Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2

Past RfC[edit]

Nothing sems to have been done from this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy#Response why is that?

the preceeding link reveals to u that this is a continuing problem for how user:DreamGuy acts, and thus it is a problem generated by user:DreamGuy. Gabrielsimon 05:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding link shows that is not uncommon for people to file false claims when they want revenge because edits that they made to articles get changed. Examples of people from that RfC include someone who spammed links to her site across tons of true crime articles, a POV warrior who felt that objectively mentioning that someone was named as a suspect in the Jack the Ripper case should be censored from their article because it wasn't nice to the person, other people upset when normal consenus building procedures did not go their way, and a couple of people who only read my responses to those people after I was frustrated from suffering long periods of their abuse and said that was wrong but didn;t bother to look at what the complaining people did. Nothing happened because nothing needed to happen. The people who complained learned that they had no case, much like you will see happen here.

And, frankly, Gabrielsimon, considering how many times you've been blocked from editing here, it's pretty hypocritical for you to ask why nothing was done about me. With seven violations of the 3RR to your credit in just a few short months and numerous examples of POV wars and harassment, one might ask how come nothing has been done about you yet. DreamGuy 05:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence[edit]

user:DreamGuy - pretty much constantly rude to other users, when asked about it, blanks comments from his user page, when instinstanly asked, dcalls it harrassment, and tries to play victim, please look at his edit history to find out the very specifics. User:Dbraceyrules/Horatii and others will likly say the same as i have. 19:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps if i was clear about this, what Horatii has posted contains direct quotes, so the evidance is here. Gabrielsimon 05:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one of the rudest members of the Wikipedia community, DreamGuy has rebuked the criticism that he so willingly gives and often insults other Wikipedians without provocation. For instance, he may avoid "direct" vandalism by using anagrams such as WAFM - which is certainly a cover-up for "what a F***ing moron- often deletes other people's complaints about his vandalism. Here are examples of some of his harsh words:

Hi. If you had bothered to look at the change you mention above, you would see that it was clearly making it more NPOV and not POV. I had a typo in the edit description area, as those are more dificult to catch as they do not show up on preview any different than when first entered. MAking it "clear that these are beliefs and not necessarily true" is CLEARLY making something NPOV, and looking at the edit you would see that that's exactly what I did. For you to try to use that to claim that I am knowingly putting POV into articles when it is clear I am doing just the opposite is simply absurd. DreamGuy 03:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

You have got to be effin kidding me. The delete votes clearly strongly outpaced the keep votes. It's ridiculous things like keeping articles most people clearly thought deserved to be deleted that makes this place such a joke. A bunch of juveniles kiddies can come along and screw up VfDs by making nonsensical claims to keep a useless and craptastic article like this and then some admin who can;t count keeps the article. The lunatics are running the asylum here. DreamGuy 05:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to be bothered by someone as ignorant as you, but what you are claiming above makes no sense. In fact I can't even fathom how you think what you say above is an argument against my edits. I did not edit the Amaterasu article at all, I didn;t do anything to redirect it. And there is no "gneeral consensus" on that page, just you (who got the title wrong in the first place) and some whacko nutjob going around unddoing my edits because I dared to not let him make claims about Planet X and reptile aliens as if they were true. And of course Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that still doesn't mean your usage was right, and it has nothing to do with these Japanese phrases. Go edit Japanese articles if you want to try to use Japanese definitions in place of the English ones.

Such words are obviously personal attacks and POV.Horatii 02:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs, please? You're making accusations without giving concrete evidence. --Carnildo 04:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the evidance was supplied by horatii, please read it., also, i did say, examine his edit history. Gabrielsimon 04:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no evidence. Without diffs, there's no way of telling slander from evidence. --Carnildo 05:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how can someones exact words beused as differences? this is exactly what he said, just go to his edit history to see the proof. Gabrielsimon 05:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo please take a fresh new look at the RfC. You might want to retract your statement now that more evidence has been properly presented. --AI 00:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some specifics, mostly put in the context of his User Page. While they are not necessarily his rudest comments (I'd have to go check everything he's ever done, as it's just about all rude), it does prove that he is extremely arrogant and stubborn. I quote: "About me? Eclectic scholar, published author, and all around nice guy, but I won't list details as Wiki guidelines discourage self-promotion." He is an "eclectic scholar" of mythology, who doesn't know what a mythology is ([1] and [2])? I find it hard to believe that someone who can't spell "principal" ([3]) or "Sun" ([4]) could be a "published author". (He then sarcastically makes fun of other people's spelling, even though they, unlike him, do not then go and stubbornly revert the corrections.) I have seen literally dozens of examples of DreamGuy hardly being an "all around nice guy" - many are quoted above, and here is another one. He claims "a lot of posters got their information from extremely bad sources. These "extremely bad sources" could well be the works of Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung, as he seems to think he knows more about mythology than those two, given that he so often disagrees with them ([5], for example). He's guilty of hypocrisy, which I pointed out here. Is that enough? elvenscout742 13:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This just in. DreamGuy unilaterally makes decisions regarding the moving of articles so that they have inappropriate names, enforcing his (incorrect) POV even when consensus has been building against him for almost a month and takes credit for other peoples' writing in articles. This can be seen in his movement of "Missing Sun myth" to "Missing sun motif" ([6]), and in his taking credit for the use fo the word motif ("...my change calling this a motif..." [my emphasis]). If one checks the history of Missing Sun myth, there is a vast treasure trove of snide remarks, incorrect changes and lack of knowledge of the subject. Sorry to keep making this page longer, but more examples need to be given until something is at last done to make sure DreamGuy can't mess Wikipedia up anymore, and I'm willing to keep pointing out the countless violations of Wikiquette (among other things, including factual errors) on his part, even if noone else is. (EDIT: Oh, yeah, and I plan on doing this on a daily basis until DreamGuy is appropriately - I've got plenty of resources to draw from, and he'll probably do something new every other day.)elvenscout742 11:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations[edit]

