Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2

Apparently, it still isn't sinking in. The next one to commit gross incivility will face immediate censure. Enough, already. This isn't a free-for-all. El_C 13:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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, August 7, 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:51, 11 November 2024 (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:

Adhering to the civility policy
Adhering to the wikiquette policy
Adhering to the no personal attacks policy
Adhering to the assume good faith policy
Adhering to the edit summaries guideline "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Instead, place such comments, if required, on the talk page."
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.
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 (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy), which appears to have been unresolved.

Dicklyon 20:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In a response to a point on the Photoshop article, he abuses the editor and calls him a WP:DICK for no good reason. He called me that, too [1], but at least he had the reason of my name to pick on as he noted in saying "Please read WP:POT, and the one named after you: WP:DICK". Dicklyon 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Repeated bad faith characterizations [2] [3] [4] [5] of other editors as "little kiddies", "kiddies who want amateur trivial nonsense", "internet kiddies", "kewl kiddies", and such. Dicklyon 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Lying mischaracterization and uncivil ridicule of my position, in response to my polite and civil comment that gave him some credit for valid points; [6] Dicklyon here is arguing from the position that he used to have an enitr article claiming that the only definition of "photoshopping" was for "kiddies making funny pics, lol, leet dude, we so cool". Dicklyon 23:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even while this RfC is going on, he continues to belittle other editors and their motives here: "Just because a mob of malcontents band together to oppose an editor following Wikipedia policies because they don't get to have their way...", where his interpretations of policy seem to differ from all the rest of the "mob of malcontents"; it's OK to have and discuss those differences, but instead he just abuses those he disagrees with. Dicklyon 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Dicklyon 20:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

My polite request for him to respond to the compromise proposal. He deleted from his talk page with "what part of "you're banned from my talk page" do you not understand?". Dicklyon 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --clpo13_(talk) 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a few times ([7], [8], [9]) 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 me 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. --clpo13_(talk) 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 ([10]; 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. --clpo13_(talk) 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 ([11]). This was never quite resolved, even when I reworded the sentence in question to avoid the comma entirely ([12]; my edits were reverted by DreamGuy even though they were completely legitimate and supported by other editors). --clpo13_(talk) 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 ([13]; 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. --clpo13_(talk) 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My first attempt a resolution of the edit war over the Photoshopping section at Photo editing was a good faith restoration of a much-reduced version. This was partially reverted by DreamGuy, removing the second para entirely and citing WP:UNDUE weight to kiddies who think their games are more notable than professional use. This was to prove a major sticking point.--mikaul^talk 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several days later, I made a further attempt to restore a "working compromise" version of the disputed section, acknowleging DreamGuy's objections. It was again reverted by him without prior discussion, despite my edit summary and talk page requests to discuss any further changes first. In reverting this he claimed the issue had "already been discussed" and directed me (in his edit summary) to "go read the discussion". As the discussion at this point was clearly very much alive and progressing to consensus, I suspected this might show unwillingness on his part to engage in serious debate.--mikaul^talk 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately after this revert, DreamGuy offered up an explanation for it, which (to me) summed-up his real objections to the section. On the face of it, it appears to be a fair assessment, but in fact it was largely referring to a much older, bulkier version and was clearly designed only to add hyperbole and rhetoric, rather than progress the debate. My rather exasperated response to this, offering further compromises and appealing for discussion, was ignored.--mikaul^talk 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Edit: on checking this, it seems he did reply: three weeks later, in a round of ad hoc commentary on the talk page, and even then only to reiterate his WP:POINT.--mikaul^talk 14:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This notwithstanding, I continued to take on board all of his objections when I followed up a suggestion to start a Request for Comment on the issue, to bring in some new opinions and thoroughly analyse the section. DreamGuy's response to this was to pick up (what I by now considered to be his) WP:POINT and refer only to it, as this diff, this one and thisone, his last words on the matter, demonstrate. Considering that, by this time, the proposed consensus version had ensured that references to the contentious "hobby" use were cut down to a few words, I gave up trying to attempt further compromise.--mikaul^talk 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm left with the impression that DreamGuy has a serious WP:POINT issue with this "kiddies" thing; also, looking around, that he derives some kind of sporting challenge from warring and reverting on such minor pretexts. This was quite obvious from my first and only direct contact with him. Maybe it's just coincidence, but since the page was locked his interest seems to have gone; discussion has advanced and compromise reached without his involvement, despite repeated requests for his opinion.--mikaul^talk 14:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Clpo13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MIckStephenson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Other users who endorse this summary

copy of section text removed from main to discussion page

~~#Ideogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)~~ withdrawn[reply]

