Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2

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, August 7, 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• DreamGuy (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

The desired outcome is that DreamGuy take responsibility for and discontinue his inappropriate actions, including:

1. Adhering to the civility policy
2. Adhering to the wikiquette policy
3. Adhering to the no personal attacks policy
4. Adhering to the assume good faith policy
5. Adhering to the edit summaries guideline "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Instead, place such comments, if required, on the talk page."
6. DreamGuy learn that he is not immune to consequences when he ignores concensus, writes abusive ad hominem edit summaries and talk comments, and exerts excess ownership in articles that others also edit. To achieve this outcome, he needs at least a firm warning that he will be blocked next time he steps outside the normal bounds, and subsequent times, too. It would help to have an up-front agreement here of what block lengths will be applied, so that other admins don't have reason subsequently to question the resulting block.
7. If he is not willing to change his actions, then he should edit less often

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

It's mainly an incivility issue, coupled with obstinate edit warring. My own involvement with DreamGuy dates from his first replacement of photoshopping with a redirect on March 9 2007, and has been continuous as he has dismantled every compromise. We got a merge into Photo editing done, making a small section on photoshopping, and he continuously attacks it, claiming consensus, policy, problem editors, etc., in the face of a clear consensus from other editors. Attempts to talk with him meet only with abusive responses and ad hominem attacks. An informal mediator has recently achieved a unanimous consensus on photo editing, but it's unanimous only because User:DreamGuy refuses to discuss, and says so on his own talk page.

Numerous other editors have had similar problems with edit conflicts that quickly turn into incivility by DreamGuy; he often has valid points, but by being incivil causes the situation to develop into a festering sore. An WP:AN/I filing on him was pretty much ignored by admins, but attracted a large numbers of complaints about his similar behavior on other articles, and some name calling by DreamGuy in return. This problem echos a previous conduct RfC of two years ago (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy), which appears to have been unresolved.

