Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Contents

[edit] Killing the spirit of Wikipedia

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)

The bottom line for me is this: 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. When I worked on the white paper that became the foundation document for Apple's "Human/Computer Interface Guidelines", and we were all screwing around with Hypercard on the original Macs, the creation of a resource like Wikipedia was the dream we had in mind. A recent study showed that Wikipedia was as accurate, and in some cases more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Editors like User:DreamGuy don't just make things difficult for us, the other editors, they ruin it for the users, too. And, check your ego at the door people, it's all about the users. --DashaKat 22:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Therianthropy

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)

[edit] Movement of editors for "certifying the basis" to "agreeing"

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)

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)
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)

[edit] withdrawal of User:ideogram and User:You Are Okay

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)

Well, Jehochman wants to leave it as marked up, which is fine. As predicted, DreamGuy used them as distractions in writing his response. Dicklyon 16:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman's latest clarification says he is NOT an overseeing admin, so his discussion belongs here, not there; so I cleaned up this section, which I reproduce here for the record; and more stuff about and by You Are Okay that distracts from the RfC content:

[Copy of endorsement section (now restored to main page) removed El_C 19:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] DreamGuy wants to keep the conversation on the RfC page

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)

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)
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)
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)
Point taken. DreamGuy heed this. Quiddity Heard you. I'm out. --DashaKat 18:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Quiddity's outside view

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)

Note: this was moved from a section in the article that it didn't belong in.

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)

[edit] A classic example

Dashakat (below) edits from a very clear agenda both of putting his own bias into articles but also in lashing out with personal attacks[1],[2],[3],[4], 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)

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)

[edit] Discussion of DreamGuy's response

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)

I am OK with it. Jehochman Talk 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As to DreamGuy's accusations back at me, yes, I did get a bit uncivil with him at times, and yes, I did post on his talk page after he asked me not to. But I don't think my edits have been much objected to by anyone else, since they were mostly just reverts of his dismantling of the article. Mainly, his response makes it plain that he is unable to judge his own behavior relative to that of others, and that his belief in the business of having an encyclopedia to write drives him to disregard the opinions of others. I've felt such things, too, and I can see how it drives bad behavior sometimes, but I can also step back and recognize when I need to be more careful; we just want him to do that, too. Dicklyon 18:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Stop edit warring

Guys, stop edit warring. There is room enough on the RFCs for all parties to have their say. Friday (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

But who is edit warring...DREAMGUY!!! Get it? --DashaKat 18:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Um, no... people post replies, you and other bad editors remove the comments. That's edit warring right there. I was simply removing the responses and also pointing out that the page as it exists has been edited so much that the original comments can't even be restored. Doctoring the RFC page to try to present yourself in the best possible light and to hide pertinent information as wel as comments from editors that make your side look bad is majorly screwed up. RFCs are intended to resolve conflict, not to present a sham trial where only approved people get to talk. DreamGuy 18:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
All by himself? Really? Friday (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It does take two, usually, which is why I backed off when he objected to my cleanup. Let an admin deal with the mess. Dicklyon 18:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No one was shilling the page, DG...it was being cleaned up according to policy, and putting stuff where it belonged. Let's all take a breath, let the admin sort it out, and then get back to business. I would like to take the opportunity, however, to point out that this little sidebar is a brilliant in vivo expression of the behavior in question...on all sides. --DashaKat 18:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Dreamguy, the RfC/Uc instructions state that "All signed comments and talk that are neither a view nor an endorsement should be directed to the discussion page." That is why your response to Bryan was moved to the discussion page. Otherwise it might imply that the undersigned "endorse" your response there. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If that were true you would have removed Bryan's response as well, as he did not sign it. If you let a conversation go there then everyone needs to respond there, and especially not hide it on the talk page. To do otherwise is trying to doctor the conversation. And the other edits were far worse than that one, as they removed people signing that they didn't want to have sign on their side, they removed the admin's comments, they removed a notice at the top that the text of the page wa compromised by people hiding comments of others. DreamGuy 19:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Please let me do the refractoring; okay, Quiddity? El_C 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. (both Bryan's and Dreamguy's comments in reply to my outside view, are duplicated on this page currently. Dreamguy above and below here, Bryan twice below. I'll let you fix that. :) Thanks. --Quiddity 19:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: #Response to Quiddity's outside view section above is duplicated below.
Note 2: I pointed out to Dreamguy that his main Response is truncated (it ends in the middle of a sentence), but he removed it whilst deleting Dicklyon's notification of this RfC. I'm unsure whether or where to repeat the note to him, so shall do it here. --Quiddity 20:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Wait, is this about the photoshop thingy? At any rate, assume he read it. El_C 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean about the photoshop thingy, but yes, he fixed it. --Quiddity 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:refractoring

I am restoring the main page back to the standard format, which does include the notes from overseeing admins — please do not refractor. El_C 19:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman clarified that he is NOT an overseeing admin, and thanked me for moving irrelevant talk to the discussion page; check with him. Are you an overseeing admin? Dicklyon 19:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I am an admin that decided to oversee this conduct RfC, yes. As for Jehochman, if he didn't wish to present himself as an admin who is actively overseeing this page, he should not have titled his note as such. El_C 19:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for helping. Yes, Jehochman made a mistake, and editted his comment (one of two, only) later to say comment to instead of from overseeing admin. Dicklyon 19:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I copied your note, El C, to use the format. When I did that, I misread from as to. Sorry for that. It was just a simple copy and paste error. Jehochman Talk 19:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clarifying. I might refractor some of it, then. I really didn't expect more than my note to be added to that section. El_C 20:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologize, too, as I see now that I took both notes to be from Jehochman, when in fact the lower one was from El C, the actual admin here. Sorry for the confusion. Dicklyon 21:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, the rules are clear enough: in order to keep the standard format, responses to outside view go in the talk page, or create your own outside view which can cover other people's outside views. This talk page has degenerated into distracting talk about which comment should go where. Well, it should be clear, as of now. I'll move all refractored components together, momentarily. Thanks. El_C 19:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have restored my comment that was moved here. In Quiddity's outside view he references an email I wrote to the mailing list in which I carefully avoided any indication that I was actually talking about DreamGuy, and I feel that if he's going to do that it should be accompanied by confirmation and explanation of why I did that. The whole point of keeping his name out of it originally was to avoid being misconstrued as hostile and now this is likely to be taken the wrong way as a result. Bryan Derksen 18:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Now DreamGuy's taken it out, and as I feared with an edit summary that suggests that he is indeed interpreting me as being hostile to him. I suppose I'll write an "outside comment" of my own, in that case. Bryan Derksen

That is unacceptable; please do not revert my refactoring again, Bryan Derksen. Everyone needs to stop muddying the water by messing with the format. Just stick to the rules. For example, DreamGuy makes the hostile claim against myself for having removed the unsubstantiated allegation against You are Okay for being an Ideogram sockpuppet. I think it's in poor taste for DreamGuy to criticize me in this way, but at least he's keeping it within his own section. Sorry, but if one person does it, then before you know it, it becomes an incomprehensible mess and an edit war magnet. My clerk-like note/s make it as complicated as I, at least, am willing to allow it to be. El_C 05:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
No longer necessary anyway now that I've added an outside comment section of my own. I hadn't wanted to get drawn in so far but that's my only option now; obviously I can't annotate the mailing list archives directly. Unfortunate I couldn't find a suitable compromise before once again becoming cast as a villain in DreamGuy's view. Bryan Derksen 02:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The various comments added by endorsers of Bishonen's outside view haven't been refactored yet. I'd do it myself but seeing as I was involved in a debate on that sort of thing I've been holding off. Could someone do that? Bryan Derksen 23:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked El C if he would, and he didn't think it merited it. (User_talk:El_C#Dreamguy_RFC). I think, though, anything that goes beyond the name to endorse any view should be moved over here. Is there a policy on this? --Thespian 23:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There are guidelines, which describe normal practice. Here. It's standard to let people add a few lines of commentary — a few sentences — to their endorsements. If they want to. It makes sense, doesn't it? If people endorsing other views than mine weren't aware of that, I regret it. Take a look at the guidelines, and take a look at a few other RFCs at random. Many of them are in fact a mess of threaded discussions and "disendorsements", in spite of clear instructions that such is not acceptable. An RFC that only contains endorsements in the form of bare sigs is not something I've ever seen. And honestly, what's desirable about it? Feel free to go to the page and add a shortish comment to your endorsements if you thought you weren't allowed to, people. I can't believe it's worth making a big deal of, least of all in the form of removing existinig short comments to Talk. Come on, those comments specify and sometimes qualify the endorsement. How can that be bad? It's interesting, isn't it? People took trouble to formulate it, and it's of interest. Isn't it? Bishonen | talk 00:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC).
I don't actually mind the comments, but when I tried adding a one-line comment a while back to clarify some stuff about a mailing list post of mine that was being referenced it got removed. I had to add a whole "outside view" section to keep my comment visible so it just seems a bit unfair. I'll cope. Bryan Derksen 05:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see DreamGuy removed it. (Wow, I can't recommend diving into that convoluted history — you may never breathe oxygen again.) He's no RFC specialist, any more than most of the other users on this page. (Though, on a side note, the people who added brief comments below my view are in fact well versed in handling RFCs: they're all very experienced users, all but one admins.) DG should have left your comment for El C to take care of. But I suppose it seemed "a bit unfair" to him, too, that his own comment responding to yours had at that point been removed at least three times as being "against the rules", by various users who silently left yours in place: Quiddity [5], DashaKat [6], and by a anon IP 69.19.14.16, per a "rule" he made up out of whole cloth[7] (compare the explicit page guidelines). So, well, RFCs can bring out some petty instincts, it's nothing new. I'm glad to see that stopped with you, Bryan. Bishonen | talk 09:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC).
The primary aim of my comment was to defuse any impression DreamGuy may have had that my secretiveness on the mailing list was from nefarious intent and it failed anyway despite (obviously) being seen by him before it was removed the second time. I suspect in hindsight I probably never had much chance to succeed no matter how it was worded or where it was located. So, oh well. The only way to edit Wikipedia as long as I have and keep one's sanity is to learn how to "let go" of little failings, and at least now I know a bit more about RfC procedure in the process. Bryan Derksen 17:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC top note (refactored by ElC)