~~#You Are Okay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)~~

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Although I did attempt to solve some of the problems, I didn't submit any diffs.
Quiddity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - having read all the diffs provided above, and the RfC instructions again, I'll sign here.
IPSOS (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note from overseeing admin: Users You Are Okay, MIckStephenson, and Arthur Rubin were moved by myself from the certification to the endorsement section for failing to demonstrate efforts of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (those users are admonished for failing to observe this key dispute resolution component; please read the rules at the very top). They may revert this if and/or when such evidence is provided, but this note should be left in place due to the growing misuse of RfC certification rules (I have deleted two conduct RfC for this reason within the span of several days). Thus, I note that, as of now, only Dicklyon and Clpo13 have provided evidence of their efforts in the designated section (evidence which, however, I have yet to review — but the section has links, and even summaries, which is good). I also note that User:You Are Okay has a total of 13 edits as of now, of which 3 to the main namespace (consisting of inserting external links). El_C 02:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. This is just more of the standard nonsense that happens here all the time: Some of the less than helpful editors who get unnaturally upset when their edits are removed as not meeting the policies and other guidelines of this project blind revert to their own preferred version, abuse the talk pages of the articles in question to toss off personal attacks (see especially User:Dicklyon on Photo editing and elsewhere) instead of discussing the merits of the edits, then progress to leaving harassing comments on talk pages of the users themselves (see, again, Dickylon and also most of the others above, who have been warned by myself[14] and admins[15] that their actions were obviously not intended to try to solve any dispute but to cause harassment), and then they progress to threats and trying to file abuse protocols in hopes of trying to get someone "in trouble" instead of working together. In their zeal to lash out they go around recruiting people (other problem editors, sockpuppets and spammers) to join in. All of this is a complete waste of time, and, if it weren't for the fact that I can't be bothered to waste the time because there's an encyclopedia to edit, I could have brought RFCs up on the vast majority of these people (either on their main accounts o the number of sock puppets and anon IP users who are just regular users signed out clearly going around) with far more to support them than they can assemble. Of the above, User:You Are Okay is a brand new editor (well, at least the account, who knows how long the person behind the account has been around) whose only edits have been spamming, complaining about having his spam removed (even after very thorough explanations with pointers to the appropriate policies) and joining this RFC. As others have pointed out, the list also includes others with known sockpuppets and Arbcom sanctions against them for highly uncivil editing against policies. Dashakat (below) edits from a very clear agenda both of putting his own bias into articles but also in lashing out with personal attacks[16],[17],[18],[19], at those who get in his way. 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.

The bottom line is I am a very good editor. I devote a lot of time to improving articles. I clear out a lot of spam and POV-pushing and so forth by problem editors, and so of course some people resent me for it. Any uncivil behavior that I end up doing only comes about after some other editor has blind reverted an article to their preferred versions (major WP:OWN problems) without even listening to the reasons or trying to form a rationale for it and then start tossing off insults and harassment.I would agree there is a problem, but there would be no problem if those editors complaining above did what they were supposed to and followed policies, stopped bringing their personal conflicts to new articles, didn't jump onto articles they didn't even look at before to blind revert any changes I make.

It should also be noted that the editors involved in this complaint even break policies when it comes to filing this RFC and so forth. User:DashaKat improperly edited a failed RFC against me from three years ago to remove comments in support of me and to add additional attacks, and then later started redirecting that whole page. Several of the complaining editors here doctored the content of this very page. They removed the admin comments pointing out that people on their side had signed improperly and were not valid, as well as notes that others had very suspicious edit histories. They also specifically removed info about editors who were on their side but that they thought made them look bad by their presence (and discussed removing these comments on their own talk pages and elsewhere). They further removed some of my own comments, claimed that it was because comments were not allowed elsewhere on the page, but kept any comments improperly added so long as they were from people who supported their side. When I tried to restore the original versions, they immediately edit warred to try to hide the info again, and then when I added bold text at the top of this page that the content of the page was significantly altered from how it should be and that the words and info could not be trusted, they removed that as well. It's very clear that they are solely acting to try to frame conversation exactly the way they want it, with only the people they feel best help their side, and are willing to break policies and censor conversation if it so suits them.