According to Solipsist we have to remove the Recommendations section.[7] I moved it to the discussion page.

I would reccomend that DreamGuy be banned. Gabrielsimon 04:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I second that! elvenscout742 13:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BLOCK HIM PERMANENTLY, HE DOES NOT ABIDE BY WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES AND SHOULD BE BANNED PERMANENTLY.Horatii 21:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. He's too dangerous to be allowed back in after a certain time. But, uh, Horatii? Don't you think you should tone it down a bit? Perhaps lower case letters here and there? One of my main conflicts with the accused is over "incorrect" capitalisation, and he'd have a field day with your post ;)... But seriously, we have to be calm and patient. elvenscout742 12:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~I suggest restriction of previleges. If futher personal attacks, cancel his account.--AI 21:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Recommendations by involved parties is not a part of the procedure of RfC. --AI 01:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Carnildo[edit]

Carnildo, your claim that you "see nothing particularly serious in the way of personal attacks by DreamGuy" shows you haven't really looked into the problem. --AI 00:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(for the sake of context, here is what was once above kaoswork's commetns Gabrielsimon 01:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC))[reply]

As I see it, there's a long-running edit war between DreamGuy and a number of other editors. I don't know who's right or wrong here. I see nothing particularly serious in the way of personal attacks by DreamGuy, particularly nothing worthy of a permanent ban. I think everyone involved needs to re-read the NPOV and no personal attacks policies.

I've taken the opportunity to add the fighting over Missing sun motif to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever. (by Carnildo)

khaosworks 01:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Amended Comment: DreamGuy's conduct here is obnoxious, sure, but none of it warrants the level of sanction that's being requested for. The complainants insist on their own POV, DreamGuy gets frustrated, loses his temper, they react, and the whole thing degenerates into a slinging match. Both sides have slung mud, and it must stop. Everyone involved needs to review WP:Civility, and everyone should be given a firm rap on the wrist for wasting their energy on each other rather than more productive pursuits. --khaosworks 07:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

The requests you are referring to are irrelevant because they were not part of standard RfC procedure. Would you like to retract your statement or make another "more informed" comment? And please sign your posts next time. --AI 01:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not retract my statement. And if you had looked at who actually added that comment, you would have seen that it was meant as an adendum to my signing beneath Carnildo's outside view. This kind of response only bolsters my opinion that this whole thing is schoolyard politics. --khaosworks 01:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Khaos" please educate yourself: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2#Evidence of disputed behavior There are 17 separate instances noted. --AI 02:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them - would you like me to take you through them one by one? I still don't think any of it warrants a permanent ban. Possibly lesser sanctions, but not a permanent ban. Your confrontational and patronising attitude to people's opinions is not helping your credibility. --khaosworks 03:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am not suggesting a ban. I am not concerned about my credibility, as I do not provide original research or present myself as a reference. Anyone who takes time to seriously study my contributions will see that I was trying to get DreamGuy to be civil about accuracy disputes. Are you suggesting that DreamGuy be allowed to constantly make personal attacks and also remove other user's messages from discussion pages? --AI 03:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i wouldnt call it patronizing, id call it more " tired of dealing with him" and for the reocrd, the confrontational one is Draemguy Gabrielsimon 03:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's no excuse - AI may be tired of dealing with DreamGuy, but that doesn't mean he has the right to sneer or jump on anyone who is expressing a contrary opinion as to the nature of his dispute with DreamGuy. Like I said, DreamGuy is obnoxious, but none of the complaints warrant a permanent ban, and if you take away the obnoxious way he does it, I tend to agree with most (not all) of DreamGuy's edits in those complaints. --khaosworks 03:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Khaos, don't lie; show me where I sneered and jumped. Anyway, I act with authority granted by Wikipedia policy: BE BOLD!!! If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. The edits you refer to are probably dealing with mythology articles. DreamGuy has been treating those articles with extreme scientific scrutiny. DreamGuy should stick with scientific articles, not mythology. --AI 03:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reread my suggestion (which I wrote while not realizing that the RfC was not standardly composed), I am not trying to get a permanent ban.--AI 03:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if consistant, which it is, and persistant, despite repeated requests that he jknock it off, which is also true, then after six months of him treating people this way, in such an incivil wa,y i would say its time to exzcise him. andyes, hes been doing this as long as i have been here. Gabrielsimon 03:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

