Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Dream Focus - Wikipedia

I believe some admin attention is needed at this AFD. Dream Focus (talk · contribs) is making some rather bad faith comments about other editors, particularly Collectonian (talk · contribs), Dandy Sephy (talk · contribs), and myself. I've already grown tired of dealing with his poor arguments and always advocating we ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But it doesn't help when he claims that we are out to destroy Wikipedia by deleting articles.[1][2] As a result, nearly every AFD discussion he is involved in turns into a mess. See also his talk page where he rails against article deletion and the notability guidelines in blog-like fashion. --Farix (Talk) 04:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_Transfer Someone please don't skim through that, but read everything they said, and my responses to that. Don't just take something out of context, and lead people into an incorrect assumption. Dream Focus 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's his userpage that rails against article deletion in blog-like fashion. I think it's also relevant to note his recent proposal at the village pump. The proposal itself isn't a worry, but the wording is most disconcerting. ThemFromSpace 04:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So you are saying I worded it wrong? How exactly? Those who don't want to see something on wikipedia, now have the ability to not notice it at all, without having to delete it. Dream Focus 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edit-conflicted trying to add the same WP:VPP link. It's a fair indication that his mind is pretty well set on the matter, so I suspect any effort to make him consider moderating his views will be wasted. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What ever happened to assume good faith? Are you doing that here? Dream Focus 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x 2)Here's another diff that suggests people are on an organized campaign to destroy all coverage of fiction on Wikipedia- which of course is nonsense. I'm a bit concerned that Dream Focus seems to be provoking a "circle the wagons and fight the evil scary deletionists" battleground mentality, but I don't think they've done anything that requires urgent administrator intervention. What's an admin going to do except suggest to Dream Focus that they ought to tone down the exaggerated defensiveness and take note of WP:AGF- which anyone could do and probably should have before bringing this issue here. Reyk _YO! 04:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said to "circle the wagons" once in my life. And some deletionists have already stated they don't want fiction articles, in these very AFD you are discussion. Do you deny that some people automatically say "Delete" to any episode article, character article, or article about context of a work of fiction, because they believe such things shouldn't exist? Dream Focus 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been escalating over the last few months, and dispute Sephiroth BCR (talk · contribs) and Black Kite (talk · contribs) telling him to knock it off with the personal attacks and bad faith accusations, he still continues unabated and becomes more provocative. His recent behavior is board-lining on disruptive. --Farix (Talk) 04:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Out of context, once again. Sephiroth is friends with you guys, posting friendly chats on each other's user pages, and whatnot. Can an administrator other than him handle this? And I don't recall having a problem with Black Kite, other than my wording being misinterpreted on something on my user page, which I reworded, and he agreed was fine. Dream Focus 10:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It should also be noted his AWB request where he originally stated that the reason he wanted AWB privileges was because he can WP:CANVASS editors who participated in AFD about later merger discussions.[3][4][5][6][7]. --Farix (Talk) 04:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Another horrible and obvious lie. As long as everyone in the AFD is contacted, it is not canvassing. Stop stating such blatant lies against me. Can you find one example where I've ever actually canvassed? If not, stop making that ridiculous claim every chance you get. And the fact that they gave me the tools after I specifically said what I would do with them, and discussed it, shows I have nothing to hide. Dream Focus 18:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really wouldn't hurt that much if the AfD crew were more compromising and less robotic in their "This fails ____. Delete it." ways. Often times the nominations are debatable due to things like foreign-language sources no one can read or search for, so in order to cause less conflict you you could put forth other, more real-life relevant rationales and arguments to get your point across instead of simply stating that it (possibly) fails policy. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quote for AfD in question "You are trying to delete an article that couldn't possibly hurt anyone" - Uh, I think Dream Focus needs some editors to talk to about valid reasons for deletion. Just because an article doesn't hurt anyone doesn't mean it don't hurt Wikipedia. In fact, an article that is most helpful to someone can very well damage Wikipedia in the worst possible way. Another quote "Why not find proof to support your claims that the notability guidelines should be followed, despite having many obvious flaws? ..." - Another thing that Dream Focus has backwards. Dream Focus is not helping the deletion discussion in any way, and is only hurting it even more given he has failed to show valid arguments in it. TheFarix, Collectonian and briefy me spoke about Dream Focus two months ago about forum shopping. I wouldn't generally consider myself an involved party, but may become one given this post. —Mythdon t/c 04:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was not forum shopping, I only posted at legitimate places I had to, in order to deal with them ignoring the consensus. Post links to exactly where I brought this up at, and name one which was not valid. Dream Focus 10:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I previously had a mediation-of-sorts between Dream Focus and Collectonian and along with Neon white (talk · contribs), Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs), and LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs), a compromise was attempted but neither party would agree to it. See the discussion here; I ended up archiving it because it wasn't going anywhere. My observation then, which still stands now, is that Dream Focus had a fundamental misunderstanding of our deletion policy that gets carried into his editing and actions; his characterizing of editors !voting delete at AfDs as nothing more than editors destroying the project is something that he has consistently espouesd since joining Wikipedia. Several people have tried to converse with him concerning this view, but he's been adamantly set with viewing the situation as an intractable battlefield. I'm not sure any sort of compromise, mediation, or otherwise is going to work, and frankly, all I see if more disruption coming on the horizon. That he was granted AWB was particularly worrying considering that he openly stated all he was going to use it for was canvassing. I would advise some sort of restriction on his edits in the projectspace. He's more or less intractable at this point and only something concrete is going to stop his disruptive behavior. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You let her post things while I had my 24 hour ban for reverting the removing of Rescue tags 4 times, thinking it was allowed do to vandalism, then when I came back and posted my questions, you suddenly ended it abruptly before anyone could respond. I listed out all the claims someone made against me, and asked people based on the evidence, to examine each one. Dream Focus 10:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, unless the situation improves, some form of restriction should be considered. PhilKnight (talk) 09:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus has for a long time asserted that AfD is a vote, and that vote-counting should always count over weight of argument. More recently he has repeatedly mentioned that guidelines and policies regarding notability and similar topics should also be ignored. See his comment in this AfD - "We'll just wait for others to join in and state their views on it, and see what the consensus is, be it to follow those guidelines, or simply ignore them.". See his talk page for numerous conversations about this. Given the comments on the current AfD ("You aren't helping wikipedia in any possible way. You are just destroying parts of it.") I think we a getting to the point where this editor Doesn't Get It^TM and as Phil said, it is probably time to look at a restriction, possibly a topic ban from AfD. This would cut the amount of disruption down whilst not limiting his abilities to improve articles which are at AfD. Black Kite 09:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

