Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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, not different disputes. 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: 18:10, 9 July 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

[edit] Description

User DreamGuy is of a chronic state of rude and uncivil behaviour, evidence provided below by other users should be proof of this. I myself simply find him to be very stubborn, and unwilling to see the error of his ways. Gabrielsimon 22:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


{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.}

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

  1. DreamGuy violates Wikipedia policy regarding removing posts by other users. [1]
  2. DreamGuy gets personal with insulting remarks toward wikipedia user. [2], [3]
  3. DreamGuy makes personal attack on other wikipedia user in the history of his talk page. ("not too bright editor") [4]
  4. DreamGuy criticizes VFD and admins with rude personal attack [5]
  5. DreamGuy removes valid content in a mythology page based on his own POV regarding astronomy sources. [6] [7] [8]
  6. DreamGuy, removes POV tag when there is still a dispute. [9]
  7. DreamGuy, removes POV tag again while enforcing his POV, this time leaving rude personal remark in historical comment [10]
  8. DreamGuy, again removes POV tag while there is still a dispute, claims I have no reasonable dispute (22 June 2005). [11]
  9. DreamGuy, again removes POV tag, and this time makes a personal attack about my understanding. Makes claim about concensus based on his shared viewpoint with another abusive user, User:Decius. [12]
  10. DreamGuy reverts article and makes rude personal attack and unproven allegations in historical comment notebox. [13]
  11. Dreamguy reverts article again and makes vague threat. [14]
  12. DreamGuy reverts mythology related disambig article without explanation. Explains his revert by using inflammatory statement about me claiming discussion never took place. The discussion he is referring to took place on another article, which is NOT a disambig page. [15]
  13. DreamGuy makes another inflammatory remark in his argument. Again tries to use discussion from other non-disambig page to back up his revert of this disambig page. [16]
  14. DreamGuy avoids providing specific attribution of claims of pseudoscience. [17]
  15. DreamGuy advocates POV in his contribution but labels his edit as "NPOV." [18]
  16. DreamGuy tells one user that another user is a bad editor. [19]
  17. DreamGuy uses a guideline to enforce his opinion and moves a page[20] contrary to consensus. Here are some statements by those opposing DreamGuy's POV: [21], [22], [23] (See Missing sun myth/motif for more info.)
  18. DreamGuy removes an opposing users vote in a VfD 18 July 2005 07:00. [24]
  19. DreamGuy makes a snide personal attack in an edit summary on 18 July 2005 17:26: "...people who are slow". [25]
  20. DreamGuy makes a personal attack on 18 July 2005 17:53: "two editors with a proven history making incredibly bad decisions" [26]
  21. DreamGuy restores a personal attack and makes another personal attack on 19 July 2005 06:50 in the edit summary ("your poor actions"). [27]
  22. DreamGuy makes more personal comments on article talk pages. 19 July 2005 06:36:[28], 20 July 2005 07:23:[29]

(See talk page for further description of disputed behavior.)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Civility
  2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  3. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers
  4. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
  5. Wikipedia:Assume good faith

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. RfC was used in the past, nothing seems to have been done. [30]
  2. Dreamguy doesnt deal with attempts to resolve issues with him, instead he deletes messages from users. [31] [32] [33]
  3. Tried to address article name dispute, but DreamGuy deletes comments by AI and elvenscout742. [34]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 02:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. AI 00:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Gabrielsimon 01:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Simply put, the editors complaining above are responsible for a long-standing orchestrated campaign of harassment against me and anyone who disagrees with them. If I have at times posted comments that were less than charitable, it is only because their actions have been repeatedly abusive beyond any level of acceptance. User:Gabrielsimon has been repeatedly banned (7 times at last count) for many and frequent violations of the 3RR and has noted on other people's talk pages that almost all of his edits to articles get erased by everyone -- not just me. This is because they are highly POV (claiming that werewolves really exist, for example). User:Dbraceyrules started out with excessive amounts of harassment on that name and on anonymous IP accounts (which he himself has admitted) solely because I edited something he posted that was wrong (see his history toward first entries), and he has continued to do so on my talk pages whenever Gabrielsimon starts up again with his complaints. User:AI has repeatedly tried putting extreme fringe pseudoscientific claims on articles without any sort of disclaimer that scientists reject such claims and became abusive when he didn't get his way.

