Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

Dreamguy

Please check. The Revmagpie account, which had been dormant since August 2007, suddenly becomes reactivated at exactly the same time that Dreamguy is blocked, editing exactly the same articles, i.e. Jack the Ripper, etc. The anonymous IP 76.114.86.121 comes out of nowhere and, in one day, reverts several Jack the Ripper related articles. Dreamguy has a long history of using anon IP accounts to revert material on Jack the Ripper and related articles. For example both Dreamguy and Revmagpie edited here [1] and here [2]. Dreamguy and the anon IP edit here [3] All three accounts delete/revert material in the same way, seemingly being three separate accounts supporting each other. The anon account deleted this article [4] which Revmagpie had also removed material from.

DreamGuy is currently under ArbCom sanctions (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2), and it is my belief that he is using alternate accounts as a way of avoiding the sanctions. See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2#Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2), where there is discussion about DreamGuy and his tendency to use alternate accounts.Jack1956 (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revmagpie is
t 04:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, he has removed content from articles without discussing it on the talk page ( for e.g. here [5]) and here [6] and removed/redirected an entire article (

The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91)) without discussion. It has since been restored.[[7]] He has been told repeatedly to log on when editing. He is gaming the system.[8] The situation is quite simple; Dreamguy is currently under ArbCom sanctions (see above). If this anon IP is Dreamguy (and I recognise the home location as being his) then he has broken these sanctions again by editing anonymously. He was blocked for 96 hours (later reduced to 72) last month for doing what he is doing again as this new anon IP. Jack1956 (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Per his ArbCom behavioral restrictions, he is required to be more civil in his dealings with others. His 96-hour block resulted from the observation that his behavior - namely using anonymous accounts and editing uncivilly through them - was "gaming the system." Blanking large portions of an article that he (as DreamGuy) argued unsuccessfully for deletion seem to indicate that the user feels than anyone blocking him must be incompetent, as he feels he is doing nothing wrong by editing through an anon account. DreamGuy has used the excuse that his IP has "logged him off" without his knowledge, despite the common sense reasoning that most people check their edits once they post, to look for any typographical errors and whatnot. Upon the 5th tendering of this excuse, it was seen for what it was - an attempt to evade ArbCom behavioral restriction supervision and do whatever he wished.
I submit that having an alternate account, or editing anonymously is not against the rules of Wikipedia for normal users, this user is not a normal user. He has been the subject of repeated RfC and ArbCom scrutiny. The user has been specifically directed on at least two occasions to not edit anonymously. By admins. Yet the user pointedly refuses to comply. I do not think Wikipedia is pointedly picking on this individual, but instead that their repeated and flagrant violations time and again bring them to admin attention. While it is laudable that certain admins have chosen to give this user repeated chances to reform, the user has refused to avail themselves of any of them. Perhaps this user would be happier in another project, as he cannot seem to conform to the relatively lax rules here. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to be obtuse here. The specific reason I asked is because the ArbCom remedy (
t 20:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
You don't think it is incivil to redirect a referenced and well-written article without first discussing it on that article's talk page...and to do so anonymously, having been previously blocked for doing just that? Jack1956 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While in cosmic terms that's not a nice thing to do, I don't think that is the specific behavior contemplated at
t 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
If it's not a nice thing to do then it is incivil. The point here is that he continues to edit anonymously, which he has been warned not to do. To redirect an article in such a way is rude/behaviourally incivil (see here [9].Jack1956 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[10][reply]
No one is suggesting that you are being obtuse, D. It is just being pointed out that while you or I or Jack here can make questionable edits, removing entire swaths of text, we aren't behavioral modification. All that's likely to happen is someone saying, 'hey, discuss your edits' with a general agreement that the behavior is somewhat uncivil and disruptive, especially when there is little explanation of the edit itself. Since we aren't specific restrictions regarding our behavior, its easy to give the incident a pass. In this case, it concerns a user who has been specifically entreated to not make uncivil remarks and edits. Furthermore, it is this same editor who has been told at three separate instances not to edit anonymously, and in fact was blocked for specifically gaming the system to that effect, as it was an attempt to avoid notice.
The point of the ArbCom behavioral restrictions (and the block) is to encourage DreamGuy to revise his behavior. That he can contribute is not in dispute - if he were just some vandalizing assclown, we could indef block him and stop wasting time on this. But as there is much there worth salvaging, this attention to his behavior should be seen as corrective, not punitive. He needs to behave in accordance to the rules that all of us choose to so as to edit. That he is apparently editing surreptitiously, despite a specific admonition not to seems to indicate that further correction may be required.
However, this might be a moot point, as Dreamguy might not even be the anon user. That was the point of the rfcu. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make the small point that it IS possible for an anon user to leave his name without logging in. I find it un-nerving having long dialogues with a number, especially if it is a very long one I can't remember. Like some distopian science fiction nightmare of the future. Is not the first part of civility in a dialogue to give yourself a name to which people can respond? It doesn't have to be ones own real name, so there is no question of intruding on anybody's privacy. Here is how editors can do it. Unlogged in like so: Colin or logged in like so: Colin4C (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People can "warn" others that they have to log in to edit, but that doesn't make it so. There's absolutely nothing going on here that violates policy or the ArbCom sanctions, it's just the latest example of people wikilawyering to try to prevail in edit conflicts. If I tell Colin4C that he is not allowed to edit except on Wednesdays and he ignores that, I can't say he is being incivil and demand other people take action. This is just really getting old. 76.114.86.121 (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Dreamguy? Colin4C (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Of course he is, Colin - though you will not get him to admit to such unless the rfcu is completed.
Two problems immediately present themselves with your post, DreamGuy. The first is why you specifically chose to not sign in to respond as your primary ID. The second is that Colin is not enjoined to only sign in on Wednesdays by anyone, and specifically not by ArbCom. Your attempts to avoid your ArbCom behavioral restrictions - note that enough ArbCom committee members think you cannot control your own behavior well enough that they have to parent you on how to behave - by using anons, and then arguing that you aren't breaking hte rules, is wiki-lawyering, pure and simple. It resulted in your black last time. Perhaps you feel all of us are wrong and you are correct? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamguy has just supported 76.114.86.121 edit by deleting
The Whitechapel Murders (1888-91) article again without providing any justification on the talk page. This article is rated 'B' so I don't think it should be deleted without mentioning anything on the talkpage. Do 76.114.86.121 and Dreamguy count as two editors or one? - because it now seems that there are two aginst one in favour of deletion wheras I strongly suspect they are the same person. Other editors looking at the article might assume that two editors are against it. If 76.114.86.121 and Dreamguy are the same person can we have an official notification of this for the benefit of editors who know nothing about this current dispute? Colin4C (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Can an admin or clerk complete the RfCU I requested please? see this [11] and this [12] and this [13] and this [14] if it helps. Jack1956 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting more and more puzzled by all this. Can we have a definitive statement by someone in authority (an admin?) as to whether 76.114.86.121 and Dreamguy are the same person? Or is this a matter of no importance to anybody? Colin4C (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either they are hoping that if they ignore the RfCU it will go away, or they already know it is Dreamguy and do not want to say so for some reason. Jack1956 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, neither of you has demonstrated that the IP here has clearly made an uncivil statement that violated the arbitration ruling, so I am not going to check and see if it is DreamGuy. You can make the claim that he is being disruptive or edit warring in his own right and should be blocked regardless of the arbitration's specific ruling. However, if so, then it is an admin matter, and the IP should be blocked no matter who it is;
t 19:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
With respect, you are hardly neutral in the matter, D, and you know it. there have been at least four different checkuser requests filed by different editors about Dreamguy; you have declined to investigate three of them. Perhaps it is appropriate for you to ask for another set of eyes - someone else who isn't as closely connected to both Dreamguy and this matter. If you cannot find the time to ask, might you recommend the next step in process would be? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declining a CheckUser request hardly makes me partial. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make this any different from every other declined CheckUser request. If you are going to attack me now for fulfilling my responsibility, then your efforts are misdirected. I am afraid this discussion is over; the request is denied.
t 20:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
 Clerk note: Ok enough. This request is archived and CU are asked to use their discretion to accept or refuse cases. Complaints can be directed to the Arbcom. All comments are moved to the talk page. -- lucasbfr talk 22:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamguy

These two accounts edit similar articles, such as puzzles and games and Sudoku and Jack the Ripper related articles. As Dreamguy stops editing the new account begins. The wording of edits from both accounts is similar, they do not begin with a capital letter and use ... and -- frequently. Dreamguy has a history of using anonymous accounts to edit articles. The anonymous editor knows a tremendous amount about Wiki policy for someone who has only been editing for a few days. He has been removing perfectly good material from a couple of my articles. Jack1956 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are some people here who just do not get what sockpuppets even are. I didn't even realize the browser signed me out (it does that sometimes) and I made some edits. Sockpuppets are cases of people being deceptive using multiple accounts. No such thing happened. There is no rule that says someone has to be signed in, and there's nothing in any of my edits under this IP that are at all deceptive, misleading, abusive or out of line with any ArbCom decision. Why this user filed for a sockpuppet check is beyond me... probably just upset that I discovered his copyright violation article and thinks he'll try to get back at me somehow by pretending that using an IP address is bad or whatever. Considering how many people have made false sockpuppet accusations based upon such flawed reasoning it'd be helpful if the instructions on filing a checkuser specified that IP address isn't the same thing as a sockpuppet. 68.47.175.159 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a case of accidentally forgetting to sign in. This anonymous account has been editing regularly since December 26. It was the similarity of your wording concerning the Openshaw article to edits Dreamguy made, and the nature of those edits on earlier articles of mine that alerted me to the possibilty this may be a sockpuppet. This account was used to remove what I regard as perfectly valid info from Walter Dew, for example. Jack1956 (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: This request was not correctly transcluded. Fixed. -- lucasbfr talk 08:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I can be editing regularly here and there without knowing that I am signed in or not.... besides, there is no rule that says anyone has to be signed. Sockpuppeting is the use of multiple accounts to try to be deceptive in some way 8build false consensus, violate 3RR, etc.), which certainly has not happened. And what HE regards as perfectly valid content in an article doesn't mean anything about sockpuppeting. DreamGuy (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I would also like to point out that DreamGuy is currently under
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2. --Elonka 17:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
No sockpuppeting has happened, abusive or otherwise. This is just more personal attacks and wikilawyering by an individual with a long history of assuming bad faith and false accusations. DreamGuy (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to say that there is no longer any purpose to this reopened Checkuser case. DG has admitted that the IP in this latest case was him. The reasons behind DG editing from the IP are outside the scope of checkuser. DG says that the IP was him, so the checkuser itself is moot. Any discussions about whether or not the IP editing qualifies as sock puppetry belong elsewhere. So IMHO there's no reason to bother with any continuation of the discussion at this location. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

