Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration
Latest comment: 19 years ago by The Epopt
Learn more about this page

The complete request for arbitration:

User:DreamGuy

edit

Involved parties

edit
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

dreamguy notified here [1]

its notable to stae that this was removed, as was all mention of this proceeding as claims of harassment abound more, in edit summaries.Gavin the Chosen 21:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

I have tried beiong rasonable, he refuses to negociate, and calls me harsasing, or vandal, or worse. i have gone as far as switching accounts, a few tiems not to well, to try to distance myself from him, so that we could both continue to edit in peace, that didnt work, i have tried an RFC, one of the resolution points was that he would try to bve civil, this hasnt happened, i can see no further recourse for an incurably incivil person such as he.Gavin the Chosen 02:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Though I do not support this nomination whatsoever, as it looks like pure revenge, I would like to save people the time and link to the earlier RFCs - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy. You would think that a remotely reasonable requester would have done kind of basic editing before sending up the request. Hipocrite 13:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I had been involved in a content dispute regarding whether metamorphosis merited a reference in the lead section of Therianthropy (see Talk:Therianthropy#Reverts by Eequor). At the time I believed the issue had been resolved adequately, but DreamGuy apparently does not feel it had been (see below), and this leads me to believe his actions have not been motivated by good faith. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 11:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Gavin the Chosen

edit
See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy/Statement

Statement by Eequor

edit

In my view, DreamGuy has an ongoing interest to push a defamatory point of view into the articles on therianthropy and otherkin. This seems to consist mainly of emphasizing similarities between these subjects and clinical lycanthropy, a mental illness; see [2] and [3]. He has additionally made statements which demonstrate a clear bias against these cultures ([4], [5]); in light of these, it is difficult to believe he edits in good faith. I feel he should be forbidden from editing Therianthropy, Otherkin, and Clinical lycanthropy.

statement DreamGuy

edit

This is a spurious charge bringing up mostly ancient history by someone who is all but blocked in his own RfAr for countless proven cases of uncivility, admitted sockpuppeting, extreme serial 3RR violations, removing other people's edits to try to hide things, etc. I bend over backwards to try to work with him, being far, far more civil to him than he is to me or anyone else for that matter (see his recent edits where he calls everyone who disagrees with him about Otherkin as "delusional" and "paranoid" "out to get him" etc.), and when he doesn't get his own way (running me off articles completely so he can make highly biased edits) he complains that I have a problem. He also tried to file a RfAr against me under one of his sockpuppets accounts earlier (I think Ketrovin, perhaps Khulhy, a quick check through history should find it) and was rightly spurned, and the second RfC in question that he refers to was closed amicably by all parties involved except for him. This is a bad faith revenge RfAr because I keep reporting him for violations and he keeps getting blocked.

Further, Vashti's claim below that I am uncivil is also odd, considering that he was called me a prima donna who he doesn't have to listen to and edit warred against consensus on several articles (the ones Gavin is involved in). Perhaps his complete is sincere, but he should use the standard conflict resolution process instead of jumping in and trying to egg on a bad faith complaint by an editor who has already agreed to serial blocking starting with a month ban as a way to avoid even more serious actions against him for his chronic and purposeful policy violations. It's only too bad that his punishment hasn;t started yet, as whenever he gets back from a temporary block he's back immediately to blind reverts, edit warring, outrageous personal attacks and nonsense complaints that just waste everyone's time. DreamGuy 11:46, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I also need to further point out here that Elvenscout (who assisted Gabriel/Gavin's filing here) is not some random editor assisting but the person who started many of the edit wars that Gabriel and others with a known history of joinging up to blind revert my chances jumped in on, which formed the basis of the RfC Gabriel was involved in. He called for a RfC and then oddly did not sign it himself, though his conflict with me formed the largest number of alleged evidence of my bad behavior. Because he did not sign it, when the other editors' past histories were checked (and were shown to have been acting in bad faith and purposefully trying to harass me so that they could report when I slipped and made uncivil comments while trying to hide their far worse examples of doing so) his previous bad faith went unexamined. Considering that he followed me to articles he knew I had lon histories on for the sole purpose of erasing the major improvements I had made (see Mythology, for example) and explaining that he finds all of my edits worthless, I do think his bad faith must be examined as well.