Plus, for some unknown reason, the admin here wants to remove the info added by another editor:

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)[reply]

I think it's appropriate that people seeing this page see the true info about the kind of people participating in it. Furthermore, Ideogram himself has never had any direct interaction with me under that name but suddenly out of nowhere filed an improper Request for Arbitration against me. He also has been disciplined by ArbCom for other offenses.

The bottom line here is that RFCs are intended to be a dispute resolution step. Almost without exception, the people complaining here about my behavior have made no serious attempt to resolve anything, instead casting snarky comments, outright insults and personal attacks, assumption of bad faith, and with the ultimate goal of trying to shut me out entirely instead of solving anything. Comments by Dan Case, Empacher, DashaKat and others below show outright hostility, unreasonable demands as ultimatums, lack of good faith in the process of resolving complaints, and many many examples (just in their statements on this page!) of incivility worse than the kind they accuse me of. I am, and always have been, in favor of RESOLVING conflicts, but some people here have to realize that the way to do that is not to just do whatever they wanted to do in the first place and ignore, belittle and attack anyone else. Until there's a real effort to try to resolve problems in a reasonable way instead of showing single instances of placing useless templates amidst many other edits of rude comments and blind reverts there is nothing I can do here to resolve things, other than having the people in question stop posting over and over to my talk page with comments that any reasonable person would know only escalates the problem instead of solving it. When they ignore such requests -- and in fact a number of them ignored admin warnings that they will be blocked if they continued to post harassing comments to my talk page, which I out of politeness (as well as the knowledge that they would not learn from the experience and just come back more pissed off than before) never insisted actually be carried through -- even the basic level of respect and good faith is lacking.

Users who endorse this summary:

DreamGuy 14:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (with some additional comments added later)[reply]

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.}

Outside view by Quiddity

I have not been directly involved with this user, but have noticed many arguments that he has been involved in lately. I would like to elaborate on the comments I made at ANI: Dreamguy appears to generally be a well-intentioned editor; but he is frequently rude to people who disagree with him, and he often edits against consensus. His exclusionist leanings and antagonistic edit summaries do not help matters. See this mailing list thread from June for another example of a good administrator (Bryan Derksen) who was exhausted by arguing with him. I would second the request that he gets more oversight from some uninvolved admins, and that he personally try to exert a lot more effort to be polite/friendly/patient/AGF with other editors in the future. AGF is difficult, but even more necessary, to keep in mind after one has had a conflict with any individual. It is the grease that allows editors with different philosophies to work together. --Quiddity 17:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

--Quiddity 17:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Thespian 19:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan Derksen 23:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IPSOS (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vashti 04:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon 17:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dreadstar † 20:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
–––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree DreamGuy is well-intentioned; he just needs to have a cool head when editing. --clpo13_(talk) 07:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mikaul^talk 23:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Deckill er 20:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VMS Mosaic 21:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eaglizard 20:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by DashaKat

It has been my on-going experience that this individual is guilty of violating Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:NPOV. 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. I do not believe that this editor is well-intentioned. I believe the behavior exhibited by this individual ruins it for all concerned; editors and users, alike.

Further, the above presentation of events almost exactly mirrors my experiences in dealing with User:DreamGuy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology, Dissociative identity disorder, Talk:Dissociative identity disorder, Multiple personality controversy, Talk:Multiple personality controversy, Parapsychology, and Talk:Parapsychology, and the pages associated with a failed arbitration (the 5th in 3 years, I understand) that I personally called against the fellow earlier this year. I hereby do witness and endorse the statements made here as an accurate accounting of on-going behavior by the editor in question. --DashaKat 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It should also be noted that the editors involved in this complaint even break policies when it comes to filing this RFC and so forth. DashaKat improperly edited a failed RFC against me from three years ago to remove comments in support of me and to add additional attacks, and then later started redirecting that whole page." -- DreamGuy

I would like to point out that this was an honest mistake, and that, true to form DreamGuy is distorting the actual facts to suit his own needs. This is consistent, to the point of outright lies in the face of hard evidence to the contrary, on his part. --DashaKat 19:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

--DashaKat 23:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
–––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IPSOS (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon 17:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eaglizard 20:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Outside view by Martinphi

