Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:02, 8 August 2007

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 17:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC).

• DreamGuy (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

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

Desired outcome

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

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

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

Description

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

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

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

Dicklyon 20:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

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

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

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

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

Dicklyon 20:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Discussion at WP:AN/I: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=138792601&oldid=138792410#Rapid-fire_external_link_removal_by_DreamGuy
2. Discussion at WP:AN/I: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=35978604#Aladin_.28magician.29
3. Discussion at WP:AN/I: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive233#Spontaneous_block_of_DreamGuy_by_David_Gerard.2C_please_review
4. My polite request for him to respond to the compromise proposal. He deleted from this talk page with "what part of "you're banned from my talk page" do you not understand?". Dicklyon 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
5. My first content poll to try to find a consensus; DreamGuy responded with "Dude, that's just nonsense". Dicklyon 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
6. My second poll to try to refine the consensus; DreamGuy never responded; we agreed on and implemented a merge and redirect, which was nominally what he wanted but it didn't satisfy him (he reverted the merge part). Dicklyon 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
7. User:MIckStephenson's content RfC on photo editing started, and some of my participation in it, in which DreamGuy responds by accusing me of ignoring discussion and explaining why he deletes User:Clpo13's talk comments. Dicklyon 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
8. The AN/I (my recent diff) in which I sought advice from others on how to deal with his continued disruptive editing and abuse; lots of other chimed in with similar problems with DreamGuy, but no admin proposed any action to help. Dicklyon 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
9. My attempts to resolve disputes with DreamGuy started when I posted a note on his talk page when I first came across the photo editing edit war. I had originally intended to warn Dicklyon as well, but when my comment to DreamGuy was thrown back in my face, I never got around to it.
10. I tried a few times (, , ) to figure out why DreamGuy's response to my comment was so uncivil (more than it should have been, even if you consider how harsh my original comment could have sounded) and continued to try and get my point across (though, in retrospect, I could have been a bit nicer about it, and my misunderstanding of how people could delete comments from their own talk page didn't help), but I was rebuffed by DreamGuy at every turn, usually with an edit summary accusing my of harassment. It seemed that he just deleted my subsequent comments without reading them, even when I finally gave up and apologized for appearing rude in my original comment.
11. I then posted on AN/I regarding what I felt was undue uncivility and false accusations by DreamGuy. I notified him about this, but it was, as with all my posts on his talk page, deleted shortly after (; he tells me in his edit summary "the way to solve the 'dispute' is for you to stop posting on my talk page like you were told"). This incident report was pretty much shoved aside due to the belligerent nature of my original comment and the fact that I had reverted his talk page in order to get him to read my comments (I was, at the time, under the impression that it was bad form to delete talk page comments, even in the userspace). No one seemed to pay much attention to the way DreamGuy was acting towards me.
12. Another tussle between DreamGuy and myself cropped up on Adobe Photoshop over a comma, the placement of which I found odd. Instead of editing the page, however, I politely asked DreamGuy about it on his talk page and received a rather rude reply (). This was never quite resolved, even when I reworded the sentence in question to avoid the comma entirely (; my edits were reverted by DreamGuy even though they were completely legitimate and supported by other editors)
13. At photo editing, I went through and archived old and inactive discussions from the talk page, as it was getting long. DreamGuy reverted this, claiming I was covering up important and relevant discussions. As I had gone through and checked the discussions beforehand, I knew that none were newer than March 2007. However, to placate him, I left discussions directly related to the Photoshopping section of the article and archived the rest (; note that this is stated clearly in the edit summary). This was, again, reverted by DreamGuy, who was under the impression that I was archiving the same exact discussions. Only when I pointed out to him (through edit summaries and on the article talk page, as I was not welcome on his talk page) that I had left the most relevant discussions on the talk page did he allow me to archive.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

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

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

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

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

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