All anyone has to do is look at their posting histories and then mine and see how absolutely ridiculous their accusations are, especially because all of the things they complain about me allegedly doing were things each of them has done far worse, more often, and first. Their strategy seems to be to break all the rules themselves and then file a complaint when someone understandably gets upset at their abuse. I could track down precise examples of Gabrielsimon and Dbraceyrules discussing on their talk pages the desire to try to frame me up for something I didn't do and attempt to get me banned over it (*I now documented this on the discussion page, see PRIOR ABUSE below*) but I don't have time to go back through all that again. The fastest way for them to solve this controversy is for them to stop their abusive actions, and I will try to have even more patience with them than before. I will, however, continue to fix errors they make in articles when I see them, because the kinds of things they are responsible for are pretty outrageously bad.

For examples of their uncivil behavior, see the discussion on this very RfC's talk page...

--

REBUTTAL TO THEIR CLAIMS

(Incidentally, not being able to admit when he is defeated, User:AI has gone through and added yet more supposed "evidence of disputed behavior" that actually, again, more show that he and his buddies are engaged in personal fighting instead of good faith edits, so the numbers below no longer match up... I won't bother to update them because the RfC is dead in the water. And now he has changed the numbers again... supposedly to match my numbering below,but I have not verified. Of course that doesn't change the fact that the RfC is dead and the bulk of his claims are totally ignored as hypocritical by everyone else considering his actions, as documented below.)

Oh, and what the heck, since I've noticed that lots of editors judge things solely by what is shown above and don't want to go look through histories, I've made it easier for them by responded to allegations individually. From the "evidence of diputed behavior" above:

1) I removed arguments posted on the Requested Moves page, as they already had comments on the Missing Sun myth discussion page by that time, and anyone who would be interested in moving it would have to go there to read the explanation anyway. As far as I am aware rearguing the same same on the project page is against the process of how that page works. I did not remove their comments on the talk page of the article itself.

2) Perhaps a bit blunt, but not a personal attack, and fully justified after the editor I responded to duplicated a condescending comment on my talk page by putting it at the top of the page after I had moved it to the bottom.

3) Ditto, same incident.

4) Stating my opinion, after severe frustration that a vote that was clearly for Delete ended up going nowhere. My complaining about how the site is run is not a personal attack... and if it were, the editors making this complaint against me now have multiple incidences of personal attacks for complaining that I wasn;t banned previously and how Admins are out to get them and etc. etc.

5) while supposedly included here to try to show me doing something bad, actually clearly demonstrate me following NPOV policy to get rid of horribly bad edits by User:AI on the Tiamat article.

6) Same situation... User:AI as a solitary editor tried to place a POV tag on the article because he wanted a mention on that page, but mention was already on the disambiguation page. It's not a violation of NPOV to note that the other article already deals with it, so I explained why the tag was inappropriate and removed it. He never responded to the point that the information was already on the disambiguation page, and thus gave no reasoning for why the tag should be there.

7) Ditto

8) Ditto

9) Ditto... and note here in the complaint above how AI falsely claims I made a personal attack and notes that consensus was reached but ignores it and simply calls anyone who disagreed with him an "abusive editor" -- that pretty much sums up his whole complaint here... anyone agreeing with him is good, anyone disagreeing is "abusive"

10) At this point AI stopped fighting on the Tiamat page and took to blindly reverting what I did on several pages that he had never made edits to before, solely to get back at me. This "unproven allegation" is quite provable just by looking at his posting history. At this point his refusal to follow consensus and his expressed intent to undo my changes on any pages he could frustrated me, so I made an insult I shouldn't have.

11) Now we are onto the main article that got fought over for a while... There is no "vague threat" here, I am simply stating that previous editor putting improperly formatted text (see Wikipedia:Capitalization) back into an article yet again and saying "Hopefully it will stay this way this time" doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. Only someone desperately trying to find things to complain about could consider this a threat.