elven nor al nor i have ever sunk to his level, ill admit that horatii has, on occasion, lapsed in judgement, but none of the others in this dispute have eer insulted him. he however, does this constantly. Gabrielsimon 01:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't warrant a permanent ban. That's just my opinion. --khaosworks 01:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Can we remove this "outside view" by carnildo. It is not an honest "outside view", and IMHO it is a BIASED VIEW. --AI 02:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Horatii if you are reading this, IMHO, the "outside view" is activity of "Wikihooligans" :) --AI 02:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)~~[reply]

Irrelevant argument[edit]

I think DreamGuy would be well supported if he opened an RFC against his accusers and asked for them to suffer the same punishment. ~~~~ 01:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well thats just dandy, but its never any of horatii, elven, al or i who start, or even carry on with incivillity.

Gabrielsimon 01:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Ril-, your opinion is irrelevant. We are scrutinizing Dreamguy in this RfC, not the RfC writers. And please sign your posts, that is not a signature. --AI 01:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the record[edit]

(Some of these comments are from Horatii's talk page regarding DreamGuy and I believe the discussion should be presented here. My decision to move these comments here is with good faith and request a waiver if I have violated any Wikipedia policy in doing so. --AI 01:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC))

Please recommend that DreamGuy be blocked on his RFC page See: [[8]], here. Although I didn't abide by the "WikiHooligans" idea, I think the man should still be blocked. Thanks. Horatii 02:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Horatii. I am cleaning up DreamGuy's RFC page so it is not rejected. We need to convert the discussion from the talk page to the project page. --AI 22:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That's looking a lot better now - Thanks AI. Now you just need to certify it and invite DreamGuy's response.

I should also remove the 'Recommendations' section. An RFC doesn't really have the authority to impose conditions on an editor. It is more a mechanism to determine community consensus. Once DreamGuy has addressed his response, other disinterested editors examine the evidence and express their opinions. Then, hopefully, one side or the other sees the error of their ways and either decides that the dispute in not that important or amends their behaviour.

If following the RFC nothing changes, the case then moves on to the arbitration committee which does have the power to impose recommended remedies. Even then the remedies are for the arb-com to decide. -- Solipsist 23:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

problem is that he will not listen to anyone who has a prolem with him, beleiveingthem to be some sort of harrasssment. so it might be diffucult for us to get him to respond. Gabrielsimon 23:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would not ideal, but if DreamGuy chooses not to respond, editors reading the RFC are likely to draw their own conclusions. However, he responded to the previous RFC, so I would be surprised if he doesn't respond this time too. The important thing is to ensure that you notify him of the RFC and invite his response.

You should also be prepared for some counter criticism, and glancing over the talk pages some of it would probably justified. Once the RFC is running, it is best to resist the temptation to comment too much - just let interested editors discuss it and form their own opinions.

For the record, although I haven't seen much of his work, I consider DreamGuy to be a good editor who appears to understand mythology subjects well. But I have also seen him allow the frustrations of dealing with other editors holding differing opinions get the better of him, leading to less than perfect wikiquette.