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)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

NOTE: I have added a redirect from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy (c. 2004) because of contributory confusion by some editors, myself included. --DashaKat 16:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Note from overseeing admin: Redirecting old RfC is not permitted. These must remain, for the record. El_C 19:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bryan Derksen response to Quiddity (refractored by ElC)

    • 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#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)

[edit] DreamGuy response to Bryan Derksen (refractored by ElC)

    • 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)

[edit] Comments from uninvolved parties (Re-refractored by ElC)

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)

On my first day of joining Wikipedia I tried to resolve a dispute with DreamGuy over a link to a site for connoisseurs of chess. He couldn't even respond to, "Do you play blitz chess?" «You Are Okay» 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Now I realize the reason Wikipedia's chess pages are amateurish.
DreamGuy writes Wikipedia's chess pages and doesn't play blitz chess. «You Are Okay» 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note to ElC (Refractored by ElC)

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)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ideogram came back "unrelated" for Ideogram and You Are Okay. Meanwhile, YAO was blocked for disruption at AN/I.[8] - Jehochman Talk 15:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note from Durova (re-refractored by ElC)

(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))

[edit] Creation date of RfC

The creation date has been changed back to a ~~~~. Could the clerk adjust that. (As a participant, I don't think I should, even though I'm an Admin.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

By all means, feel free; there are no clerks here, though some of my action could be seen as clerk-like. El_C 20:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
El C, thanks again for intervening in the confusion, and I apologize again for my part in creating it, over-interpreting Jehochman's error, etc. It's indeed unfortunate that we had the added noise of people who should never have been involved, as a distraction that now DreamGuy can focus on. Yuck. But thanks for your even-handed oversight. Hopefully the process will be more normal from here, whatever normal is in things like this. Dicklyon 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Except it's a perfect example of the types of editors who make these complaints: people not following policies wanting to lash out at others instead of just moving on and working on an encyclopedia. Your ongoing harassment on talk pages and so forth and complete inability to follow directions when admins tell you to stop is exactly the same as this other guy you don'twant people focusing on. You just want to pretend that you are sane and reasonable when you aren't any different than him. DreamGuy 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Normal would be having the RfC lead to a civil conversation amongst all parties, but it seems (judging from various comments on the talk page) that we're a long way from that. --clpo13(talk) 22:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Normal would be being civil in the first place and not going on an attack harassment campaign against an editor enforcing Wikipedia policies and guidelines because it means you didn't get to have things your way. DreamGuy 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
That last is WP:POT, at the least. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I freely admit I made a mistake in my first exchange with you. But your equally uncivil response to me is what complicated matters. You do not get to be uncivil just because someone was uncivil with you. --clpo13(talk) 21:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how we can have civil conversations with you. Many editors who you are disputing with try to speak to you on your page, are 'banned', and you remove every attempt they make to speak to you. Editors who don't choose that semi-private method instead get attacked on article talk pages under the guise that you know how the guidelines were intended to be read. People who disagree with you, for whatever reason, get bitten; and you seem to admit this is your intent. It feels very damned if you do, damned if you don't. Part of it is no doubt my job (tech writing, journalism, user interface and web dev), but I try very hard to speak to people on Wikipedia the way that I would speak to professionals I work with (and of course, I fail at times). But whatever tone of voice you're intending for your tone, Dreamguy, the things you say would not be acceptable in a workplace, and so they shouldn't be here. --Thespian 07:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I've made every possible attempt to be civil over the years, bending over backwards on many occasions to assume good faith and just generally try to be a peacemaker and compromiser. It just doesn't work with you. Whenever anyone disagrees even slightly with your position or says anything remotely critical of your behavior you launch into attack mode and simultaneously make big noise about how much of a victim you are. I've finally reached the point where I really don't think there's anything salvageable here; despite all the positive work you've done this aggressiveness has become a net liability to the project and I see no hint that it's going to change through discussion. I think you should take a long wikibreak, if only to give other editors on Wikipedia a rest from fighting with you. You will inevitably interpret this statement as "harassment" of some sort but IMO it has to be said. Bryan Derksen 15:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
People trying to claim I am uncivil to them need to understand that they have been just as uncivil, or worse, with false warnings, assuming bad faith left and right, ignoring clear policies when pointed out to them, giving highly slanted versions of events that make themselves sound like angels instead of describing their clear harassing behavior (as verified by nuetral admins) and mentioning that later discussion proved that my edits DID in fact comply with policies and that they were wrong (like Bryan Derksen here, who falsely portrayed my removal of clear spam links as "against consensus" when consensus of people at Wikipedia talk:External links showed I was right) and so forth and so on. Most of you have never tried any actual civil behavior, just blind reverts, attacks, false warnings (Arthur Rubin here is the master of this, putting block warnings for beig "against consensus" when it was just him, and he was against consensus, and violated his admin status to try to win edit conflicts.) The basic thrust of an RFC is to try to solve problems. None of you seem willing to do this, you just argue for a block or undoing of edits and etcetera. This is a power play and nothing more. Any attempt to resolve conflict means you have to take responsibility for your own bad behavior. There are plenty of good editors here who I have no conflicts with. Most of you don't come anywhere close to being good editors (Dicklyon, DashaKat, Arthur Rubin, and some others are some clear problem editors with offenses way beyond anything you can accuse me of), the rest of you seem more intent on pointing the finger instead of making efforts to actually work together to improve the encyclopedia. I'm here to make Wikipedia better, not to soothe wounded egos of editors who really want their edits to stay, gosh darn it. Edit better and then the edits will stay, it's as simple as that. Act civil and do actions wothy of respect and you will be respected. Come in shouting and yelling about things you haven't looked at or that violate policies and nobody here has any reason to respect you, but you can get past that by doing things to earn it. The people on this RFC either ignore that basic common sense approach or are actively opposed to it for POV-pushing or other reasons. DreamGuy 16:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of any possible accurate statements in this rant, it clearly violates WP:NPA. I don't see the point of going into details as to what is or is not accurate. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Regardless of whether it's an accurate description of your poor behavior, and that it was brought up in context of you claiming I am doing something wrong, bringing up your poor behavior is a personal attack? That pretty much sums it up with you and some others here: anything you do should be beyond question, and anything anyone else does that gets in your way, even when it's just enforcing key Wikipedia policies, is bad, and pointing out your bad behavior is a "personal attack." It's rare when people are so transparent in their disregard for common sense and fair play. It's difficult to assume good faith in your case when your every move shows clear bad faith, both in your dealings with other editors and your only using policies when they ae convenient as a club against others but not when it comes to being rules you need to follow as well. DreamGuy 16:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes. Whether or not I've violated Wikipedia policies (which I deny), you're accusing me of violating additional policies which don't actually exist.
For the record: I deny any bad faith toward DreamGuy, except in specific instances where he's shown he refused to accept clear consensus against him. He sometimes claims that policy trumps consensus, or that consensus reinterprets policy, depending on whether he agrees with the result unknown causes. I do think that the uw- templates that I've used need some more work, as he clearly does not understand what I intended to say about his edits which clearly violate policy or guidelines.
Also, for the record, he's still editing against a clear consensus in the photoshopping articles. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
If by "consensus" you mean what you and a mob of people who never cared about the article before are doing against clear policies just for spite purposes... You simply refuse to discuss the issue and want to lay down the law, even showing up with admin powers to change the Photoshopping article after it was locked to *your* version... you are not acting in good faith in that case, and have not acted in good faith ever in your history of conflict with me. DreamGuy 16:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: civility is not something that can be discarded when other editors are uncivil. Violating a policy in response to a policy violation is still bad form, no matter what the reasoning behind it. Wikipedia policies always apply. Being a jerk because someone else is being a jerk does nothing to help the situation. That's probably the biggest reason why this RfC even exists. If DreamGuy had handled situations better with editors he disagreed with (or acted wrongly to him in the first place), we wouldn't even be here discussing this. --clpo13(talk) 18:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So many people (especially Dicklyon and Arthur Rubin) are acting like WP:DICKs so regularly and so unrepentantly AND expecting to be afforded the kind of treatment that they have NEVER given to anyone that it's ludicrous to reasonably expect anyone to continue to return the favor. The fact that you continue to act like you did no wrong and try to push all the blame on me despite clear evidence of massive abuse against me shows that you are not interested in solving the problem but in merely finding a scapegoat. DreamGuy 16:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It's reasonable to expect the right kind of treatment because it's policy. I don't care if someone is being a dick to you. That does not give you the right to be a dick right back. Instead of one person breaking policy, that's two people breaking policy. What does that do to fix things? Absolutely nothing. It just gets both people upset.
And to say that I am acting as if I did no wrong simply shows that you have not read my comments on the RfC. I freely admit I did not act in the best way when I first interacted with you. But your behavior following that left much to be desired. --clpo13(talk) 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
And your behavior then and now left much to be desired. If you want to try to resolve the problem, take steps to resolve the problem instead of continuing to falsely claim that I violated policy. All I did was point out to people that they were breaking policy, that's not a "personal attack" or being "uncivil"... except for those people with egos who think any criticism of themselves is horrible while they feel free to say the same or worse about everyone getting in their own way. DreamGuy 20:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, do you not see the irony in what you're saying? "People with egos who think any criticism of themselves is horrible while they feel free to say the same or worse about everyone getting in their way." I dare say you've just described yourself perfectly. Now, it's not that you warn people about breaking policy that I have a problem with; it's how you go about doing it. If someone violates WP:3RR, a simple note telling them that it is a policy and why would help a great deal more than something along the lines of "Perhaps you should try reading through important Wikipedia policies before even thinking about editing an article. Plus you're banned from my talk page forever," which is more likely to alienate the person than solve any problem. --clpo13(talk) 21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Procedure question