And, as much as it pains me to say it, at this point there is nothing left for me to believe than that User:SlimVirgin, has, in demonstrateably proven acts, decided to personally harass me as well, hiding behind her actions as an admin. On a conflict where Gabriel/Gavin was trying to push his POV on the Otherkin article, she made a statement about policy that Gabriel used to rationalize his bad faith edits. When I pointed out that she had interpreted the policy incorrectly, she was quite rude, and then inserted herself into the article directly, both arguing for a position and then later acting like she was a neutral admin just stepping in to help prevent conflict. As soon as Gabriel saw an Admin disagree with me he jumped on this opportunity and recreuited her as his favored contact point whenever he had a complaint. Unfortunately, rather than research his history, she took his side, and has been doing so ever since, even in the face of undeniable evidence of extreme POV pushing, constant 3RR violations and bad faith. She stepped in and called me a problem editor and threatened to block me but had no justification for doing so. I told her she was out of order and that's not how admins should act. She told me I needed to apologize to her or she would block me. I again told her that that was inappropriate and that I felt she was biased due to our earlier disagreement on Otherkin and that I would not justiy myself to her when it was clear that she was not acting in good faith. This was before she had anything at all to even justify saying anything, mind you. Because of her public stance against me, others who had personal conflicts with me went to her to complain. She did not even btoher to look to see if their claims were bogus or not. For example, User:Evmore (a user who had stated straight out he would blind revert any changes I made on Vampire and who had uploaded a string of copyright violation photos which I had pointed out to him) falsely claimed I had violated 3RR "six or seven times" at which point SlimVirgin showed up "warning" me that there were complaints and that I could be blocked unless I explained myself. I told her on her talk page that she had completely overstepped her bounds and that I would not deal with her on this issue and that she needed to send another admin, any admin, because it was clear that she was not taking the steps to investigate the claims made against me and was only out to threaten me. I had removed her accusation from my talk page because it was false and prejudicial, she removed my comment on hers (claiming she contolled her page) yet restored her comment on mine (warning me that I was not allowed to remove comments). I responded back angrily because she herself was not following the rules she was just then claiming I wasn't following, so I again removed her comments from my talk page and pointed out that if she could remove from hers I sure as heck could remove from mine. At this point she again threatened to block me, and then emailed me and asked me to explain myself or that she would block me. I responded back forcefully again that she was not acting in a neutral manner and that I would not respond to her and that she needed to send someone else if she wanted a response. She of course called me rude (ignoring her own rudeness) and said straight out that she was not going to remove herself and that she was going to make a special case out of me. At this point she blocked me, ostensibly for the 3RR violation reported to her that she did not investigate. I emailed a number of admins about this, and meanwhile one posted to the 3RR area that I had, in fact, not violated 3RR and that she had not investigated the situation properly. She then unblocked me and sent me another email telling me I was rude and a horrible editor but than I was unblocked.

Unfortunately things have not gotten all that much better since then. She has stepped in to act as Gabriel's defender, asking that people report his violations to her directly instead of through normal channels, and she has made highly questionable decisions there. When he started making sockpuppets, she actually encouraged him to do so, justifying it in her head as a way to try to get away from my supposed "overzealousness" -- when in fact he had already broken 3RR 8 times and constantly violated other policies nonstop. She said she'd block him for any violations he did but has only done so when his actions have gone so far beynd the pale that she had no other choice, treating him far more leniently than a newbie would be treated for the same offenses, let alone someone with his long history. For example, just today Gabriel/Gavin violated 3RR on both Therianthropy and Clinical lycanthropy and instead of blocking him like she probably would for anyone else, let alone someone with something like 15 blocks for 3RR on the various names he has used, she let him off with a warning! This despite her promises on his RfC sthat she'd be watching him like a hawk and blocking him if he even insulted anyone, which she defintiely has not done. Her bright idea of suggesting a solution to the problem was she asked if I would permanently ban myself from the articles Otherkin and Therianthropy so Gabriel could continue to edit these without my influence... I of course refused, because I am not the one under punishment here, I did nothing wrong, and she's treating me like I am worse than Gabriel -- mind you someone who had an RfC with 30 people signing to say that he violated policies (and even a person who was in n his original RfC on his side came over and presented evidence against Gabriel on his RfC), who is undergoing RfAr with the current recommendation of serial blocks starting at a month for any violation, and so forth and so on. SlimVirgin has also inserted herself into a number of other situations solely to oppose whatever I was arguing. I would note that in many situations where she jumped in, she ended up on the proven incorrect side later, such as Gabriel here, Evmore (whose images that she defended were removed by others as copyright violation), people who ended up being proven sockpuppets of banned User:Enviroknot and so forth.

Frankly, if anything, I think I have managed to be extremely civil considering the amazing level of harassment leveled against me by Gabrielsimon/Khulhy/Ketrovin/Gavin the Chosen, SlimVirgin, and a couple of others who want to try to use the preexisting conflicts with others to try to jump past any cofnlcit resolution and simply pile on accusations.

I would encourage any admin considering whether to bring this to RfAr to look at Gabriel's RfAr and consider that once he is blocked (which seems inevitable at this point for at least a month, as described there) that the primary cause of any alleged uncivil behavior I have done will be gone. Once the proverbial monkey is off my back -- and other editors don;t have his conflict to piggyback on -- this place will be much less stress-free. I mean, for crying out loud, even with all the clear instructions to him that he must leave me alone he emailed me earlier today with a message "You are such an idiot to think people are harassing you!" and blahbalh blah. Yeah, clearly I must be an idiot to think that people who go out of their way to call me names and cause problems are harassing me. DreamGuy 09:33, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


Im sorry, but i do not beleive that trying to gently tell you the truth of matters, to TRY to make you see that your doing this crazed "everyones out to get me" ruoutine to everyone, admins, and squeakbox, and me, and so many others, constitutes what you said.Gavin the Chosen 10:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

and for the record, what you placed in quotes ins not acutally a quoteGavin the Chosen 02:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Interested third parties

edit
Statement by third party Friday
edit

I have found Dreamguy to be needlessly rude and combative. He also frequently removes comments from his talk page, often with uncivil edit summaries, as here and here. He seems to have problems with many, many editors. Friday (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think you've got a blindspot here. The Wikipedia:Civility policy includes not restoring personal attacks [6] on my talk page that I removed as inappropriate, would it not? And you realize that I am perfectly within my rights to use my talk page for what I like, and that removing comments is not uncivil, while putting them there when you know you are not being at all civil about how you do so is highly uncivil in itself, right? So, my acting fully within my rights and rather polite comparatively against uncivil actions of other somehow makes *me* uncivil? PErhaps you need to go reread that policy. DreamGuy 22:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Statement by third party Vashti
edit

Having tried to work with DreamGuy for several months now, I agree that there is a serious problem here that needs to be sorted out, and goes far beyond the feud with User:Gabrielsimon/User:Gavin the Chosen which has recently come to the attention of ArbCom. DreamGuy is extremely aggressive in discussion and quick to take offence. He constantly violates WP:NPA and makes little attempt to assume good faith, while at the same time using these policies as a club to beat people who have been provoked by his extreme behaviour. It is likely that he has done at least some productive work here, but he appears to spend large amounts of his time on a variety of edit wars that end up disrupting many pages. Vashti 10:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

We really need some evidence here rather than just your opinion. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gavin_the_Chosen&diff=prev&oldid=21156031 this link preceeding my words was DreamGuys response that Vashti speaks of.Gavin the Chosen 18:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hm. While some of the links Gavin provided aren't in my opinion valid complaints, a lot of them are. Is that not sufficient? Vashti 18:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
See my comment below. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Here's the record of my calling DreamGuy a prima donna, by the way.
As part of User:Gavin the Chosen's RFAr, I leave a comment trying to tactfully defuse some of his antagonism towards DreamGuy. I use phrases like "you are just as bad as he is" to first acknowledge Gavin's feelings that he is entirely in the right, while trying to get him to see that he is in fact causing a large number of his own problems. [7]
DreamGuy takes offence at this and leaves a comment telling me to knock it off. [8]
I can see evidence of him taking offense. I don't see evidence of him instructing you to knock it off. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
"Yaknow, Vashti, it would go better if you dropped the "just as bad as he is" in referring to me.". Vashti 18:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I get annoyed and leave an intemperate and uncivil comment on DreamGuy's talk page. Yes, this was totally unjustifiable and against policy and I shouldn't have done it. [9]
Vashti 12:47, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

August 2: Here is a summary of a discussion at Talk:Otherkin which DreamGuy interjected a comment into which was uncivil and assumed bad faith, a mere three hours after his RfC had closed. I've provided a detailed summary to show that this was a productive and co-operative discussion between several editors, until DreamGuy derailed it.

  • 04:19, August 2: User:Friday suggests merging the subculture section of Therianthropy to Otherkin. [10]
  • 04:20, August 2: ... and asks what the difference is between the two subcultures. [11]
  • 04:54, August 2: ... and then suggests that perhaps Otherkin should merge to Therianthropy. [12]
  • 06:15, August 2: ... and then suggests definitions for each subculture. [13]
  • 07:02, August 2: I agree with Friday's definitions, and propose merging all the pages under a neutral heading. [14]
  • 09:39, August 2: User:Todfox supports merging all the pages under a neutral heading. [15]
  • 14:38, August 2: Friday supports merging all the pages under a neutral heading. [16]
  • 15:40, August 2: ...and states that it's a chance to rewrite all the articles from scratch for increased Wiki-soundness. [17]
  • 16:27, August 2: Todfox creates a new section to discuss this, and asks whether we'd be coining a neologism with this plan. [18]
  • 16:32, August 2: Friday suggests that "otherkin" and subcultural use of "therianthropy" are already neologisms. [19]
  • 16:44, August 2: User:ContiE says that he likes the idea of creating a merged page as an overview, but thinks that the individual subcultures should retain their own detailed pages. [20]
  • 16:54, August 2: Friday states his problems with the existing pages (WP:NOR, WP:CITE). [21]
  • 17:07, August 2: I provide Google counts and print references to support the terms under question, and suggest that "non-human identity subcultures" is a page heading, not a neologism. [22]
  • 17:29, August 2: ContiE suggests that this is an obscure topic which is hard to find good references for, but that that shouldn't necessarily lead to the excision of information. [23]
  • 21:25, August 2: DreamGuy makes his first comment in this discussion. He says that he has "seen no consensus at all for the idea of merging all these articles into one" ([24], [25], [26] demonstrate at least an emerging consensus), and describes the idea of merging under a neologism as "absolutely ridiculous", describes the removal of the medical section as "nonsense" and the claims of original research regarding that section as "rather bizarre". He then accuses Friday and myself of "an obvious calculated runaround of WP:NOR and WP:V". [27]
  • 21:55, August 2: Friday says that anything would be better than the pages the article currently cites as sources. [28]
  • 02:08, August 3: Todfox suggests that I should publish my own research on a website because it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. [29]
  • 04:02, August 3: User:Gabrielsimon says that he doesn't like the idea of merging all the pages. [30]
  • 04:41, August 3: User:SlimVirgin comments on appropriate use of sources. [31]

---

Here are some diffs from a current discussion on Talk:Otherkin where DreamGuy repeatedly assumes bad faith and accuses me of dishonesty, even after I tell him that he is mistaken. [32] [33] [34]

Here is another diff from the same discussion, where DreamGuy tells me I'm "not even trying to make sense". [35]

Here is an earlier diff from the same discussion, where DreamGuy tells me that my position is "unproven, unsupported, highly POV and I would go so far as to say highly illogical." [36]

Here is a diff from a recent discussion on Talk:Otherkin, where DreamGuy accuses me of pretending to follow policy and "excising information out of spite". [37]

Here is a later diff from another discussion, where Hipocrite has been working with Gavin to make excellent headway on a controversial point of the article. DreamGuy leaves his first comment for a while, inflaming the situation with Gavin, where leaving the situation to other editors would have achieved his aim. [38]

DreamGuy's frequent assertions of POV on the part of other editors are remarkable, considering the prejudice against the subject matter at Otherkin that he has himself expressed. [39] [40]

Here are some of DreamGuy's recent edit comments, where he accuses editors of bias. [41] [42]

Here are further examples of uncivil edit comments from DreamGuy's user space: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

I have no doubt that, given more time, I could come up with more evidence. Vashti 07:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

August 26 2005: DreamGuy leaves an initial comment in a discussion on Talk:Otherkin, which he had as yet not been participating in (Talk:Otherkin#poll results), calling a comparison I had made "ridiculous", that it shows "extreme levels of bias", and that it is "one of the most unfair debating tricks in the book". I believe it is also worth noting that User:Gavin the Chosen had not been involved in this particular discussion for some days, which would appear to contradict DreamGuy's suggestion that his uncivil behaviour is entirely down to provocation by Gavin. [49] He then leaves a later comment accusing me of "making outrageous inflammatory false analogies to try and support [my] side". I believe it's worth noting that none of the editors who were participating in the discussion prior to DreamGuy (User:Friday and User:Nickptar) appear to have considered my analogy outrageous, inflammatory, etc, and I believe that if they had thought so they would have brought it up in a matter that was not likely to derail the constructive discussion that was going on. [50]. He then leaves a comment that is purely personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. [51]

The claim that I had not as yet been participating in this discussion is completely and entirely false, as I have been involved in the discussion of that article for weeks, and specifically that conversation. I don't know if he's trying to fool people or if he's fooled himself here. The point being is that this editor tried to support his POV by making an unfair comparison to what was being to discussed to pedophiles. No matter how you cut it, that is quite beyond the pale in debating tactics, and if he feels offended by my pointing it out that should be a clue that what he did was wrong and not that I shouldn't have pointed it out. Vashti's complaints here are simply piling on to someone else's conflict to try to strike back at someone who disagrees with his POV edits. His comments to me have been the same if not worse than what he accuses me of. DreamGuy 18:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
The link I provided will demonstrate that you had left no comments in that section of the talk page at all, and that User:Friday, User:Nickptar and I had been holding a discussion for two days before you left the comment I linked to. Vashti 19:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, so, you hold a conversation in one section out of many sections on a talk for two days and think that nobody else is allowed to comment, even when they have been discussing the exact same topic in other sections for months now? I don't think that's how Wikipedia works. DreamGuy 19:39, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I have at no time said that you weren't allowed to comment. I've quoted two three instances of your launching into a discussion with an uncivil comment when you hadn't previously been involved in that discussion (or part of the discussion, if you prefer), and so there could have been no reason for you to be uncivil. Vashti 19:56, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Statement by third party SlimVirgin
edit

I agree with Vashti that the problems with DreamGuy go beyond DG's feud with Gavin the Chosen. I had an encounter with DreamGuy after posting (what I saw as) a friendly warning about 3RR on his talk page on August 2, which led to him making several personal attacks against me, revert warring over them on my talk page with El C, and sending similar comments by e-mail. I'll try to find the time soon to provide diffs. Arbitration would definitely be helpful, as he seems to fall out with just about everyone he encounters, and takes a proprietorial attitude toward articles he's editing, leading to revert wars, page protection, and 3RR violation reports against others (while carefully avoiding violating 3RR himself). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:34, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

He's now accusing me of following him around, starting conflicts, breaking policy, being a rogue admin, [52] and being biased, [53] apparently because I've submitted this statement. [54]SlimVirgin (talk) 18:16, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Statement by third party Solipsist
edit

If this RFAr were being brought by anyone else other than GabrielSimon/Gavin-the-Chosen I would give it some consideration. As it is, it looks like a bad faith RFAr. A couple of months ago, Gabriel persuaded User:Dbraceyrules to call for User:DreamGuy to be blocked. I advised User:Dbraceyrules that if he had a problem with DreamGuy he should initiate an RFC, which he, Gabriel and User:AI did. At the time, many outside editors considered the RFC to be bad faith, since Gabriel, Dbracey and several other editors had been warring with DreamGuy for several months. In truth it probably was a bad faith RFC, but I felt it would be wise for it to proceed as DreamGuy had demonstrably been engaging in personal attacks, even if as a response to extreme provocation. As expect the RFC was largely found to be unwarranted, although some surprising counter evidence came outl

Following the RFC, I had noticed that DreamGuy was being a lot more careful in his language, although the personal attacks haven't abated completely. Meanwhile Gabriel has engaged in quite an extreme campaign of disruption, some of which is documented in Gabriel's RFAr.