So having noticed your earlier complaints, I'm now just trying to help you all follow Wikipedia procedures, without wanting to take sides. I can't anticipate how the RFC will go, but I hope it will allow both sides to take stock and clear the air a little. Remember, the ideal goal is not to achieve an ulitmatum, but rather to arrive at a solution that allows everyone to work together and build a better encylopedia. -- Solipsist 00:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me you are allowing a user to make personal attacks because he is a "good" editor. What Wikipedia policy are you basing your decision on? --AI 01:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with some of these "experienced" users is that they use minor violations of policy by others as an unstated basis for reverts of valid contribution. I have seen several "longtime" contributors revert article based only on such technicalities. To me this is biting the heads off of newcomers and reveals bad faith on the part of some Wikipedia "veterans." --AI 01:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add that in some cases, the "experienced user" was also an admin. --AI 01:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just trying to be diplomatic. I think it would be better if DreamGuy continued editing, but refrained from making personal attacks. I also think some of the other editors here may have retaliated with personal attacks. That's not unusual as disputes get out of hand, but again it would be better if it didn't happen. The reason Wikipedia strongly disapproves of personal attacks is that offending people tends to cause them to leave and pretty soon we would have no editors. -- Solipsist 08:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help Solipsist. I think some policies should be clarified. RfC and Wikiquette alerts are new to me and probably also new to most people who need to use the protocols. The instructions can be confusing and in some aspects the text leaves the reader guessing on what is the proper action (Rfc vs. WA). Now that I understand better, I don't think an RfC should have been filed on DreamGuy. A Wikiquette Alert probably was sufficient. --AI 03:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

we have asked him many times in the past to at least show some civillity, and he either ignores us, or simpply deletes the words we post to request this. i do not see how he will do any different now, therefore i am adamant that he be banned. Gabrielsimon 09:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but such an entrenched attitude is not likely to help you here. The idea of the RfC is to gather the opinion of other editors who are not involved in the dispute. If that forms a consensus, it can be difficult for an editor to continue doing something if they know that most people disagree. -- Solipsist 09:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i try to keep my peace about me, just some times its harder then i like. now, as for the comment about how its hard to do something against consensus, the missing sun myth page is a prime example he said he wanted it moved to missing sun motif, and no one agreed, so he did it anyway. he does things like that a lot. i put it back. ( i try to be helpfull with such) it can also be considered consensus that he should try being repsectfull, but he doesnt, he refuses to even try. Gabrielsimon 09:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prior abuse[edit]

In his Response, User:DreamGuy points to issues with prior abuse and personal attacks from some of the users bringing this RfC. It would be useful to have a few example diffs supporting this counter claim. However, I did have a brief look over the past history on the talk pages concerned, in particular to see whether I verify the claim that User:Dbraceyrules/Horatii and Gabrielsimon had coordinate in attacking DreamGuy in the past.

The talk pages are fairly chaotic, but I did find this example from April:

On Gabrielsimon's talk page, anon User:24.164.211.25 signing as User:Dbraceyrules, discusses vandalising DreamGuy's site and calls him an a-hole. - 05:31, 21 April 2005

There are many similar examples from around that time. Fortunately User:Gabrielsimon's responses mostly advocate avoiding direct attacks.

Many of the more recent edits by User:24.164.211.25 relate to formatting the user space of User:Horatii which later redirects to User:Gabrielsimon. Can we confirm that User:24.164.211.25 is therefore User:Dbraceyrules/Horatii editing without signing in?

This is quite disappointing and whilst it doesn't justify User:DreamGuy retaliating with personal attacks, it does suggest this dispute is much wider than the POV warring leading to personal attacks that I had assumed it was. Has this all been addressed before? -- Solipsist 19:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never did file an RfC on them before, but their harassment lasted several months and is well documented. This link [9] (scroll down to THE WIKIPEDIA WAR BETWEEN DREAMGUY (BITCH) AND ME) shows an old version of User:Horatii's page where he admits his actions... use of profanity, posting photos of Hitler with my username under it, vandalism of pages, etc. Note that these actions, which he fully admits to doing, he declares justified solely because of what he considered an "arrogant" comment when I edited his incorrect changes to Edgar Ray Killen.

After they continued constant vandalism on my user page back in April (which I would just remove and that they would just put back, sometimes only minutes later), I tried filing vandalism reports on both of them. Here is one example of how this happened: [10]. Note that he admits to vandalism, and chooses to interpret my editing changes he made to pages as "revenge" (the one article he mentioned there is one I had edited previously and changed his edit because it wasn;t up to par). Nothing ever came of these reports (which is one of the reasons I have become so upset at how Wikipedia is run -- when clear examples of constant vandalism are reported but no action is ever taken, it doesn't really seem worth it for me to bother updating articles and so forth if it just means being a target for harassment at editors upset that I dared to change their articles).

And I found where the two of them conspired to "file a false report on him [i.e. me, DreamGuy] for vandalism, and let him get in trouble.": [11] and here is where they tried to file a report on me: [12]

The two of them should have been dealt with a long time ago, and instead they are still harassing me months later and trying to get me into trouble.