12) Basically his complaint here is a lie, and proven by links he gave above. He claims that I blindly reverted the Tiamat (disambiguation) page without explanation as to why. The explanation was given multiple times already, as part of discussion of the Tiamat article mentioned in points 5-9 above. I had already extensively explained the concept of NPOV to him, and even pointed to the particular section about pseudoscience in that policy. He then complained that I didn't explain why when I made the same change I had already made previously. 'And then here I calmly and rationally explain it to him yet again (probably like the 12th time at this point), and he is trying to use this edit to show *I* did something wrong?!? Geez, talk about proving my case for me.

13) And here he is complaining how dare I try to falsely claim that I had already explained it to him when I had given him the explanation on the talk page of the same topic but for the main article instead of the disambiguation article?!?! I he really trying to argue that he doesn't remember it because it was on one Tiamat page and not the other? Please.

14) Oh, and this one is hilarious... I instruct him to actually look at the external links in the article we are discussing that clearly show that scientists overwhelmingly reject Sitchin, and here in his complaint he tries to claim "avoids providing specific attribution of claims of pseudoscience"?!?! Basically what we have here is an editor whose POV is so strongly held that he refuses to click on a link and see overwhelming evidence showing that his author is regarded as a crank by the scientific community. And this isn;t even like it's a case of my wanting him to click on links and hunt around for some minor reference, these sites very clearly thoroughly reject everything Sitchin has to say. All he had to do was click on anything other than the link to the author's website and see for himself. But no, he couldn't be bothered to do that, and how dare I suggest he do it?

15) Again, this is a clear example of my doing exactly what Wikipedia editors should be doing... He's complaining about the fact that I put in warning language that says scientists reject the claims of the pseudoscientic author, yet the official policies of this site explicitly say that this needs to be done. The fact that AI is trying to use this to prove I did something wrong is clear proof that he hasn't even bothered to read the policy (and I have provided him a direct link to the appropriate section several times already during the conflict mentioned way back in point five already).

16) Yes, I say another editor is a bad editor. And it's true. On that very talk page the editor in question says "You, Gabrielsimon, are a problem user. Your edits are frequently terrible." He has blocked at least seven times already. He introduces POV everywhere he goes. Saying that he is a bad editor is not an attack, it's not breaking civility rules, it's not violating any policy, it's simply stating things calmly and objectively how I see them. It's the utmost of hypocrisy for someone who is going around giving the opinion that I'm an awful editor and that anyone else who disagrees with him is an "abusive editor" to then turn around and claim that my calling someone "bad" is something I shouldn't do.

Summary: The examples given here to try to show why I should be disciplined, other than a few minor missteps I made as a result of putting up with constant harassment and frustration, are actually exactly what editors here should do, and instead prove that the people making complaints against me have been casting accusations instead of trying to work with others, ignore consensus, make misleading statements, disregard policy and otherwise prove that they are the ones causing problems here.


further response

User:AI has ignored the fact that the RfC is not going anywhere and insists upon making more accusations. The newest ones have gone from being silly and pointless to being outright distortions of facts.

17) The page was moved to the correct title. Comments on the VfD over a fork file created at the original title prove that consensus was for the move. And you really can't call the original dispute "consensus" when it was only the original creator of the article (who made it incorrect in the first place) and a couple of other editors who do not edit pages like that in question and are only there due to a personal conflict with me while ignoring clear evidence proving them wrong. One of those editors, User:Gabirelsimon, has admitted that my moving it was the correct decision but that he only worked to revent it because he didn't like the idea of me getting my own way. [35]

18) This is a completely false accusation The editor in question, who did not vote against me but voted to delete the fork, saw that the couple of complainin editors were trying to argue that a "Delete" vote should actually be to delete the fork AND the redirect. I went to his talk page and alerted him to the shenanigans of the editors involved, and that editor, so as not to have his vote misinterpreted removed his own vote -- the claim that I deleted the vote is complete nonsense, as the edit in question is clearly shown to be by User:Dcarrano and not myself.