DreamGuy was mistaken to make the aggressive comments towards User:SlimVirgin documented with significant bias below. However, bear in mind that that episode occured a couple of days after the close of his RfC and before the RFAr on Gabriel had opened. At that time, Gabriel had already created several sockpuppet accounts to attack DreamGuy, had been blocked for several more 3RR violations, and was gaming the system every way he could imagine (not all of this was apparent at the time). DreamGuy also had reason to believe SlimVirgin was acting out of turn and wasn't a disintrested admin as a result of the discussion earlier that day on the Otherkin talk page (07:05, 2 August 2005).

Now truth be told, DreamGuy is prone to making uncivil comments, but then he has been fighting a one man battle against half a dozen editors and a dozen more sockpuppets for most of this year. I've recently felt obliged to interceed in a completely unrelated episode in which DreamGuy and another editor got into tit-for-tat personal attacks over a trivial disagreement about a picture. However, I would suggest waiting for the the RFAr on GabrielSimon to be concluded, then see whether DreamGuy is able to turn over a new leaf on the WikiCivility front. -- Solipsist 21:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

any new accounts i made were to try to get aWAY from him. this is not a " bad faith accusation" because a lot ofthis has nothing to do with me. as i have stated in my comments about this, this is not about me at all, and that should be something to keep in mind. Following DreamGuys RFC, DreamGuy didnt change his language, or tact or tactics at allGavin the Chosen 21:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
No, that really isn't true. I'm inclined to believe that was your intention when creating your last change of account, User:Gavin the Chosen, even if you actually used it to attempt various deceptions, before relapsing into a previous pattern of disruption and attacks. But your other two accounts from around that time, User:Ketrovin and User:Khulhy, were sockpuppets and actively engaged in the same disputes:
The facts speak for themselves. -- Solipsist 22:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

the VFD thing was a mistake, the thing with trying to distance myself from the old name is likly quite understnadable. I have no pattern of disruption and attacks. i am simply attempting, as always , to improove articles on this site.Attempting to deny this is simply impossible, because i know my motivations better then anyone Gavin the Chosen 22:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply


====Statement By Third Party==== (Anon User)

Sorry I had to use a anon IP addy to write this as DreamGuy would have been attacking me for my statements, anyways this user is impossible to work with on any article, if it's not his way he reverts it. DreamGuy constantly follows editors around and then picks thru their edits so that he can revert their work no matter what, he thinks he knows everything about every subject. He targets new users ive seen him do it to a few new people here in the last month or so. He preaches NPOV and many other policys, yet he violates them same policys himself, just take a good close look at his contributions page and you will cleary see a pattern of his abusive behavior. He watches hundreds of articles just so if anything changes he can go and revert it, no matter what the edit may be, I have seen him go as far as VFD's and COPVIO's on pages so he can have revenge on anyone who has a spine to stand up against him. Cleary he is a problem, im not saying he has not made some good edits, but do the pro's really outweigh the con's? Wikipedia is supposed to be a project were anyone can edit, with users like DreamGuy it makes the goal of building a good source of information impossible. How is it that someone can get away with this kind of behavior and go unchecked? Maybe Wikipedia should have policys against things like stalking, savatage, intimidation and hypocrisy, it seems to me that DreamGuy fits theses statements easily.

Signed Anon User 18:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Statement by third party SqueakBox
edit

I was doing janitorial work on 4 Rfc's, removing 2 not validated, promoting one validated, and leaving one be, and in spite of the fact that my decisions were correct I got a barrage of abuse from DreamGuy over the Rfc on Girlvinyl, which had not been endorsed by 2 people withjin 48 hours. [55] where he erroneously accuses me of making false claims and not following the rules. here he admits to giving me a hard time for for blatantly violated the rules which I had not in any way done, accusing me again of erases signature, and accusing SlimVirgin of acting solely out of bad faith because she actually agreed with me. By claiming You can't just kill off an RfC that had four signatures Dreamguy demonstrates that actually he had not checked the rfc thoroughly as the Rfc was clearly invalid. Here he accuses SlimVirgin of harassment of me by breaking policy, accusing her of pulling nonsense, encouraging sockpuppets and instigating someone else's revenge, and again falsely accuses me of erasing valid signatures. Even though the conversation was not finished he here blanks it. If honest, good faith editors are to be driven away by people like DreamGuy there will be noone left to do the janitorial work, and I find DreamGuy's uncalled for and unpleasant behavuiour and accusatiopns to be bad faith, inexcusably rude, and only made to harrass me, for reasons which I cannot even imagine as we had never met before, though to me it is clear that he had not examined the Rfc carefully and thoroughly. 2 different people have asked me to contribute to this Rfa, SqueakBox 17:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Squeakbox I have a question for you. Did you remove signitures from the rfc in question? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply


When I examined the Rfc there were 2 illegitimate signatures endorsing it. Why illegitimate? Because they were signed the 15th and the Rfc was filed on the 19th. I ignored them and put the delete template on the rfc. Later when I was being attacked for allegedly trying to delete a valid rfc, partly on the basis of these 2 illegitimate signatures, I removed them because they were illegitimate; had to be as they were from before the Rfc. It later turned out they were pasted from a talk page without the knowledge or permission of the signers, and therefore were, as was obvious from the dates, illegitimate on the Rfc. It was the person who pasted them in who was at fault, not me. I at no time removed any legitimate signatures from the Rfc, SqueakBox 22:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that I endorsed the RFC well within the 48 hours limit and would have certified it if need be but (in my and DG and those who had signed it view) it was already certified, it should also be noted that DG was actualy opposed to the RFC in question and so his opposition of the overzealouse attempt by Squeakbox to delete it was IMHO a demonstartion of his showing good faith. The RFC was even re-signed by one of the "invalid" certifiers when he realised that he had been disenfranchised, but Squeakbox and SlimVirgin refused to accept this showing a massive assumption of Bad faith on their parts! Me and DG have certainly butted heads recently (indeed over the actual RFC) but I fully support his actions over Squeakbox's in my view trolling and bullying.--ElvisThePrince 11:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I am strongly in a agrement that there was trolling and bullying going on that day. A question Elvis. Why were signatures dated from 4 days before the Rfc began and pasted in without the permission of the signers a valid certification? You and DG either did not bother to check whether the Rfc was valid (in which case I am suffering from your incompetence), or you deliberately trolled and hassled me for making a request that an invalid Rfc be deleted in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. Any other interpretation of events is clearly based on either your faulty memories or deliberate lies. This was a bad faith move on the part of DreamGuy accusing me of falsification, and a bad faith move on the part of Elvis supporting him and now falsely accusing me of trolling and bullying, without the slightest evidence to back him up (indeed ther only reason he is making such claims is because he knows I cannot disprove them with diffs, the worst kind of harrassment). Both users should be censored for their bad faith activities harassing a good faith user. The facts simply don't stand up to any other interpretation. Please withdraw your lies. If the history were restored this continuing harrassment would probably be the subject of an rfc (unless there were a grovelling apology from both Elvis and DreamGuy and an assurance that such activities never occur again). BTW the fact that you certified the Rfc on the 22nd, and someone else legitimately endorsed it on the 19th makes no differene. If you count you will realise these 2 dates are more than 48 hours apart. Indeed hatever anyone did on the 22nd is irrelevant to the certification as it had already failed to be endorsed within 48 hours. Please stop trolling, Elvis, SqueakBox 14:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

BTW the fact that you certified the Rfc on the 22nd , and someone else legitimately endorsed it on the 19th makes no differene. I endorsed in on the 20th (Special:Undelete/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:girlvinyl) 13 hours after it's filling. If YOU count you will realise it's well within 48 hours, I won't ask for a grovelling apology because I'm not 12.--ElvisThePrince 22:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Indeed you did sign. But you are one user. One user cannot endorse an Rfc. There were no other signers, as the deletion log makes clear. The second endorsement from a real person did not come until the 22nd, by which time it was too late, SqueakBox 22:24, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry are you seriously saying that the User:Carlb (the original filler) plus me = 1, seriously 1     +    1    =    1--ElvisThePrince 22:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Carlb never endorsed the Rfc, merely stuck the signatures of 2 people who didn't. I agree it is strange that he did not endorse the rfc that he created, but it is Carlb's strange behaviour that is at the root of this problem. Him creating the rfc was not an endorsement ass I am sure you realise, SqueakBox 22:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
So Creating an RFC isn't an endorsement (to endorse- to support, to back, to give one's approval' to, especially officially or by signaturewiktonary:endorse)???--ElvisThePrince 22:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I endorsed the RfC on the 19th, after an attempt to address the question of the 'girlvinyl' / 'encydra' / 'encydra2' IDs as sockpuppets for use in removing info on the ownership of ED was raised on the 15th on the talk pages of the affected articles and remained unresolved. Elvis endorsed this same RfC on the 20th, and then re-endorsed it also on the 20th after his comments had been removed (for whatever reason, possibly in error) by others. That two users made the error of signing the related text on the talk page on the 15th doesn't change the fact that this does have two valid signatures in the first 24 hours and is therefore a valid RfC. In retrospect, I should've taken the original description of the disputed edits (as posted to the talk page on the 15th) and posted it from the history in order to remove any edits by others which were made in error (ie: voting on the wrong page). Nonetheless, the antics which took place (revert wars and/or deletion of an RfC with two valid sigs) were uncalled for. --carlb 00:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

If what you say is true then the Rfc was clearly tampered with before I even saw it. There were clearly not 2 valid endorsements on it by the time I saw it, or when Slim later deleted it. The reason that 2004-12-29T22:45Z signed on the 22nd isd that there were not 2 valid endorsements, but by then it was too late. Perhaps an admin would care to look and see if Carlb's claim is true? Why has Carlb chosen to only reveal this information here and not at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User:Girlvinyl where he is involved in the discussion? This user wrongly filed the Rfc using signatures pasted from a talk page but I have still been assuming good faith on his part. His statement leaves me wondering about his role in the whole affair, SqueakBox 00:25, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly we've seen enough. If you want to continue your debate on the validity of the rfc please do it elsewhere. All we need to know is if DreamGuy was acting bad faith. The debate demonstrates that some people think he was not. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