DreamGuy 06:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

dreamGuy slaways does this, he points to links, and showspeople half the picture, heres my response... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gabrielsimon&diff=next&oldid=12643427

as for the filing of vandalism, i didnt know what else to do, he was following me around, article to article, it seemed, and undoing my work. this is exactly why i say that DreamGuy plays either victim or blind man, becasue he never seems to look at everything that there is to see. Gabrielsimon 06:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As i have said, when i deal with people, i remain civil, no matter how they treat me, in my response to User:Dbraceyrules/Horatii when he said something to the effect of " let him annoy you enough, and youll reconsider vandalism" ( re written to avoid cursing) i replied that vandalism is beneath me, i have my own revenge, what i meant by that is that i do not feel the need to vandalize, because i have the satisfaction of watching people get angry and emotional, like children, and i consider it my own revenge to be able to say with certainty that i did not fall to that level of immaturity in the face of things that may well annoy me. Gabrielsimon 05:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insults by user DreamGuy removed. would other please help them Stay removed, please? Gabrielsimon 07:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your revenge is to constantly harass people with annoying posts on their talk pages and following them around reverting their changes on all articles they have modified recently regardless of whether you have ever edited that article before. You purposefully try to piss people off, and when someone does crack a little you complain about their behavior and try to get them into trouble for it when your behavior not only caused it but was worse than the thing you are complaining about. Since you've basically admitted that yor strategy is trolling people (and you and your friends of course will try to take "troll" as a personal insult even though it's an objective description of your actions), I really think that you are the one who should be disciplined here. DreamGuy 06:42, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Gabrielsimon has removed my comment above (and this one) multiple times so that others would not see it. He wrote in the edit comments section: "Prior abuse - - i refuse to be insulted, so i deleted his words, sorry if its rude of me, but i dont like being lied about" This once again proves that he is willing to break any rules he can if he thinks he can get away with it. The above is not a lie, but something that is pretty undeniable at this point. HE simply erased it instead of attempting to defend his actions. DreamGuy 07:39, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Restoring above comments by DreamGuy — but both of you please stop. We do not need another slinging match here, and Gabrielsimon you should not edit another user's comments on talk pages without their permission. -- Solipsist

9it is simply that i do not wishto be insulted, and well, i dont appreciate it when it happens. i saw no other way of removing the insulting material. it was never so that no one would see it, it was so that i wouldnt have to. Gabrielsimon 07:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My last comment: Gabrielsimon, there was nothing in the section you removed that was a personal attack. "Troll" is not an accusation that you are big, ugly and stupid, or whatever it is you think the insult was. A troll is someone who purposefully does things knowing that the actions will piss someone off... much like the string of ten or more articles you edited today to undo all the fixes I have made recently, only for you to discover afterwards when you finally asked someone if you were right or not that you were completely wrong. You constantly don't even try to figure out if what you are doing is right or wrong, you just do these things to piss others off. You need to stop that, these ridiculous RfCs, removing other people's comments, and so forth. That's why you lost this RfC, that's why all sorts of editors always undo your changes, and that's why other people who also don't like it when I change their stuff team up with you to try to get you to do the mischief that they want to do themselves but know that they'd get blocked for (like your many violations of 3RR) if they did themselves. They are using your zeal against me to harass me and fight the battles they won't fight because they know it's wrong. As you know see, every edit of mine you've undone for the past week has been explained to you as wrong by several editors now. That should tell you something. DreamGuy 08:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy, can you ease up a little in the mythology department? Maybe you can focus on scientific articles. You probably should steer clear of political or religious articles. ;) --AI 03:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response of "Prior Abuse" by Dbraceyrules[edit]

In my defense, I had apologized to DreamGuy several times, and have tried to clearly make amends with him. For example, I have offered truces to him, but he refuses them and calls them "harassment" when I was clearly trying to make peace. I am in no means negating the fact that I vandalized his site, or that my actions were wrong. In fact, I take full responsibility of vandalizing his site numerous times, however, I do not feel responsible for DreamGuy's general lack of civility and stubborness. If someone offers to make truce, why not accept it and go on with life?

Not only that, I have noticed that he deleted my barnstars that I gave to him - yet another example of me trying to promote peace between us - but he arrogantly states that they are "silly and pointless awards" and deletes them, not wanting to be "affiliated with me."

Generally speaking, my actions from 20 April to 23 April could be considered vandalism, but everything else, including my additions this month have been clear and unequivocally desperate attempts to create a peace between the man and me, and to confront extremely rude actions of his. (see [[13]] although this is obviously a friendly request, he addresses it by saying "here's how I address rudeness...by deleting it). He often adds POV rants, insults to other user's talk pages (see here, here, and of course here).

When I simply asked him to cease his rudeness in a polite way, he calls in harassment. Again, he insults several user's in the history section of articles, and frequently avoids "direct vandalism" by adding acronyms such as WTF - what the f*** - and WAFM - obviously what a f***ing moron.

