Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2

message: ====Statement by ElC====
This looks rather one-sided, both on the part of the initiator (whom I agree with on the content front, incidentally) as well as from an unofficial mediator who, by his or her own words, may not have been entirely objective and might have accepted a case prematurely. This is a good time as any for me to reiterate my unease of the Mediation Cabal (I note that an MC member, Ideogram, who recently launched and quickly withdrew a prior RfAr on DreamGuy, has recently been placed on a one year community ban); I always prefer formal mediation. As the admin chiefly monitoring the RfC, I've been struggling to keep it from being disrupted by editors mostly hostile to DreamGuy (examples:  ) and although, DG was not entirely satisfied with me, either, I must say that if this treatment is the norm for him, I rather understand his talk page disclaimer (I don't approve of it, but it isn't that different than several others I know). Let me go beyond photoshopping, then, and discuss the conduct RfC.
As mentioned elsewhere, although the certifiers did not directly participate in disrupting this request for comment attempt, I do not feel they did enough (leaving it pretty much all up to me) to combat this negative atmosphere; moreover, they often seemed to argue that the focus should be placed exclusively on DreamGuy (I made it clear that, on Wikipedia, everyone's conduct is subject to review, at any time; there's no license for people to be uncivil simply because they are charging "reckless incivility" against the subject of an RfC). Conduct RfCs are not free-for-alls.
Members of the Committee, I've been struggling for long now to keep conduct RfCs from degenerating into indictment-like pages, where little if any prior or ongoing dispute resolution efforts are undertaken and illustrated (you may have only seen me act in high-profile RfCs, such as the Kelly Martin ones, and so on, but my work on that front has been extensive). This RfC was no exception. It started with editors violating the certification rules, continued through threaded discussions and top-page notices on the project page, and kept going down hill from there. Only thorough refractoring on my part kept the project page comprehensible and free from revert warring, but even this wasn't enough as unproductive discussion was simply diverted, mostly but no means entirely, to the RfC's talk page, where it appeared to me that several editors were already set on treating it as a step toward arbitration, arguably to impose punitive measures on DG, rather than a genuine dispute resolution attempt. 
In this extension, I note the sheer volume of DreamGuy RfCs and RfArs; one of the former, which I recently deleted was created by-now two banned users who failed to undertake any efforts at dispute resolution (and yet, it was allowed to stay, with people "commenting," for years). This RfC wasn't quite as bad in some ways, but was worse in others. As I told Daniel Case (the author of the second diff I cited; and no, I do not retract my astonishment upon learning that he as an admin): "If this is the sort of expression that DG is ordinarily subjected to, that would work explain many things." Someone on the RfC has compared DreamGuy's with RickK's treatment, a comparison which, I, as someone who on several occasions personally spoken with Rick on what made him leave the English Wiki, is an apt one. El_C 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also note similar-style edit-warring with accusations is going on in the article Adobe Photoshop. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by uninvolved editors before the case was opened

message: This looks rather one-sided, both on the part of the initiator (whom I agree with on the content front, incidentally) as well as from an unofficial mediator who, by his or her own words, may not have been entirely objective and might have accepted a case prematurely. This is a good time as any for me to reiterate my unease of the Mediation Cabal (I note that an MC member, Ideogram, who recently launched and quickly withdrew a prior RfAr on DreamGuy, has recently been placed on a one year community ban); I always prefer formal mediation. As the admin chiefly monitoring the RfC, I've been struggling to keep it from being disrupted by editors mostly hostile to DreamGuy (examples:  ) and although, DG was not entirely satisfied with me, either, I must say that if this treatment is the norm for him, I rather understand his talk page disclaimer (I don't approve of it, but it isn't that different than several others I know). Let me go beyond photoshopping, then, and discuss the conduct RfC.
As mentioned elsewhere, although the certifiers did not directly participate in disrupting this request for comment attempt, I do not feel they did enough (leaving it pretty much all up to me) to combat this negative atmosphere; moreover, they often seemed to argue that the focus should be placed exclusively on DreamGuy (I made it clear that, on Wikipedia, everyone's conduct is subject to review, at any time; there's no license for people to be uncivil simply because they are charging "reckless incivility" against the subject of an RfC). Conduct RfCs are not free-for-alls.
Members of the Committee, I've been struggling for long now to keep conduct RfCs from degenerating into indictment-like pages, where little if any prior or ongoing dispute resolution efforts are undertaken and illustrated (you may have only seen me act in high-profile RfCs, such as the Kelly Martin ones, and so on, but my work on that front has been extensive). This RfC was no exception. It started with editors violating the certification rules, continued through threaded discussions and top-page notices on the project page, and kept going down hill from there. Only thorough refractoring on my part kept the project page comprehensible and free from revert warring, but even this wasn't enough as unproductive discussion was simply diverted, mostly but no means entirely, to the RfC's talk page, where it appeared to me that several editors were already set on treating it as a step toward arbitration, arguably to impose punitive measures on DG, rather than a genuine dispute resolution attempt. 
In this extension, I note the sheer volume of DreamGuy RfCs and RfArs; one of the former, which I recently deleted was created by-now two banned users who failed to undertake any efforts at dispute resolution (and yet, it was allowed to stay, with people "commenting," for years). This RfC wasn't quite as bad in some ways, but was worse in others. As I told Daniel Case (the author of the second diff I cited; and no, I do not retract my astonishment upon learning that he as an admin): "If this is the sort of expression that DG is ordinarily subjected to, that would work explain many things." Someone on the RfC has compared DreamGuy's with RickK's treatment, a comparison which, I, as someone who on several occasions personally spoken with Rick on what made him leave the English Wiki, is an apt one. El_C 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by ElC