I had a highly negative experience with DreamGuy a few weeks ago at the Parapsychology article. He came in edit warring, started being uncivil, and then left, having accomplished absolutely nothing I know of on the article- constructive or destructive. The only thing he left behind was bad feelings. Here are some diffs- and BTW, they are ALL the diffs from the article I could find, probably all his edits on Parapsychology:

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

Admin DGG finally tells him to stop edit warring: [27]

Parapsychology talk page:

Incivility: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

Talking about a previous attempt to file arbitration against DreamGuy: [34]

Removing other people's posts, attacking: [35] [36]

Sheesh, there are probably more, but is more documentation necessary? I'm sure it's probably just as bad on other pages.

Also, he was just uninformed a lot of the time -though totally sure-, which made reasoned argument impossible. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

–––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 19:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--DashaKat 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IPSOS (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon 17:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wizardman 17:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dreadstar † 20:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Empacher

I was arbitrarily attacked by DreamGuy as a sock puppet of Dashacat because we share some of the same interests, and he apparently needed some ammo for his arguments. He did this when I lended my support to an arbitration that Dashacat started because I have had enough negative experience with this user that I quit editing psych articles. I am, in fact, a secondary account, but not of Dashacat, and not a sockpuppet, as my original user account has not been active for several years. There is at least one user who could identify me as a secondary account to my original account, and has done so in private correspondence.

I have watched with a fair amount of amazement at the way this editor interacts with others, and continues to get away with it. He is a bully. The thing I find most interesting/disturbing is that he accuses others of acting in exactly the way that he does.

For example, even in his example right here, he claims people make blind edits and blind reversions, while pushing their particular POV, when that's exactly what he does on a regular basis. I find it hard to beleive that someone whose main interest appears to be serial killers and other moribund subjects can also contribute effectively to academic articles on Psychology, Parapsychology, and metaphysics. It's ludicrious. And someone's comment that he edits for the sake of editing on subjects that he knows nothing about goes very, very far in my book.

An examination of this guy's edits on some of the articles he works on seem to support the idea that he has something meaningful to contribute. I do not agree with his statement that he is "...a very good editor". My experience is that he targets an article based on some god-only-knows-what criteria, and then hammers both the content and the other editors until they just give up trying to deal with him. I think this perception is supported by the comments of others here. --Empacher 16:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Bryan Derksen

I've already provided something of an outside view via Quiddity's comment above, where he references an email I wrote regarding an earlier conflict involving DreamGuy ([37]). 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/Archive 1#External links removal restored, Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 17#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. Indeed, in this current RfC DreamGuy has called me "deceptive" when I attempted to make this very clarification.([38]) Unfortunately this continues to support my previous conclusions about DreamGuy described in that email; I think he's been fighting ill-intentioned vandals for so long that he now seems to interpret anyone who disagrees with him of being of the same ilk. This leads to rapid descent into all-out warfare and is bad for the project.

The previous articles I've encountered DreamGuy and his editing style in have all been werewolf-related in one way or another, which do tend to draw POV-pushers and (to put it mildly) "eccentric" editors that need to be kept in check. However, this current dispute is over an article completely unrelated to that subject. I'm worried that this is a sign that DreamGuy has become unable to collaborate in a civil manner anywhere, not just on contentious matters. Bryan Derksen 22:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Daniel Case

I checked this RfC out because I happened across an AIV report someone had made on him a couple of weeks back. His name was vaguely familiar; I checked out the edits. Since they seemed content-related and not obvious vandalism I commented that these should be handled via AN/I as previous issues involving him had and removed it from the list.

But during that brief investigation I was struck by the confrontational edit summaries. I wondered, was that just someone having a bad day or is he always like this?

This RfC has answered the question firmly on the side of the latter possibility. What I was seeing was a representative sample. And when I looked through the diffs linked above, I was appalled. It put such a sour taste in my mouth that, despite attending a meetup in the interim, I knew I wasn't going to return editing full-heartedly until I sat down and got this off my chest.

In particular I was upset by this diff. Wikipedia is not a blog, and your user talk page is not like a blog comments section. I take a very dim view of users who remove content from their talk pages. I have seen many do it, vandals or not. But to so openly assert that someone is banned from your talk page? That's taking it to a new level I had never thought possible. One that not only flies in the face of WP:OWN, it practically seems to be challenging it to a fight. In the future I strongly suggest that any user claiming he or she can "ban" someone from their talk page be blocked immediately.