He obviously can take no criticism but can dish it out pretty well. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 18:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, claims that the argument is "ridiculous" when several other users have said that he was "obnoxious" and that everyone needs a dose of civility, not just his detractors, but himself also. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 18:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His claims of "clear and unequivocally desperate attempts to create a peace between the man and me, and to confront extremely rude actions" is absolute nonsense... He made constant and continual harassing comments on my talk pages. He doesn't edit any article I edit, so I explained to him a long time ago that the only "truce" was that was necessary was for him to stop harassing me and posting to my talk page for no reason. His whole claim here is that he supposedly wants to "instruct" me on how not to be rude while he is being highly rude and disrespectful in the process himself and jumping in to defend another known vandal and unrepetent harasser Gabrielsimon. Again, the only "truce" that is needed is for him to just leave me alone, as I do not interact with him otherwise. He claims there is a conflict but constantly starts it up again for no reason when things would have just been fine and dandy with him doing whatever it is he does here and me doing the edits in areas I do them on. The only reason there is a conflict is that he will not let it go. DreamGuy 20:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

This response of his only proves further stubborness, and he has yet to answer to the acronyms "WAFM" and "WTF." This action, along with ignoring warnings about rudeness on Wikipedia, etc. only prove his guilt. DreamGuy, just agree to a truce, your idea of "leave me alone" and it'll go away is ridiculous because of your constant conflicts with other users. And no, I do not follow Gabrielsimon and wait until he starts editing your user page. I will come and warn you about abusive edits and POV rants if I see them as you have emphatically stated that your would revert my "bad edits," which could be duly refuted because only 3 major contributions that I have made have been reverted out of the nearly 1,100 edits to this encyclopedia since 4 November 2004! You need to get serious people skills Horatii/Dbraceyrules 15:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can go onbelieving whatever you want about the acronyms. I'm surprised you aren't familiar with the meaning and usage of WTF though.

And talking about your total number of edits is extremely misleading, as a huge percentage of those edits have been adding harassing comments to my talk page, updating your user page, and running around talking on other people's talk pages. I'd estimate that you have at least a hundred changes to my talk page alone, if not a couple hundred by now. Considering your proven history of harasssment here, which continues to this day, you are the last person to talk about people skills. DreamGuy 17:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

True, several edits of mine have been to my own user space. However, several edits that I have made to articles, etc. are lost because of computer malfunctions and my usage of IP's from September, 2004 to January, 2005. No, I have only edited your user page about 30 times, and your accusations of a "few hundred" is misleading and slander. To be honest, I am not a bad Wikipedia editor, and I am quite certain that you are the only Wikipedian that charges me of such. Even when I had been pretty pissed off at you Durin had written me a note that my contributions besides those to your user space had been pretty good.(see [[User_talk:24.164.211.25#Some worthy contributions). Truth is, you are extremely arrogant and believe that you are the only Wikipedian of merit in this entire encyclopedia. You are able to thrust criticism on other users, but entirely unable to take any type of criticism to your own actions. Thus, explaining your reverts to articles when other disagree with your edits and deletion of talk page messages warning you about POV rants and particularly gross comments to other users. The fact also remains that several users have insulted/vandalized you because of your haughtiness and total inability to accept criticism for your actions. This argument is a waste of my time anyway, and the fact remains that no one lost this dispute on the RfC, that your comments to other users incriminates you for rudeness, and that mostly all of the proponents to Carnildo's view add that you are duly wrong for malicious comments about other users, or, as one user stated you are obnoxious and wrong! I have reverted vandalism to this encyclopedia more times than I have added it to your user space, i.e. finding impostors for RickK, incriminating those filing false vandalism reports, destroying crazy edits on several articles, etc. Also, the fact that I was able to apologize to you (even though I went back to the same thing the first time), and have apologized yet again, further condemns your pride and inability to do so. I will even do it again : I am sorry for vandalizing your user page. There, but I do not apologize for my posts on 2 July, which had only kindly stated that you need to not be rude to so many other users. Clearly, this is not vandalism of any sort,but a plea for you to end your rudeness. If you think that you are the only one right in this dispute, you clearly need a lesson in civility and people skills Horatii/Dbraceyrules 18:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, why are you arguing here, you already have your section. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 18:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"No, I have only edited your user page about 30 times, and your accusations of a "few hundred" is misleading and slander."