message: It was stated a number of times, in a number of ways, at the RFC, that incivility against DreamGuy does not justify DreamGuy being incivil back.  And I fully agree with this: DreamGuy's incivility is not justifiable in any way by the actions of others, and should be fully subject to review and possibly sanction by this RFAr process.
But that said, it really is a two way street.  If the hands of those that bring this RFAr, or who piled on DreamGuy at the RFC, are not clean in the matter, then others should be just as subject to the review and sanction by the RFAr process.  So, assuming that this case is accepted, while I fully expect to see DreamGuy's actions to be scrutinized, I would hope that the actions of those that have been incivil towards DreamGuy are given just as close of a scrutiny as DreamGuy's own actions.  There certainly appear to be unclean hands on both sides of this one. - TexasAndroid 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by TexasAndroid

message: (This statement contains a fair bit of evidence, written at a time when I *had* time; I'm moving in 3 days, and can't write more right now. the clerk, David Mestel suggested, when I asked if I should move it to evidence, that I just add a note that this contains a fair bit of the evidence I might present regarding this not being one incident, but part of a larger pattern of repeated behaviour. --Thespian 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Thespian|Thespian]]

message: It looks like a certain clique of editors seeks to impose punitive measures on DG, no matter what, although their own behaviour merits closer examination. I don't think any of the people casting stones at DreamGuy would do any better if they found themselves hounded to an even remotely similar degree.  There have been no good-faith attempts at dispute resolution, rather a sustained campaign to have their opponent chastised for real or imaginary offenses. This is not what dispute resolution is about. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]] 

message: There is, of course, two sides to this story. Those who find DreamGuy incredibly destructive and hurtful to the wikimedia community, and those who feel that DreamGuy, though uncivil, has been given a very bum deal. While I agree more with the former, (DreamGuy's lack of RfC support says I may be in the majority there) I feel that the latter is skewing the situation a bit, and that it's not about him retaliating so much as him being a problem here. Of course ArbCom has to accept this case, it's about time this guy is at least looked at by ArbCom. To say that there have been no good-faith attempts as resolution is flat out wrong, there was just an RfC that was clsoed only when both sides really started attacking each other. That just means we need to bring this here even more. I note that even the people on his side note that he's been abusive and incivil, so the sooner this is accepted and taken care of, the better Wizardman 15:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Wizardman|Wizardman]] 

message: There is a history of accusations that have been thrown around on all sides about lack of civility, POV editing, wiki-stalking, sockpuppetry, questioning motives/intent, edit warring and the like, to the point where certain articles are now a hostile editing environment, which I see as counter to the spirit of Wikipedia.  Various remedial procedures have been attempted and have failed. Discussions about content issues are tinged with anger. Whether DreamGuy or the various people that contributed to the RfC are found to be at fault is, as far as I am concerned, academic at this point - this needs to stop, for the good of the encyclopedia. According to my understanding of the dispute resolution process, I see this as the logical next step, and am pleased that the scope is to look at everyone involved, rather than just one person.   I encourage this case to be opened. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also note similar-style edit-warring with accusations is going on in the article Adobe Photoshop. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Alucard (Dr.)|Alucard (Dr.)]] 

message: While it is true that DreamGuy is often a good editor, his attitude when he comes into conflict with other editors is really quite a problem. This is only natural when one does anti-vandalism and anti-spam work, as DreamGuy does; however, when an editor objects to his/her edits being called spam or vandalism, DreamGuy does not appear to stop and take their complaints into account. He merely brushes them off and goes on his way, even going so far as to remove their comments to his talk page as "harassment." Now, I will not deny that certain editors (myself included) involved the various dispute resolution processes are guilty of the very things DreamGuy is accused of. The case may very well be one of the pot (or pots) calling the kettle black. But the fact still remains that both the pot and the kettle are black, meaning that there still exists a problem that needs to be investigated. If that means repercussions for editors other than DreamGuy, than so be it. As Alucard said, a hostile editing environment is completely against what Wikipedia is about, and extreme attitude by even a single editor (even if there are some understandable reasons for it) doesn't help things at all. --clpo13(talk) 08:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Clpo13|clpo13]] 