And for an editor so ready to resort to policy to justify his behavior to then say this when called on a clear policy violation is harmful to the project. If you make a specialty out of reverting spammers and POV-pushers, you better make sure there's no evidence out there that you consider policy something to pick and choose from.

So then I looked at his response, and was unsurprised. A long paragraph about what's wrong with everyone else filing this. No attempt to address any specific allegation. No real defense. No apology offered for any one single incident of incivility. In fact, it almost read like collected and edited comments from the talk page diffs.

Then there's the beginning of the next paragraph:

“

The bottom line is I am a very good editor

”

In another context, this might be inspire levity, a remark along the lines of "Well if you do say so yourself". But I'm too disgusted to be amused. DreamGuy, if you were truly a very good editor you wouldn't have been hauled in here. If you were truly a very good editor you'd not only not know policies on what should and shouldn't be in articles, you'd know WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:CON, WP:OWN and exemplify them through your actions.

We will decide if you're a good editor or not here, thank you very much.

Finally I went to his user page. And his talk page.

Oh.
My.
God.

Just look at this header:

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.

In one paragraph, he runs afoul of WP:BITE, WP:CIV and WP:OWN. And probably, by implication, WP:AGF. Another previously unimaginable feat. Again, another thing that merits a block all by itself.

I have a lot of concern about this user. Allowing an editor to continue like this would be detrimental to the project. If he was somebody I was paying to do this for me, I'd fire him. This is the guy "No Angry Mastodons" was written about. I can't imagine the paint on the wall behind whatever monitor he uses regularly not horribly peeling.

He has made a couple of the right enemies. But making the right enemies never gives any user the right to carry on like DreamGuy has. You still have obligations to be civil and assume good faith, and I join the outside view above. Fighting the good fight does not mean you can fight everybody. But one gets the impression he just seeks out conflict

I am really not sure if someone like him can be reformed. We have to assume he can. So, I would suggest the following conditions and terms for any settlement of this RfC.

DreamGuy rewords the message atop his talk page to bring it into line with policy. And keeps it that way.
No dark sarcasm in edit summaries.
Evidence of taking some type of anger management class.
Cease and desist from any suggestion that he can ban people from his talk page (Originally intended to be on this list; added 2007-08-15)

Users who endorse this summary:

Daniel Case 05:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon 05:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Quiddity 06:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vashti 08:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
William Avery 11:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Best view yet I'd say Wizardman 18:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thespian 20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mikaul^talk 23:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't have put it better, although I wouldn't go so far as to agree completely with the conditions. --clpo13_(talk) 07:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--DashaKat 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan Derksen 22:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Deckill er 20:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VMS Mosaic 21:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IPSOS (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Bishonen

DreamGuy is a gruff and abrasive and useful editor. He is rude to the rude, and is quite capable of being rude to the polite, too. 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. DreamGuy has some reason to feel cornered and to lash out, as this RFC shows. He has been unfairly blocked over and over again, sometimes due to behind-the-scenes campaigns. Without warning, without the standard established-editor block report on ANI, and without cause. Here's an ANI thread about a three-day block (sic, three days) for, as the reviewing admins agree, non-existent "harassment", placed by a newbie admin who is himself in a content conflict with DreamGuy. Here's David Gerard deciding without a shred of basis that DreamGuy's a sock of a banned user and blocking him for a month. Note the absence of any apology for these bad, policy-defying blocks. As an admin, I'm ashamed to see them. 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, I'm sorry, I really don't have any dark secrets there. Despite rumours to the contrary, I didn't leave him on the steps of the orphanage when he was a baby. This is my rationale: I don't see the admin tools as best used in adding to the dogpile already forming on an editor. I actually think it's up to me to defend even unpopular people from harassment and injustice. Therefore, I post blocks on ANI for review when the blocking admin forgets to, or "forgets to." That — making bad blocks visible to the admin community — is often successful, and leads to a quick unblock. My attempts to talk with the editors who're currently riled-up against DreamGuy, on the other hand — chiefly IPSOS, Dicklyon, Arthur Rubin — have gone over like lead balloons. I suppose I'm not cut out for it, I don't seem to be getting through. This is how I've been doing lately:

Here, here, and here is IPSOS posting templates on DreamGuy's page that welcome him to Wikipedia and encourage him to read the Assume Good Faith policy and the Welcome page to learn more about contributing. In other words templates for the most clueless of newbies, snarkily and sarcastically planted on a longtime contributor. DreamGuy keeps removing them, with angry edit summaries (no! really? well, I never!), and IPSOS, in defiance of userspace policy and culture, keeps coming up with fresh templates. This is me telling him to stop, and this his response to me (click on it, you'll like the maturity.) Here's Dicklyon restoring one of IPSOS' templates, to give DreamGuy "another chance" to read them [sic]. Here, incidentally, is administrator Arthur Rubin removing my two separate posts on his page where I asked him to help me do something about the harassment. (The first time on Wikipedia that I've met such frank discourtesy from a fellow admin.) IPSOS was lucky not to get blocked there. Why wasn't he in fact blocked? I was going to say, because, as far as I've seen, DG never complains to admins about harassment and personal attacks. I've literally never seen him try to get anybody blocked. But now that I see Daniel Case's view above, with its much-endorsed indignation at DreamGuy's attempts to ban some people from posting on his page, and its lack of interest in why DreamGuy might want to try that, I guess the real reason IPSOS didn't get blocked is that people have already made up their minds about the civil guys and the uncivil guys.

Too long! But I just have to comment on DashaKat's outside view. (Empacher's view I take to be kind of self-commenting.) I'm less impressed by it than I can easily express, and quite depressed to see the signatures endorsing it. What's to endorse? All it conveys is the editor's own lack of good faith ("I do not believe this editor is well-intentioned"): no basis given for the lack of belief, no diffs, and seemingly no comprehension of the fact that anybody can "call" a request for arbitration on anybody. I did explain this matter to DashaKat, when he told me about the Five Failed Arbitrations he had counted[39] and had decided proved something against DreamGuy. But he still finds them worth mentioning on this RFC all over again, so I'll spell it out: Dashakat's own recent RFAR against "the fellow" was an outlandishly unprepared request for arbitration which was thrown out on the advice of a dinosaur sockpuppet [40] [41] — probably the least dignified fate of any RFAR ever. Of the other four RFARs called against DreamGuy in three years, one was accepted for arbitration. That was in 2005. It had been called by a notorious troll who was indefinitely banned soon after, and didn't lead to any sanction or admonition against DreamGuy. Oh, and by the way, in DashaKat's zeal to recommend Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks to DreamGuy, he forgets to mention his own personal attacks, calling DreamGuy a "certified imbecile", "a control freak" [42] and "an ass"[43] DreamGuy hardly seems to be the single rude wasp in a garden of gentle butterflies. And yet there are signatures below this user's view. People don't expect a lot, I guess, as long as whatever-it-is chimes in with their own basic opinion.

Users who endorse this summary:

Bishonen | talk 23:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I remember DreamGuy from a couple years back. Abrasive and useful is a very apt way to describe his editing. He is by no means blameless, but we shouldn't spend much time complaining at someone for being rude in response to harassment. It is particularly disappointing that some of the poor behavior demonstrated here was by a couple of our own admins, whose reasonableness has in theory been vetted by the community. From admins, we should expect more, not tolerate less. Friday (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Friday's remarks. android 79 23:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
people in a glass house throwing stones. I am sick of "WP:CIVIL" being paraded around in order to dodge the actual issues. WP:CIVIL is here to protect us from random obscenity and abuse, but it certainly shouldn't prevent us from calling spades spades, or bullshit bullshit. dab (𒁳) 06:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that DreamGuy was treated unfairly by people whose own record of civility is by no means spotless. Let's commend Bishonen for having compiled an eloquent summary of the situation. DreamGuy is getting more difficult to defend, but the case is a sort of litmus test for our community. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, except that I neither endorse nor dispute the claim that blocks were "sometimes due to behind-the-scenes campaigns", as I don't actually know that. I also agree with Friday. ElinorD (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DreamGuy is, in a very real sense, constantly and aggressively undertaking "janitorial work" that by its very nature will bring him into conflict with other editors ("How dare you remove the link to my web page where I explain how we are descended from Dragon-Vampire hybrids!") In other words, he's doing the work that many other editors should be doing, but are not. For this reason, if no other, I'm inclined to cut him more slack (and indeed, note how many of the comments above reduce to "Well, I was in a content dispute with him, and he hurt my feelings.") None of that is to say that he is free from a duty to be civil (indeed, I think he'd be very well served by simply not responding to those who are trying to bait him). However, I think the behavior here has been shameful all around, and I hope that all of our charcoal-black pots do the same amount of self-introspection and self-criticism as they are asking DreamKettle to do. Nandesuka 02:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put. In many cases, DreamGuy is doing what most of us lack the patience to do. Before you accept the criticisms of DreamGuy at face value, closely inspect the editing records of those leading the attack. Ante lan ^talk 05:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can sign to this statement. Does anyone remember user:RickK? He was irascible, to say the least, but he got down there in the muck with a shovel. Sometimes, he seemed like the project's own Caliban: not loved, but not dispensable. DreamGuy should be less rude. He should stop poking at people. He should try politeness or indifference. He should not adopt a siege mentality. Ok, and that amounts to wishes, not sanctions. Geogre 02:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse everything except for the sentence, "He has been unfairly blocked over and over again, sometimes due to behind-the-scenes campaigns." I don't know myself that DG has actually been blocked due to off-WP campaigns but I know for a fact that he has been the subject of off-WP campaigns and that part of these campaigns involved supporting blocks which were arguably dubious and attempting to undermine the reputations of admins who stepped forward to defend him. Sarah 02:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're exactly right, Sarah, that's the sum of what I know, too. I wrote that sentence too hastily. Please read as "He has been unfairly blocked over and over again, and there have been behind-the-scenes campaigns to support such blocks." Bishonen | talk 09:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Outside view by Alucard (Dr.)