concur. If he's keen on expanding wikipedia, he can help "rescue" articles by improving them. But this harassment has got to stop. Suggest AfD discussion ban + strict canvassing ban. yandman 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow! A group of people who always seem to be posting in the same spot, and saying the same thing, and who have all previous confrontations with me, are all the first group here to try to distort things and gang up on me. Great. Each time they state that something doesn't meet the notability guidelines, I mention that it doesn't have to, those are just guidelines/suggestions not policy. Then the same discussion goes on again. You automatically know certain people are going to say "keep" or "delete", if you see them making the same decisions in every AFD they participate in. That isn't bad faith, its detecting a clear and obvious pattern. Lets break down one current occassion after another, and deal with them in an orderly manner, shall we?
  • If the majority of people say KEEP, NOT merge, for an article, and then after its over, someone merges it, then I believe everyone in the AFD should be contacted, and asked to participate in a merge discussion, to see if that is what they wanted. How many people believe that is fair? I've only done it once so far, however next time the situation comes up where that happens, I will contact everyone. That isn't canvassing. Read the definition on its wikipedia page. Dream Focus 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an AfD is closed Keep, and then someone merges the article, then fine (and you'd be justified in un-merging it as well). But apart from that, you're only proving that you're still labouring under the misapprehension that AfD is a vote. If you don't agree with the result of an AfD, take it to WP:DRV. Then everyone who commented in the AfD can have their say. You're not helping yourself by constantly attacking people in AfDs, and if it continues you will find yourself sanctioned for it. Black Kite 10:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So if every single person says KEEP, you can still merge on your own, even though the closing editor says "KEEP", is that it? Without a merge discussion first, they can just be bold, and eliminate everything on the article page, nothing left but its history and a redirect, and no information other than a single sentence ever "merged" to the new location. Dream Focus 10:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suggest you go back and read what I wrote again. Yes, there's no reason why someone couldn't merge an article that had been Kept at AfD, but any editor would be completely justified in changing it back, and saying "look - the AfD said Keep - if you want to merge it,start a merge discussion". Black Kite 10:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't you consider that bad faith on their part? They tried to delete it outright, but failed, so they delete it anyway, but call it a "merge" even though nothing is actually merged. The only difference between a delete and a merge in these cases, is that the article history is preserved, and there is a redirect there. And far less people will be around to notice the Merge discussion, unless someone contacts them all and tells them about it, which is what I plan on doing. Dream Focus 10:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. You've been told several times now that a "keep" result does not prevent further editorial actions. The fact that you immediately assume and then accuses others of bad faith is part of the problem. Combine this with your attempts to turn AFDs and merger discussions into pitched battles over inclusionism and deletionism. --Farix (Talk) 11:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"They tried to delete it outright, but failed". Who are these sinister "theys"? Do you mean those who disagree with you? How did they "try to delete it"? By participating in a discussion? How did they "fail"? What do you think this is, the House of Commons? yandman 12:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Some editors have boldly state that it didn't matter if something was voted keep or not, they were still going to delete it, and attempt to do so the moment the AFD ends. Other times I see an editor having a fit arguing with everyone in certain discussions, and then when she fails to convince anyone else to delete something, tries her secret merge tactic. I'll find some case by case examples of this common tactic, if you want. Dream Focus 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Some examples of my claim, since some think I'm being paranoid or doubt my words. From the History of quanternions AFD, most everyone saying Keep, and one editor says:

  Comment on future redirect: It doesn't matter if this article is deleted or not. If it ain't deleted, I'm just going to replace the whole thing with a redirect to quaternion. --C S (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  Which is what he did, undoing efforts to restore it. That isn't an isolate incident either. The mentality of some deletionists is quite clear. [8] There are many other examples, but I think I've proven my point, that these people exist, and things like this happen regularly. Dream Focus 17:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This misrepresents the situation somewhat. A number of editors did indeed redirect History of quaternions to Quaternion#History as a temporary measure while the "History of" article was being rewritten. Redirects are normal editing practice, and at least anyone clicking on History of quaternions got a legible article to read. After the redirect had been repeatedly reverted, the article was replaced with the text from Quaternion#History[9] - which had the same effect. User:C S was one of the editors who collaborated to rewrite the article.

Incidentally, Dream Focus commented in the Afd "I say Keep, since there is enough valid information to warrant its own article"[10] I asked him whether he would like to join in improving the article. He replied that he didn't "know a thing about quaternions. [11] which seems to indicate that this was a political "keep" !vote on his behalf. pablo_hablo. 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ironically this report of alleged bad faith, is a bad faith report to ANI. I don't see anything bad faith about what Dream said. User:TheFarix made no effort to contact Dream first to resolve what he sees as a problem. User:TheFarix has no edit diffs in the AfD, but instead focuses on his user page. The same editors who relentlessly delete other editors contribitions are attacking Dream Focus here.

i have asked Dream focus to delete his user page repeatedly. This is because editors who delete are using his user page as ammunition against him, and want nothing more than silence him. Again, I encourage Dream to delete his user page, using {{db-author}}.