Dicklyon 20:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. DreamGuy's first removal of photoshopping content last March 9 was nothing special, but the cock-sure mischaracterizing edit summary did portend trouble. Dicklyon 02:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
2. DreamGuy's most recent response (diff) to the photo editing informal mediator, on his talk page, referring to a non-existent previous consensus and attacking other editors as "harassment and bullying from some very hardcore problematic users who further went to receruit edtors to the article who never expressed interest in the topic previously but had lost conflicts with me in the past elsewhere" (don't be misled by the summary "removing nonsense from people abusing wikipedia and trying to use false warnings as a club to enforce their will through bullying, responding to coment", as that was only a part of his edit). Dicklyon 21:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
3. His only ever comment on my talk page, in which my admittedly not-ideal final warning for vandalism elicited nothing but abusive accusations. Dicklyon 21:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
4. In a response to a point on the Photoshop article, he abuses the editor and calls him a WP:DICK for no good reason. He called me that, too [1], but at least he had the reason of my name to pick on as he noted in saying "Please read WP:POT, and the one named after you: WP:DICK". Dicklyon 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Some abuse to two of us at once, and refusal to talk, in an edit summary removing our comments: "Both of you have been banned from my talk page for constant harassment, personal attacks, and just plain not trying to do anything to improve any articles... I don't read anything you add, so give up)" Dicklyon 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Repeated bad faith characterizations [2] [3] [4] [5] of other editors as "little kiddies", "kiddies who want amateur trivial nonsense", "internet kiddies", "kewl kiddies", and such. Dicklyon 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
7. When not logged in (but not a sockpuppet, he says), he had a serious of disputes on photoshopping leading to a block and lots of juicy talk accusing me of POV pushing, abusing admins, complaining that they do not assume good faith or be civil to him (how ironic!), etc. See his IP contribs for more incivility. Dicklyon 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
8. Here he accuses me of lying after deleting my notification on his talk page that I opened an AN/I on him. Dicklyon 02:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
9. Lying mischaracterization and uncivil ridicule of my position, in response to my polite and civil comment that gave him some credit for valid points; [6] Dicklyon here is arguing from the position that he used to have an enitr article claiming that the only definition of "photoshopping" was for "kiddies making funny pics, lol, leet dude, we so cool". Dicklyon 23:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Civility
2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
3. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
4. Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Dicklyon 20:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. My polite request for him to respond to the compromise proposal. He deleted from his talk page with "what part of "you're banned from my talk page" do you not understand?". Dicklyon 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
2. My first content poll to try to find a consensus; DreamGuy responded with "Dude, that's just nonsense". Dicklyon 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
3. My second poll to try to refine the consensus; DreamGuy never responded; we agreed on and implemented a merge and redirect, which was nominally what he wanted but it didn't satisfy him (he reverted the merge part). Dicklyon 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
4. User:MIckStephenson's content RfC on photo editing started, and some of my participation in it, in which DreamGuy responds by accusing me of ignoring discussion and explaining why he deletes User:Clpo13's talk comments. Dicklyon 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
5. The AN/I (my recent diff) in which I sought advice from others on how to deal with his continued disruptive editing and abuse; lots of other chimed in with similar problems with DreamGuy, but no admin proposed any action to help. Dicklyon 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
6. My attempts to resolve disputes with DreamGuy started when I posted a note on his talk page when I first came across the photo editing edit war. I had originally intended to warn Dicklyon as well, but when my comment to DreamGuy was thrown back in my face, I never got around to it. --clpo13_(talk) 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
7. I tried a few times ([7], [8], [9]) to figure out why DreamGuy's response to my comment was so uncivil (more than it should have been, even if you consider how harsh my original comment could have sounded) and continued to try and get my point across (though, in retrospect, I could have been a bit nicer about it, and my misunderstanding of how people could delete comments from their own talk page didn't help), but I was rebuffed by DreamGuy at every turn, usually with an edit summary accusing me of harassment. It seemed that he just deleted my subsequent comments without reading them, even when I finally gave up and apologized for appearing rude in my original comment. --clpo13_(talk) 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
8. I then posted on AN/I regarding what I felt was undue uncivility and false accusations by DreamGuy. I notified him about this, but it was, as with all my posts on his talk page, deleted shortly after ([10]; he tells me in his edit summary "the way to solve the 'dispute' is for you to stop posting on my talk page like you were told"). This incident report was pretty much shoved aside due to the belligerent nature of my original comment and the fact that I had reverted his talk page in order to get him to read my comments (I was, at the time, under the impression that it was bad form to delete talk page comments, even in the userspace). No one seemed to pay much attention to the way DreamGuy was acting towards me. --clpo13_(talk) 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
9. Another tussle between DreamGuy and myself cropped up on Adobe Photoshop over a comma, the placement of which I found odd. Instead of editing the page, however, I politely asked DreamGuy about it on his talk page and received a rather rude reply ([11]). This was never quite resolved, even when I reworded the sentence in question to avoid the comma entirely ([12]; my edits were reverted by DreamGuy even though they were completely legitimate and supported by other editors). --clpo13_(talk) 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
10. At photo editing, I went through and archived old and inactive discussions from the talk page, as it was getting long. DreamGuy reverted this, claiming I was covering up important and relevant discussions. As I had gone through and checked the discussions beforehand, I knew that none were newer than March 2007. However, to placate him, I left discussions directly related to the Photoshopping section of the article and archived the rest ([13]; note that this is stated clearly in the edit summary). This was, again, reverted by DreamGuy, who was under the impression that I was archiving the same exact discussions. Only when I pointed out to him (through edit summaries and on the article talk page, as I was not welcome on his talk page) that I had left the most relevant discussions on the talk page did he allow me to archive. --clpo13_(talk) 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
11. My first attempt a resolution of the edit war over the Photoshopping section at Photo editing was a good faith restoration of a much-reduced version. This was partially reverted by DreamGuy, removing the second para entirely and citing WP:UNDUE weight to kiddies who think their games are more notable than professional use. This was to prove a major sticking point.--mikaul^talk 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
12. Several days later, I made a further attempt to restore a "working compromise" version of the disputed section, acknowleging DreamGuy's objections. It was again reverted by him without prior discussion, despite my edit summary and talk page requests to discuss any further changes first. In reverting this he claimed the issue had "already been discussed" and directed me (in his edit summary) to "go read the discussion". As the discussion at this point was clearly very much alive and progressing to consensus, I suspected this might show unwillingness on his part to engage in serious debate.--mikaul^talk 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
13. Immediately after this revert, DreamGuy offered up an explanation for it, which (to me) summed-up his real objections to the section. On the face of it, it appears to be a fair assessment, but in fact it was largely referring to a much older, bulkier version and was clearly designed only to add hyperbole and rhetoric, rather than progress the debate. My rather exasperated response to this, offering further compromises and appealing for discussion, was ignored.--mikaul^talk 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Edit: on checking this, it seems he did reply: three weeks later, in a round of ad hoc commentary on the talk page, and even then only to reiterate his WP:POINT.--mikaul^talk 14:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
14. This notwithstanding, I continued to take on board all of his objections when I followed up a suggestion to start a Request for Comment on the issue, to bring in some new opinions and thoroughly analyse the section. DreamGuy's response to this was to pick up (what I by now considered to be his) WP:POINT and refer only to it, as this diff, this one and thisone, his last words on the matter, demonstrate. Considering that, by this time, the proposed consensus version had ensured that references to the contentious "hobby" use were cut down to a few words, I gave up trying to attempt further compromise.--mikaul^talk 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
15. I'm left with the impression that DreamGuy has a serious WP:POINT issue with this "kiddies" thing; also, looking around, that he derives some kind of sporting challenge from warring and reverting on such minor pretexts. This was quite obvious from my first and only direct contact with him. Maybe it's just coincidence, but since the page was locked his interest seems to have gone; discussion has advanced and compromise reached without his involvement, despite repeated requests for his opinion.--mikaul^talk 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Clpo13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. MIckStephenson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Other users who endorse this summary

