Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2

message: IMHO it is about time that this individual be called to the carpet on his lack of civility, wiki-lawyering, invocation of false admin authority, edit warring, and general disruptive behavior.
That said, it has been my on-going experience that this individual is guilty of violating Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:NPOV.  Although I am aware that there are other accusations on the table, I cannot speak to them.
In response to dab's comment that the two parties involved in this dispute simply avoid each other, it is a good one.  However, User:DreamGuy's unflagging disruptive edits on pages upon which he exercises his particular brand of "ownership" make that effort impossible in light of editorial responsibility.
:I believe you are referring here to a 2005 RfC on DreamGuy by some different individuals: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy.  You might want to revert your recent comments there if they belong here instead. Dicklyon 23:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While that all sounds high and mighty, what you failed to say was that the edits you and I had conflict over were where you were trying to insert extreme POV into articles against policy and consensus, and how you further ran around making personal attacks and filing false claims. All of your ideals for how an encyclopedia should be run is how I and others have been using Wikipedia. Not getting to push your views onto the content and harass people who get in your way doesn't mean Wikipedia's spirit has been killed, it means your attempt to kill it and turn it into a soapbox for your own biases has been stalled. Your "spirit of cooperation" is to call people "assholes" and go around blind reverting their edits on articles you haven't even read just because you want to be difficult and so forth and so on. DreamGuy 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killing the spirit of Wikipedia 

message: DreamGuy's contributions to therianthropy and its talk are good examples of where he is largely right but manages to piss off most other editors to point where they can't work with him.  His first edit summary (revert POV pushiing... the idea that they are completely separate is just wishful thinking, not supported by science, original research, unsourced, and POV-pushing...) sets the tone of his interaction.  He follows up with (External links - removing whole section... see WP:EL for rules. Forums, competing wikis, poor quality pages, etc. are not encyclopedic) instead of pruning just the worst offenders and looking for consensus, which naturally leads to revert warring with (rv editor who goes around blind reverting my changes for no reason... the WP:EL rules are EXTRTMELY CLEAR on this point, we don't link to minor wikis, PERIOD) and subsequent refusal to discuss: (External links - OK, considering that the WP:EL guideline SPECIFICALLY SAYS NOT TO LINK TO COMPETING WIKIS this is not up for discussion.)  Things spiral down hill from there.  This kind of conduct is not the way to improve articles.  I was attracted to the article by complaints, learned a few things, looked up and added some references, and such, and didn't get any pushback.  It seems to have settled down a bit by now.  DreamGuy did succeed in having some bad external links removed, but it didn't need to be so nasty.  Maybe he just needs to be reminded that edit summaries are for summarizing what you did, not for discussion of why, as it says at WP:ES:  Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Dicklyon 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Therianthropy]]

message: Speaking only for myself, I did try to resolve one of the disputes in question with this editor.  I didn't see a requirement for all (or even more than one) "certifiying the basis" editor to supply diffs in the general RfC instructions.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You most certainly did not try to resolve any dispute, all of your actions toward me were to abuse your admin powers in an attempt to win edit conflicts. You lost all of them, by the way, because consensus and policy were against you.  DreamGuy 20:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We're all feeling our way through this; he did say you could move yourself back after putting the links to your attempted resolutions in the appropriate section. Dicklyon 07:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movement of editors for "certifying the basis" to "agreeing" 

message: I asked both of these guys, on their talk pages, to withdraw, since they are not really party to the issues and they provide a distraction, ideogram due to his sockpuppetry and the other guy due to being a newbie that stepped in a big one.  Both have since withdrawn.  And I've asked the overseeing admin, User:Jehochman, on his talk page, if he could clean up the resulting noise and confusion, some of which comes from him inappropriately suspecting a sock relationship between these two. Dicklyon 07:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought users were supposed to respond in only one section of the RfC and put any other comments on the talk page. --clpo13(talk) 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I reverted it out, along with his disclaimer, as it goes against the stated policy to have this content on the RfC page.  Since DreamGuy is so intent on quoting policy and procedure to defend his positionality, it seems only fair that his wishes be adhered to. --DashaKat 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, according to the RfC guidelines, any discussion that's not a view or endorsement should be put here on the talk page. Perhaps the overseeing admin should go through and remove all such discussions, since any such action by other editors is liable to be reverted by DreamGuy. --clpo13(talk) 18:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken.  DreamGuy heed this.  Quiddity Heard you.  I'm out. --DashaKat 18:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: withdrawal of [[User:ideogram]] and [[User:You Are Okay]]

