Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Irrationality and links to psychiatric conditions
1) Most articles which concern irrational beliefs do not feature links to psychiatric conditions, see Virgin Birth (Christian doctrine), Miracle, Creationism and Biblical inerrancy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The basis on which otherkin would be linked to Clinical lycanthropy while equally irrational, but traditional, Christian beliefs are not linked to delusion is not clear. Fred Bauder 19:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Original research
1) DreamGuy makes the obvious connection between the otherkin subculture and Therianthropy subculture and clinical lycanthropy  ; however this contention is unsourced and at variance with DSM-IV, see User:Vashti/Otherkin/Medical perspectives and rant another rant.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edit warring
2) DreamGuy, Hipocrite, Friday and Gabrielsimon (editing as Gavin the Chosen and as ) have engaged in edit wars regarding links between clinical lycanthropy, a psychiatric condition, and otherkin and therianthropy, subcultural passtimes, , , , , , ,. (At this point SlimVirgin reverted to pre-3RR version ), Bryan Derksen, , Friday, another tack (now as Gimmiet), reverted by Friday, see Talk:Clinical_lycanthropy.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Archetypical edits
This edits   may illustrate the essence of this dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is an instance of GabrielSimon putting in original research ; DreamGuy was just correcting it. Fred Bauder 21:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * In those edits, the only fault I see with DreamGuy is the unnecessarily sharp (but not outrageously so) edit summaries. His version is certainly the NPOV one. N (t/c) 18:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring continues
I realize this is already in the voting phase, but since there is no proposed remedy for edit wrring, I thought I'd point out that it is continuing. I just protected, which was listed on WP:RFPP. DreamGuy has racked up 3 reverts in the last 24 hours, and made no attempt at discussion in two weeks. See Chimera history for many reverts over the last few weeks. Also, I would note that I have come across plenty of evidence of DreamGuy edit warring, and if you hop over to the Lightbringer RFAR you'll see him mentioned edit warring in freemasonry articles there too. Dmcdevit·t 03:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I realize this is closed, but for posterity purposes, the above accusation "made no attempt at discussion in two weeks" is completely untrue, as the edit comments of the reverts fully explained the rationale. Perhaps what he meant was I gave up trying to explain to one particular editor who was blind reverting the article back to version full of errors after my explanations were ignored and the editor in question heaped insults at me. I know from speaking to User:Dmcdevit that he/she believes any repeated edits are inherently bad, but in this case the other editor was simply blind reverting and ignoring the explanations while making false accusations of vandalism. The Lightbringer RFAR is another example of an editor who was ignoring discussion and changing to a version filled with errors. That editor has now been banned from editing those articles. I and a large number of other people undid his changes when he made them as they strongly violated consensus and policy. Why Dmcdevit thinks that this is a bad thing is beyond me, as if we hadn't, we would have surrendered several articles to an editor who has clearly stated his sole purpose here is to be a POV-pusher for a hate group. DreamGuy 19:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: