Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by dicklyon
These are pretty much just copied from the user conduct RfC that I started about him (Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2).

DreamGuy does not behave in a civil or cooperative manner

 * DreamGuy's first removal of photoshopping content last March 9 was nothing special, but the cock-sure mischaracterizing edit summary using words like "nonsense" and "ridiculous" did portend trouble. This was the beginning of my interaction with him, after which he continued for many months to press this position, never receiving any support from any single other editor that I can find (except the IP user that was him, here:  where he removes all the content and summarizes with reverting to clear consensus, as discussed on talk page throughly by multiple people -- person losing a consensus vote can't keep reverting these changes).
 * His first uncooperative (and lying) claim of "consensus" combined with appeal to policy in an edit summary, referring to the talk page of that date in which he had asserted consensus in the midst of a discussion. The one editor who had previously said something that could be taken as support for DreamGuy's position later clarified that he wanted the content merged to Photo editing as a section, not removed.  This is the consensus that eventually emerged, but which didn't satisfy DreamGuy who proceeded to repeated gut the resulting section.
 * DreamGuy's most recent response 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).
 * His only ever comment on my talk page, in which my admittedly not-ideal final warning for vandalism elicited nothing but abusive accusations.
 * 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, 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".
 * 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)"
 * Lying mischaracterization and uncivil ridicule of my position, in response to my polite and civil comment that gave him some credit for valid points; 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".
 * When not logged in (but not a sockpuppet, he says), he had a series 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.
 * Here he accuses me of lying after deleting my notification on his talk page that I opened an AN/I case on him.
 * Numerous editors agree that DreamGuy is uncivil. uncooperative, rude, antagonistic, confrontational, a bully, etc., as expressed by their Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2s.

DreamGuy provokes edit wars by assuming bad faith
...repeateding calling other editors "problem editor", "kiddies", "malcontents", etc., and referring to their communications as "harassment."


 * His user page User talk:DreamGuy displays his bad-faith contempt for the opinions of editors that he disagrees with where it says at the top: 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.
 * Repeated bad faith characterizations    of other editors as "little kiddies", "kiddies who want amateur trivial nonsense", "internet kiddies", "kewl kiddies", and such.
 * Even while the user conduct RfC was going on, he continued to belittle other editors and their motives, showing his assumptions of bad faith 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.
 * Calls all the editors he disagrees with on an article "hardcore problematic editors" while pretending that there was a consensus that agreed with him.

DreamGuy rejects all attempts at mediation and other approaches to finding consensus

 * Here's his final explicit rejection of a sincere attempt to get some mediation help.
 * Here is an earlier mediation rejection, with plenty of angry abusive language.
 * Explicit rejection and removal of attempts to discuss potential consensus making.
 * Explicit rejection of third-party opinion and attempts at compromise.
 * Lots more examples of Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2.

Dicklyon 04:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.