t 08:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This is pretty obviously a code "B": Evasion of bans or other remedies issued by the arbitration committee. --Elonka 19:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time I requested the checkuser I did not know this guy's editing history - hence no code. I just suspected there was something going on, and wanted it verified. Jack1956 (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamguy

request links: view • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 20:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Supporting evidence:

Evasion of bans or other remedies issued by the arbitration committee - Dreamguy was restricted to be more civil in his edits by ArbCom: subject to a behavioral editing restriction. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked [15].

3RR violation using socks - As per the results of the SSP complaint, the two users have been noted by two admins to be the same editor [16].

  • Explanantion

A. AN/I/Arcayne wherein I was asked by Jehochman "(to) present a sequence of three or four diffs that show edit warring by User:71.203.223.65 and User:DreamGuy? If you can present a sequence that shows them acting in concert, or separately, that will be helpful":

Sure. I kinda did that in the ArbCom Enforcement complaint, but perhaps I showed too many diffs.
As user 71.203.223.65:
1 - 12:33, October 18, 2007
2 - 09:59, October 20, 2007
3 - 16:19, October 21, 2007
As User DreamGuy:
4 - 13:50, October 22, 2007
5 - 13:52, October 22, 2007
6 - 13:54, October 22, 2007
7 - 13:56, October 22, 2007
8 - 13:58, October 22, 2007
9 - 13:59, October 22, 2007
10 - 14:00, October 22, 2007
11 - 14:03, October 22, 2007
12 - 14:12, October 22, 2007
Edits #1-3 were made by the anonymous user. Edit #3 was a revert of the article version.
Successive edits #4-9 by DG show successive edits to restore to the prior version previously reverted to by the anonymous user (I'm willing to be charitable and consider them all a collective revert, though an admin weighing 3RR or civility might see it differently), so we'll call them a single revert as well (revert number two).
Edit #10 is revert number three.
Edit #11 is revert number four.
Edit #12 is revert number five.
There are three more edits after that, all serving to reinforce the edit DG (and user 71 beforehand) continually reverted to, all within a 24-hour period. Even were the issue not of multple accounts serving the same purpose (reinforcing a previous version), DG still violated 3RR. When we count in the reinforced edit of the anonymous user, the violation becomes that much more egregious. As edit-warring is specifically considered hostile (and therefore uncivil), an editor under civility restrictions would normally be avoiding reverting more than once, preferring to discuss their edits instead. In point of fact, both the anonymous editor and DG were asked repeatedly to discuss their edits instead of edit-warring, without success. It bears meantioning that similar activity took place in the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee article between 10/18/07 and 10/22/07, again involving three reverts by the anon user 71 and DG. As 3RR is not confined to simply three reverts, but instead a pattern of disruptive behavior (in this case by a registered user and his anon), I think it should be considered as well.