It gets really tiring to continue to defend editors [A nobody, Pixelface, dream] who are wonderful at stopping the disruption caused by editors who delete. Unfortunately, these editors are too stubborn to apologize for their comments, and don't seem to realize that unfortunately, being passive agressive is the way editors thrive on wikipedia. Sadly, it is considered less disruptive to delete other editors contributions, ignoring WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE, than it is being blunt. Ikip (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see harassment, just debate. However, the arguments for keeping the article are not very strong, and the article totally unsatisfactory, so I just now !voted Weak Delete. But a time is needed for japanese-speaking eds. to comment. We need better merge discussions, but AN/I is not the place for them. As for a topic ban, I would advise him to concentrate his efforts on more likely articles, and learn that replying to everyone's opposite !votes at an AfD is not an effective tactic, but a ban is unnecessary--just argue the other side, and don't keep answering him. Baiting someone does not help, either. DGG (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stating the obvious, but AfD comments should be about the article, as opposed to comments about other editors. Comments such as "You aren't helping wikipedia in any possible way. You are just destroying parts of it" are obviously unacceptable - describing this as 'debate' is somewhat euphemistic. PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe someone claimed they are helping wikipedia, by deleting articles. That was my response to that statement. Dream Focus 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If his past discussions with other editors are any indication, his behavior is not going to improve with more warnings. You'll get better results by repeatedly slamming your head against a brick wall. --Farix (Talk) 17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love simultaneous threads about the behavior of inclusionists and deletionists on this board. It is very instructive. Protonk (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge? — Evil Inclusionist^® Cabal — Seriously, this does seem related, although I've not finished reading this thread. "It's like déjà vu all over again." Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC) struck after reading Uncle G, below. Jack Merridew 12:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Extending comment; The commonality is the battleground mentality. I'm going to avoid the Inclusionist and Deletionist jokes, as best I can, per Uncle G's comment below. This, of course, won't erase the issue, but it may reduce the flames a bit. Battleground mode is a primary artifact of this of dispute. I'd like to say that I do believe that most are here for what they believe are the right reason; sure I may also believe that some are entirely wrongheaded in their beliefs and efforts, and some may feel about the same way about me. When I am critical, I comment on the deeds, the goals and effects. I don't swear at people and, in real life, generally only use words like 'fuck' as an intensifier, not as an attack. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Dream Focus is acting in good faith. I also believe that Dream Focus is causing disruption because they cannot see that other contributors are also acting in good faith. Specifically, it is possible to improve Wikipedia by deleting articles; deletion does not necessarily equate to disruption or damage, and this concept extends beyond such trivially simple cases as attack pages and BLP vios. Dream Focus must accept that other editors - even those supporting deletion of articles - are trying to improve Wikipedia rather than harm it. If that happens, then I expect to see an end to the long-term stream of low-level personal attacks and accusations of bad faith from Dream Focus that are the cause, I think, of this dispute.