19-21) Are falsely labeled as personal attacks when they are just explanations of what went on. The fact that they portray the editors in a negative light is solely due to the target of those comments having actually acted in ways that were negative. For this person to claim that it is against policy to state the opinion that other editors violated policy is laughable considering how he is doing the same thing himself constantly. These is yet more examples of the hypocrisy involved in this entire RfC: mainly, that the things they are complaining about are things that they themselves regularly do far worse on, but they hold themselves to a different standard than other people.

And I would also like to note that since this RfC has started, several other editors not involved with this dispute are working on starting an RfC about User:Gabrielsimon for what they call as hugely POV edits, bizarre actions, and his continuing habit of then accusing other people of abuse when all they do is fix his errors. We can already see User:AI's actions on the talk page, where he makes personal attack against anyone who did not respond to the RfC to his liking, and above where he distorts facts and outright lies to try to find something to complain about. User:Dbraceyrules has now escalated his harassment as a result of this RfC having failed to get the response he hoped for. This whole thing has been a case of a small group of people breaking rules themselves and targeting someone for abuse and harassment with the expressed hope (they have admitted so on their talk pages) of stressing me out so badly that I respond with nasty comments. Well, guess what, it happens sometimes, but to then file a complaint about it is an absolute abuse of the conflict resolution process. All they have to do to resolve this "conflict" is stop making false claims, stop changing articles they have no history or interest in solely to undo fixes I made, and stop leaving harassing comments on my talk page. They have refused to do these things, thus they must take the lion's share of the blame for these events. When they start acting like good editors instead of solely being here to push POV and cause conflict, then there will be no problems.

---

PRIOR ABUSE BY THE COMPLAINANTS

Also, I have tracked down links to prove their prior abuse, including the place where two of them discuss trying to file a false accusation of vandalism against me in the hopes of getting me into trouble, then when they actually filed this accusation, as well of numerous incidences of harassment, user page vandalism, and trolling. In fact they in their own comments admit to these actions and justify them because I "arrogant"ly edited articles they had modified. All ofthese actions, including this RfC, are nothing but a feeble attempt at revenge for their initially being upset that I modified something they worked on and then later because I would not let them harass me. To see these links, go to the Discussion page and to the Prior Abuse section: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2#Prior abuse

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. DreamGuy 04:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view by Carnildo

As I see it, there's a long-running edit war between DreamGuy and a number of other editors. I don't know who's right or wrong here. I see nothing particularly serious in the way of personal attacks by DreamGuy, particularly nothing worthy of a permanent ban. I think everyone involved needs to re-read the NPOV and no personal attacks policies.

I've taken the opportunity to add the fighting over Missing sun motif to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. I also wish to add that DreamGuy was not informed by the opener of this RFC that an RFC had been opened against him/her. ~~~~ 01:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. khaosworks 01:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    Amended Comment: DreamGuy's conduct here is obnoxious, sure, but none of it warrants the level of sanction that's being requested for. The complainants insist on their own POV, DreamGuy gets frustrated, loses his temper, they react, and the whole thing degenerates into a slinging match. Both sides have slung mud, and it must stop. Everyone involved needs to review WP:Civility, and everyone should be given a firm rap on the wrist for wasting their energy on each other rather than more productive pursuits. --khaosworks 07:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Canderson7 01:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Friday 02:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  5. There is evidence that those who brought this RFC are trying to push extreme POV, ie: to give undue weight to theories that are outside the mainstream of science. NPOV is not about giving each and every theory in the world as much verbiage as its advocates would like it to have. In the above links, I found far more wrong in the behavior of DreamGuy's detractors than I did in DreamGuy's. func(talk) 02:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  6. While I agree that DreamGuy should tone down the tenor of his comments when dealing with other editors, I've seen much childish "baiting" from one of the initiators of this RfC. Many of the comments that were left on DreamGuy's talk page were not constructive suggestions or questions; in my opinion, they crossed the line into vandalism and deserved to be removed. (See DreamGuy's talk page history, especially the tug-of-war that occurred in mid-April.) Everyone involved could use a dose of WP:NPOV and some civility training. Joyous (talk) 03:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Agree with all of the above. Everyone involved should think about how their own behavior looks to uninvolved observers. The same community standards apply to all. Even if you believe you have the truth on your side, that doesn't exempt you. FreplySpang (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  8. Agree. Additionally, an RFC is a place to resolve disputes, and not to request that your opponents be blocked. Radiant_>|< 13:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  9. I agree with the above, all parties should re-read the rules on NPOV and Civility and hopefully further disputes can be avoided Derktar 02:01, July 15, 2005 (UTC).
  10. I can only endorse this. --Irmgard 21:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Outside view by Solipsist