Now that the RfC is filled out with views, what happens next? Can the overseeing admin give us some visibility into what might or should happen next? Is there a period of waiting for more viewpoints? Is there something else? Dicklyon 19:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The usual next step is to poll everyone involved and decide what to do. Such polling usually involves first reaching a consensus as to whether the subject user has responded in a way that satisfies everyone involved. I'm going to take a wild guess here that that hasn't happened.
Assuming that hasn't happened, the next step is a request for mediation if consensus favors going ahead with this. Daniel Case 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's what happens: Nothing. Because your complaints have absolutely nothing to complain about other than actions the people doing the complaining are just as guilty of themselves, and in many cases much more so. As long as the complainers continue to complain instead of working toward a real solution... and in fact their recent edits show they are escalating their problem edits, for example abusing admin powers to lock articles and then edit them to their preferred versions, that there's no way to proceed without the complainers taking realistic stock of how their actions caused the problems, continue to inflame the problems, continue to go against policy. I am not going to just admit that I am evil and abusive and need to be banned so that they can do whatever they want whenever they want, because it's nonsense and not how Wikipedia works. But it's clear that that's the only thing that will satisfy them, because they aren't being realistic or fair in the slightest. Until someone tries to make an honest attempt to solve the problem there's nothing that can be done, and no reason to futz around with conflict resolution process. DreamGuy 16:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see DreamGuy has already rejected mediation. Is the next step request for arbitration? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes. In fact, we would have had to go there, I think. RFM is really better suited to disputes that involve just one or two articles. This involves user conduct across a wide range of articles over a long period of time. Anyone want to demonstrate consensus on taking this to arbitration, particularly in light of DreamGuy's intractability above? Daniel Case 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There seem to be too many issues to take this to mediation. The photoshopping violations of policy and related NPA and CIVIL are the only ones I've been involved in. The outside views related to Dissociative identity disorder and Parapsychology would have to be out of scope for this mediation, and it looks as if they might be ripe for a separate RfC. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitely too many issues for mediation, plus he won't have it. A mediated solution to the photoshopping issue, which itself is very small, would do nothing to curb the behavior pattern that we are all complaining about here. Dicklyon 21:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration sounds good to me, especially considering the continued misrepresentation by DreamGuy going on here. I won't deny that he has been wronged at some point, but he's dealing with it in very much the wrong way. --clpo13(talk) 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy to see this go to arbitration; I am not currently involved in this article, but the behaviour here matches the behaviour I encountered, and the behaviour I noted people had had issues with for up to two years before my attempts to reach a mediation (it was the first time I had ever tried, because it was the first time I'd ever needed to, and I messed things up because I misunderstood the process during my first encounter with it). I would absolutely support arbitration here, because I have felt, for months, that DG is a decent editor who has collaboration issues, and needs to understand that never backing down is a failure on everyone's part in a collaborative work, not a strength. I have worked with almost everyone else involved here, and found them to open to consensus and collaboration, even in the face of incredibly problematic editors (if you'd like to see Dicklyon exhibit the patience of a saint, go read a year of Mousepad edit changes). I don't know that arbitration will be accepted; Dreamguy bit me over every error I made as 'new to arbitration', to reject the attempt. --Thespian 06:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm no saint and I'm not always so patient; that was just the mode I adopted with this dynamic IP guy, since blocking him for vandalism didn't work. But thanks for the kind comment. There are many better examples of my work and my style; see my user page. Now as for arbitration, can that be turned down? Or are you confusing it with mediation? Dicklyon 06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to say only what I've seen; since I don't follow you around, where we've worked together is Mousepad, and there, you've been very patient. I'm well aware that you might not be elsewhere, but hey; it was just an example. I've never been involved in arbitration, because I've never needed to be, so I fully expect that I'll mess up; I was just looking at arbcom stuff to get a handle on what it involves (and you're correct, even if you personally reject it, you still get the results, like it or not). My inclusionist tendencies include people as well as articles, and I don't particularly want to see anyone leave/be blocked, but as someone who has abandoned/avoided articles over the politics, I feel that this is getting out of control. --Thespian 06:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration cases can and are regularly declined. A number of arbitors have to vote to accept the case in order for it to actually enter arbitration. The fact that this RFC has failed spectacularly to gain any positive results, and that mediation has been rejected out of hand by DreamGuy, does show that you have all attempted the earlier dispute resolution steps, which is something that the arbitors usually look for. One thing for all here to keep in mind: once arbitration is opened, the actions of all parties involved in the dispute(s) are subject to scrutiny by the arbitors, not just the effective subject of the complaint. DreamGuy has been making a lot of accusations of his own. Once the arbitration starts, if he is able to present proof to back up his accusations, then when the results are handed down, remedies may quite likely hit other people than just DreamGuy. The point is, to anyone here heaping on DreamGuy, if your own hands are not clean in the matter, then you may not like the outcome of arbitration. Even if some sort of sanctions end up placed on DreamGuy himself, he may be far from the only one sanctioned. - TexasAndroid 13:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
That sounds fair. I'll take what's coming. Dicklyon 15:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I expect to be censured for some of my actions, as well. Let's go for it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
From what I've just read in the Arb instructions, the uninvolved editors with Outside Views (me) aren't a part of it (though presumably the arbitrators will glance at this RfC a little?). So, whilst it isn't up to me, I agree that arbitration is necessary. Especially after reading so much more, and seeing the behaviour pattern extend backwards in time. The Outside view by Daniel Case is particularly clear and insightful. --Quiddity 16:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
DreamGuy thinks I'm a party, so I probably should be considered one by the ArbCom, as well. I'm not saying that all the "uninvolved" editors are necessarily parties (Daniel Case comes to mind), but those who state they have been involved in disputes with DreamGuy probably should be. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Hm, if I had a small dispute with DreamGuy many months ago, would I be a party then? I'll probabyl get involved with the arbcom section of things, though I don't think I've done enough to be considered a party. In either case, seeing as how no one's upported DreamGuy's stance, and MedCom won't take it, I guess then it should go to arbcom shortly. I'll do what I can to urge them to accept the case, if nothing else. Wizardman 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I support a move to arbitration. Everything that could be done has been tried, repeatedly in some cases. There's no remaining alternative course. mikaultalk 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Since DG has rejected mediation, I also support the request for arbitration. --DashaKat 19:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Mediation was attempted back in the Therianthropy external link situation too, here, and DreamGuy appeared to take the attempt as an attack of some sort. I don't think he's mediatable at this point. If I'm considered a party to the case due to my past interactions with him I'm still willing, I think I've always done everything I can to play nice. Bryan Derksen 22:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh? So, when you gave a completely slanted summary of the dispute about the link in question there and pretended that I was vandalizing pages instead of removing spam, as discussed on Wikipedia talk:External links and a completely inexperienced admin banned me for days after he warned me to stop doing something and didn't even wait to see if I stopped before banning me... and you said the ban was improper on my talk page, and I asked you to work to undo it, especially since you were ultimately responsible for calling the guy in in the first place, and you refused, you would call that playing nice? In fact I even told you that doing so would demonstrate your good faith to do what was right on Wikipedia -- and other admins eventually came in and cleaned up after the mess and said straight out that the new admin was completely wrong, and other editors and admins showed that the links were spam -- and what has your reaction been? To continue to try to give a one sided view of the whole situation without real details that showed you were wrong, both on your claims. It's just ridiculous that you can keep putting yourself into situations where you do these things and then try to claim that that's you demonstrated good will and so forth. Any genuine attempt to work together is genuinely accepted. You have proven to not actually be trying to resolve anything, but simply to demand that you were right and try to get me blocked for going by what policies and other editors say instead of what you say, and then refusing to take action to undo what you yourself admitted was an improper block. Good faith is something that would be pretty easy to demonstrate, either through apologies, through going through and removing the spam links that you once supported after discussion proved they were spam (those links still exist on countless articles all over, as added by the site owner, and which I have been reluctant to remove out of fear that you or some other person will once again ignore policy and mischaracterize it as vandalism). If you want to move things along, DO SOMETHING to try to work TOGETHER. Until then your comments that things are impossible etc. are only proof of your unwillingness to enter into dsipute resolution honestly. 15:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that you only consider a situation "resolved" when it turns out the way you want it to turn out, and consider "working together" to mean "agreeing with you." And speaking of slanted summaries, I never "tried to get you blocked." I've provided a variety of links to the talk pages on the Therianthropy external link debate, so others can check up on the whole thing themselves, but here are some specifics:
  • Talk:Therianthropy#WikiFur link and WP:EL - In this section of the talk page, Serpent's Choice enters the discussion as an outside participant and in the process provides DreamGuy with a list of other pages with external links to WikiFur, the source being debated at the time. DreamGuy responds "thanks for letting me know about all of these improper links, I may go through and clear them all out, with the help of other people on WP:EL as well." I respond by requesting that he hold off on that until we've finished the ongoing debate over whether WikiFur is "forbidden" in general, but within minutes DreamGuy starts mass removal of external links to WikiFur from other articles.
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive260#Rapid-fire external link removal by DreamGuy - Where I supposedly request that DreamGuy be blocked. Note that I explicitly say that I'm not requesting that DreamGuy be blocked; I just wanted him to stop the mass removal of links. I couldn't think of any other way than blocking to do it but I was hoping someone else could step in and somehow magically solve the situation better than I could. At the very least, I wasn't going to block DreamGuy myself. The administrator DGG stepped in and requested that DreamGuy stop the link removal: [9].
  • User talk:DGG/Archive 5 June 2007#False warning intimdation threat nonsense - DreamGuy's response. He appears to completely reject DGG's request, calling it a "nonsense false warning." DGG subsequently blocks DreamGuy. DreamGuy then complains to me via email that he actually did stop removing links, and requests that I unblock him; I decide it's no more appropriate for me to unblock him personally than to block him personally and so just pass on the request to DGG (see previous talk page link). DGG unblocks DreamGuy after about an hour. For further discussion of the matter, here's a link to the version of DreamGuy's user talk page right before he removed all the Therianthropy external link related discussion: [10] (I notice, ironically enough, that this version includes some early discussion of the "photoshopping" issue too).