message: He's reverted me there, so I'll leave it up to an admin to decide whether a cleanup of misplaced talk is appropriate or not.  Dicklyon 18:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought users were supposed to respond in only one section of the RfC and put any other comments on the talk page. --clpo13(talk) 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I reverted it out, along with his disclaimer, as it goes against the stated policy to have this content on the RfC page.  Since DreamGuy is so intent on quoting policy and procedure to defend his positionality, it seems only fair that his wishes be adhered to. --DashaKat 18:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, according to the RfC guidelines, any discussion that's not a view or endorsement should be put here on the talk page. Perhaps the overseeing admin should go through and remove all such discussions, since any such action by other editors is liable to be reverted by DreamGuy. --clpo13(talk) 18:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken.  DreamGuy heed this.  Quiddity Heard you.  I'm out. --DashaKat 18:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DreamGuy wants to keep the conversation on the RfC page

message: It might also be worth pointing out (though of course you didn't, Bryan) that when the dispute was actually discussed on the talk pages of both on Therianthropy and Wikipedia:External links that the consensus of experienced editors all agreed that the links were inappropriate. It is also worth pointing out that the reason I was mad at you was that you presented a highly distorted view of this dispute to the WP:ANI page and got some admin who was very eager but not very experienced to block me temporarily so that you could win your dispute, and that when it was pointed out by several other adins that the block was completely out of process and the admin who pulled the trigger had further left Wikipedia immediately after so he could not be reached in a timely manner to get this fixed, you refused to undo the block yourself even though you caused it and even said it was improper but because you'd rather do nothing and see someone you disagreed with not be able to edit for a while instead of doing the right thing. It's interesting that thes people conspicuously focus only on the fact that there was a dispute that I was involved in, and how they dislike me, and not on the full details of what really happened.... largely because it instantly becomes very clear that they directly caused the problem, it was their lack of following WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL that led to the conflict, and consensus and history here shows I was right on the changes made. DreamGuy 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think several of us have already stipulated that your changes are often "right", though also sometimes quite contrary to the consensus.  That's not at issue here; your conduct is.  Being a "good editor" as you call yourself requires that you also be open to discussion, particularly for those times when you are NOT right, which are not as rare as you claim.  Dicklyon 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Quiddity's outside view 

message: Dashakat (below) edits from a very clear agenda both of putting his own bias into articles but also in lashing out with personal attacks,,,, at those who get in his way. 
Herein lies the issue.  Firstly, this is a personal attack.  Secondly, the comments pointed to are not arbitrary, but in response to the comments and actions of DreamGuy.  This is a classic example of the omissional manner in which this individual conducts business.  And it is also a classic example of how this individual can bait otherwise reasonable adults into tit-for-tat arguments that detract from the business of editing.  Guilty, as charged, but not without antecedent.
Further, this:
See also the edit history of new user User:Moryath, whose only edits seem to have been to insert him/herself into this to try to push it along behind the scenes.
is a classic example of the accusatory fabrication in which DreamGuy engages.  A review of Moryath's contribution pages finds no support for this statement whatsoever. --DashaKat 18:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone looking at the history who isn't blind can see it's a clear sockpuppet account. Came out of nowhere and jumped in to old controversies, extremely limited edit history otherwise. Hell, the sockpuppet testing people would have a field day trying to sort all these people out. DreamGuy 18:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A classic example 

message: I'm sorry I didn't clean up the You Are Okay distraction before the response, but I took it from Jehochman's comments that he was an "overseeing admin" on this case, which he now clarifies he is not.  He didn't want me to clean it up, and so I left it, and DreamGuy responded partly to the newbie noise.  I hope my cleanup is acceptable to all; see text moved to this talk page, above (Jehochman is OK with it and has thanked me on my talk page). Dicklyon 18:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am OK with it. Jehochman  Talk 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You aren't doing that nearly as well as you think; yes, you were a "bit" uncivil, indeed. Eaglizard 21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of DreamGuy's response

message: PLEASE NOTE: The people who started this RFC have continuously removed responses as well as comments from editors who make their side look bad... and they discuss doing so on their talk pages to try to make them look better... this is completely out of process and reprehensible, and they have done it so much now that simply undo attempts at individual edits no longer work... Playing with the RFC content to try to change the context of all the various people's remarks simply will not fly. It's clear that this whole thing is a sham and that they have no interest in letting all sides speak but only the sides they want to be here.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note from overseeing admin: Redirecting old RfC is not permitted. These must remain, for the record. El_C 19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC top note (refactored by ElC)