As an aside, I hate to see the phrases "good faith" and "bad faith" being used as adjectives or adverbs in disputes. This can be ambiguous and lead to further dispute. Instead, be clear about who is trying to help, or harm, Wikipedia - or about who thinks that - as appropriate. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that Dream Focus is acting in good faith, as can be seen by the number of times I've tried to engage him on his talkpage, including two long discussions about consensus and good faith. If I didn't believe that, the number of attacks on other editors at AfD and elsewhere would have seen him blocked by now. Unfortunately, as I said above, I'm seriously worried that DF doesn't understand the concept of AfD and how an encyclopedia can be improved by removing unencyclopedic content. His recent postings to the AfD mentioned above and to the Village Pump only underline that. I'll be quite clear about this; the next time that I see DF attacking another editor at AfD, I will block him, and I've posted a good faith comment at his talkpage referencing this one. Black Kite 19:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ridiculous and baseless thread. People disagree with him and that is that. If making weak arguements was such a big deal, then those starting this thread would be starting threads on everyone who makes "disruptive" copy and paste WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT style of non-arguments as well. This thread represents a rather disappointing effort to bully or stifle an opposing viewpoint. Instead of going after Dream Focus, an alternate solution would be to not needlessly nominate so many articles for deletion. Moreover, there are a number of comments in the above cited AfDs by the complainants that look far more baiting and escalatory than what Dream Focus even says. Regards, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. Copy and paste !votes such as "Keep - notable" and "Delete - not notable" are annoying, and can be disruptive, but are generally ignored by closing admins anyway. Disagreeing with people isn't disruptive. However, accusing people of trying to "destroy Wikipedia" because they've commented to delete an article crosses the boundary into WP:NPA. I've asked DF very politely on his talkpage to refrain from doing this - it's up to him whether he heeds my advice. Black Kite 19:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And replies like this (the bottom reply) hardly deescalate things. Looking at such discussion as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17 Sai Hajimete no H, it seems that those wanting to sanction him here are the ones aggressively going after and replying to him rather than just letting him make his argument and let it be. And it’s not as if he’s the only one arguing to keep or merge in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9 O'clock Woman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akane-chan Overdrive, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuria 100 Shiki, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vellian Crowler, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trash (manga), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Robotech War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Robotech War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saori Hayami, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SDF-1_Macross, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rockin' Heaven, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Pan Syndrome (manga), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagatachou Strawberry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayu Sakai, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of catgirls, [[12]], Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leorio, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kemonomimi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juliet Cesario, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hate to Love You, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hajime No Ippo: New Challenger, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GirlFriends (manga), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Robotech War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CUTExGUY, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bari Haken In all of these, everything seems to be fine until the same couple of accounts decide to go after him. I see just as much if not more escalation and badgering by his critics than by him. And for whatever odd reason in most of these there’s the same half dozen or so accounts voting to delete in practical every one of them… Plus, it isn’t like he never argues to delete (see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Gaupher Eels). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if he votes Keep on every currently open AfD - as long as he doesn't attack anyone else while he's doing it. Yes, a secondary problem is that some of his Keep votes advocate ignoring the notability guidelines, but as I've said above, such comments will generally be ignored anyway. I'd just like him to cut out the incivility - that shouldn't be so difficult, surely? Black Kite 20:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go after him? More like trying to inform him about the guidelines and then reason with him at first. That was before most of us came to the conclusion that it was completely hopeless. You're acting as if some of us are part of a cabal to silence him. But this isn't about us, it is about his repeated accusations of bad faith and constant personal attacks against editors he disagrees with. --Farix (Talk) 22:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree with him. I think he is more right than those who criticize him with regards to our guidelines. Our guidelines are interpreted subjectively. If it was merely a case of one interpretation is correct, then he would be all by himself, but he is not always alone on the keep sides of those discussions. None of us should assume that our take is the "right" take. And besides, I can to some degree understand where he is coming from, i.e. per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. Looking at those discussions above that did not result in the article's deletion, perhaps greater effort should be made to merge first. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Perhaps it may help if I make it clear, as one of the people who take generally inclusionist positions of fiction articles, that the course of arguing he is using is not likely to gain support. But i do agree with A nobody's characterization of the present thread. It does appear to be baiting a susceptible editor with whom one disagrees.DGG (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheFarix, who created the ANI did not consult Dream first, as per ANI: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." Ikip (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that both Black Kite and Sephiroth BCR, among others, have made similar attempts and failed, I would simply be wasting my breath. --Farix (Talk) 22:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikip, why are you bringing this up? "it is advised that you take it up with them on their talk page" ie not mandatory. There has been a lot of "taking it up" with Dream Focus on many pages - Afds, his own user and talk pages, article talk pages etc. Farix informed Dream Focus of this thread, that's pretty much all that was necessary. Attempting to censure Farix for bringing this here is a distraction. pablo_hablo. 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above: I don't see anything bad faith about what Dream said. User:TheFarix made no effort to contact Dream first to resolve what he sees as a problem. User:TheFarix has no edit diffs in the AfD, but instead focuses on his user page. The same editors who relentlessly delete other editors contribitions are attacking Dream Focus here. Yes, as it is "advised" that editors contact someone first, to avoid the drama of ANI. Farix going straight to ANI makes it appear like he is not interested in resolving the percieved bad faith, but simply interested punishing and silencing Dream. Ikip (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too have noticed Dream Focus has been making accusations of some sort of conspiracy to delete all of Wikipedia,[13][14] but in his defence this seems to be only recently. In 99% of the AFDs we've both been involved in his arguments are relevant and based in policy. I don't think any sort of punishment or restrictions are in order, I'd just recommend: 1) not making allusions to other user's intentions, even if you believe they are trying to erase Wikipedia 2) If you feel other editors need to know about a discussion, just ask an admin to do it for you, if it could be classed as canvassing he'll tell you, if it's legit he'll give you go ahead and no one can complain. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamFocus' posting of his views of this entire thread and subsequent dismissal of it as "recent nonsense" would seem to be a pretty good indication of what response (or lack there of), there will be regarding the comments and the proposal below.[15] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this is nonsense. Stop making it into a circus, and I'd take it seriously. I believe all my complaints listed there are valid. Dream Focus 19:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're beaten this into a pulp, and I think we're rather clear that his behavior is inappropriate. As Black Kite noted above, he can go !vote "keep" on every active AfD and I don't think many of us here would care that much. What is unacceptable is the continued onslaught of personal attacks and characterizing AfD as an intractable battleground environment. His inclusion philosophy is entirely irrelevant here; again, many of us could care less what his !vote is in AfDs. As such, I'd like to propose that 1) he's placed on a civility parole 2) he's explicitly banned from canvassing. Civility parole is enforceable by a warning and then a block, with successive blocks increasing in time. Same with the canvassing restriction. The behavior is simply out of hand. His beliefs are his own, but are not a license to attack others. He is more than welcome to participate in AfDs, merge discussions, and whatnot and express whatever opinion he wants so long as it is in a polite, constructive manner. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Post links to specific examples that you see as a problem. Dream Focus 11:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he would simply commit to not attacking editors and making weird demands (i.e. "prove that we shouldn't just ignore the notability standards") of editors who disagree with him, none of this would be a problem. I personally interpret notability more stringently thant lots of other editors -- take DGG for example. But while i frequently disagree with DGGs arguments, neither I nor (as far as I've ever seen) anyone else sees his involvement in such discussions as anything but appropriate and ultimately productive. I think an admin has told him already that further such attacks will yield blocks, and he's also been told several times about canvassing. So i think this new proposal is already in force.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he hasn't committed one way or another and shows no signs of letting up, so that's why I think something concrete needs to be done to address this. I know a few administrators have left warnings on his talk page, but this is probably better as something to point to and make the restrictions he's facing as clear as possible. People forget warnings left a month or two previously (including the admins that left them!), so having a clear-cut set of restrictions here makes it a bit simpler. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if "commits?" He's been warned. If he pursues the current course, he will be blocked without further warning.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a long-term solution to this that addresses the core of the problem than going on a series of disjointed warnings. And as you said, if he's going to be blocked for continuing this behavior, why not make such a set of provisions set in stone and easy to access? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Even Ikip has tried to talk him out of the canvassing, so this isn't a partisan issue. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think you are confusing friendly advice with criticism. The case is WP:Articles for deletion/Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture in which Dream asked me for advice. I asked him not to write "keep" in his message, which he admitted was a mistake, the title was clear: "How do I send a message to everyone from an AFD automatically". He contacted all editors in the AfD, not just the "keep" editors, which is totally within policy, and the exact same thing was actually done on one of the editors pages who were criticizing Dream (the editor was attemting to merge the article, not stop the merge, so this was probably the reason why that editor was not criticized). Once, again, trumped up policy violations, and when no policy violations exist, invented policy violations, while completly ignoring editors who support your point of view own behavior violations. Ikip (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A timed topic ban would probably be best here, if he goes back to editing and away form the crusading for, say, six months, hopefuly he will lose the perpetual sense of outrage. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I find it painfully ironic and very hypocritical that you would suggest anyone go on Civility parole. Dream Focus's personal attacks are minor compared to your repeated personal attacks, I don't see Dream telling anyone to fuck off, or saying that someone has autism. How can seriously ask the community to ban Dream with a straight face? Again, as I have said before, the evidence against an editor is secondary, and alliances are everything. As a well connected admin, you can tell editors to fuck off and that they have autism with no risk of retribution, Dream, who has gone up against this loose alliance of deletionist editors, can have restrictions put on him for nothing. Ikip (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa ... since when is being on the Autism Spectrum a bad thing? Einstein was on the Spectrum. Bill Gates is on the Spectrum. The comment made reference to being overly focussed on a specific topic, which is classic Autism Spectrum behaviour. People on the Autism Spectrum are not "bad" or "evil" or even to be sneered at - they are people, albeit people with unique challenges. Without the creativity and focus of people on the Autism Spectrum, the world as we know it would be a much different place. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If this will eliminate Dream Focuse's bad faith accusations and personal attacks, I will be agreeable to Sephiroth BCR's proposal. --Farix (Talk) 22:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. At first I thought this thread was about some snarkyness at a single AfD, but the evidence from many editors since then shows that Dream Focus's bad attitude is an ongoing, and probably escalating, problem. Dream Focus either doesn't understand or doesn't accept some of our basic principles like the general notability guideline, how consensus works here and that a "keep" result on an AfD doesn't prevent the article being edited in the future. And if people try to explain he doesn't listen, instead preferring to take it as an affront and lashing out with personal attacks in response. That battleground mentality has obviously caused a lot of disruption and grief for innocent editors whose only crime has been to not subscribe to Dream Focus's ideology of indiscriminate inclusion. It's got to stop, and warnings haven't worked. Maybe this will. Reyk _YO! 22:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless it applies both ways. I agree that no one should canvass and that no one should be incivil. As such, those being incivil and badgering of him should stop as well. People should be neither indiscriminately inclusionist nor deletionist. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't thin "badgering" is a correct interpretation. There is some reaction through frustation from editors to having the same non-arguments about notability, sources, verifiability brought up time and time again though. pablo_hablo. 00:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Everything does not need to apply both ways; this thread is about Dream Focus, not anyone else. If there is baiting or bad conduct, then that will be addressed when it comes up, but that is not the purpose of this thread. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a good idea. More good faith could be applied here, as I think Dream Focus needs somebody to show him the ropes; perhaps a mentor? If he makes any uncivil remarks or canvassing he should be given the chance to take them back. If he refuses, then warnings and blocks would be appropriate. I really do believe Dream Focus is here to help make a better encyclopedia, as evidenced by his run for ArbCom last December, but I also believe that he'd benefit from someone pointing out when he's made some mistakes. ThemFromSpace 02:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the problem with this idea is that DreamFocus has shown, repeatedly, that he is unwilling to learn from his mistakes or from others. He has ignored the advice, warnings, and explanations from even his biggest supporters, so not sure how this will help if he continues to do so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The situation with the advice is not that simple. Read on: Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• You want Wikipedia's answer to Godwin's Law? You've got it:

  The only times that people use "deletionist" and "inclusionist" is to call other editors names. Their use has never improved a discussion. Any editor who resorts to such name calling is indicating that xe has run out of proper, valid, arguments to make.

  It's an unfortunate fact that sometimes people focus so much on the principle of using/not using the deletion mechanism of the MediaWiki software, that they lose sight of the project itself. The wiki mechanism becomes the goal, instead of the encyclopaedia. I've seen this happen several times, and the progression is always the same: The shrieks of "You dirty -istas!" become progressively more shrill, and eventually the editor and the project part ways, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I try to encourage people to pull back from the brink on such occasions, but I've not had 100% success, although I'm happy to observe that at least one editor that appeared to be teetering on one occasion (a fair while ago) is still with us, and back to proving arguments wrong with sources (or the lack of them).

  The best that one can do, it seems, is to point out to an editor heading in this direction that this is a path that people have trod before, several times, over a period of more than half a decade now; and (as can be observed from the current status of all of those who have gone before) that it only leads to one eventual result — the same situation in which xe will find xyrself, sooner or later.

  I, personally, espouse no "-ist" philosophy other than "encyclopaedist". From what TenOfAllTrades wrote, one time that this came up at the Village Pump, and from long observation, it seems likely that this is true of the overwhelming majority of editors here. Those who repeatedly call other editors names do not understand this, but need to. To most of us, this really, truly, is not a battleground. We're not here to win some form of "moral victory" about one particular mechanism in some wiki software. We're here to write an encyclopaedia. Sometimes people actively thwart that, by what they do (or, more commonly, don't do), and cause our processes to become derailed. We persuade such people, with rational discourse, that doing things in certain ways, and doing the necessary legwork, get the right result, and that we have learned from experience that not doing so does not. Berating other editors for being "dirty -istas" is, in fact, just another form of thwarting the writing of an encyclopaedia. It derails the process, too.

  So what should we do here? I've yet to find an approach better than trying to coax editors away from the edge, pointing to the several past examples and what has invariably happened. It's not universally successful, though.

  But: Those opining here about a battleground mentality might want to have a word with the editors who are actively reinforcing that very mentality, by suggesting courses of action to Dream Focus during the "recent" (as observed by Ryan4314 above) problematic period in terms of "ammunition", "foes", putting other editors "on the offensive", Achilles heels, and choosing one's "defeats". Have a closer look at User:Dream Focus and User talk:Dream Focus, observing the change in user page language in late January. Whether this is subtle pot stirring or not, at the very least it is transference of another editor's battleground mentality to Dream Focus, which has clearly not had positive consequences. Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• While I concur with your comments concerning editors aggravating a battleground environment in AfD, it's straying a bit away from the point of the proposal. Yes, Dream Focus may have been pushed into this conflict, but it certainly isn't anyone's fault for him being completely against considering people who want to delete articles anything short of intractable enemies. I take it as him being far too impressionable and moving into this battlefield frame of mind, and compromise has been tried several times (once, as I noted with Ncmvocalist and LessHeard vanU, two superb mediators) but ultimately failed because he's not willing to accept any sort of voluntary restriction that brings him back from this battlefield mentality. As such, we're here with this concrete proposal, but it's not about inclusion philosophy at all: only his battlefield mentality is the target here. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• @Uncle G: Thank you (id:terima kasih). I've used the two Evil -'ista' Cabal terms more than a few times; I'm joking but same may be missing that. I like your suggestion of "encyclopædist" and think I'll start using that instead. There is a polarisation to this dispute that is unhealthy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Sephiroth, but the reason we are all here is because of the alleged personal attacks of Dream at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body Transfer, where the biggest personal attack was by an editor who wanted to delete:

"Keep your bad faith accusations of deletionists to yourself, it's pathetic and has no place here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)"

You will have to remember that Dream Focus is in this mindset that he must save Wikipedia from "THE EVIL DELETIONIST CABAL". --Farix (Talk) 00:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Editors supporting deletion have read this afd, and yet somehow miss these sentences (WHY?!), while zereoing in on Dream's comments. I don't see any of Dream's comments rising to the level of these two comments at all.

This bogus, biased argument is simply being used as a springboard to silence an editor who saves articles. Ikip (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not find evidence that Dream Focus has engaged in blatant inappropriate canvassing recently. Dream Focus asked a question which was interpreted as asking how to votestack, but the discussion was dropped after an explanation. Dream Focus sent notifications to all 21 editors who commented at WP:Articles for deletion/Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture. Despite User:Erik's disagreement, 21 notifications of AfD participants is not unambiguous excessive cross-posting. Whether the guideline should be tightened is a discussion for WT:Canvassing. Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify, the votestacking thing was dropped because the alternative was escalating it and I didn't consider it worth the drama, not because of the très weak explanation given (namely, that the words "who voted keep" in there were completely accidental). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have become the self appointed enforcer for canvassing, the only problem is that all of your empty accusations when presented to ANI fall apart. Contacting everyone in a previous AFD is not canvassing, I would think with all the repeated empty accusations you would understand this. This is a key example of the non-existence evidence against Dream. Ikip (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with this proposal, but I'm very worried about what UncleG highlights. This editor definitely was incited into acting like this, it's pretty easy to see his attitude changing over the course of the last few months. And he's not the only editor who has become radicalised in this way recently. Hopefully this will send out the message that we don't want factions (remember the green e's?) and battleground mentality here. Please, Dream, if you want to improve Wikipedia, don't fight against your colleagues. yandman 08:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly disagree As I wrote above, the evidence against Dream is nonexistent or minor. User:Sephiroth BCR argument is a typical argument: a group of like minded editors attacks another editor and says: this is not about his edit history of opposing us, this is because he is not (fill in the blank), it is completely disengious. This attempted sanction is about Dream's edit history of saving articles. It is no accident that the most prominent editors who delete are lining up here to sanction Dream. Ikip (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "evidence"

User:TheFarix started this ANI based on the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body Transfer, an AfD which he began, and Dream Focus voted keep.

The absolutly worst comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body Transfer is from User:Dandy Sephy to A nobody, and I quote:

Keep your bad faith accusations of deletionists to yourself, it's pathetic and has no place here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Also:

You will have to remember that Dream Focus is in this mindset that he must save Wikipedia from "THE EVIL DELETIONIST CABAL". --Farix (Talk) 00:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Which can be considered a personal attack, when we are supposed to talk about the edits, not the editor.

In response to Anobody's comments:

Why not find proof to support your claims that the notability guidelines should be followed, despite having many obvious flaws? And I'm not trying to convince the three deletionists who have posted here thus far, since we all know what you will say, just as you are aware of my view on things.

But none of the editors who delete are calling for civility parole for Dandy. Why? Because he supports the deletion of articles.

If we are going to be fair and force everyone to follow the rules, I think a civility parole section should be opened for Dandy. Ikip (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sigh. Post a link to these accusations, or stop making them. If they are so common, surely you can find some. And some editors, that is Sephiroth, Collectionian, and TheFarix, seem to gang up on me, and anyone else they disagree with every chance they get, often vote the same way and make the same arguments in AFD, and chat with each other on their talk pages regularly, they all knowing each other. I am interested in the opinions though of anyone other than those three, so please don't hesitate to chime in. And lets just base this on solid facts, not vicious innuendo. Post to where these edits have taken place at. Dream Focus 11:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Commonly seen argument that I don't learn from

I say you can prove something is notable enough to have a wikipedia article, without a third party media review, the notability guidelines just suggestions, not policy. Sometimes others agree with me, and the article is saved, and sometimes not. No matter what the outcome, certain people complain nonstop, trying to argue over the same exact issue, the notability guidelines. Remember, consensus is that if enough people agree that high sales figures equal notability, then the article is kept such as here, and if the majority of people around at the time to participate in an AFD, say its not, then its deleted. Am I wrong to make the same case every time someone brings up the notability guideline/suggestions? That we can ignore them, if consensus is that sales figures or other factors make it notable? Dream Focus 12:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll make one last attempt at this. Please stop it with the "notability guidelines are just suggestions, not policy, so we can ignore them" line. Per WP:DEL#REASON (which is policy), then an article being unable to meet the notability guidelines is a reason for deletion. Yes, there are always exceptions, but if you carry on making the same incorrect comment over and over in AfDs [16] [17] [18] etc, then eventually people are going to start ignoring everything you say, even when it's constructive. Black Kite 12:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions? Then we can ignore them sometimes? I've seen plenty of articles saved which didn't meet those guidelines at all, through consensus, people ignoring all rules. And if someone makes the case we should follow the suggested guidelines, then I have the right to inform them we can determine notability through things not on the list. Dream Focus 12:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to wonder if you do actually understand the way that Wikipedia works, of whether you're just yanking everyone's chain. Exceptions are just that - exceptions. That's why we have WP:IAR. No rule can cover all eventualities, but these will be rare occasions. You're doing this all the time, and it seems to be your standard response to people who mention notability. I'd suggest you concentrate on making comments that actually reflect Wikipedia reality, not your version of it. Because otherwise, as I said, the result will inevitably be that such comments are ignored. Black Kite 13:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Afd discussions are not a ballot, and as such do not depend on "the majority of people around at the time". You my have noticed that many people refere to "!votes" - this to emphasise that it isn't a vote. This particular Afd was interesting, as reflected in the closing admin's summary - but the article was kept on the basis of arguments (mainly DGG's I suspect) not on "the number of people who were around at the time who 'voted' keep". pablo_hablo. 12:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen bestselling novels have their articles deleted as well. Depends on who is around at the time, and who the closing administrator is. Dream Focus 12:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dream Focus -- What you've just written makes no sense. Being a best seller (that is, notability established through sales figures) is generally accepted as establishing something as notable. And how do we know something is a best seller? Based on verifiable certification of that through reliable sources independent of the subject. I take the rest of your comment to mean "I have my own special guidelines that are at odds with Wikipedia's guidelines. We should ignore community established policy and guidelines in favor of my own, ill-definied and personal, standards of inclusion." If you don't see why making this kind of argument is disruptive and a little disresepctful.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't accepted on the notability guideline page, is it? And we've already discussed that elsewhere, no sense bringing it up here. Dream Focus 12:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream, I've got to ask this: Why are you here? You seem to be so strongly opposed to what Wikipedia is (and always has been), I don't understand why you bother. Maybe you should try wikia: All content here is free, so you could take what you want from here and add all the rest (maybe from other wikis, if they're similarly licensed). yandman 13:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it hasn't always been that way. For years we had articles on everything imaginable, as long and detailed as anyone cared to put in them, and then suddenly that all changed, and people started deleting everything they didn't like. And I'm not the only one who is opposed to that change. Dream Focus 15:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. [19]. Anyway, this isn't about Wikipedia philosophy, it's about your refusal to accept the direction given by consensus. You can disagree with the concept of notability, and discuss it on the relevant page (the policy talk page), and even try to organise support for your ideas. But you cannot do things backwards: Until WP:Notability has been buried, you mustn't keep fighting against at AfD. AfD is for comparing an article to the corpus of policies and guidelines established by the community, not for comparing it to your own ideas. You can voice your disapproval of a law, you can propose amendments, you can talk other into following you, but you can't let that influence your decisions as a member of the jury. yandman 12:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, this discussion isn't about the notability guidelines at AFD, but about your accusations of bad faith and personal attacks during and surrounding AFD discussions. In fact, I see you posted another blog-like comment on your user page making more bad faith accusations.[20] --Farix (Talk) 19:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, every day I pick 10 articles at random i don't like and immediately delete them. It's my favorite among the secret tools i got admins to give me in exchange for doing their laundry. I mean, what beats avoiding all the mess and fuss of nominating, and enduring 5 (opps, 7) day deletion discussions? All that building and abiding by consensus garbage is exhausting -- my magic deletion button is clearly the best way to determine what belongs in an encyclopedia, and what does not. I'd be pissed at that too, DF.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles are now gone. Most people never participate in the AFD discussion, nor set every article they enjoyed reading to "watch" and then check on every single change to see if it was nominated or not. Most articles are deleted with a rather small number of people commenting at all on their fate. The entire system is screwed up, and needs to be repaired. We need a common vote for all wikipedia users, to decide how things should be done, and eliminate all debates once and for all. Until that happens, the cycle will just keep on repeating. Dream Focus 16:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to start a discussion on replacing AfD which will be visible to most users, then you are free to start one at WP:VPR. Black Kite 16:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing participation at AfD does not require structural change. It might be helped by more friendly behavior there, such as not attacking people over what they say--the same practice that is destroying RfADMIN. There's an easy way to deal with arguments that one doesn't like, which is to make an argument of one's own on the issue at hand. Or, if one already has, stand back and let others give their opinions. DGG (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus: please consider deletion review if you feel an article is deleted in error. If anyone's not happy about the way an AFD went, there's always deletion review. Remember: deletion isn't true deletion, as everything deleted is kept on wikipedia; so, if something gets deleted, it can easily be undeleted. --slakr^\ talk / 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found AfD discussion, over the past two years, generally to be productive, and I have sometimes changed my !vote. I too am an inclusionist and a rescuer. If you need any help, please message me. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't focusing (lol) on Dream Focus for being inclusionist. We're focusing on him because he's being disruptive. We aren't "bullying" DGG, after all. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The characteristic of a bully is that they go after the most susceptible targets. DGG (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here is trying to act like a bully. Reyk _YO! 21:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think splitting this topic was very wise. It took the issue off the radar of almost all of the participants. Because of this, it doesn't look like any further action or discussion is going to take place. --Farix (Talk) 12:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh DGG what a beautiful and insightful statment, I am reminded of TTN's statment, which was talking about deleting/merging articles:

"I'm just sticking with picking off smaller ones, and then trying to tackle larger ones every once and a while. Once the weaklings are fully gone, it'll probably get easier to deal with the larger ones."[21]

And the comments of journalists... Ikip (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What unpleasant nonsense DGG. DF has behaved appalingly towards others, flaunts community norms, etc... that's why he get's "picked on." The reason you're not picked on isn't because you're Charles Atlas -- it's because you generally treat others with respect. Though lately, your reputation for that has gone down a little in my eyes.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was because I convinced others at times to save articles which certain people were trying to delete. Many say, "its in the guidelines, so you must obey that" and I point out that no, you don't have to, there several examples of consensus being to save something without meeting the guidelines/suggestions. Thus they can't use the guideline excuse to bully others into not posting their opinions that it should be kept. Dream Focus 16:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of treating others with respect...that is something you should consider doing per the unrepentant incivility at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Albania–Serbia_relations and the response, as well as not interested in keeping a second opinion on his talk page either. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AN, I actually think you've provided an example of attacking someone because they're vulnerable, just above. DGG (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, DF apparently still feels its perfectly acceptable to attack others[22], yet he calls other people "bullies". Note that, until DF's comments, the discussion had remained pretty civil, despite a single newer editor refusing to accept consensus despite himself agreeing he wanted to add original research to an article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at it another way: would a thread consisting of AN, Ikip, and DF focusing on either TTN or Jack Merridew be bullying? I doubt it; neither deletionism nor inclusionism, nor anyotherism, is free from disruption in the name of it. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of this probably a moot point now. If he wants to come back, he has his warning and will be blocked accordingly for future civility violations. I'm not really interested in continuing the petty name-calling this has devolved into from people unwilling to separate their inclusion philosophy from behavioral issues. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What warning? Did everyone agree I needed a warning? And I said "I'm going to move on to other things, and stop bothering with wikipedia so much." Not that I'd stop altogether. Just not waste time trying to reason with people, whose reasoning skills are sorely lacking. If you suck at math, can't handle logic solving problems at all, then the part of the brain that controls that(your reasoning ability) is surely lacking, and you thus aren't able to use what many consider common sense. I have better things to do than fight an uphill battle every day with such people, so have decided to just ignore the AFD for now. It isn't worth the time, and anything saved will just get nominated time and again, have most of it deleted for one excuse or another, or secretly merged even(deleted, but with history preserved). Dream Focus 14:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They always come back; note the final two words ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While Dream Focus hadn't made any accusations of bad faith or name calling since this report was filed. I knew it was only a matter of time when the other self-described "inclusionist" started throwing around the "bullying" term. In fact, I'm suspecting we are going to see this charged throw around any time these self-described "inclusionists" meet strong opposition to their points of view. --Farix (Talk) 11:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, despite being named several times in this discussion, no one informed me about it. May be a bit late now, but this was aimed at me this morning, and IMO completely uncalled for. Aside from dragging his personal issues regarding afds along, I fail to see how I was a bully for detailed explanations of my views (based on prior consensus, policy and opinions regarding article quality)Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and now I see someones already posted it (again, it involved me , why was I not informed?) Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you and others like you are constantly doing the same thing, all over the place, and I've had enough of it(read above). And don't play innocent, you aren't fooling anyone. Your prior consensus means what a small number of you, who all post together at the Anime portal, and think alike, have decided on your own. It isn't policy, it is opinions. You all discuss what AFD you should participate in, and what articles you should be involved in, at the Anime Portal, and all go there and vote the same way more often than not. So goodbye, have your fun, I won't waste my time arguing with you. Dream Focus 14:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go harp elsewhere. If you're sick of all of us, then honor your word to move on to other things and check your tongue at the door. Also, if you're going to complain all the time, it'd actually be nice to see if you had any tangible amount of article contributions to give yourself an ounce of validity. Good riddance. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 14:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tangible amount of article contributions? I have in fact contributed greatly to some articles, unlike some who just rampage around deleting large sections of articles that have been around for years, calling it trivia and fancruft. And my complaints are quite legitimate. Dream Focus 18:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, occasional additions of random content. Ever collaborated with others on articles? Ever produced items of quality content? Here's the line for the people you're criticizing. Me: 2 featured articles, 62 featured lists (second most among all Wikipedians), 14 good articles, 29 DYK articles. Collectonian: 2 featured articles, 5 featured lists, 9 good articles, 10 DYK articles, and one featured topic. To accuse us of having anything but the encyclopedia's best interests at heart is plain ignorance and is insulting coming from someone who is going to judge other people when he doesn't have a clue of what producing quality content does. Deletion and merging are parts of regular editing towards the production of quality content—merging articles into a list, deleting minor articles, and ensuring that all articles are kept to the standards Wikipedia sets. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is exactly why Dream Focus gets flak - "You all discuss what AFD you should participate in" - it's a complete farbrication designed to provoke a reaction. Just like spouting "evil deletionist" nonsense in random afd's. Dream Focus takes away from legitimate discussion by making slanderous and baseless accusations against certain people and gets called out on it. They can vote keep on as many afds they like, but the blatant bad faith comments like this aren't on. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen Sephiroth, Collectionian, and TheFarix, among others, discussing what articles need work, and then going down there to mass delete things. They erase all character pages for a series, combining the information on one page, arguing with anyone who protests, delete what they consider trivia and fancruft outright, nominate any side articles they don't like for deletion, and then compliment each other for how they "helped" the article. Do any of these three deny that? Dream Focus 18:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse merging and deleting, you've been told many times what the difference is. Character pages have to prove notability like anything else, merging characters with little to no notability (based on third party reliable sources is not deleting them. Trivia can be removed if it can't be retooled for use in the article in a better way. Trivia is typically unreferenced and original research, both are valid reasons to remove some or all of it. If the trivia is referenceable and relevant to the article itself, it should be used as proper prose in a relevent section. Random facts or comparisons to other works are not normally of benefit to the encyclopedic qualitys of an article (although there are exceptions, but on a case by case basis). Again, you are confusing typical editing procedures (across all of wikipedia) with what you see as "deletionism". Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They call themselves delitionist on their user pages. And that is what delitionist are. They delete things they consider to be unfit for wikipedia, for whatever reason, not caring about the opinions of all those who worked on the article, or enjoy reading the information they are deleting. Dream Focus 19:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This sub-page seems not to be doing much for anyone. If there's interest in a Dream Focus AfD topicban, take it back to ANI and keep fingers crossed it doesn't get derailed, as this discussion has, about who deletes and who keeps. The thread was opened about Dream Focus, but it's become a rehash on keep/delete-ism thinking -- a worthwhile topic, but not what this corner of the project is best suited for. --EEMIV (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only people making claims against me, are upset I helped save articles that they tried to delete. So it is relevant. That is the only reason I'm here after all. Dream Focus 19:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The issue seems beyond just the AfD, though. Dream Focus' continued personal attacks and lies about other editors are just a big an issue, as his continued dismissal of pretty much every guideline and policy he doesn't agree with. His recent request at AWB is also disturbing, since his above comments make it pretty clear that he does not have any good intentions in mind.[23], meanwhile, I poked the main AN/I to get more attention back here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My intentions are to show a clear and obvious pattern of people who fail to get something deleted at an AFD, and then a short time later, decide to destroy the article anyway, replacing it with a redirect, sometimes copying small amounts of the information to another article, but usually doing none at all. And what lies have I made? We've been through this before, you making insane accusations, not just about me but others that cross your path. And I think you are probably upset that articles you have nominated to delete, sometimes have a snowball keep, despite not meeting the notability guidelines at all. That's because you can ignore the suggested guidelines and use common sense instead, something I have to constantly remind people who state otherwise. Dream Focus 19:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd still suggest restarting this conversation at ANI, where it has more (uninvolved) eyeballs. --EEMIV (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new subtopic under the original. Hopefully, it will bring more eyes. But Dream Focus has clearly become emboldened by the lack of action and has resumed his personal attacks and making bad faith accusations towards other editors. --Farix (Talk) 19:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's clear is you weren't getting the response you wanted, so you hope to move it out there, and start over. Either post a polite message asking people to come and join in here, or copy the entire discussion back out there again. Dream Focus 19:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this bad faith on my part? Notice one of those complaining about me went there to apparently try to stop me from getting information. Why? Does anyone have a legitimate reason to be objecting to that? The motives of those against me are quite evident. Dream Focus 19:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]