DreamGuy, if you still feel this description of the blocking incident is slanted or incomplete, you are most welcome to explain why and post some links of your own backing it up. I've tried to make sure that other editors can verify my version of events, the only thing I've referenced without posting a link to is a private email you sent me. Bryan Derksen 23:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not just slanted or incomplete, it's self-serving nonsense. The link was outright spam, added by the site operator across scores of articles, and a blatant violation of WP:EL, as agreed by the people at that talk page. You keep ignoring that fact. I was right, you were wholly wrong. Your post to ANI was an attempt to claim that you had consensus to keep those links, when you didn't. It certainly had not been discussed that those links should be kept everywhere, which would have had to have been necessary in order for there to be any consensus. This was simple clean up: standard edits, perfectly proper, and not anything an admin had any reason to get involved in. DDG did not block me for ignoring the warning as I had ALREADY stopped. When the error was pointed out to you, you sat on your hands, assumed bad faith some more, conveniently refusing to take any action to undo the thing you messed up -- both in the block and then later removing all the spam links. Funny, you were all gung-ho on this "consensus" you had in your head to keep all those links so that immediate action had to be taken to KEEP the spam links, but now that you can't deny that the consensus says they are spam you don't feel any immediate need to remove them from all of those pages. You don't see the hypocrisy here? You think showing up here and insisting you were right despite all the evidence to the contrary is at all a good faith attempt to solve a problem? Your personal desire to have your way directly resulted in an editor getting blocked for cleanup activity and resulted in the keeping of identified spam across hundreds of articles. DGG also shows lack of caring about the issue and only in jumping in to assume bad faith based upon another admin's word because when I asked him if I was allowed to continue removing the spam links now or if he would ban me inappropriately again, he never responded. Neither one of you acted at all in following Wikipedia policies here, either at the time or in all the time after. You want to try to resolve conflicts? Apologize for the way in which you botched the entire situation, don't let your wounded ego get in the way of improving the encyclopedia, and take responsibility for your actions by solving the problem you created. DreamGuy 20:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not, specifically, links to WikiFur; if consensus was against them I'd be fine with them being gone. The problem is your behavior. Consensus had not yet formed at the time, there was an ongoing debate about whether external links to WikiFur were appropriate and you unilaterally launched into a campaign to force your own view through before it was finished. You can't call it "cleanup activity" when there was still lack of consensus over whether it was actually a mess in the first place.
And once again, here in this response you're assuming all manner of bad faith about my motivations and attacking me as a person rather than addressing the actual subject at hand. I presented links backing up every statement I made above. If you have some actual evidence to back up your claims of bad faith on my part (or DGG's, for that matter) then by all means present it, otherwise I see nothing to defend and certainly nothing to apologize for. People can read the links I provided and draw their own conclusions. Bryan Derksen 23:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of full transparency (and to prevent any more procedural errors or arguments), I have left this note for Dashakat in response to this edit. I'll also point out that Dreamguy did solicit Bishonen's feedback, though I have no problem with that, as Dreamguy had no guarantee of a positive reaction. Many people involved have made errors, let's try not to make too many more... Thanks. --Quiddity 03:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as the claims that "everything that can be done has been attempted" it is just nonsense. the whole history here is of people trying to escalate the conflict with no attempt to resolve anything, and instead actively trying to increase the hostility, both in the tone and nature of comments left, in respecting calls not to leave pointless templates and attacks on my talk page, in actively leaving edit comments on articles stating that they will blind revert any edit I make to go to their version (even doing so while a page was locked, by an admin who apparently doesn't care about rules preventing such acts), to following me around to articles they had never edited previously to both blind revert changes there they did not understand or to jump onto the talk pages there to make accusations and so forth. You can't just say that refusal to go through mediation -- and I have repeatedly explained why I believe mediation is against Wikipedia concepts, as it hands over the results to a single person with no expectation that they will take the time be fully research the full matter or be unbiased in any way (and previous attempts at mediation have shown self-appointed mediators jump in without following the rules for the mediation process, so my belief that the process is flawed has already been demonstrated even in that aborted case) -- means I am unwilling to work. All parties involved are supposed to show efforts to work together, not just one side making demands and then complaining that the other party doesn't just given in to them completely. Especially considering now that several admins have made outside comments about the inappropriate actions of the complainers, I would hope that by now they would finally admit that they can't just force their demands through and that thy have to work together in good faith. I'm still not seeing any good faith for any attempt at real dispute resolution. Make a real effort and it'll progress. Make ultimatums and it won't. It's as simple as that. But there's no way anyone here can honestly claim that everything that can be tried has... DreamGuy 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy, if you are so willing to work with other editors, why do you refuse to do so at photo editing? You've been asked a number of times for your (constructive) input, but your answer is invariably that the editors working on that page are "malcontents" who have nothing better to do than antagonize you. How, may I ask, is this working together for the common good?
With regards to that dispute, everything has been tried. There have been discussions on your talk page as well as on the article talk page. There was an RfC for the article. A previously uninvolved editor even stepped into try and get all parties to accept a consensus. What more is there to do in order to resolve the dispute? Ever since the article was protected, we've been at a stalemate. The only thing left is mediation, and if you think that's a flawed system, then I don't know what you want. While I can't speak for the others, I at least am willing to consider your concerns with the photo editing article and hammer out a compromise that everyone agrees with. But that requires you to want to participate, preferably without name-calling, insults, or the insistence that we're "wrong" and you're "right." --clpo13(talk) 08:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, sure, if you just go ahead and CLAIM I am refusing to work with other editors at photo editing and ignore that I am and have, I suppose you can then say whatever you want. The problem is, people are not working there, they are rejecting my comments and several policies out of hand so they can do what they've wanted to do since March with no compromise of any sort. I was the one who came up with compromises, and those were blind reverted as well. It's a history of Dicklyon edit warring to try to force his way onto it to turn the article into a replacement for the nonsense he had on Photoshopping that got removed. And if you think the only way to "move forward" is for me to just give in and agree with the edit warriors pushing the WP:UNDUE weight neologisms of some amateurs as if they were more important than the professional, encyclopedic information, or accept mediation then you are simply ignoring REAL attempts at solving the problem. Like, for example, someone on Photo editing can hold Dicklyon and Arthur Rubin back from their blind reverts and agree to make compromises that are something quite a bit more substantial than just rewording the same things they have been pushing since before March, and people could agree to stop harassing me and move forward under good faith efforts, or perhaps an alternate mediation-type situation can be created, but without basing it all around one person out of nowhere with no training or credentials stepping forward to volunteer to try to make all the decisions themselves based upon whatever information they get filtered through to them by a chorus of angry people. We need to find people that can be guaranteed to not just be some sockpuppet jumping in to take control, someone with demonstrated competency, someone who isn't biased, etc. And, really, it should be a group of people, and not just a gathering of people recruited far and wide because they dislike me (running off to get known problem editors like DashaKAt, Empacher and MartinPhi solely because they were chomping at the bit to say something bad at me is an example of major bad faith). And you could stop making attacks, mischaracterizing the situation, and repeatedly assuming bad faith about my intentions. All you do is keep saying I refuse to cooperate, while I am cooperating and you refuse to try to do anything to actually cooperate. DreamGuy 20:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure you can CLAIM we ignore policy, but we've had discussions of the undue weight and neologism policies, and we are not at odds with them. You could of course add a bit about alternative "encyclopedic" viewpoints if you could find a source for what you think that is, but you have not. And please stop mischaracterizing the photoshopping content as something that I had; all I've done is revert attempts to destroy it; it was there for many months before either of us became involved, and all I did was to revert vandalism to it, by Walter Humala and then by you; later I added some refs to make it more clear what is supportable by reliable sources. The only person pushing a POV here since March is you, with your attempt to deny that "photoshopping" is a term widely used to refer to photo editing, even though many reliable books and magazine articles support it explicitly. Dicklyon 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
As for your accusation that peope were "recruited" to this argument, I believe this is the first time I'm heard that. Do you have reason to believe that's so? Dicklyon 20:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
He believes it was done because he did it. And for the record, there's nothing, in my opinion, wrong with this; its an RfC, and people on Wikipedia are busy with Wikipedia and jobs and real life. He asked her to comment, and while it was likely she'd be positive, she may also have refused or come to the page and said, 'actually, DG, they have a point.' On the other hand, I think it far more likely that if people have strong opinions about Dreamguy, they're more likely, for better or for worse, to notice when an RfC on him comes up. It's not like links to this weren't running at the top thread of AN/I for 5+ days; that's where I noticed it. Not a conspiracy; just the end result of editing the way Dreamguy edits; this is the result of the choices he made, which he believes to have been correct. It may well be that his method of action and way of editing is what Wikipedia needs/should have/is desired. If we didn't all bring our own experience to it, we wouldn't all be interpreting things differently. But as I said before, in a Web 2.0 model site, what you get to deal with is the social construct that evolves, and the other people who are drawn to the community, not the community that would be perfect. On a meta level I'm fine with DG making the decision to edit the way he has, but that confrontational style is also going to make me try and pull the encylopedia in a different direction, because I think it is ultimately unprofitable.--Thespian 21:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he did recruit Bishonen, but I was really inquiring about his assertion about "a gathering of people recruited far and wide because they dislike me (running off to get known problem editors like DashaKAt, Empacher and MartinPhi solely because they were chomping at the bit to say something bad at me is an example of major bad faith)." Did someone recruit those editors to here? It may be acceptable, but I'd still like to know; I certainly did not; many came from watching the AN/I case I started, I think, and they may have seen that by watching DreamGuy's talk page and seeing my notice to him about it, if they were quick before he removed it. But I'd really like to know what he thinks he's accusing anyone of here. He has several times in the part refused to clarify his accusations against me, just removing my talk request instead, so this is another chance... Dicklyon 21:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Prove to me you've been cooperating. And don't point to old consensus. This is about the here and now. All I've seen is Alucard asking you for your input, you either ignoring him or pointing to old (and by now, outdated) consensus as proof that the new discussion is pointless (clearly in violation of WP:CON, which doesn't have any exceptions for consensus never changing because you don't want it to), and long tirades on the article talk page about how we're all wrong since we're just out to harass you (especially since at least a few of the editors there have had no previous problems with you) and that the Photoshopping section shouldn't have any meaningful comment because you say it's not worth having even a couple paragraphs in a related article. Yes, that's obviously evidence of cooperation.
Your "compromises" didn't take the opinions of other editors into account. While a number of editors did (and still do) agree with some of your points regarding the Photoshopping section, no one agrees completely that there should be no mention of the cultural use of the term. As it stands, nearly everyone agrees there should be some mention (on the photo editing page) of both the professional and cultural use of the term. You're the only one pushing for professional use mention only. I've said this on your talk page and on the article's talk page, but you've apparently ignored me both times. I don't know how else to get you to listen. Cooperation requires both sides to listen. I'm willing to take your concerns into consideration, but I am not willing to bow down to your demands without question. Compromise is a two-way thing.
I also find it ironic that you are accusing me of refusing to cooperate, mischaracterizing the situation, and assuming bad faith. Having trouble finding original accusations to fling at me, or are you content to simply turn my own words against me? Here, how about a compromise: you stop falsely accusing me, and I'll work with you on the photo editing page towards a version everyone can accept. Does that work for you? I'm sick of this circular arguing. I, like you, want things to get done. But that's hard to do when you refuse to cooperate and blame it on me. --clpo13(talk) 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess I had hoped to stay out of this, but since I am being obliquely referenced I will chip in my view. How sad that it has to come to this. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Bishonen's view

