Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2

Case Opened on 20:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 17:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties

• Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (bringing the case)
• DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (person whose conduct and attitude are being complained about)
• Cool Blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mediator of failed/closed case, receiving end of many messages from DreamGuy)

Requests for comment

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2

Statement by User:Dicklyon

The currently open conduct RFC (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2) is the best description of the conduct problem. Through continual incivility, DreamGuy manages to alienate every editor that he comes into the slightest conflict with. He has convinced himself that his position is always right, and therefore the others are just "problem editors", justifying his conduct. His statements indicate that he is in denial that any part of his problem with "problem editors" is due to his conduct.

At the end of the talk page there, he firmly rejects our last attempt at content mediation as well, involving a long-running dispute about the use of the term "photoshopping" for photo editing, which he started on March 9, 2007 by blanking the photoshopping article and redirecting it to Adobe Photoshop. All other editors of those articles have converged on a redirect to a small section in photo editing, but there he insists on removing the referenced content and replacing it with a statement that photoshopping simply means using Adobe Photoshop.

Many others who signed on to the conduct RFC had similar complaints about his involvement in articles they care about. I am willing to stipulate that he was sometimes on the "right" side of disputes, in that a final consensus was reached that agreed pretty much with his position. However, his incivil involvement appears to have always made it harder to get there, not easier. On the photoshopping question, however, he is clearly in a minority of one against a number of editors who have made good faith efforts to understand and study his policy concerns (undue weight, neologism, reliable source, etc.) and his position, and to a mediate and reach a consensus. His participation in such processes seems to be a simple rejection, calling everyone names for disagreeing and going about it all wrong. Few editors have yet found a way to work with him, other than to give in and let him have his way. Numerous complaints, three conduct RFCs, several AN/I complaints, etc. have not led to anything like resolution or progress.

DreamGuy also likes to "ban" people from his talk page, claiming "harassment" when they try to discuss things with him, or when they warn him that they're going to file a complaint, etc. He routinely removes talk comments with no response other than an abusive or dismissive edit summary. His User talk:DreamGuy page states his bad-faith attitude clearly: "Note: If you are here to leave personal attacks, false accusations of vandalism, a long tirade about why your cat photo or article about yourself should be left alone as you and only you wanted, nonsensical rationalizations of why vampires, ancient astronauts, werewolves, "creation science" and so on should be treated as completely real and so forth, do not bother, as I'll either just remove them right away or simply point you to the appropriate Wikipedia policy which you should have read in the first place."

This kind of conduct costs wikipedia tremendously in terms of the time, effort, and good will of good editors who deal with DreamGuy. His mode of interaction needs to be changed or stopped.

What I would like this arbitration case to achieve if accepted?

1. DreamGuy should as a minimum agree (and be held under penalty of blocking) to stop being incivil, to stop asserting a consensus when he's alone against a majority, to carry on dispute discussions on talk pages (including his own) instead of in edit summaries, and to respond as if other editor's actions are in good faith.
2. DreamGuy should be compelled to remove the blatant assertion of his own assumptions of bad faith from his user talk page. Hopefully, a genuine assumption of good faith can be found to underlie these conduct changes.
3. DreamGuy should agree to mediation of the photoshopping/photo editing/Adobe Photoshop dispute, pending finding a mediator who knows nothing of him or his history. With respect to this and other content disputes, he must stop asserting that the mediation process is worse than the deadlock that it is intended to help solve, or that other editors don't respect policies.

Statement by User:DreamGuy

(he has not been heard from since Aug. 24, so maybe there's no longer an issue)

Statement by User:Cool Blue

Incivility has been an ongoing issue with DreamGuy. This conduct has been going on for quite sometime.

I'd like to point out specifically March 9, 2007, where DreamGuy deliberating redirected a page to Adobe Photoshop without any consensus or discussion. Any topic that he finds the least bit undesirable, he takes some kind of extraordinary means to, in someways get rid of it; see here. The issue with Photoshopping has been going on for quite sometime now.

I've did a little bit of mediation work with the Mediation Cabal, and was looking for a case to mediate at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases when I accepted a case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-08-17 Photo editing. I have had negative interactions with DreamGuy in the past, but could not recall any details, and did not recall the negative interactions until DreamGuy objected, so I accepted the case anyways. I had started doing some preliminary work with two other editors, and reviewed an alternative version, when I received a message from DreamGuy stating he objected to me as mediator, and the Mediation Cabal system alike. Normally, that's how the process works, but he came forward, without any recent, previous confrontation here. I'd like to point out one passage "The ide that you can go to my talk page, ask if I want to be a party, and if not you'll remove my name and make a decision anyway is a complete misrepresentation of how mediation is supposed to work. As you seem more interested in forging ahead to a solution with or without my input, I question your ability (or perhaps willingness) to act as a fair and uninvolved mediator here. You should remove yourself as a mediator, as you cannot go forward without this being completely a sham process. Considering that it's also been clear from the start that I think "Mediation Cabal" protocols (when they are actually followed, which you did not do) are contrary to the standard rules of Wikipedia (one individual person with no background shows up and tries to determine consensus on his own? that's nonsense), the people involved *know* this and the mediation attempt was clearly made in bad faith. But, hey, thanks to your screw up in not following the mediation rules, you've only gone to prove my point on why I don't trust it." It's only a myth that the mediator needs to ask all parties before-hand, as proved here. When I explained this to DreamGuy he responded "If you intend to try to mediate in the future, you should read up on the basics of mediation. "Mediation is purely voluntary. All interested parties must be willing to accept mediation. If any interested party does not accept mediation, we cannot help." is just a starter. The mediation process here is flawed and full of people who have no business pretending to be mediators, but at least most of them read the rules before jumping in." I am aware of that, and when DreamGuy didn't want to participate I closed the case, following all guidelines of the Mediation Cabal.

As per Dicklyon above, I also feel that the message on his talkpage is unnecessary.

His attitude needs to change. Period.

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept. Kirill 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. James F. (talk)
• Accept. Fred Bauder 21:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Final decision

Principles

Courtesy

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Passed 4-0 at 17:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Findings of fact

DreamGuy

1) DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has frequently engaged in incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks directed at other editors ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]).

Passed 4-0 at 17:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

DreamGuy restricted

1) DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 4-0 at 17:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Amended remedies

As of 18 February 2008, the remedies of DreamGuy 2 were updated with the following additional remedy:

DreamGuy limited to one account

2) DreamGuy is restricted to using one and only one account to edit, and may not edit as an unlogged-in IP. He is to inform the Committee of the account he has selected, if not DreamGuy, and must obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account.

Passed 9-0 at 21:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC).

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee. Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• One week for abusive sock puppetry, incivility, and edit warring. I am requesting a review of the sanctions because there are additional factors that ArbCom was unaware of. I request increasing the length of the block, and also a checkuser to confirm what appears to be an obvious case of sockpuppetry. See ANI thread and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that this was overturned. When Jehochman was asked to provide evidence by other admins on the ANI thread to support his claims he declined to do so and said that he was alright with the block being removed, so it was. I would suggest that WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL apply to those people wishing to enforce these ArbCom sanctions just as much as they do to me, and considering I have been wrongly blocked twice now for reasons that later turned out to be incorrect, there's an obvious gap here in the intent of these rulings and how some people choose to apply them. A week block was supposed to be for repeated examples of bad behavior, not just assumed wrongdoing, but Jehochman jumped to the more severe remedy listed right away.

While I agree with the intended goal of this ArbCom decision, unfortunately it seems that some editors are trying to use this ruling as an excuse to hunt up reasons to try to get me banned while at the same time taking less than exemplary behaviors themselves. To be clear, I am not referring to the two admins whose blocks were overturned but to the editors who complained to them with highly biased accounts on the basis of past conflicts which they seem unwilling to move beyond. As far as the blocks go, I don't know if the problem here is that any admin at all can just unilaterally take action without talking about it first so that the people with histories of conflict with me shop around to one who doesn't know the full history and just takes action or what exactly is causing it... in this case, though, I was accused of all sorts of behavior, told I had to defend myself from the long list of accusations, and then blocked before I even had a chance to. I think enforcement needs to be more organized here and less about taking action first and trying to get support for it later. DreamGuy 19:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• A request for extension has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2. --Elonka 17:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Purusuant to a request for clarification DreamGuy has been blocked for gaming the system. The discussion is archived here. He is blocked for 96 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

• 96 hours for this edit in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2#DreamGuy restricted. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• On 1rr restriction until July 9 2009.[8] Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)