claims was that he was targeting me on purpose. The fact that as BGC I have not been looked at by him, while everything I did as PetSounds was WHOLLY wiped and reverted proves it. Basically, he feels he owns the Dylan pages. I, not him, was responsible for creating proper album articles/infoboxes for many of Dylan's albums, to which I was rudely treated with the caption "stop screwing up the dylan pages!!" (because some of my material went against his views, which he considers to be the official ones) and it went downhill from there. JDG, I'd LOVE to see him get his just due. I've never encountered such a self-righteous, all-knowing, pompous and rude individual on these pages. Very narrowminded and impossible to work with. He wasn't even open to collaboration or compromise. I apologize for these last character remarks (I know it's improper), but if you wanted an indication of how I feel, there you are. I'm a teacher and my time will be limited as class has just resumed. But I will keep in touch here and gladly assist you. It's WELL overdue.

Cheers

BGC 00:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, BGC. Any help would be appreciated, although you may be re-opening yourself to the sort of unpleasantness your new name has freed you from up to now. So consider carefully if you want to jump in. Mdude shows no signs of taking any of the charges against him seriously at all, and he would probably have no hesitation in resuming his stalking of you... If after consideration you decide to weigh in, it would probably best be done as an "Outside View" on this page: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Monicasdude . Good luck. JDG 16:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Dickens and Juba

On what basis do you say that it is "known" that it was Juba whom Dickens saw? I understand that the evidence points strongly in that direction, but Dickens does not name him, does he? -- Jmabel | Talk

I'm still waiting for a reply on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I hadn't been looking at the rest of your user or talk page; hope you are feeling better. I'm perfectly willing to leave this in the article for the moment (it's not a big deal), but, FWIW, Dickens does not name the dancer (easily verified on line at ), and Lott (in Love and Death) says that it is only presumed that the dancer Dickens saw was Juba, and he's usually pretty careful on his factual research, even if his interpretations sometimes get off into questionable territory. Take your time, check your source, and see if your source is actually doing anything more than blindly asserting that this was Juba. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:00, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Monicasdude

Started at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Monicasdude. Please help certify it and flesh it out.

Regarding your posts to User talk:Monicasdude and the RfC:

This is completely nuts and more than a little inquisitorial. What I see here is an unreasonable inflammation of the problem by all involved. There is not, JDG, "plenty of evidence" to be found. If you care to attempt to reference that evidence in the RfC, I will gladly contest it, having looked into a number of these issues myself. As use of multiple accounts is not against any rules, the only questions that may be relevant are: 1) is there any sockpuppetry here; and 2) is this account being used to subvert any blocks, bans, or other terms of probation imposed by arbcom or other such body. Using another name previously and coming back under a new one is not a problem if they don't violate these rules. People are, for example, allowed to screw up, leave, and come back under a different name unless specifically told otherwise. Unless you want to make concrete allegations supported by something other than paranoia, this looks a lot like badgering intended to justify a fishing expedition and yet more paranoia, which is running away from fixing the basic problem.

You have made several leaps of logic here. First, you have assumed that Monicasdude deleted his home page. I see no reason to believe that because people don't get user pages by default: that's one way to recognise newbies. This brings me to my basic concern. Everything you've said above completely sets aside the possibility that Monicasdude is basically a newcomer (i.e. hasn't settled into the community), having only been at wikipedia a few months. I've only recently and quite accidentally run across this user, largely due to overblown conflicts seen elsewhere (and I mean overblown on all sides). He may be a bit tempestuous, but he does have something to offer as an editor. I haven't been able to trek through all of the dispute about Dylan, but this seems to have been brewing for a very long time. You have only now found his talk page (which, incidentally, isn't a very difficult thing to do) and your first use of it is to threaten an RfC. This seem like an inefficient way of going about reconciliation.