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)

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).
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)

[edit] Further comments on Bishonen's view

Ages ago, when I tried to get mediation for Therianthropy (admitting my own bias, and saying that I truly didn't care which way it went, but we really needed an external opinion; note the MedCab was on Therianthropy, and all of us, before it turned into an edit war), I said: the issue becomes that Dreamguy does not seem to be working with the other editors, and it's causing tensions for both him and other editors of the page. Bishonen's view does, I feel, support this. Is any part of this actually enjoyable an experience for Dreamguy, these days? I'm more than willing to believe it is if he says it is, but the tone of his edit summaries, talk page discussions and more says there is no joy in Mudville to me. You simply don't get to pick the complete bunch of strangers who are also editing Wikipedia at the same time that you are. They're likely perfectly good people, but sometimes you just don't see eye to eye with them, and that's not changeable. If your interactions with them make the experience unenjoyable, the task a chore, and make you become bitter, uncivil, and cease to assume good faith, then its time to reconsider the experience. --Thespian 01:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thespian's put it very well here, IMO. I agree with a few of Bishonen's basic points, specifically that DreamGuy has done a lot of useful work and that he often encounters and clashes with people who are acting unreasonable. However, neither of these is a valid excuse for behaving in an unreasonable manner oneself. The end result of reacting like that is that Wikipedia has to deal with two editors acting unreasonably (the original editor and the editor responding to him) instead of just one; they don't really "cancel out". Bryan Derksen 09:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! It's all well and good for DreamGuy to feel harassed (especially considering the treatment he's gotten from some people, even admins), but that's no excuse to be a jerk to anyone who disagrees with him. It's unfair to users who have had no previous quarrel with him and get on his bad side because of a simple content dispute. It's especially unfair to newer users, who wouldn't know anything about his past experiences. I know I didn't know why DreamGuy reacted the way he did to my first comment on his talk page. I realize now that the comment might have been a little strong, but the way he reacted made it seem as if I had called his parentage into question. That kind of reaction is completely uncalled for, even if it can be justified. WP:CIVIL does not give exceptions. --clpo13(talk) 08:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I have made a conscious effort to take myself out of this discussion, as I feel the discussion has, itself, overtaken the process, and it has become only a gesture, rather than a productive vehicle for resolving this matter.
That said, I am going to have to disagree, and go on record as saying that, in my experience, DG is more provacative than victimized, and that this process is taking a turn toward its logical outcome, which is that DG is going to "get his way", and come out unscathed. That is, frankly, disappointing. --DashaKat 10:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You were the most disruptive element in this process, so I appreciate your withdrawal. El_C 13:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Bishonen

There are a couple points in Bishonen's view that I would like to respond to:

But I wish all the people who complain of his civility took five minutes out to imagine themselves unfairly blocked and considering what that might do to the sweetness of their temper — to consider just how uncivil it is to block unfairly and unexpectedly.

Wikipedia's admins are not perfect demigods, and will sometimes block when they should not block. This is the same for any human endeavor. If one is blocked unfairly on Wikipedia, one is expected to address the issue civilly. Acting uncivil because you consider yourself the victim of "unfairness" is the sort of behavior we normally associate with children—and while we may not all be greater than eighteen years old here, we are supposed to act like adults.

Here, by the way, is Dicklyon insinuating that I must have some special "relationship in support of DreamGuy" since I try to see that DreamGuy is treated fairly.

Well, Bishonen, having followed the travails of this user off and on for several months, it's not an absolute coincidence that you happen to show up to speak in his defense every single time someone tries to hold him accountable for his conduct. If you would like to enter into a formal mentoring arrangement with DreamGuy, that is your prerogative. However, if I were to characterize your actions with regard to this user, I would characterize them not as those of a disinterested third party, nor as those of a mentor, but rather those of a defense attorney. Whether they're inspired simply by your sense of injustice or by a personal fondness for DreamGuy is legitimately up to question.

These points are especially salient to me—given my history with this project, I highly doubt *I* would have gotten away with half the incivility that DreamGuy has gotten away with, especially since there is no one on Wikipedia issuing the periodic apologia for my uncivil behavior. Philwelch 01:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to stand behind the statements made here. I have, on several occasions, been confronted by Bish when dealing with DreamGuy. I find it rather odd. There is, indeed, a sense that Bish jumps in to defend DreamGuy on a fairly regular basis...with the supporting evidence, almost to the point of considering one to be a sockpuppet of the other, or at least a puppet...and, frankly, the whole thing makes me a bit uncomfortable, if not downright suspicious. --DashaKat 02:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
While I appreciate the support, I would not go as far as to use words like "puppet". It's fairly obvious to me that Bishonen and DreamGuy are two different people with different editing patterns, even if one often comes to the defense of the other. Philwelch 02:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard in this entire RfC. Strike that, in all the DreamGuy RfCs, including the deleted ones. El_C 03:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
No, Philwelch, you have in fact gotten away with at least as much. By my estimate, you have countless uncivil outbursts under your belt. El_C 03:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
My intention was to acknowledge my past, not to ignore it. To wit: when someone follows DreamGuy around bringing up his episodes of incivility, they're called "stalkers". When they do it to me, I just sigh and say, "Yes, El C, that was my point." Philwelch 03:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
What are you insinuating? El_C 03:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Nothing beyond what I've stated directly. If you want to start another RfC or RfAr against me, feel free to do so—I am not the one whose conduct is at issue here. Philwelch 04:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you claiming someone followed you around, here? El_C 04:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
El C, we had been involved in separate issues in the past, issues I would like to believe are behind us. Nonetheless, you have chosen to discuss those issues here and now. I have no complaint with this. If I were to complain, those complaints would, without a doubt, fall on deaf ears. Neither of those would be true if DreamGuy was in my place. I consider this an illustration of my original point,.
If you have further questions about my original remarks, I would be glad to answer them. If you want to question my personal moral authority or worthiness as an editor, I would rather continue that discussion elsewhere—indeed, I have already suggested to you a more appropriate forum for such discussions. Philwelch 04:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about (I'm not even sure if your "we" means me and you, or you and DG). I have been watching over this RfC pretty much since its inception, for the most part, to everyone's satisfaction. El_C 04:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It was my understanding that I had been uncivil to you in the past, El C. If I was mistaken in that, I apologize. Philwelch 05:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Apology accepted. No, not to my knowledge. You did, however, cite yourself as an example, which why I picked up on it. That is, I do feel that you have gotten away with about as much before the Arbitration Committee arrived at this finding (just from watching the noticeboards and so on; nothing to do with me). El_C 05:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
For someone I've never wronged personally, you seem to take an unusual interest in me personally, so my point still stands. Philwelch 05:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think so; just pointing out the facts, as I see them. El_C 06:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of full transparency (and to prevent any more procedural errors or arguments), I have left this note for Dashakat in response to this edit. I'll also point out that Dreamguy did solicit Bishonen's feedback, though I have no problem with that, as Dreamguy had no guarantee of a positive reaction. Many people involved have made errors, let's try not to make too many more... Thanks. --Quiddity 03:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen's response was not unpredictable to anyone who's even half-heartedly followed DreamGuy's travails. I doubt they were unpredictable to DreamGuy. Philwelch 03:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
So she is not entitled to her opinion, then? El_C 03:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
She certainly is entitled to her opinion. I am simply commenting on it, as I am entitled to. Philwelch 04:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
You htake issue with the manner in which she formed her opinion, thus far? El_C 04:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
El C, if I had more to say on this issue, I would have said it. Your solicitation serves no purpose. This is not a witness stand, and I don't appreciate being questioned as if I were on one. Philwelch 04:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel this way but I'll pose queries in whichever I see fit, nonetheless. El_C 04:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Spare me the non-apology apology, I don't appreciate being patronized to, either. Philwelch 05:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I would neither call it an apology, nor do I feel it came across as patronizing. What I meant was, that it's unfortunate (i.e. I find it regrettable) you're displeased with my queries, but do not feel they were out of line. El_C 05:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My "lack of interest"