copy of section text removed from main to discussion page

#Ideogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC) withdrawn

#You Are Okay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Quiddity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - having read all the diffs provided above, and the RfC instructions again, I'll sign here.

Note from overseeing admin: Users You Are Okay, MIckStephenson, and Arthur Rubin were moved by myself from the certification to the endorsement section for failing to demonstrate efforts of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (those users are admonished for failing to observe this key dispute resolution component; please read the rules at the very top). They may revert this if and/or when such evidence is provided, but this note should be left in place due to the growing misuse of RfC certification rules (I have deleted two conduct RfC for this reason within the span of several days). Thus, I note that, as of now, only Dicklyon and Clpo13 have provided evidence of their efforts in the designated section (evidence which, however, I have yet to review — but the section has links, and even summaries, which is good). I also note that User:You Are Okay has a total of 13 edits as of now, of which 3 to the main namespace (consisting of inserting external links). El_C 02:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(You Are Okay first edited on August 7, 2007 and posted to this page as his/her ninth edit. Durova^Charge! 04:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section. This is just more of the standard nonsense that happens here all the time: Some of the less than helpful editors who get unnaturally upset when their edits are removed as not meeting the policies and other guidelines of this project blind revert to their own preferred version, abuse the talk pages of the articles in question to toss off personal attacks (see especially User:Dicklyon on Photo editing and elsewhere) instead of discussing the merits of the edits, then progress to leaving harassing comments on talk pages of the users themselves (see, again, Dickylon and also most of the others above, who have been warned by myself[14] and admins[15] that their actions were obviously not intended to try to solve any dispute but to cause harassment), and then they progress to threats and trying to file abuse protocols in hopes of trying to get someone "in trouble" instead of working together. In their zeal to lash out they go around recruiting people (other problem editors, sockpuppets and spammers) to join in. All of this is a complete waste of time, and, if it weren't for the fact that I can't be bothered to waste the time because there's an encyclopedia to edit, I could have brought RFCs up on the vast majority of these people (either on their main accounts o the number of sock puppets and anon IP users who are just regular users signed out clearly going around) with far more to support them than they can assemble. Of the above, User:You Are Okay is a brand new editor (well, at least the account, who knows how long the person behind the account has been around) whose only edits have been spamming, complaining about having his spam removed (even after very thorough explanations with pointers to the appropriate policies) and joining this RFC. As others have pointed out, the list also includes others with known sockpuppets and Arbcom sanctions against them for highly uncivil editing against policies. Dashakat (below) edits from a very clear agenda both of putting his own bias into articles but also in lashing out with personal attacks[16],[17],[18],[19], at those who get in his way. 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.

The bottom line is I am a very good editor. I devote a lot of time to improving articles. I clear out a lot of spam and POV-pushing and so forth by problem editors, and so of course some people resent me for it. Any uncivil behavior that I end up doing only comes about after some other editor has blind reverted an article to their preferred versions (major WP:OWN problems) without even listening to the reasons or trying to form a rationale for it and then start tossing off insults and harassment.I would agree there is a problem, but there would be no problem if those editors complaining above did what they were supposed to and followed policies, stopped bringing their personal conflicts to new articles, didn't jump onto articles they didn't even look at before to blind revert any changes I make.

It should also be noted that the editors involved in this complaint even break policies when it comes to filing this RFC and so forth. User:DashaKat improperly edited a failed RFC against me from three years ago to remove comments in support of me and to add additional attacks, and then later started redirecting that whole page. Several of the complaining editors here doctored the content of this very page. They removed the admin comments pointing out that people on their side had signed improperly and were not valid, as well as notes that others had very suspicious edit histories. They also specifically removed info about editors who were on their side but that they thought made them look bad by their presence (and discussed removing these comments on their own talk pages and elsewhere). They further removed some of my own comments, claimed that it was because comments were not allowed elsewhere on the page, but kept any comments improperly added so long as they were from people who supported their side. When I tried to restore the original versions, they immediately edit warred to try to hide the info again, and then when I added bold text at the top of this page that the content of the page was significantly altered from how it should be and that the words and info could not be trusted, they removed that as well. It's very clear that they are solely acting to try to frame conversation exactly the way they want it, with only the people they feel best help their side, and are willing to break policies and censor conversation if it so suits them.