I don't see any reaon why the "mediation" offer that's open should be allowed to fail (it is not, in fact, Misplaced Pages:Mediation because Ryan is not a member of the Mediation Committee, and I have to say that it shows a bit, but not so much that his suitability or ability to listen and help should not be regarded as the best opportunity to effect a positive outcome). I think everyone is indulging brinkmanship, including the admin who's become involved; if you guys want to work this out, take the issue that's creating a sideshow, clearly state that there is not agreement that this is a controlling policy, principle, or guideline, which is why "mediation" is necessary. Buffyg 20:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Buffy, thanks for your input but your view of all this is a bit thrown off by, I think, unfamiliarity with what is a pretty complicated series of events. You say "You have only now found his talk page and your first use of it is to threaten an RfC." In fact, the RfC already existed at the time of that post, and if I am "threatening" Mdude with anything it is to use information about his prior counterproductive behavior as evidence in the already established RfC. You say "I don't see any reaon why the "mediation" offer that's open should be allowed to fail". Well, LOTLE and I agreed to informal mediation and Mdude refused, so who is "allowing it to fail"?. And I don't think it's important that Ryan Delaney doesn't sit on the committee you refer to. Obviously the demand for mediation in WP far outstrips the current supply, and any Administrator-in-good-standing willing to help out should be welcomed as a mediator by any goodfaith editor.. You say "people don't get user pages by default". Is that right? It's a long, long time since I signed up here but I'm quite sure my userpage was autocreated. Has that changed?... Also, I was not implying anything was wrong with having a series of usernames. Not at all. I felt there was a good chance Mdude had edited under some other name in the past (basically because just a few days after the "Monicasdude" name was registered, he was already playing the game like a pro, with sophisticated linking to all sorts of buried pages, etc,.), and, as someone who is going through the trouble to compile evidence for a (richly deserved) RfC, I felt that access to the history of any prior names could give us very material insight into Mdude's behavior. Does he have a history of bitter disputes spanning several usernames? Was he banned on other names? These and similar questions would have a direct bearing on the conclusions reached by editors/Admins on the current RfC. After all, RfC and other dipute resolution mechanisms are almost all about behavior and the more we know about a "defandant's" past the better our judgments will be... Buffy, I urge you to reconsider your stance. We (LOTLE and I and perhaps two others) are not looking to flay Mdude alive. His truculence and itchy-revert-finger are seriously interfering with the work and state-of-mind of at least 3 unimpeachably goodfaith editors. Mdude is very, very capable as a researcher and contributor of facts, but he has some very severe anti-collaboration habits he is clearly not going to change on his own. The RfC, in the end, may help him more than any of us. When he learns how to collaborate, his own WP experience will be much, much better. Please don't help prop up the behavior he needs so much to change. JDG 21:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I can say that, recalling that I did not have a user page waiting for me when my account was created. Someone from the welcoming committee sent me the usual template on my talk page, and that was it. Check the page histories if you like.

I do not believe that Monicasdude has closed the door on mediation and that it would not be difficult to steer this debacle in that direction; I have been looking for an edit to this effect and have not found one. He has certainly continued to argue as though he has not given a final answer; I think it would be diplomatic to accept that claim. I think expressions of sincere interest and unequivocal responses from all of you that it would be preferable to accept Ryan's intercession rather than argue, which is leading to an RfC, would go a long way to getting everyone into mediation. It's always preferable to have all parties agree to a solution rather than have someone else impose a solution. If you want mediation, you should press for it at least once more.

Despite your argument that you are not looking to have Monicasdude flayed, the tone of discussion between you and Lulu can be taken to imply that you would not be averse to such an outcome of your RfC. It is certainly the case that you believe punitive measures necessary and anticipate such a result, which seems to me a stretch. Ryan's claim is that Monicasdude's edits are in good faith; if people who have viewed the case at hand have come to that conclusion, I should think the emphasis needs to be on how to get everyone to agree on a collaborative framework going forward.