It does not matter to me why he might have wanted to try banning people from his talk page ... because it's a pretty clear-cut violation of WP:OWN. I don't care how upset you get ... you are not allowed to do that. If a particular user's comments on your page upset you enough that you don't want to deal with them, just don't respond. They'll get the message. Daniel Case 03:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with that sentiment. The only time I have ever recoiled in speechless anger, was upon seeing the words "deleted unread" in my watchlist as a reply to a comment. That's a worse slap in the face than even an unsummarized revert. Trying to "Ban someone" from a talkpage is an implicit assumption of bad faith. Assuming that others have a Bad attitude or Faulty intelligence is one thing, but Bad faith is just not assumable, if you want to be a positive part of this Wikipedian community. Educate them or delegate them, but don't just dismiss them. --Quiddity 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, considering that other admins have said that banning users who are not acting appropriately is entirely within reason, and in fact several people have been warned to stop editing my talk page after I told them not to... and in fact User:Elonka was in fact banned for continuing to do so (a ban which I asked to be overturned as inappropriately harsh)... and admins have time and time again approved of this whenever it came up on the WP:ANI page, the fact that some people here are offended by it doesn't concern me. It's accepted, it's been encouraged, and it's not something I even came up with on my own. If you have a problem with it, take it to where it can be discussed on its own. As far as it being "bad faith" to do so, it only ever comes up when an editor has already demonstrated bad faith. WP:AGF rules are not an excuse to be blind to reality and continue to ignore bad behavior when it happens. Anyone banned from my talk page has every potential to demonstrate their good faith by editing on articles in a fair and reasonable way and to interact on the pages in conflict (as anyone banned from the talk page either did so as a result of conflict on a page, or if we're not editing pages in common there is no possible Wikipedia-improving reason to ever post to the talk page again) with respect. User talk pages really become irrelevant, as everything can be out in the open on the talk pages of the articles in question. And, frankly, it's far worse to dismiss someone's comments on an article talk page, which is exactly the behavior Dicklyon, Arthur Rubin and others have done, so your calls to act fairly are aimed at the wrong people here. DreamGuy 14:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The first issue I have is specifically with your bad faith and unwarranted aggressive tone. Take this recent thread: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Copycat suicide risk -- You begin by implying that social responsibility is irrelevant, due to NPOV (a subjective personal opinion/interpretation, with no basis in policy). Then after Cloudsurfer explained himself in detail, you specifically accused him of having an "extremely clear bias", and used the edit summary "= biased opinion, not something we should change editing practices in order to appease, especially as it would set a horrible precedent". I'm not wanting to argue the minutae of that topic, I'm just wanting to point out that you jump to conclusions without clearly reading the preceding comments, and that you argue with and denigrate experts after you've "read literature on the topic". There seems to be an empathy problem, in that you don't treat people you disagree with at all well.
  • The second issue I have, is the complete lack of acknowledgment of your own mistakes. You keep brushing them off as "tit for tat". But that's not the way CIV and AGF work. I realize you are in a defensive position here, but an admission of mistakes-made, a single honest apology, would do wonders. Most of the other participants here have admitted and apologized for past incivility, but you keep proclaiming almost complete innocence, when there are some very obviously insulting diffs provided on the main page. A statement that you will try harder to be polite, and that you will comply with the WP:ES instructions to "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved" is specifically what I am most hoping for. --Quiddity 17:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Social responsibility is not irrelevant, censorship under the false flag of social responsibility, however, is abhorrent. And I'm not saying it's a tit for tat, I'm saying that 90% of the people signing against me on this RFC are hardcore problem editors whose offenses are some 10 times or more anything anyone could come up with about me. The fact that you threw in with them shows only gullibility and not malice at this point, but continuing to avoid looking into the situation and portraying things as you are will soon move over from mere ignorance to wilful and aggressive ignorance in order to avoid admitting you were wrong. DreamGuy 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
This is just your denial showing again: "I'm saying that 90% of the people signing against me on this RFC are hardcore problem editors whose offenses are some 10 times or more anything anyone could come up with about me." This is nuts. Sure, we are imperfect individually and as a group. But there's no evidence that we're "10 times worse" or even anywhere near as bad as you in terms of creating conflict and deadlock in the editing process. You manage to alienate a large fraction of the people who work on the same articles as you do. There's something going on with you that cannot be explained by us "hardcore problem editors" who mostly get along pretty well in a productive editing process. Pointing up examples of our problems is in no way a defense of your own. I even support your position in some of your conduct disputes with some of these editors, yet I can't support the destructive way that you go about trying to get your way; sometimes your position is "right" in the sense that it comes to be accepted in a new consensus; and sometimes it's not; but you treat all situations as if you must be right and everyone else must get out of your way to be attacked as a "problem editor." This needs to get fixed; if you can face it and correct it, we won't have to keep complaining about you. Dicklyon 16:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
From your actions it's reasonable to conclude that you will be complaining about me and anyone who gets in your way, as your actions here have been major violations across the board. You can complain all you want, because your opinion does not concern me. I care what editors with actually demonstrated histories of good edits care, and even there not so much as long as I am doing what Wikipedia policies and founding principles say is important. This dog pack mentality of yours and other editors here where anyone who gets in your way should be attacked in whatever way possible until they give up, false consensus claims based merely upn campaigning for other editors with personal conflicts, and so forth and so on are completely opposite to everything that Wikipedia stands for. DreamGuy 21:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to have anyone examine your comments in the light of editing history. But YOU are the only one I've complained about, beyond a simple vandalism report. Dicklyon 22:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if I'm one of the hardcore problem editors (despite my never having a problem with anyone but vandals and Dreamguy and never being banned or even getting a warning about more than not uploading an image with the correct copyright), or if I'm merely gullible, or if we could get a clearer example that Dreamguy simply cannot assume good faith of anyone who has problems with his editing style. I don't have any idea how this can be solved, and as an RfC, I do think this is nearly commented out, as we're in the same place we were last week - I've seen everyone on this RfC contribute to the site and would like to continue doing so, but I'm starting to feel entrenched. --Thespian 20:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Vague generalizations about "problem editors" don't help anything. But then again, I think this RfC is illustrating the problem perfectly. DreamGuy's claim that "90% of the people" on this RfC are "hardcore problem editors" who are "10 times" worse than him is violating WP:AGF in a big, big way. I've said it before and I'll say it again: bad past experiences are no excuse for current bad behavior. --clpo13(talk) 20:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Then you have a complete misunderstanding of what assume good faith means if you honestly believe that. Again, AGF does not mean "blind yourself to the clear bad actions of people who continue to knowingly violate policy even after it's been pointed out to them." Did you not read Bishonen's comments? I assume you think she and all the admins and editors who agreed with her are also all assuming bad faith? You need a reality check here. DreamGuy 21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I know what WP:AGF means and I know what it doesn't mean (and if you think I said anything like "blind yourself to the clear bad actions of people who continue to knowingly violate policy even after it's been pointed out to them," you need to re-read what I wrote). Feel free to assume bad faith with editors who only make bad edits and have shown themselves to be blatant vandals. But when it comes to more established editors who have made a great deal of contributions, most of them quite good, assuming bad faith simply because you got into a tussle with them is way out of line. Everyone makes mistakes, but they shouldn't have to pay for them every time they cross your path. That goes completely against everything Wikipedia is. It's not constructive to assume bad faith out of people who aren't obviously bad editors. And by obviously, I mean obvious to people other than you. --clpo13(talk) 21:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between removing a users' comments from your talk page without comment, which is permitted under policy (though I think the reason for that is implicitly only to allow you to remove completely unproductive vandal comments, the only occasions (very few) when I've removed comments from my talk page) and explicitly telling someone they're banned from your talk page. That implies that you think your talk page is somehow "yours" to "ban" people from ... WP:OWN by any other name stinks just as much. Second, "banning" here on Wikipedia is not a term that should be thrown around lightly, as it refers to a process which can only take place under very formally defined terms. To use it the way you have implies that you have some sort of proper authority behind you, which a newcomer might think you have but most of us know you cannot. I would accept a deletion of a comment on the grounds that the commenting editor is banned from the user's talk page only if it was so ordered by the ArbCom as part of a decision. Daniel Case 20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Your idea of what can happen on talk pages and what members of the ArbCom and other admins say are not even in the same neighborhood. I'll go by what they say, especially as it fits with common sense, and not with what some highly uncivil and extremely demanding person jumps in from nowhere to say as if everyone should take him at his word, espcially as it's packaged with all sorts of other demands completely out of step with the way Wikipedia works. DreamGuy 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It's called a "request for comments" and an "outside view" for a reason ... the participants want to get views from those not involved in the dispute or disputes at hand. I weighed in; I am sorry if a mere request that you do something about a problem you quite clearly have is ruining your life. I am at a loss to determine what was "uncivil" about my outside view; while I was harshly critical of your conduct, I have never personally attacked you (there is a huge difference). If I am "demanding" it is because Wikipedia is demanding.