I think I've seen enough. I broadly agree with Carnildo — the issues seem to be part of a long running dispute, in which nobody seems to be in the right. Overall it would probably have been better if dispute resolution had been explored earlier.

  • DreamGuy - although this RfC has largely not been upheld, please be aware that your some/many of your edits and comments are seen as abusive by other editors. I suspect you have ruffled the feathers of a much wider circle of editors than those directly involed in this dispute. In particular, abusive comments tend to undermine your arguments. You may feel that you are battling against the odds with editors who want to introduce nonsense into articles, but NPOV is a central pillar of Wikipedia. Next time you are in a dispute, before reaching for personal attacks or revert wars, please use an RfC or similar, to bring in the views of other outside editors to help arrive at consensus and diffuse any tension.
  • Gabrielsimon and Dbraceyrules - The evidence of Prior Abuse, makes it difficult, if not impossible to uphold this RfC. I appreciate that you want to draw a line and put the past behind you, but it is likely to take quite a while before yourselves and DreamGuy can patch up your differences. Although you have made several attempts at reconciliation, you should be aware that, given the history, these might be perceived as insincere. During this RfC and earlier disputes, I see a tendancy towards excitability, extravagent claims and trying to game the system. If your views are not mainstream POV, you probably need to behave even more rationally and calmly than average in order to get them accepted within articles.
  • AI - I have a bit of trouble in pinning down your involvement in this dispute. Your edit history and talk pages look quite different. I get the impression that you may have be hit in the crossfire with an abusive comment from DreamGuy and then taken an interest in some of the other disputes he's been involved in. In any case, thanks for your work in getting the RfC into a format where we can investigate the issues clearly.

I would like to suggest that everyone should stay out of each other's way, but since your areas of interest overlap so much this is probably impossible. Even then, the current dispute over Missing sun myth/motif still needs to be resolved. So probably the best we can hope for, is that everyone pulls back from trying to score points and instead work towards compromise using the input of other editors to resolve disputes as best as possible

In the long run, mediation might be helpful. -- Solipsist 21:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by UninvitedCompany

I note that both DreamGuy and many of the other editors involved in this dispute have a (a) an unwillingness to cite sources, and (b) an unwillingness to consider the possibility that the other person may be right. I am unconvinced that DreamGuy bears any more responsibility for these disputes than the other users involved. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

his "evidance" agsint me is becasue he looks at incomplete pictures, and thjen yells and cries about it. i have been civil and ive tried to be carefull in my wording. Gabrielsimon 21:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

[edit] Resolution

The concensus of the outside views above, appears to be in general agreement that this RFC has some merit, but neither side is blameless and all those involved could work to improve their WikiCivility and avoid edit warring. At the moment no further censures are appropriate, but if the involved parties continue to engage in Personal Attacks additional measures may be required.

There have been no substantial new additions to this RFC within the last week. Is everyone agreed that the case is effectively closed. -- Solipsist 13:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Closed
  1. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 13:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. DreamGuy 05:56, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Dbraceyrules 04:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC). So long as DreamGuy abides by every agreement made, and discontinues rudeness to other Wikipedians. I will revert this agreement if I see any edits by DreamGuy contrary to what I state here.
  4. khaosworks 05:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  5. AI 18:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Closed by general agreement. Thanks to all those who presented evidence, responses and comments. Thanks also to all outside parties who took the time to comment. -- Solipsist 18:50, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_DreamGuy-2_9981.html"