message: Background: my limited interaction with DreamGuy has concerned the troubled photo editing article, in which I started out broadly supporting his objections over content. I have been drawn into this wider misconduct issue as it seems I'll be unable to progress the article until it's resolved. I've found constructive dialog with him has gone from difficult to impossible, despite a number of significant early compromises which have cut down the section in question to comply with DreamGuy's expressed main objections (WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS) There is still no indication that he is in any way happy with the proposed amended version. My last request that he (specifically) review this , plus a direct request on his talk page, have been ignored. This isn't new or surprising re this editor and seems to me to be very much in line with his wholly exclusionist editing style; looking at his contribs, he concerns himself almost entirely with removal of controversial content, often regardless of the weight of opinion against such removal, to the extent that partial inclusion of said content is not a negotiable solution, or at least this has been the case at photo editing. I have no problem with exclusionist editing generally, if there is a willingness to accept a compromise position in the face of clear opposition. DreamGuy has shown no such willingness, and the photo editing page is paralyzed as a result.Desires: I would hope this RFAr softens his hardline exclusionism and elicits a modicum of respect for the opinions of fellow editors, in particular that AGF become more prominent in his interaction with them. I second calls to reopen mediation on the photoshopping issue: refusal to accept this (overseen by a neutral, informed 3rd party) is surely unacceptable.   
Concerns:  I'm concerned, primarily, that without mediation, the article remains in jeopardy, should the lock be removed. A secondary concern is that this process (RFC, MEDCAB, and now RFAR) has created an atmosphere of persecution which has in turn provoked an astonishing display of rhetoric in his defence which (from where I'm sitting) swings from genuine grievance to paranoid delusion and is in danger of seriously misrepresenting the intent of other editors (vis absurd claims that editors are "stalking", "grouping together" or "ganging up" against him re. photo editing) This clever but frankly Machiavellian manoeuvring has attracted some well-meaning support from editors who appear to have taken his protestations largely at face value. Sure, there is impatience and intolerance creeping in, but it's more due to exasperation  than bloody-mindedness. Please, read carefully between the lines here, as fantastical claims of cloak-and-daggers are little more than smoke-and-mirrors. Far from rabid persecution, I'm convinced that the only real desire here is that people be allowed to edit in peace. Amen.mikaultalk 09:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:MIckStephenson|mikaul]] 

message: DreamGuy last edited on Aug 24, while the RFA was unopened.  He left no quit notice, so there's no way at this point of knowing if he has truely left, gone on vacation, or anything else.  Now the RFAr is open, and of all the people who commented for/against DreamGuy at his RFC, only dicklyon has bothered to present evidence in the case, and that was almost a week ago now.  If DreamGuy is gone, this RFAr is moot, but there's no way of knowing for certain at this point.  So, what's the normal procedure for cases that sputter to a halt like this?  Do they just get closed out with no action, being moot and all?  If so, how long is generally given before it's decided to close out the case.  And what would be the procedure if DreamGuy were to return at some point after the case was closed?  If the case is not closed, I suspect it will be difficult to get people to work up much energy at moving the case forward in his continued absence. - TexasAndroid 18:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, the ArbCom has never expressed a decision in absentia; if DreamGuy has simply taken a Wikibreak without telling anyone, the case will probably be tabled until he reappears. If he fails to return after a reasonable time (I dunno, say a month), then then it will be closed. If he should reappear after a lengthy period of time (say a year or more) & he also continues in his old habits, I expect that a new case will be quickly opened & accepted by the ArbCom & not dismissed should he vanish again. (Note my emphasis: if he improves his behavior significantly, I doubt the ArbCom would be interested in reopening this matter.) -- llywrch, jailhouse lawyer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llywrch (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of this RFAr 

message: Dreamguy is back. See Jack the Ripper etc. Colin4C 18:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  He's back 

message: I've blocked DreamGuy initially for one week for abusive sock puppetry, incivility, and edit warring.  I am requesting a review of his sanctions because there are additional factors that ArbCom was unaware of at the time. I recommend increasing the length of the block, and also a checkuser to confirm what appears to be an obvious case of sockpuppetry.  See ANI thread and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2. In brief, DreamGuy appeared to be laying low during this case, but was actually editing with an IP sock puppet to avoid scrutiny.  Just five days after the case closed, his sockpuppet was used for incivility and edit warring.  I view this behavior as cynical manipulation that calls for stronger sanctions. - Jehochman  Talk 15:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having difficulties following Jehochman's exposition; i.e. links to more links to more links, etc. El_C 17:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that, with Jehochman's permission, I have lifted the block. See my unblock notice for detail. El_C 03:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The editing restriction placed on DreamGuy applies to the person, not the account; if he's being incivil under another username, any admin is free to block him.  I do not think there is any need for additional sanctions at this time. Kirill 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem experienced by Demcdevit and myself was to be shown evidence of any recent incivility as grounds for the block. El_C 03:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thanks, Kirill.  That's helpful.  - Jehochman  Talk 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I urge the committee to investigate Jehochman's disturbingly uncommunicable conduct. El_C 06:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to submit a formal request for arbitration, you may do so further up the page.  A request for clarification regarding an already-closed case is not an appropriate venue to consider the actions of an uninvolved editor. Kirill 06:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like I've been left with no choice. El_C 07:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I suggest a little patience, El C? Perhaps try to resolve this via some other means...I would be glad to mediate.--MONGO 07:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the matter is now resolved. El_C 08:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification (November 2007)