As for your insistence on digging into other accounts sharing Monicasdude's IP, I think you are making a federal case out of a misdemeanour. Previous diputes under other usernames are immaterial; the only material basis is for establishing whether the account holder is current banned or under other arbcom-imposed restriction. I continue to insist that you are unnecessarily broadening the argument, possibly to ask for heavier sanctions that you imagine necessary in this case. I would also argue that none of what you cite as evidence of a previous wikipedia career is conclusive. If Monicasdude is as generally intelligent as his edits make him appear, I see no reason to believe that his facility is anything other than a produce of his own mind, particularly given how much youi can learn from making a big initial edit or two and watching what happens to those edits. (Take a look at at my first, anonymous edit; it was big and therefore prompted a major corrective edit; you can learn a lot about wikipedia from taking a big first stab and having someone else clean it up, as well as by having a major article under active or hyperactive editing on your watchlist.) Your explanation may be plausible, but I'm hardly convinced it's the simplest. If, however, admins feel they need this information to evaluate the RfC, let them review it. Barring this or a prima facae case, this seems like an invasion of privacy.

You don't think he's going to change his tune; you certainly have Theo and I telling you that you certainly aren't going to change his habits with the approach you're taking. I have to say that your argument that he will be well-served by an RfC comes across as disingenuous. Buffyg 22:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Why disingenuous? No, I am completely sincere. He may go through some heartburn as the RfC recommendations are handed down, but if he is wise enough to learn from the experience it will lead to good things far outweighing that heartburn. Surely you've noticed that a fair number of editors have made it a point to battle his excesses, not just yours truly. If he is freed from this constant need to defend his actions I'm pretty sure he will enjoy his Misplaced Pages time far more, so, yes, he will have been well-served by this RfC... Have you considered urging him to accept informal mediation yourself? If you really think the RfC is such a negative imposition, well, you're in a much better position to influence Mdude toward the informal route than I am, as he automatically dismisses anything with "JDG" at the end. JDG 23:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Thank you for the message at User talk:TheoClarke. I understand your exasperation. I will change (or even remove my Outside View when the RFC is recast in more moderate language. I do not condone his editing style but I do not accept that he is editing in bad faith or that his behaviour is as absolute as the RFC suggests. I do not doubt that you have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. You have also been here a long time: long enough to know that newcomers often react badly to the reversion of their edits (and, yes, I understand that you now think that he was not a newcomer). Despite this, after reverting his substantial work, to which he reacted intemperately, you further implied that he was undeserving of respect. As the more experienced editor, I think that it would have been more appropriate to have been gentler with him. In my opinion, you took an unduly harsh line with him (I disagree that all changes to Featured Articles should be reverted if they are not discussed first) and he was uncivil to you. More recently, your suggestion that he deleted his user page is mistaken: he simply never created one (which is an editor's prorogative) and the tone of your posts today on his talk page are combatative and discourteous. Your demand that he reveal any other accounts is not pertinent to te RFC, and I think it unlikely that anybody will help you to identify such accounts without eveidence that he is using such accounts to reinforce the behaviour that is the subject of this RFC. The belligerent tone of your messages to him seems to me like a form of harassment and while we often say that those who dish it out should be able to take it, it is usually true that such people cannot take it. No level of exasperation justifies discourtesy here. As for his "rejection" of mediation: I do not accept the idea that a party to mediation has "no authority" to ask a potential mediator about the basis for public comments on the dispute before mediation begins; that is a reservation about the mediator, not rejection of mediation. So, I have reconsidered my position but it remains unchanged. Please amend the RFC to use more moderate language, acknowledge the contribution of the initiators' behaviour to the problem, and modify its stance on mediation. I will then change my "outside view". —Theo (Talk) 21:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: And please moderate the tone of your posts at User talk:Monicasdude. I cannot imagine how you might consider them to help us build a better encyclopedia. —Theo (Talk) 21:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Theo, I have to go take care of some parental obligations and cannot respond to you with the detail your post deserves. Let me quickly say, I am sorry you seem to feel my own tone and attitude is roughly equivalent to Mdude's. I think that is just patently not so. I sometimes consciously opt to write in a more colloquial style when I feel the normal neutral tone is just bouncing off the person I am dealing with. So it is with Mdude. I will write something like "I have to give you credit, you're a slick one", instead of something like "Your skillful manipulation of facts skews the record" in an effort to give my frustration a more human and therefore possibly more effective voice. But please don't place colloquial speech in the same league with the behavior that has brought Mdude into this RfC. Plainspeaking just isn't comparable with incessant, heavy-handed use of the revert power nor with the major, undiscussed article overhaul which started this whole mess... Anyway, thanks for your offer to amend your Outside View. I will be working to recast the RFC along the lines you describe if Mdude in fact continues to refuse informal mediation beyond tomorrow morning. Have a good Sunday evening. JDG 22:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"Roughly equivalent to Mdude's"? No. Apparently combatative and derisive? Yes. How would you feel were your opinions or conclusions described as "fevered, wobbly assumptions"? And just how is Monicasdude a bully? Is he bigger than you? Cleverer? Stronger? Please be very clear that I am not condoning his behaviour. I am saying that I think that yours is inflammatory. Colloquial speech need not goad. I look forward to seeing the revised RFC. —Theo (Talk) 23:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your support for my revised "outside view" and I think that I understand the basis of your caveats. See what trouble you can find for yourself by failing to assume good faith (big grin!). I disagree that my criticisms of your behaviour amount to "tone-of-voice" problems. I see them as more than that. Yes, your more recent edits have been harsh in tone. Furthermore, it is clear that you are exasperated by your perception that Monicasdude is reluctant to discuss things with you. I hope that had I been in your shoes in early June, I would not have reverted an unknown user's edits without first asking him/her for sources. He did not " to discuss any of his many and deep changes". He asked you to make specific criticisms. You responded with statements of policy, that I believe to have been mistaken, and did not address the individual changes that he had made. You also used phrasing that looks threatening. Furthermore, you engaged in an edit war with a newcomer. These are not matters of tone. You write that "it is nearly impossible to proceed with pure equanimity in the face of silence and then constant reversion", but in effect that is what you offered the newbie Monicasdude. Not absolute silence, but a refusal to address individual problems unless he represented each of his changes piece by piece. You insisted that a newcomer contribute on your terms. Do you wonder that he became hostile? Monicasdude's recent actions may be far more anti-collaborative than yours recently but when he arrived it was the other way around. I am heartened to see some softening of the positions adopted by you, LOTLE and Monicasdude. I think that your request of Moncasdude that he cooperates with you more effectively would be better received if you express unqualified regret for the hurt you caused him, irrespective of the problems that he presented for you. And perhaps, as part of that, you would consider softening or removing at least some of your caveats. —Theo (Talk) 01:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Response by McClenon