A) Learn what "slander" means before you try to use the word. B) It is absolutely false that you only edited my talk page 30 times. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you made 30 edits to my talk page in just one week, based upn how regularly you were harassing me. C) I didn't delete "talk page messages warning you about POV rants and particularly gross comments to other users" -- your version of what happened is particularly twisted to try to justify your own harassment ... and that's exactly what it was, because you find "gross comments" that were not there, were overly sensistive, imagined insults that didn;t exist, and all the while did FAR, FAR worse things to me than anyone did to you. You were an outright vandal. You added swear words and pictures of Hitler. Even now you are butting in on the talk page complaining about things that you yourself caused and an open articles you never touched before solely to undo edits that I placed there because of your personal need for revenge. Face up to facts, kiddo, you aren't in the right here, you don't have the right to do what you were doing, and the only things you've complained about that are even partially worth complaining about only happened because of your (and your buddies') gross misconduct and harassment. DreamGuy 19:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Brother, how about you go back and count my IP address etc. on your talk page history. Yes, you quoted right I was a vandal...past tense as in I used to vandal your page but do not anymore. Your edits are highly worth complaining about. You continue to anger other users by POV rants and insults, and turning over a new leaf, I will tell you about your misconduct, but I will not vandalized your site anymore. I apologize here and now again, so why are you still so stubborn? YOUR COMMENTS HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY BRASH TOWARDS OTHER USERS, OTHER NEUTRAL WIKIPEDIANS THAT ENDORSE THE COMMENTS ON THE REQUEST FOR COMMENTS STATE THIS IN THEIR SIGNATURES. Do not approach me again like I am some kind of idiot! YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME AND I RESENT SUCH RUDENESS TOWARDS ME!!!!!!! I do not think I was in the right for vandalizing your crappy user pages, and I have apologized again and again as ANY SELF RESPECTING PERSON WOULD DO. You are entirely too stubborn. You are wrong too, and just can't accept the obvious truth. You have erratically claimed that I am a bad editor but have not even bothered to read my past edits. I actually respect you as an editor, and believe that your edits are of merit. You can give me the same due respect. Horatii/Dbraceyrules 21:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lately, DreamGuy also claims that he "does nothing to me" and that my edit at the Missing sun myth was an act of revenge. Please, brother. I don't have time to plot menial ways to get back at you...the only reason I edited there was in an attempt to resolve the problem. DreamGuy, however, reverted my edits at La Malinche for his own petty revenge. His argument here (aboutmy revenge, or about how many times I edited his crappy [and yes they are crappy] user/talk page) is of little value. I will admit that he is giving a decisive argument (on everything else), but my counter claims will not be negated or ignored DreamGuy, I will not tolerate you insulting my intelligence an any way, shape or form! I CAN EDIT PARTS OF THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA JUST AS WELL AS YOU CAN, AND I AM IN NO NEED OF "A DIFFERENT HOBBY AS YOU RUDELY SUGGESTED TO ME!Dbraceyrules 19:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WILL POST TO My talk page, because RfC will be deleted soon enough.

Outside view?[edit]

In my opinion, Carnildo and those endorsing his outside view are either biased or incompetent. Please re-consider these facts that I will compose over the next few days:

Missing sun myth/motif[edit]

Missing Sun myth / Missing sun myth / Missing sun motif : Capitalization/Move/VfD/Redirection dispute

There is a general concensus that S should be capitalized because it is believed by the contributors to be a Name. DreamGuy was the only one who insisted that the s should not be capitalized, based on his opinion that the capitalization of S is an error. [14]
Instead of conceding to consensus, Dreamguy files a request for move on 29 June. [15]
Elvenscout and I opposed the move and posted our votes on July 3, but DreamGuy violated Wikipedia policy and removed our votes on 8 July and wrote in the edit summary: "Removed comments by editors who are just plain wrong and should put comments on the actual talk page". [16]

However, he was correct - votes to support or oppose a move are to be done on the talk page, not on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page. Again, his presentation was obnoxious (and he should have explained his reasons more clearly... and to be fair, he should have moved the comments to talk, not just deleted them), but he was right in cleaning that up. --khaosworks 02:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as they both already had comments saying the same thing on the page where they belonged, I thought moving them would have been an unnecessary duplication... not to mention that it showed that they knew that they were supposed to make comments on the talk page in question but knowingly decided to place them elsewhere as well. I probably should have just left it and let other people deal with it. What is interesting is that the editors involved are desperately trying to use it as an example of my supposed bad behavior when they have since then deleted my comments on article talk pages and this very RfC... So they apparently feel like they can make more serious violations of the very things they complain about but that they should get away with it. That shows a high level of hypocrisy at work. DreamGuy 15:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Spare me of your interpretation of policy. Wikipedia:Requested moves states "Requested moves is used to request, and vote on" ... "The move should usually be discussed on the talk pages of any relevant articles first". (1) It was discussed on the discussion page first, and (2) it clearly says that we can vote at "Requested moves". His interpretation does not justify the removal of other users postings. Please clear up your misunderstanding before you or DreamGuy attempt to interpret policy for other users or I will add this activity to the RfC on DreamGuy and call for further mediation. Note: Your point brings up another interesting Wiki-violation of Dreamguy: Biting the newcomers (ME).