Plus, for some unknown reason, the admin here wants to remove the info added by another editor:

Note to overseeing admin: see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram. Ideogram has operated at least two abusive sock puppets, one for block evasion. You Are Okay (talk · contribs) below has very few edits, yet shows unnatural familiarity with Wikipedia processes. I smell a funk. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate that people seeing this page see the true info about the kind of people participating in it. Furthermore, Ideogram himself has never had any direct interaction with me under that name but suddenly out of nowhere filed an improper Request for Arbitration against me. He also has been disciplined by ArbCom for other offenses.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. DreamGuy 14:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Quiddity

• I have not been directly involved with this user, but have noticed many arguments that he has been involved in lately. I would like to elaborate on the comments I made at ANI: Dreamguy appears to generally be a well-intentioned editor; but he is frequently rude to people who disagree with him, and he often edits against consensus. His exclusionist leanings and antagonistic edit summaries do not help matters. See this mailing list thread from June for another example of a good administrator (Bryan Derksen) who was exhausted by arguing with him. I would second the request that he gets more oversight from some uninvolved admins, and that he personally try to exert a lot more effort to be polite/friendly/patient/AGF with other editors in the future. AGF is difficult, but even more necessary, to keep in mind after one has had a conflict with any individual. It is the grease that allows editors with different philosophies to work together. --Quiddity 17:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Quiddity 17:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
2. --Thespian 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by DashaKat

• It has been my on-going experience that this individual is guilty of violating Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:NPOV. Wikipedia is about experts and informed amateurs coming together in the spirit of cooperation to provide as accurate and wide-ranging source of information to the e-world as is humanly possible. I do not believe that this editor is well-intentioned. I believe the behavior exhibited by this individual ruins it for all concerned; editors and users, alike.

• Further, the above presentation of events almost exactly mirrors my experiences in dealing with User:DreamGuy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, Dissociative identity disorder, Talk:Dissociative identity disorder, Multiple personality controversy, Talk:Multiple personality controversy, Parapsychology, and Talk:Parapsychology, and the pages associated with a failed arbitration (the 5th in 3 years, I understand) that I personally called against the fellow earlier this year. I hereby do witness and endorse the statements made here as an accurate accounting of on-going behavior by the editor in question. --DashaKat 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --DashaKat 23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
2. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Martinphi

I had a highly negative experience with DreamGuy a few weeks ago at the Parapsychology article. He came in edit warring, started being uncivil, and then left, having accomplished absolutely nothing I know of on the article- constructive or destructive. The only thing he left behind was bad feelings. Here are some diffs- and BTW, they are ALL the diffs from the article I could find, probably all his edits on Parapsychology:

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

Admin DGG finally tells him to stop edit warring: [27]

Parapsychology talk page:

Incivility: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

Talking about a previous attempt to file arbitration against DreamGuy: [34]

Removing other people's posts, attacking: [35] [36]

Sheesh, there are probably more, but is more documentation necessary? I'm sure it's probably just as bad on other pages.

Also, he was just uninformed a lot of the time -though totally sure-, which made reasoned argument impossible. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
2. --DashaKat 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by Empacher

I was arbitrarily attacked by DreamGuy as a sock puppet of Dashacat because we share some of the same interests, and he apparently needed some ammo for his arguments. He did this when I lended my support to an arbitration that Dashacat started because I have had enough negative experience with this user that I quit editing psych articles. I am, in fact, a secondary account, but not of Dashacat, and not a sockpuppet, as my original user account has not been active for several years. There is at least one user who could identify me as a secondary account to my original account, and has done so in private correspondence.

I have watched with a fair amount of amazement at the way this editor interacts with others, and continues to get away with it. He is a bully. The thing I find most interesting/disturbing is that he accuses others of acting in exactly the way that he does.

For example, even in his example right here, he claims people make blind edits and blind reversions, while pushing their particular POV, when that's exactly what he does on a regular basis. I find it hard to beleive that someone whose main interest appears to be serial killers and other moribund subjects can also contribute effectively to academic articles on Psychology, Parapsychology, and metaphysics. It's ludicrious. And someone's comment that he edits for the sake of editing on subjects that he knows nothing about goes very, very far in my book.

An examination of this guy's edits on some of the articles he works on seem to support the idea that he has something meaningful to contribute. I do not agree with his statement that he is "...a very good editor". My experience is that he targets an article based on some god-only-knows-what criteria, and then hammers both the content and the other editors until they just give up trying to deal with him. I think this perception is supported by the comments of others here. --Empacher 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Empacher 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.