This is a response to your post on my talk page. First, never, ever, ever offer to retract a user conduct RfC. In the words of Yoda: "Do it. Do it. Or do it not." I once offered to cancel my signature on a user conduct RfC. That was a mistake. Offering to retract an RfC is seen as a sign of weakness.

Second, as to the claims of personal attacks, I do not plan to wade through the talk pages, but I will ask Monicasdude to provide his own diffs and links to personal attacks. There may also need to be a formal MedCom request for medation, not on content issues, but on conduct issues. Robert McClenon 19:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. I think I'll "just do it". JDG 12:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

User categorization

You were listed on the Misplaced Pages:Wikipedians/New Jersey page as living in or being associated with New Jersey. As part of the Misplaced Pages:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in New Jersey for instructions. Al 15:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Lulu/Monicasdude

Hi there! Thanks for the tip. I'll take it. I was not aware of the history between those two individuals. Admittedly, I've had some major differences of opinion with Lulu on one particular article, and when Monicasdude weighed in yesterday, I jumped to the conclusion that he was in the same position as I was. I could have gotten burned badly, so thanks for the advice not to get drawn into the quarrel. I'll take it. I had edit warring anyway, and am thinking of giving that contentious article a rest, for a while at least. At any rate, I won't get involved in their quarrel, whatever it is. Thanks again. David Cannon 22:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Bob Dylan

Your recent edit to Bob Dylan is laughable. I was unprotecting pages from WP:PP that had been there for a while. I'm a "sysop" so I'm able to do that, I do have that authority. The reason the edit is laughable however is because you put {{protected}} on the page, as if the template by itself makes the page protected. If it really were protected, monicasdude would not be able to edit it. If you want it reprotected, take it up at WP:RFPP. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You have a very teenagerish tone for a sysop. How old are you? The Dylan page will be protected shortly. JDG 22:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