I have been a WP editor since April of 2006. I have done my best to watch and learn how things work in the encyclopedia and to follow the methods and procedures used. I got involved in the Photo Editing article in an attempt to resolve the rampant edit warring that was going on on the page. I was not invited to the dispute by anyone. One of those engaging in edit warring was DreamGuy, but he was not alone (it takes at least two to edit war). From July 16th onwards I made an attempt at trying to find a middle ground. Both parties claimed they were editing to consensus - this was a sign to me that there was no true consensus. I tried over a period of time to get all sides engaged in a discussion on what the real issues are, rather than quoting WP policy and claiming consensus and that "he started it", or equivalent. The edit warring continued by both sides, until I requested (and obtained) a full protect on the page. (I took this to mean that at least one admin, not involved with the dispute, agreed with the fact that there was an edit war going on and needed to be resolved.)

In general, from my view of it, it seemed like the discussion polarized to two sides, DreamGuy vs. the others. I tried to get a summary from all involved as to what needed to be done in order to address everyone's need. I tried to leave each editor time to make their points clear. I put up a "sandbox" version of the article that each side could critique. I tried to avoid personalities and what had happened before, and tried to focus on the issues at hand.

On July 27th I suggested that we all work together to try to find some common ground among the various involved parties. I put a message on each involved editor's Talk pages that I wanted to make a new attempt at resolving this and required their participation, if an effective consensus was going to be reached. I tried very had not to take sides and to be a facilitator, to make sure that all sides had the space and the time to express their views, and to try to stay away from editor conflict. I felt like in general I got support from everyone involved to the process, except for this comment which I felt was fairly strongly laying blame and being judgmental, rather than focusing on the process at hand. I felt that there was a good participation in most editors, except for DreamGuy, with comments like this. Part of the process of reaching consensus is that everyone involved should respect the fact that others may have a legitimate opinion and work together to explore that. I feel that any good Wikipedia editor trying to keep with the spirit of Wikipedia and its processes would know and respect this. Making dismissive comments about another point of view is not conducive to that process.

I am not going to reproduce step-by-step the process that was gone through on that page. It is easy to see your yourself the process that I tried to take this through. It failed. I felt that we were close. I saw two reasons why it failed - first the impatience of those involved - DreamGuy had to take a small Wikibreak to deal with some RL issues and the frustrations built up during that time, leading to procedural activities being taken against DG, like this one. I felt that continuing to try to get editors to work together in that environment was basically a losing game, and withdrew. Second, while I got constructive comments from nearly all participating editors, I felt that all I got from DreamGuy were digs at other editors, or silence, in spite of my repeated attempts on his talk page to get him involved (after he returned from his Wikibreak).