message: **I suppose I should explicitly confirm that that thread was indeed in reference to DreamGuy, and the particular dispute was over the removal of external links at Therianthropy (see Talk:Therianthropy/Archive 1#External links removal restored, Wikipedia talk:External links#Wikifur and subsequent sections). When I posed the issue to the mailing list I was deliberately vague because the dispute was still "hot" and I just wanted some general advice without seeming like I was trying to recruit supporters or anything else along those lines. In my experience DreamGuy is very quick to interpret other editors' actions as signs of personal antagonism and I didn't want to be misconstrued. Bryan Derksen 23:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bryan Derksen response to Quiddity (refractored by ElC)

message: **It might also be worth pointing out (though of course you didn't, Bryan) that when the dispute was actually discussed on the talk pages of both on Therianthropy and Wikipedia:External links that the consensus of experienced editors all agreed that the links were inappropriate. It is also worth pointing out that the reason I was mad at you was that you presented a highly distorted view of this dispute to the WP:ANI page and got some admin who was very eager but not very experienced to block me temporarily so that you could win your dispute, and that when it was pointed out by several other adins that the block was completely out of process and the admin who pulled the trigger had further left Wikipedia immediately after so he could not be reached in a timely manner to get this fixed, you refused to undo the block yourself even though you caused it and even said it was improper but because you'd rather do nothing and see someone you disagreed with not be able to edit for a while instead of doing the right thing. It's interesting that thes people conspicuously focus only on the fact that there was a dispute that I was involved in, and how they dislike me, and not on the full details of what really happened.... largely because it instantly becomes very clear that they directly caused the problem, it was their lack of following WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL that led to the conflict, and consensus and history here shows I was right on the changes made. DreamGuy 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DreamGuy response to Bryan Derksen (refractored by ElC)

message: Note to overseeing admin: see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram.  Ideogram has operated at least two abusive sock puppets, one for block evasion.   below has very few edits, yet shows unnatural familiarity with Wikipedia processes. I smell a funk. - Jehochman  Talk 04:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ideogram came back "unrelated" for Ideogram and You Are Okay. Meanwhile, YAO was blocked for disruption at AN/I.    - Jehochman  Talk 15:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to ElC (Refractored by ElC)

message: (You Are Okay first edited on August 7, 2007 and posted to this page as his/her ninth edit. DurovaCharge! 04:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note from Durova (re-refractored by ElC)

message: Bishonen, I thought we had communicated rather well and civilly, so I don't understand your comments.  The only thing you specifically dinged me for re DreamGuy, "Here's Dicklyon restoring one of IPSOS' templates, to give DreamGuy "another chance" to read them [sic]," is a mischaracterization; I was reverting his removal of MY comment asking him to clarify what he was accusing me of, and happened to have the IPSOS tag removal in the same diff that I reverted; I didn't bother to be more selective, but if that's the worst you can point out for why he is behaving so badly to me, then that's nothing.  And my inquiry about your "relationship in support of DreamGuy" was perhaps indelicate, but not really so far out of line as to be worth a second glance.  Still, I take your point that DreamGuy has been on the receiving end of a lot of bad stuff; now what can we do, to prevent that turning him increasingly into a bad editor? Dicklyon 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You did? Well, you appear in two threads on my page, Dicklyon. Is this the one you mean? Civility is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I didn't find your alarms about AnonyMouse's alert to me especially civil, no. That's why I called them "bloody rude." Was that unclear? Maybe you recollect that I said you sounded worse the more you defended yourself? Funnily enough it's the same here, in your post above. I didn't originally think your revert of DreamGuy's page was such a huge deal — merely a poor, insensitive, passive-aggressive idea, just about worth mentioning apropos, in my outside view. But when you defend it here, by saying you reverted "his removal of MY comment" (your capitals) and you just "happened to have the IPSOS tag removal in the same diff" — now, really, you happened to? Accidentally?  In an edit which you summarized as intended to give Dreamguy "another chance to read our comments" (italics mine)? You really do sound worse the more you praise the purity and innocence of your actions, you know. Bishonen | talk 09:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like it's time to repeat my original question.  How could I put it more delicately this time? Dicklyon 15:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Bishonen's view

message: Oh noes! I started out undauntedly, with responding to Dicklyon, but now I see there's screenfuls of comments to me from all directions — a bit too much to reply to — could you please all just assume I've read them, and reflected on them?  — and I had to miss seeing  this one live! I was asleep. Darn those time zones ! Incidentally, DashaKat, the name is "Bishonen," not "Bish," for all sockpuppet accusations and for me making people "a bit uncomfortable." Would you mind awfully? You don't see me calling you "Dash." Quiddity, preemptive apologies, but I have to say this: Thanks, son. [Staggers off, wiping eyes. ]  P. S. I suppose this would in so many ways be the wrong timing for telling El C I love him? Oh, well, just forget I mentioned it !  Bishonen | talk 10:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am so very totally neutral here (in a non, and yes chipmunk way!). Which is to say, command me, mistress, and I shall do your bidding! El_C 11:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bishonen's response: oh noes!