My age, yes, I'm a teenager. Unfortunately, there's many of us, including at least one bureaucrat who's 13. My age however doesn't matter, at all. You seem unfamiliar with policy when you think putting a template makes an article protected. Take it up at RFPP, as putting a template there is useless, and no one is going to protect it by you saying it at my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

1) This project needs to tighten up on qualifications for admin type positions; 2) No, I'm not very familiar with adminny tags and procedures. Long ago, years before you'd ever heard of Misplaced Pages, I made a decision to steer clear of adminny stuff. The soul of this project is researching and writing. Everything else is less than secondary, except maybe software development; 3) The Dylan article was blocked for reasons you should have known (read the Talk page and the RfC on Monicasdude). Are you really going to make me flag down people to revert you or are you going to be big enough to just say "my bad" and reprotect it? JDG 00:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen its talk page and the RfC. Go ahead and flag down those to revert me, or you can be more mature and file an RfC or RfAr even. Please, do so now. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Best to go with an RfC as I can't think of the Arbcom even considering taking the case. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Care to explain what makes you feel justified in unprotecting it despite Ryan Delaney's obvious determination that it stay protected throughout the RfC? JDG 00:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Have not seen that part, no I have not looked over the entire RfC, as that is a lot of reading. However this isn't an excuse for your condescending tone and the boardering personal attacks, and this is the first time you've bothered to mention that fact. You should have mentioned it to me. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You come to a guy's Talk page calling his actions "laughable" and what do you expect, roses? And I figured anybody who decides to unblock an article would bother to find out why it was blocked in the first place... I have mentioned it to Ryan but he seems to be off doing something crazy like engaging in RL activities on a beautiful cusp-of-autumn weekend. May I ask why you unprotected it? Just felt like it? JDG 01:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh-- you just did readd the tag. Thanks. No hard feelings I hope... Actually it's great that very young people are involved. Just gotta look out for ornery old 40-something geezers who carry canes for more than one reason. JDG 01:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

To Ryan Delaney

FWIW Ryan, I think you should back off from all these rules you enforce for your user Talk page. So what if people spew a little? That's what the meta pages are largely for, to let off steam on them instead of in article warring. Your choice of course, but it's pretty off-putting. JDG 03:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Monicasdude about to break 3RR

Hey... I added song timings, a better-looking infobox (let alone filled the missing info) and songcredits to Dylan's Live at The Gaslight 1962 - removing, in the process, biased, self-promoting external links to Monicasdude's own webpages. And he's reverted the page WHOLE back to his own verison - TWICE (of course, because it's HIS page, is it not?). I don't know who to make aware, but he's set to break the 3RR. I've only reverted twice and have stopped there. This is why I'm contacting you since you're WELL aware of his habits and perhaps you could alert an admin who is familiar with this user's lack of co-operation and hopefully impose a block. I will contact Lulu as well.

Thanks BGC 18:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh.... When is this guy going to give it up? What's the status of the Rfc? BGC 00:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

People just kinda stopped responding on the RfC, probably because Mdude looked for a while like he was going to at least consider playing nicer. So much for that... As you know, he'll revert ya just as soon as look at ya. The answer now, BGC, is for people to be as quick on the revert as he is. I look forward to your edit summaries... JDG 00:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If you need support on your recent reversion, point me in the direction, and I'll chip in. I'm afraid my patience with actually engaging in edit-wars deserted me in mid-2003. If nothing else, I'd consider the fact that given the nature of Mon's edits, reverting to a known FA quality stuff is completely justified. Anyone who removes the word "reluctant" from "reluctant documentarian" wasn't paying attention to the Scorcese interview. That's not NPOV, it's Bob's POV, and he's allowed to state his reluctance, and we're allowed to report on it. And a song as an icon? This is real English-as-a-second-language stuff. Oh, and given the blanket reversion and self promotion, I'm willing to stop assuming good faith. -- GWO

PS : Heard Jackie Leven's Mystery Of Love...? It's really good.

Thanks re: MD revert alert

Our obstinate "friend" reverted your revert again, so I just stepped in. Let's keep a watch... BGC 19:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Will do. JDG 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Your vandalism reported

Your vandalism of Bob Dylan: Live 1966 has been reported. Monicasdude 20:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Our so-called "vandalism" report is here: . Feel free to comment on this hilarity. BGC 21:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A heads up....

Monicasdude is now targeting my work on The Rolling Stones. Lately, it's Sticky Fingers, in which I removed rambling track listing info - which he never wrote - that has not been sourced or even confirmed for a more conventional look, and he's taken to reverting it - of course citing "vandalous deletion of information" (the only 4 words in his vocabulary, apparently). Of course, it's another of his stalking ploys, certainly nothing to do with improving the article, that's for sure. Could you keep a look-see there as well? He may target A Bigger Bang as well, but he'd be breaking the 3RR, so I suspect he will wait, like the good little predator he is.

PS - He's also started reverting Dylan's "Live 1966" article again.

PPS - Check out his recent contributions (or I should say, reversions). All articles I worked on.

Thanks JDG

BGC 17:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey... got your message. I'm glad someone else has finally noticed what I've been claiming for months. BGC 14:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Mediation re: Monicasdude

I am wondering if you will support a RfM re: the whole Monicasdude affair. I am not actually involved or very much aware of all the problems he has caused on the Dylan and related pages, but I have had somewhat of a dispute with him recently concerning his systematic removal of the Album Infobox 2 template on any page which contains it. He does this without justification. I have approached him about it and have discussed it on our respective talk pages. He continues to do so even after I asked him to stop. He only told me that he was doing so on grounds that the template violates fair use. The template was in fact flagged for deletion, but no consensus was reaches. I simply told Monicasdude that it was not his place to go around reverting all these articles considering there had been no consensus.

Please also see Monicasdude's edit history here .

I have spoken to BGC about this and have also looked over the RfC somewhat. I think it's time to take this to mediation because it appears that no matter what we do to try and resolve this, Monicasdude is resistant to any criticism of his "work". This is evidenced in the fact that he has been systematically removing comments from his talk page which are overly critical of him.

I appreciate your input. --Comics 01:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Monicasdude breaks 3RR

THREE TIMES - in his obsessive revert frenzy. So, I had to report this. Unfortunately, it appears I did the same - unknowingly of course, but hopefully whichever admin handles this will be understanding of what we have to deal with and pardon me.

BGC 18:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Things must be getting desperate. It appears Monicasdude is preparing an RfC on me. Laughable... BGC 23:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hanover Township

JDG, I'm really new at this and am still learning the ropes. I see that you deleted my signature from the Hanover Township article that I wrote. Was I wrong in placing it there? I thought that we were supposed to sign these items...or is that only in talk discussions? Does my article conform to policy otherwise?

Also, I'm not sure that I'm even correct in contacting you in this way. Please point me in the right direction if so. Joelincoln 17:22, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Joe, see my answer on your Talk page. JDG 19:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

JDG, Thanks for the help.

Thanks.....

I saw your revert on "Murmur". Is it possible we can take it further beyond the RfC? I think it's warranted. I know User:Comics feels the same way. I've also discovered that MD has a sockpuppet ID: 24.2.207.183. Here is the contributions page: BGC 20:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

