Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/DreamGuy

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Endorsement, use of sockpuppets and subversion of 3RR

I strongly endorse the sentiments presented by IVoteTurkey and supported by others. I recently encountered DreamGuy for the first time and was shocked at the apparent impugnity with which he disregards WP policies - particularly WP:Civility. His use of abusive and/or outright misleading edit summaries by itself shows utter contempt for the WP community and its standards.

More seriously, I strongly suspect DreamGuy of using a sockpuppet to deliberately subvert the 3RR. A comparison of the edit histories for DreamGuy and Victrix reveals edits to the same series of articles, with the same lengthy edit summaries, using the same terminology and wording, the same histrionic, derogatory and abusive general tone, and the same accusations of "harrassment" against those who dare to disagree.

Evidence of subversion of the 3RR can be seen here, where Victrix appears out of nowhere to post a comment of support on DreamGuy's talk page, before proceeding to instigate a 4th revert to the article, after DreamGuy has instigated 3 previous reverts - using an almost identical edit summary. --Centauri 11:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Killing the spirit of Wikipedia

IMHO it is about time that this individual be called to the carpet on his lack of civility, wiki-lawyering, invocation of false admin authority, edit warring, and general disruptive behavior.

That said, it has been my on-going experience that this individual is guilty of violating Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:NPOV. Although I am aware that there are other accusations on the table, I cannot speak to them.

In response to dab's comment that the two parties involved in this dispute simply avoid each other, it is a good one. However, User:DreamGuy's unflagging disruptive edits on pages upon which he exercises his particular brand of "ownership" make that effort impossible in light of editorial responsibility.

The bottom line for me is this: 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. When I worked on the white paper that became the foundation document for Apple's "Human/Computer Interface Guidelines", and we were all screwing around with Hypercard on the original Macs, the creation of a resource like Wikipedia was the dream we had in mind. A recent study showed that Wikipedia was as accurate, and in some cases more accurate than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Editors like User:DreamGuy don't just make things difficult for us, the other editors, they ruin it for the users, too. And, check your ego at the door people, it's all about the users. --DashaKat 22:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

For some reason this was redirect to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2. These are two different RFCs- I see no reason for the redirect. Friday (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please use the talk page instead of edit warring! You have given no good reason for the redirect, other than that you yourself apparently edited the wrong page by mistake. Obviously you now know which is the page you were looking for. Friday (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the redirect was to prevent the on-going issue of people writing here, when they mean to write there. It's not a ploy... it's an editorial nightmare, and getting in the way of the process. --DashaKat 18:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The solution is for people to understand how to find and edit the page they're looking for. You've effectively hidden the old RFC by making it into a redirect. The first RFC is even linked to from the second one- a link that becomes far less useful with the redirect in place. Friday (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. --DashaKat 19:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.