I am editing this section now (12:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)) because DreamGuy has informed me on my talk page that these comments were not aimed directly at me. While I feel that his comments can tend towards not trusting someone coming in, they do not apply to the situation I reacted to, so I am removing those parts of my conclusions drawn from that assumption. Thank you for the clarification, DreamGuy - much appreciated.

I did this willingly, because I am trained to do mediations and faciliating in RL, so felt like I could possibly try those skills here. Therefore, when I read the following statement on the discussion page for this procedure from DreamGuy: "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."

~~I have to say that I am highly disappointed in DreamGuy's characterization of my actions.~~

Assume good faith: I have no idea why he couldn't Assume Good Faith on my part. I think that anybody looking at my edit history can see that I am not a sockpuppet of anyone. I didn't come "out of nowhere" - I have been a WP editor for over a year. DG has no idea what training or credentials I have in RL, didn't bother to ask, and jumps to the conclusion that I have none. The process of consensus is exactly NOT what he says - filtering the views of a bunch of people who disagree (and may well be angry) in an attempt to work through it and explore common ground is *exactly* what consensus is about. I also tried to demonstrate that I am not biased. I feel that with this comment he has fallen short of AGF, since he himself said I came out of nowhere, from his perspective. I would like to know where in the discussions we had, he based those quoted comments.

WP:CIVIL: I have seen numerous times where DreamGuy has been significantly less than civil, both in edit comments and in discussions - there have been ample examples of this given. I feel that a "good" WP editor learns not to bite back when someone bites. Yes, it can get extreme at times, and once in a while everyone is going to snap, but DreamGuy's style tends towards very curt and belittling comments in general. This does not foster a positive editing environment.

WP:Consensus: I feel that DreamGuy does not understand the process of reaching consensus. If he does, then he chooses not to use it. I do not think that this is a problem exclusive to DreamGuy, though - consensus isn't about majority votes or bullying your way through things, and it takes time.

Wikipedia:Edit_summaries: I have repeatedly seen DreamGuy continue the discussion, or inflame it, through the use of edit comments. Often he will not take part in discussions on the talk page (since he feels they are redundant due to his view of the motivations of the people making the changes). While I can understand the emotional sentiment, I don't feel that this is in the spirit of Wikipedia.

In conclusion, I feel that a good Wikipedia editor is not just someone who is on RC patrol, or gets rid of spam, or contributes good content to articles, and removes POV. There is a soft side to it, too. You have to be tolerant, bite your tongue sometimes, be prepared to put your emotions aside to reach consensus, and respect other editors, no matter whether their view are different from yours. I feel that DreamGuy is amazingly vigilant at tracking down POV stuff, and could be an excellent, engaged editor. I often agree with him on matters of policy on WP:EL, for example. But I feel that the soft side is something that he needs to work on. Often DreamGuy gets himself into a position that he is making a one-man stand against a group of opposing views. It might be useful for him to use the options available in Wikipedia for getting others involved in the discussion, rather than getting involved in protracted trench-warfare with other editors, that invariably gets into situations where edit-warring, civility breaches and accusations of breach of AGF occur.

Users who endorse this summary:

--Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case 14:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan Derksen 16:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thespian 17:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon 17:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC) – And yes, I do accept his criticism of my being critical and judgemental in his process.[reply]
--Quiddity 17:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vashti 18:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent summary without getting too accusatory. --clpo13_(talk) 19:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Deckill er 19:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
William Avery 08:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VMS Mosaic 21:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Blue^{talk to me} 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IPSOS (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Eiler7

Alucard has provided a good view. I would just add that being a good user, for me, involves taking appropriate steps to counter harrassment. It has been suggested that we cut DreamGuy some slack because of his being unjustly blocked. DreamGuy himself did not give this as a reason for his approach so I would tend to discount this. Taking a wikibreak is one approach if one feels the anger level rising.

Users who endorse this view:

Outside view by Ytrottier

Dreamguy was very rude to myself and to User:InfernoXV on Talk:Mixoparthenos. He accused me of being a sockpuppet in the edit summary.[44] He reverts ruthlessly without much effort at achieving consensus. At the time, I found an existing Wikiquette complaint about him and added my experience, and we were advised to start an RFC. I've never contributed to or read an RFC before, and it seemed too much trouble to figure out the process to start one. Now I spotted his name in the Signpost's Lengthy Litigation section and arrived here. I don't even know if I'm doing this Outside View correctly; please forgive me and clean up as required.--Yannick 06:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.