3 RR violation reported

3RR violation on Bob Dylan reported. Monicasdude 00:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Frivolous accusation, as noted on the Admin page. JDG 03:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. It is not clear to me exactly what is going on with your recent edits at Bob Dylan, but you are definitely edit-warring. However strongly you might feel about the issue, edit warring is unhelpful. The article's Talk page has not been edited since November 14th, and probably could use some attention. You'd be a lot more productive discussing the issue there than not editing at all after a 3RR block. Thanks for considering it. Jkelly 01:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello JKelly. I encourage you to look through the dicussion on this article, including the archives. In short, Monicasdude, as established in a recent RfC (the link to which you can find in the most recent archive), is a problematic editor whose actions are being closely monitored by a number of other editors who have agreed, for the sake of the article, to act in concert to keep him from resuming the dictatorial position he held on this article for a number of months earlier this year. I'm sure that if you take the time to go through the relevant documents (particularly the RfC), you'll understand what's happening here. JDG 03:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I read some of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Monicasdude, but, well, it was very long, confusingly-formatted, and difficult for me to parse. It also contained a great deal of information about the religious beliefs of Bob Dylan. As I noted at User talk:Monicasdude, this looks like a two-person edit war, and, further, that this Talk page is almost entirely composed of material about that User, something that I, without any background in the dispute, find myself concerned by. If there exists, as you say, a "number of other editors" who agree with you about this content dispute, it should be very simple for you to not have a one-on-one edit war with User:Monicasdude. I am aware that your Talk page content may reflect nothing other than precisely the "calls for backup" that I am now advising, but I wouldn't have noticed that content if not for the fact that your username showed up at WP:AN/3RR. I'd suggest that you keep in mind that the urgency you may feel to have an article present accurate information may easily be mistaken for disruption by other community members. In any case, I wish you luck in resolving whatever is going on here, and suggest that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Music and its children-projects are full of editors who care a great deal about music content on Misplaced Pages and may be a good resource for helping build consensus. Thanks for taking the time to explain what was going on. Jkelly 04:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why you doubt that a number of other editors (all told it's about 6 of us, but only 2 or 3 will be around at the time of any given dispute) have entered into this informal would-be-article-dictator-watch. It's all over the Talk page of that RfC and even in today's back-and-forth, which struck you as "edit-warring", you can see one of the volunteers (Lulu of the Lotus Eaters) lending a hand... I say the following without ill-will: I suggest you more thorougly acquaint yourself with article histories and relevant administrative actions before concluding possible "community disruption" is going down. In fact, if you were to make a real project of it and finely study the events in the saga of Monicasdude vs. nearly all other significant editors of Bob Dylan, I'm pretty sure you'd come away impressed with the restraint we have exercised. There were months during which Mdude was behaving like nothing short of a hostile, unexplained revert machine, and instead of hauling him straight to formal discipline which almost certainly would have resulted in some loss of editor privileges for him, we tried to institute informal mediation (which he refused to participate in). In short, we have been extremely patient and forebearing and it is the other party who's in need of lectures on the virtues of good faith consensus-building.... Also, on Mdude's user Talk, you seem to draw some negative inference from how much of my user Talk page is devoted to troubles with Mdude, as if my major reason for coming to Misplaced Pages is to wage battle with him. That is about as inaccurate as possible. I have large edits in a broad variety of topics, and was working on scores of articles, I daresay, years before you had even heard of Misplaced Pages. In the main, I work quietly, quietly working out minor differences with co-editors through the use of detailed, honest edit summaries and good-faith article Talk page activity. Due to these habits, few editors feel the need to leave anything on my user Talk. Every so often the peace is disturbed by a troublesome editor like Mdude, and comments start flooding into my user Talk... So it's quite wrong to imply that my major focus has been on wrangling over Mdude. You have only to scroll through my user contrib list to see that this is at most a minor diversion. So, a word to the wise: most of the very best editors will have very slight activity on their user Talk. This is because they are pursuing the core Misplaced Pages work: quiet research and quiet writing. Those engaged in endless tussles and Administrative intriques and Policy debates may look, on the surface, as if they are community leaders. In reality they are usually generators of high noise-to-signal ratios and I urge you not to emulate them JDG 05:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You've touched on two points that I've given some thought to. The first is your comment about "forebearance". When the dispute resolution process fails, and I suggest that it is not an ideal process, it is easy for uninvolved editors (such as those following up a 3RR complaint) to have difficulty determining what is going on, as the evidence may span a number of articles and be buried deep in history. Obviously that is problematic, and those uninvolved, even with the best of intentions, can misread a situation and thereby only contribute to the disruption. It's a shame that mediation seems to have failed; a third party taking responsibility can be a good resource. The second point is your thoughtful advice on being a good Wikipedian, which I appreciate. I would suggest, however, that there are users here who devote the bulk of their time to fighting vandalism, and others, such as members of the Arbitration Commitee, who devote themselves to smoothing the collaboration that is essential to Misplaced Pages. Members of both groups are invaluable editors, even if their contributions to Main space are slight. I note that nothing needing urgency is happening, that I am unlikely to be of assistance without significant investment of time and energy, and also appreciate your frankness. Best of luck. Jkelly 05:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)