Policy is policy ... it is indeed an extremely reasonable request to make that you obey WP:ES. And I would say thirteen endorsements on an outside view means that everyone is taking me at my word. Daniel Case 15:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about civility, assuming good faith, not making personal attacks, and yet you post nonsense like "I am sorry if a mere request that you do something about a problem you quite clearly have is ruining your life"? You honestly can't see that you are being highly uncivil? And you think "taking you at your word" is a good thing? People should not "take people at their word", they should look to see if what they are saying makes any sense instead of signing just because it's aimed against someone they don't like. You are encouraging blind obedience here. So you got thirteen signatures, most from hardcore problem editors, while I got a bunch of signatures from respected admins and editors in support that you're acting badly. Time for a wake up call there. Perhaps you should good a handle on your problems before you attack others. DreamGuy 21:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any problems; I have never been blocked.

Like all of us I have occasionally made slightly incivil editing summaries; like most of us I apologize for those moments.

You did not get a bunch of signatures on your response. To date you are the only signatory on your own response. An administrator who, as far as I can tell, has made a special cause of trying to protect you not from yourself but from those you have hurt (for which she has been criticized not just here) wrote her own outside view in which even she concedes you have (paraphrasing) an attitude problem. But only after you begged and pleaded with her to bail you out. At first even she realized it was hopeless. Then it took her a considerable amount of time to defend you here.

Let's look closely at those endorsements too, BTW. Three of the six do far more than you ever have to concede your failings, even as they join you in attacking those who would bring you harm.

The editors who signed my outside view may well be problem editors ... I don't know them well enough to say. But it seems to me you've made an awful lot of enemies for a self-proclaimed "all-around nice guy" who's just doing his job. Daniel Case 02:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your insights into my motivations and mental processes. Do you think you could stick to discussing my Outside view rather than my Special Cause? Take a look at the WP:NPA "nutshell" if you think it would help. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC).
Short answer:OK, now I totally understand where DreamGuy gets this from.

Long answer: The two are bound up with each other, and you can't help but know it. I believe somewhere else (I'm too tired to look up the diff at the moment) you said that you felt your defending DreamGuy was a test of Wikipedia principles, due to his unpopularity? Certainly makes it a special cause to me. And I really think it's stretching that nutshell into marzipan to consider that a personal attack. Daniel Case 04:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This diff ? It's by Ghirlandajo, not me, but let's not stick at trifles. I recommended the WP:NPA "nutshell" in good faith to you, Daniel, and hoped you would mull over what it says, but I guess not. I wasn't talking about any "personal attack" — where did that come from? Did you see the word WP:NPA and stop reading? It was the "nutshell" I recommended: "comment on content, not on the contributor." As in: please don't get personal. Don't talk about me. Don't discuss what I know or don't know, how long it might take me to write a post, my defective character, my misguided motives, my lack of integrity. Don't insinuate that I'm "where DreamGuy gets this from."
You know, at first I was simply amused by DashaKat's sockpuppet charges and Philwelch's ancient grudges (I notice Philwelch thought it looked better to not actually mention them). But reading your recent posts in respect to me, Daniel Case, I'm not laughing any more. This tone, these sneers, from a stranger wikipedian in (no doubt) good standing (recently adminned, yet)? What you say to me is indeed nothing compared to your atrocious rudeness to DreamGuy that El C removed (way to build bridges!), but I find it just too personal. I now realize the depth of my unwelcomeness as a dissenting outside voice on this page, and this will be my last post on it [applause]. DreamGuy, I advise you to take it off your watchlist, too, you're not doing yourself any good by your responses here. For people who're focused on the harmfulness and viciousness of my outside view (and on the things they think I probably said somewhere about having a Special Cause) — how about you open a separate RFC on me? Look at the TOC — wouldn't you say these screenfuls of commentary about me are getting a bit ridiculous on the talkpage of somebody else's RFC ? Bishonen | talk 11:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC).
I actually think it's up to me to defend even unpopular people from harassment and injustice.. Ghirlandjo didn't say that; you did.

Most people, when someone whips out NPA on them without any relevant context, naturally assume they are being accused of a personal attack. But even so ... "comment on the content, not the contributor" is misapplied. This is not an article we are editing. This a "request for comment" on user conduct ... a page set up specfically to comment on a contributor, and his conduct.

Self-pity ill becomes you, Bishonen. I have no intention of opening an RfC on you, but I can't speak for other contributors to this page. Certainly your behavior, which seems to me to be classically enabling, is open to question. I'm sure that if this goes to arbitration (and until such a request is filed, we should all be treating that as an if), the scope would certainly include an examination of whether you have been acting properly as an administrator with regards to this user.

OK, that analogy I posted last night which led to El C reverting my entire comment until I changed it was inflammatory. It was not meant as a personal attack but, since I have the capability to empathize with others, even those I am positioned adversely to, I am able to understand that it might easily have been perceived that way and I apologize, per WP:CIV. Daniel Case 14:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Case, I, for one, could not care less that you are an admin, although I admit that I am absolutely astonished to learn this. Let me be perfectly clear: If you ever say anything even remotely as inflammatory, I will block you, I will ban you from this page, and I will unselectively remove all comments made during such time. "Apologize per WP:CIV?" How about per unabbreviated decency? El_C 10:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Hooray! The reason Bishonen is such an admired administrator is this ability and dedication to protecting people who are harassed and exposed to injustice. Perhaps the silly "Admin School" idea has some merit, if people are passing RFA without understanding this critical point. Now me, I don't do it much. I don't like people. I'll defend ideas against the mullet brained crowd, but people don't thrill me. I'm glad that Bishonen is defending harassed users and people being unjustly targeted because they're unlovely or unpopular. Furthermore, the fact that you believe this is a telling and criminal confession on her part indicts both your understanding and practice chillingly. Good Lord, man, do you really edit Wikipedia to give wedgies and be part of the popular clique?
  • While we're recommending links, perhaps, even without the entire course of Aristotelian logic, we can review ad hominem: any change of subject from the topic under debate to the persons doing the debating is a forfeiture of logic. Geogre 20:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Short answer: Norman Mailer tried to do the right thing and stuck up for Jack Henry Abbott despite him being "unpopular". Worked out real well, didn't it?

    Long answer: I merely repeated, without passing any judgement, a quotation from Bishonen's outside view to refute her assertion that I was making it up when I said she had a special case for DreamGuy. So, along comes (as DreamGuy would put it) someone totally on the outside of this discussion who does exactly what Bishonen accused me of: imputing a particular meaning to words I said without taking the context into account. There is certainly nothing wrong with an admin sticking up for a user they believe to have been hard done by; many other admins have and the resulting wheel wars are the stuff of legend (and multiple RFC's and lengthy arbitration cases). But since we are here to discuss a particular user's conduct, not article content, it is inevitable that if an administrator whose conduct regarding this user has been called into question before, and who used the same defense that she feels duty-bound to defend him, it would be surprising if, after she joined the discussion, she didn't become part of the issue. In that case she would be better off defending and explaining her actions than lashing out at those calling attention to her role in letting this situation get this far. Her plea to not have any discussion of her conduct is like Homer Simpson telling Bart, when he picks him up hours later from soccer practice than he should have, "Let's not talk about who forgot to pick who up and get this behind us".

    I would direct Bishonen and Geogre's attention to the many calls in that AN/I for the two of them, and DreamGuy's other defenders, to do something to rein in his reckless incivility (Then again, Bishonen at least suggested a request for arbitration ... well, that could well be done). Could they share with us what they have done toward that end since April? Daniel Case 04:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I must say, for someone trying to criticize others on assuming good faith, being civil and so forth, this Daniel Case person is sure having WP:POT calling the kettle black problems. He has gone through and quite thoroughly twisted the actual history of events to try to fit his preconceived notions. For example he chooses to interpret "hopeless" in reference to an ANI thread where the same people posted attacks and ignored all calls for sane behavior and where she knew from experience that those people would both not listen to reason and also not have any adverse effect as their ANI ramblings were ignored by other as meaning "hopeless to defend DreamGuy on this RFC", which is certainly not the case at all. "Begged and pleaded" is rather biased view of my request that she state how she feels here one way or another, as she has a way of cutting through BS. And as far as "enemies" go, the mere existence of people dedicated to opposing someone does not at all support the idea that they are bad editors, quite the contrary the bad editors will of course try to raise the most fuss about editors getting in their way if they think they can get anywhere. That's exactly what's going on here, as well as some people jumping in out of bad faith assumptions assuming that a lot of people yammering must mean there's something to it. In fact that's been the overall strategy of these problem editors for months, and for the ones working behind the scenes who were permanently banned largely as the result of conflicts with me who came back using sockpuppets and go around encouraging anyone who has a conflict to escalate it. DreamGuy 21:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
...she knew from experience that those people would both not listen to reason and also not have any adverse effect. That never stopped her from warning them before, did it?

...their ANI ramblings were ignored by other as meaning "hopeless to defend DreamGuy on this RFC". Which arose directly from that ANI, as you know.

the mere existence of people dedicated to opposing someone does not at all support the idea that they are bad editors, quite the contrary the bad editors will of course try to raise the most fuss about editors getting in their way if they think they can get anywhere. So all dispute resolution processes are thus inherently suspect because they can be used by "bad" editors? And just what is a "bad" editor in your opinion? Given the charges and evidence against you, I'd really like to know.

You can contort logic all you want; we are not going to get anywhere by arguing further. It's time to consider a different direction. Daniel Case 05:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bishonen's response: oh noes!

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).