It's not a matter of intepretation, it's a matter of practice. The complete lack of support or oppose votes on the requests page may have been a clue. --khaosworks 03:26, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

First you try to interpret for me, now you try to lecture me. There is no point in further communication with you, if you cannot not understand this:

"Requested moves is used to request, and vote on, article moves that are not straight-forward or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators. For example, the proposed move may be controversial, or technical expertise may be needed to merge edit histories. The move should usually be discussed on the talk pages of any relevant articles first, particularly where a page move may be controversial."

"May have been a clue" implies that I am clueless; take your trolling to someone who hasn't been on the net for more than 12 years. I also suggest you choose a medium where things are not documented. --AI 03:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that there isn't any point in further communication. Nobody else is paying attention to this RfC anymore, I guess I'll do the same. --khaosworks 04:23, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

On July 10, 09:50, DreamGuy went ahead and moved the article from Missing Sun myth to Missing sun motif. [17]
On July 10, 10:01, DreamGuy deleted the Request for move and wrote in the edit summary: "removed request, as it is no longer needed since article name was changed to remove other error as well" [18]
On 12 July, Ril files a VfD on Missing Sun myth. The reason given: "Article is a copy+paste duplicate of Missing sun motif, created by a user to suit their side of an edit war." [19]

Concensus was ignored by Dreamguy in his move, he suppressed opposition in the request for move. The reason given in the VfD was misleading, given these circumstances. --AI 01:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of the Outside Views were written before I even had a chance to respond to your allegations, and I would think a lot of them would be even less likely to support your side (not that any of them did) if they had seen your responses. Of course the more you try to respond the more you prove that you were completely out of line and that the vast majority of your complaints in the RfC were actually examples of you are your buddies breaking the rules than anything against me. It should be pointed out that even after this RfC failed to gain you any supporters AND a VfD on Missing Sun myth and related discussion shows a clear consensus against your side, that you and Gabrielsimon still went in and reverted the pages in question to your preferred way, completely and totally disrespecting the way things are done here. You were unable to get anyone on your side so just went ahead and made the changes anyway. Your changes were undone, the pages were locked, and if with any luck people might look into taking disciplinary actions against you. DreamGuy 15:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

a response to the outside views by Solipsist and UninvitedCompany[edit]

his "evidance" agsint me is becasue he looks at incomplete pictures, and thjen yells and cries about it. i have been civil and ive tried to be carefull in my wording. above he cites this as something to scream about http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gabrielsimon&diff=prev&oldid=12643427

when he didnt even take time to look at the response, apparently. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gabrielsimon&diff=next&oldid=12643427 this seems typical of his behaviour. ( as i also mentioned above, revenge is more an "taking the high road" sort of concept rather than an action) Gabrielsimon 19:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to delete page[edit]

Why not? There is no use fighting anymore (or even being on Wikipedia). Dbraceyrules 00:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure its complety correct procedure to delete an RfC page... I would ask an admin that was involved to do it rather than list it for speedy. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 08:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am aware RfCs are not usually deleted - they are left for future reference (as for example the previous RfC on User:DreamGuy). There certainly isn't a case for a speedy delete.

Please stop trying to revise comments on this RfC and its talk page. The RfC has run its course. The general conclusion appears to be that DreamGuy has been engaging in personal attacks and should stop (I rather suspect he has), whilst Dbraceyrules & Gabrielsimon haven't been entirely upfront in bringing this RfC and have also engaged in personal attacks and other disruptive behaviour. Again I suspect they are both committed to behaving more responsibly in future. Nevertheless, several of the parties involved have moved on to other RfCs and RfAs on related issues. -- Solipsist 19:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here I thought Ril was quoting some policy about RfCs if they don't get support from other editors, but if he wasn't then obviously no reason to delete this. I do know the RfC page several months back switched to saying that old ones inactive after a certain time would be deleted. The existence of this project page documents several accusations against me by User:AI that are patently and unquenstionably false, so keeping this around in case he is ever RfCed might be a good idea, for example. I think it would be nice if old ones at least were protected so new comments cannot be added... the people who tried this one originally tried to use the old one although they were not party to the events in question there. DreamGuy 22:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Project page deleted[edit]

This RfC has been deleted since efforts to resolve the dispute by both users certifying the page (both have been banned from the project as abusive accounts) were insufficient. El_C 21:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is a retroactive (and as such, unusual) act, I have refractored —and removed— the project page's contents on the talk page. It can be read here, but should not otherwise be restored without clearing it with me first. Thanks. El_C 21:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]