You are right, Theresa. This Rfa is about DreamGuy and not about me. I think the members of the arbcom will draw their own conclusions about this affair and whether it represents DreamGuy in a good light or not. I only wrote my statement after 2 requests (one by email), and the article was deleted by the first admin who came to have a look at it, withe this comment followed by this comment. Also was this really good faith on DreamGuy's part? SqueakBox 01:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Read an rfc. It must be endorsed by 2 people within 48 hours. I merely checked the creation time and date. It would have been completely invalid to assume that Carlb endorsed the Rfc, and totally unfair on Girlvinyl. each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours.... If you want to change policy go to [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I only enforced the actual rules, SqueakBox 22:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

So you say because user:Carlb THE PERSON HOW FILLED THE RFC didn't resign it you are seriosuly saying that It would have been completely invalid to assume that Carlb endorsed the Rfc All I can say is WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:IAR--ElvisThePrince 22:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

WP:POINT? You have got to be kidding. I was merely ensuring that Girlvinyl got a fair hearing. That is not WP:POINT. Whatever s/he may have done they deserve a fair hearing. If we followed your idea that would not have happened. The Rfc policies are designed to give everyone a fair hearing so what you say is purely in your imagination, and couldn't be further from the truth. How can ensuring she gets a fair process be WP:POINT? SqueakBox 23:15, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

STOP now please. We've seen all we need Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is one of the signatures that allegedly certified the Rfc: [56] SqueakBox 16:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

For clarity I hear paste the Rfc as it was initially created. decide for yourselves if this is a legitimate Rfc. It is from Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica#Use of multiple userID's?. IMO because this was not constructed on an rfc page it was not valid, SqueakBox 16:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute I believe the following to be aliases of (girlvinyl | talk | contributions), created solely for the purpose of removing valid factual info from Encyclopædia Dramatica and the Image:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg description page:

Description The use of multiple userID's by the same person is discouraged, according to Wikipedia:Sock puppet, in a number of contexts not limited solely to their use on voting pages. For instance, use of multiple ID's to circumvent policies may qualify. I raise the question of 67.134.44.88, Encydra, Encydra2 as a set of possible duplicate userID's of girlvinyl on the discussion page of the affected article, Encyclopædia Dramatica.

The multiple ID's show the same or similar pattern in edit history; one of claiming in some form to hold intellectual property rights over publically-available (whois) information as to the ownership of the Encyclopædia Dramatica domain by one Sherrod DeGrippo, listed in whitepages as resident in Las Vegas, Nevada, and of removing that information from the text. The link to image Image:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg, legitimately available to us for attributed reuse under the terms stated on her own site girlvinyl.com and archived elsewhere online, is also the routine target of removal from the article by the various userID's listed below.

Evidence of disputed behavior

[57] Deletion of name "Sherrod DeGrippo" from Encyclopædia Dramatica, done as user Encydra
[58] Deletion of "Image:Sherrod Degrippo.jpg" from Encyclopædia Dramatica, done as anon user 67.134.44.88
[59] Deletion of "Image:Sherrod Degrippo.jpg" from Encyclopædia Dramatica, done as user Encydra2
[60] Deletion of source information on Image:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg, done as user Encydra2, reverted by Angela

Applicable policies

Wikipedia:Sock puppet
Wikipedia:Vandalism


Users certifying the basis for this dispute --Depakote 16:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

--2004-12-29T22:45Z 17:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute The matter has been raised on the relevant article talk page; to date there has not been any successful resolution of the issue:

Talk:Encyclopædia_Dramatica
Image talk:Sherrod_degrippo.jpg


Statement by third party El_C
edit

Please review today's exchange at WP:RFPP. El_C 21:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Evidence needed

edit

The rfc Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2 was closed with the following resolution on 2 August 2005

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

What I would like to see, in order to be convinced that this is a good faith RFAr is evidence of bad behaviour after that date. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:57, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I interpreted some of his comments on Talk:Otherkin as potentially uncivil, but I'll leave that up to the superior wisdom of the arbitrators. ~~ N (t/c) 21:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Also his comments to SlimVirgin at WP:AN/3RR#Gavin the Chosen 5. Even if not severe enough to be an issue, they seem unnecessarily sharp. ~~ N (t/c) 13:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Nickptar regarding Talk:Otherkin. DreamGuy's comments there lead me to believe he does not have good-faith motivations for editing Otherkin, and is uninterested in constructive debate. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 20:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
In other words, you violated the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy to declare that *I* am acting in bad faith? I am simply trying to follow NPOV policy there against the stated positions of a couple of editors to removing anything that they find even potential negative towards the group. Since when is NPOV bad faith? I have tried over and over to have real communication there, but Vashti ignores all comments he doesn;t want to hear and other seem more interested in rushing into voting for poorly worded and completely deceptive polls (like where they claimed that me view was actually the view of another editor entirely). DreamGuy 21:58, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
It would be naïve to assume good faith, given your comments about otherkin. [61] [62] ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 10:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
It is also probably instructive to note that User:Eequor has in the past labeled any attempt to put factual information about folklore and real world uses of the term Therianthropy as allegedly pushing a POV. See Talk:Therianthropy#Reverts by Eequor for her claims there. If she objects to scholarly information in such articles and only wants the viewpoints of members of subcultures who self-identify as shapechangers of various sorts (an agenda that clearly violates NPOV policy) it's no wonder she now tries to label attempts at neutrality in Otherkin as if they were bad faith. DreamGuy 22:26, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
If you seriously believe my comments on that page indicate some sort of agenda other than an interest in verifiability and NPOV, you have failed to assume good faith. Besides, this RfAr is about you, not me. What you perceive to be an ad hominem will not improve your position. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 10:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

More evidence from Gavin the Chosen

edit

The entire affair that SlimVirgin describes above is long after the RFC closed.Gavin the Chosen 01:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

AS requested, here are diffs and such , descrivbing the events which occured as Slimvirgin sdescribed.

these two oseem rather rude to Slimvirgin on her user page

this one [63]

this one [64]

unrel;ated but...

the edit summary here is incivil, methinks [65]

hres the offer that Slim made to me, that i accepted, and well, he refused ( basically the lasty straw before i decided to make this RFAr request [66]

she started out politely, but [67]

him being rude to her on his user page [68]

she ttries being nice still... [69]

but he wont even TRY, and this is him dealing with an ADMIN [70]

some how shes still patient enough... [71]

after two others try to offer advise [72]

and instead of replying to the discussion, all he does is delete everything [73]

SlimVirgin politely attempting to finsih the discusssion [74]

and DreamGuy being even ruder, oblivious whats going on around him... seesm to think the admin is hararsssing him, butthats clearly not hte case [75] Gavin the Chosen 01:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply


also, examine recent editing histroy on his talk page invoilving squeakbox. it doesnt look like harassment to me, in fact it looks a lot like someone trying to hidfe from fallabillity, and useingclaims of harrassment etc as a somescreeen.Gavin the Chosen 10:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'll add the evidence for you here:
  • [76] DreamGuy "clears out" his talk page by blanking it.
  • [77] Squekebox reverts with the edit comment rv archive but don't remove
  • [78] Dream guy clears out the page again with the edit summary - this is my talk page, I can do with it what I want, per policy... and admins do it all the time, so if you want to complain take it up with the
  • [79] Squekebox reverts again with the edit summary archive but do not remove this conversation
  • [80] Dreamguy blanks his userpage again with the summary revert -- funny, when I restored a passage SlimVirgin deleted off her talk page she threatened to block me... perhaps the vandal doing so here should be blocked
  • [81] and squeakbox does it again You simply don't have the right to blank this conversation. so it could be argued that in doing sdo you are being the vandal. Me, i don't think so
  • [82] and is reverted by User:Norvy with the edit summary these are archived, leave him alone
  • For the record, this wasn't just a revert. I added a sentence with a link mentioning that archives are available through the page's history. This sentence has remained there, intact. -- Norvy (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

"*Actually that isn't an archive it is a page history (which, thank goodness, DreamGuy is unable to remove). Your comment made me look for an archive through his contribs but there wasn't one. Go to User talk:SqueakBox to see what an archive is as you are misunderstanding the wiki meaning of the word. Archives make for easy access to a user's talk history whereas what DreamGuy did makes it extremely difficult, and I urge the Arbcom to insist he archives his commenyts from now on so that other users don't face a nightmare task merely to discover when and where something form his talk page is to be found. It is what everyone else does, SqueakBox 15:37, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • [83] this time Squekebox creates an archive page in DreanGuy's userspace and links it to his talk page with the edit summary you have an archive mow
  • [84] dreamGuy reverts him revert again -- I don't need an archive, that's what the history is for.... editor who took it upon himself to do so defintiely has a problem
  • [85] Squekebox readds Gavins RFAr notice even though DreamGuy has clearly already read it because he has responded here.
  • [86] SqueakBox adds a comment asking why DreamGuy removed an active conversation
  • [87] Another comment.
  • [88] DreamGuy removes the AC notice and both of Squeakbox's comments with the edit summary revert - again -- the admin ntoiceboard even said I have the right to blank this and that lots of admins do it, harassment will not be allowed here ( the comment he was refering to on the admin noticeboard was mine. I informed Squeakbox that he couldn't force DreamGuy to talk to him and that reverting in this situation could acheive nothing but harrasment here is the link to what I said
  • [89] Gavin reverts
  • DreamGuy blanks
  • [90] Squeakbox reverts
  • [91] User:Dbraceyrules leaves an unrelated comment
  • [92] DreamGuy blanks again. This time he isn't reverted

Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Theresa did not inform me. Adfter I read her comment on the admins incident page I made no further reverts. It would be wring to claim I reverted after being told not to, or even to say I was asked to stop, SqueakBox 22:47, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've struck my comment further up. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I have asked |Theresa to withdraw her allegation. See here and here, SqueakBox 22:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I already struck them out. But I'm happy to delete the comment altogether if you'd rather. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't seen your above comment when I added the last statement. Sorry about that, not taking as much care as I did when checking the validity of the Rfc. I was relying on my watchlist that told me I had made the last edit and just not seeing your comment. They are both 22.56, SqueakBox 23:11, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/1/0/0)

edit

Further Comment

edit
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/DreamGuy&oldid=1137443330"