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)

[edit] Bridge building

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:

Daniel Case 05:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list.... and of course this is in no way an agreement to your quite ridiculous demands of me, especially as many are against standard ArbCom rulings in other cases, but, hey:

  • Users in question cease and desist from posting to my talk page at all after they have been told not to. The standard warning templates are just the tip of the iceberg on the harassment they've added there, and it clearly serves no purpose other than to be harassing. Any discussion of the article itself can be on the article talk page.
  • Users in question immediately stop following me around to different articles solely to revert my edits on articles they have not been previously involved in.
  • Users in question not simply blind revert any article in dispute to their preferred version, either singly or in groups, as an attempt to bypass normall consensus-building and discussion.
  • Users in question stop pretending that merely calling people together in a mob and declaring it "consensus" so that the other side can be ignored completely is at all following the goals of Wikipedia. I hate to say it, but if the "consensus" is based upon blatantly ignoring policy (such as WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, etc.) it's just not valid. If the anti-evolution people managed to orchestrate a large group of people all showing up at Evolution to say that it's nonsense, it's still a violation of WP:NPOV.
  • The main thing here is that certain people seem dead set on having all sorts of information on recreational uses of photo editing programs for fun and game and keep wanting to place it in highly inappropriate locations (Photoshopping, Adobe Photoshop, as a large section on Photo editing). They can write all they want to on that topic, they just need to find an article name that is appropriate and then be listed as a See also to that article on the appropriate other pages. They can either just take over Photoshop contest or make some other page and merge that one in.

DreamGuy 19:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Things are getting out of hand

I don't know exactly how this RfC degenerated into random accusations, but really, it has to stop. This is about DreamGuy and his actions. If the actions of any other editors are questionable, bring up another RfC regarding them. Judging by some of the endorsement comments following Bishonen's view, DreamGuy's actions are pardonable because 1) he makes good edits, and 2) some of the editors spear-heading this RfC have done similar things (were uncivil, owned articles, etc.). While I can completely understand this line of thinking, I feel it is not what RfCs are all about. It may very well be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but the fact still remains that both the pot and the kettle are black. The problem doesn't just go away because the editors requesting comments on DreamGuy can be just as bad as him. And being uncivil isn't excusable because an editor does the work no one else is willing to do. Heck, I do the very same work DreamGuy does: RC patrol, anti-vandalism, etc. If I get yelled at by someone who thinks the edits I reverted were legit, I don't immediately jump down their throat. Everyone has to follow the policies, regardless of who they are, the quality of their edits, or what kind of work they do here.

I hope I'm getting this across all right; it's late and I'm sleep-deprived, so I might not be making much sense. It just seems to me that too many people are dodging the issue.--clpo13(talk) 09:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me say the following: the next person to comment in an even remotely uncivil manner, will be blocked without further warning. As much as I dislike civility blocks, I will not allow this page to turn into a circus (the last comment was way out of line). Tread lightly, everyone. El_C 10:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
RFCs are part of the dispute resolution process. The idea here is not solely "about DreamGuy and his actions" it's how to solve a dispute. Certainly the actions of the people who are complaining most definitely are relevant in how to go about solving the dispute. The fact that you are still ignoring that very basic concept is just one of many reasons why these actions here are just an attempt to escalate the dispute and make it worse instead of in fixing it. If anyone actually cares about solving this they should start following through on the steps already mentioned on how to solve things. Filing a bad faith mediation request is certainly not the way to do it, and neither is to continue to insist that we ignore bad behavior by editors so we can focus on only one person. 19:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to close this up and take it to RFAr

I think, then, it's time to pack up the poles and the tent and archive this RfC before it really does generate a second RfC. Does the above consensus still exist for an arbitration request? Daniel Case 14:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If you could get it started and planned out, that would really help out. Wizardman 17:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Vashti 17:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

To go to RFAr you have to demonstrate a real willingness to solve the problem. All that's been demonstrated here by your side is a complete unwillingness to do anything except the things you want to do in the ways you want to do them and make uncivil comments and assumptions of bad faith. Furthermore, it's funny that even after I have spelled out how this can move toward being resolved you people keep doing exactly the things that will not resolve it: filing a bad faith mediation request, insisting on ultimatums that are completely improper, etc. It's quite ridiculous. DreamGuy 19:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I was waiting to see if the mediation attempt was going to get anywhere this time, but I see it's not, so I'll go ahead and start the WP:RFAr. Dicklyon 19:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Considering that you filed the moderation in clear bad faith you knew it wasn't going to go anywhere, and instead of taking the time to try to make real attempts to solve the dispute you just want to rush ahead to RFAr. You have a very skewed idea of what dispute resolution is supposed to be. Ignoring good faith efforts to try to come up with alternate dispute resolution steps so that you can try to force things that you know are unacceptable and portray the failure of those to get anywhere as if dispute resolution is impossible is a fairly blatant bad faith effort. DreamGuy 19:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Clpo13 filed the mediation; I didn't expect you to accept, but I thought I should wait and not further cloud that by starting an RFAr while you had not yet explicitly said no. If you can interpret that as something bad on my part, I don't see how. Dicklyon 23:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It was not a bad faith mediation request. In fact, it had nothing to do with you at all. It amuses me that you think everything revolves around you except this RfC, which is specifically designed to be all about you. No, the mediation request was in the best interests of the photo editing article itself. I posted a notice about that on the article talk page, which was all I was supposed to do. Nowhere did it say I had to ask the explicit permission of every single person involved. If you don't want to participate in the mediation, that's all well and good, but don't call it bad faith just because you don't like how the system works. No matter what you think, I am trying to move towards resolving this dispute. It would appear that you are the one holding everyone back, specifically by refusing to participate in mediation (and calling it bad faith, to boot) and accusing everyone else of being the problem. --clpo13(talk) 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It was ABSOLUTELY a bad faith request. The rules for mediation say straight out that all parties have to agree to mediation or they can't do anything, and you knew that the parties did not agree. Furthermore, the person who showed up out of the blue to play mediator interestingly enough admits that he has had conflict with me in the past, and within hours of my pointing out that the request cannot be open as the parties did not agree and that his claim that the mediation would go on without me if I chose not to participate is completely against the entire concept he is immediately adding all sorts of very aggressive statements to the RFAr. This was in no way, shape or form a good faith filing and the "mediator" was not a neutral party in the slightest. Your claim that the mediation had nothing to do with me at all and was about the article shows either severe ignorance of how the process works or extremely bad faith wikilawyering -- or both. DreamGuy 23:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It was NOT a bad faith request. You can keep saying it is, but that won't change the fact that I didn't make it out of bad faith. Heck, I'd be the one to know, wouldn't I? And while I know all parties didn't agree (on the content), I figured they'd at least be open to mediation. Guess I misread you, didn't I? "Open to cooperation," did you say? Right.
Besides, why are you blaming me for Cool Blue taking the MedCab request? You know full well that's out of my control. I didn't recruit him; heck, I nearly forgot about the request until he posted on my talk page saying he would take it up. Not knowing there was any previous interaction between you two, I didn't object. You can't call my filing "bad faith" because another one of your "problem editors" took up the case.
And please, for the sake of my sanity, stop piling false accusations on me. For someone who objects so vehemently to people accusing you, you sure like to dish it out to others. It's getting tiring, especially since you have yet to provide any proof of policy-violating actions on my part. I am no wiki-lawyer. I, unlike some, do not quote policies at length in place of actual discussion. --clpo13(talk) 06:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If such an arbitration request is launched, in part, due to the unremitting disruption of the RfC process by certain elements, highlighted by their unwillingness to listen, and respond with civility, to the other side, and generally, play by the rules, well, it will certainly have its consequences. El_C 19:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I started one; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests; I'm linking that instead of the specific section on DreamGuy conduct etc since I haven't decided if I've got the best heading for that. Please take a look, add yourself as a party if you think you belong, and comment here, there, or my user page if you've suggestions. Dicklyon 19:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not launch incomplete arbitration requests; just hit submit when everything is ready to go. El_C 19:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I can see that was a bad idea, as it started getting meta-comments the minute I started, before I had a change to give DreamGuy the link on his talk page. I've moved my draft to a subpage of my user page in case anyone wants to help or comment: User:Dicklyon/RFArDreamGuy. Let me know if that's not a good idea, too; or maybe I'll find out. Dicklyon 19:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Draft RFAr on User:Dicklyon/RFArDreamGuy is almost ready, pending input from others. Please list yourself as an involved party if you think you are. I'll wait until tomorrow some time to "launch" it. DreamGuy, I'll revise my notification on your talk page at that time. Dicklyon 20:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr.Alucard's comments

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

I don't want to amend my views yet again, but after reading the various comments in this document I want to add more, for better or worse. In any community you are going to deal with people who have their own interests at heart. They are going to defend those interests by whatever means they can, sometimes getting nasty and devious about it. (Please note that I am not necessarily referring to this current situation or the people involved - this is general talk about behaviour.) On the internet with its afforded anonymity this gets exacerbated - people write things that they probably wouldn't dream of saying if face-to-face with the recipient. In my opinion it is absolutely vital that the people trying to deal with this type of onslaught not stoop to their level. In the case of Wikipedia there are some very definite guiding principles of what Wikipedia is and what it isn't. One of these is the Code of Conduct, which says that we need to respect our fellow Wikipedians even when we may not agree with them. I don't care what they have done to me, I need to stay civil and respectful, not belittling anyone. If an editor doesn't feel that he or she can do this, then they need to stay away from such people and areas, not get involved in them even deeper. I do not consider that "but look at the type of person she/he has to deal with" as an excuse for rudeness, incivility and belittling. Otherwise we are saying that the Wikipedia Code of Conduct applies only when someone is playing nicely, and that means it's OK to descend to the level of the trolls when bated strongly enough. I feel that we, as a community, should be better than that. Everybody has their bad days and loses it from time to time. When they do, we should, as a community, help them to get through it by helping them avoid situations where they may get even more tangled. In my opinion "Yeah but they started it"-type arguments should not trump the Wikipedia Code of Conduct under any circumstances. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFAr launched

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)

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)