message: OK, here's the different direction, sort of suggested by my comments above.
DreamGuy has, under some pressure, tacitly admitted some misconduct. He has finally explained why he doesn't trust the mediation process. Obviously I don't agree with that take, but perception is perception and I will defer to that for now. I think we have a chance to get somewhere)
Remaining in good faith, I direct everyone's attention to my suggested conditions to be imposed on DG as part of the resolution of this. I consider his statement that he feels any number of his critics could be RFC'ed themselves but he just doesn't feel he has the time to do that. I understand the sentiment totally, believe me.
I would like to ask DreamGuy (and only DreamGuy, since he is the one who feels more sinned against than sinning), that if the shoe were on the other foot and some of his critics were the ones being RFC'ed, and he wrote an outside view, what conditions, if any, would he ask be imposed on them? And I would like to read answers more specific than "follow policy".
I have one to start the betting (so to speak) with:
*Users in question cease and desist from using standard warning templates on his talk page.
Daniel Case 05:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge building 

message: As mentioned on his talk page, my comments about mediators here and elsewhere were never aimed at his efforts as an unofficial helper on the article (I never considered him a mediator in any way. My comments about mediators were aimed at the Mediation Cabal, which is set up in a very un-Wikipedia like way, where a single individual declares consensus by fiat. I have explained this several times in the past to people involved with this dispute, and when they brought up official mediation again that was clearly what the reply was aimed at. (I note that they then went ahead and filed a bad faith moderation attempt anyway, and the self-appointed mediator immediately went ahead and proved the very things that I had previously pointed out: that the mediators do not follow the very rules of mediation they claim to follow (the mediation was opened as active without first verifying that the sides agreed to it) and that they are not bound by fairness or attempts to actually mediate by the real definition of the word (the self-appointed mediator said that the mediation would go on with or without my input).
I feel that Dr.Alucard violated the rules on assuming good faith in others by jumping to the conclusion that I was talking about him and writing a rather involved statement based upon his incorrect speculation. And of course it's interesting that people who knew his speculation was incorrect chose to sign it anyway, demonstrating clear bad faith.
Dr.Alucard insisted I spell this out on the talk page here instead of just his page and that he would redact his comments, but of course since the entire statement was based on flawed information and has already been signed it doesn't really make much difference, except as an example of how people rush into making things worse and then fail to make real efforts to solve the problem once an error has been pointed out. DreamGuy 19:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I *suggested* that you spell it out here, DreamGuy.  And if you look at the timestamp, I didn't even wait, but struck out the part of my conclusions that were based around that assumption.  I apologized to you about it. I was trying to make real efforts to solve the problem once an error was pointed out to me by you. The remaining parts of my comments are still very valid and I stand by them. Other people may remove their endorsements of my comments if they feel that they no longer agree with them. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course they won't strike them out, as the only people who signed don't care if your comments were in error, if you assumed bad faith, and so forth and so on.... they don't care as long as they can bash some more. If you expect people to believe you entered into the debate to be fair and unbiased, demonstrating the fact here that you weren't and being rude about it here shoots yourself in the foot. DreamGuy 23:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I signed Alucard's outside view mostly based on its last paragraph, with which I agree entirely. Vashti 01:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I, too, went back and carefully read the difference between the redacted version and the one I had initially signed to, to make sure that I was still able to sign my name to it. Had there been an issue, of course I'd have removed my name; on Wikipedia, what I have is this name, and this signature. --Thespian 06:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: More false accusations, DreamGuy? Please, try not to tell me what I do and do not care about. I continue to endorse Alucard's statements even with the strikeouts. And it is not, contrary to what you would like to believe, simply because it bashes you. --clpo13(talk) 06:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  DreamGuy, I will leave it up to others to judge if they want what visible motive I had for entering into the discussion of the Photo editing page - one of the nice things about Wikipedia is that it is there for all to read. I will deduce from this response that my apology to you is not accepted. That saddens me. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 11:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr.Alucard's comments 

message: I have now "launched" the request for arbitration at WP:RFAr.  If you feel like you are or should be a part of it, please add yourself. Dicklyon 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The request has been accepted.  An arbitration case is open at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2.  Anyone who wants to add evidence or comments may read the instructions there and do so.  However, it may all be moot as DreamGuy seems to have removed himself, and may not participate; you can at least try to get me in trouble. Dicklyon 04:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFAr launched