B. Dreamguy Blocked (subsection of above) summary:

We have strong evidence that
disruptive editing. The reason for the block is to prevent further disruption and sockpuppetry. If an IP appears to edit for DreamGuy, it may be blocked for block evasion. DreamGuy's block should *not* be lifted without a discussion and consensus. I am going to bring these matters to the attention of ArbCom and ask them for advice. The block is stated as one week, but may be increased because there is no reason to allow further editing until another arrangement is made. The sanctions imposed were based on an incomplete understanding of the situation. Had ArbCom known that abusive sockpuppetry was occurring during the discussion of the case, I think the result would have been different. I invite discussion, but please don't refactor the block until we come to a consensus. DreamGuy may comment on his talk page, and the comments may be copied here. - Jehochman Talk 13:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC) [21]

C. Suspected Sock Puppets/Dreamguy - summary:

Jhochman commented:

Upon full investigation, this seems to be a clear case of abusive sockpuppetry...I am blocking DreamGuy and will ask ArbCom for guidance. 1

Gnangarra commented:
"

Talk:Jack the Ripper#The The 'Canonical Five' gives a brief insight to the commonality of these two accounts. additionally this edit isnt vandalism its removing "Ripperologists" link something I saw frequently in DreamGuys edits. There also this by the IP and this by DreamGuy notice the similarities in edit summaries. 1

Gnangarra furthermore blocked User:71.203.223.65 also, as "this one is clearly the same person <as Dreamguy>". 2

(with apologies for any mistakes in filing, rfcu subitted by Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

t 21:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


DreamGuy

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch • talk
Filed: 03:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Code letter: G, and F [22]

Suspicious behavior on the part of DreamGuy (talk · contribs) and 2005 (talk · contribs). Both longtime editors, accounts created within a few months of each other in 2004, but recent events are raising concerns. Disclaimer: I have had run-ins with DreamGuy in the past, early 2006, characterized with my cautioning him about civility, and him deleting my messages, usually with impolite edit summaries. He was also blocked from using anon accounts in April 2007, as he was "using sockpuppets to avoid scrutiny."[23] We had had no contact for months, and then on June 17, I noticed User 2005 deleting links from an article that I was expanding. [24][25]His communications were somewhat uncivil,[26][27] and I noticed that his communication style was similar to that of DreamGuy. When I asked him if we had interacted before,[28] he deleted my message off his talkpage.[29] When I later commented that 2005's communications could be more civil,[30] he deleted that too, with an edit summary of "rmv rant".[31] I found out later that right around the same time, DreamGuy had been blocked for link deletion[32] (on a matter that I was not involved with). This evening, DreamGuy began posting on 2005's page, suddenly referring to me in an unrelated thread, with incivility and name-calling.[33] I asked him if he and 2005 were the same,[34] and he replied rudely.[35] Then within about a half-hour, 2005 deleted the entire thread from his talkpage[36] (User 2005's only edit this evening).

In reviewing the times of their activity, they seem to dovetail. On the days that I spot-checked, they are rarely online at the same time, except for a space of about 10 minutes on the morning of June 19, when they were supporting each other in a dispute at

WP:EL.[37][38][39] I also found one span of a few minutes where DreamGuy made two edits during a longer editing period of 2005's. They have also both participated in an edit war[40][41] and talkpage dispute at Therianthropy.[42][43]

June 20 editing time (UTC):

  • 2005: 06:00 - 07:38,
  • DG: 17:01 - 20:02
  • 2005: 20:45-21:04
  • DG: 22:30- 00:42
  • 2005: 01:08 (his only edit this evening, was to delete the DreamGuy thread from his talkpage)

June 19:

June 18:

  • 2005: 00:05 - 05:44
  • two overlapping edits by DreamGuy: 00:33, 00:39
  • DG: 19:18 - 20:24

June 17:

  • DG: 00:09 - 01:06
    • (DreamGuy blocked from 01:10 - 02:48)
  • DG: (posts at talkpage) 01:06 - 02:10
  • 2005: 05:42 - 12:04
  • DG: 19:25 - 20:58

June 16:

  • DG: 00:02 - 01:00
  • DG: 05:18 - 05:35
  • 2005: 05:55
  • 2005: 10:54
  • DG: 19:13 - 21:06

June 10:

  • 2005: 02:04 - 07:48
  • DG: 19:44 - 19:55
  • 2005: 21:53-23:11

Elonka 03:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/2005 since a old case exists on DreamGuy. -- lucasbfr talk 09:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Voice-of-All 20:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]


DreamGuy

Recent suspected multiple subversion of 3RR at

Spring Heeled Jack, where DreamGuy and Victrix
have been involved in edit wars on numerous occasions with numerous editors.

Example 1: After Dreamguy reverted Beelzebub for the third time (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), Victrix appeared out of nowhere to post a message of support on his talk page, then reverted the article to Dreamguy's preferred version, using a similar longwinded edit summary to those Dreamguy typically uses, phrased in almost exactly the same hostile manner.

Example 2: After

Spring Heeled Jack for the third time (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), DreamGuy appeared out of nowhere and reverted the article
to Victrix' preferred version, again using the same longwinded edit summary to those Victrix typically uses, phrased in almost exactly the same hostile manner.

A comparison of their edit histories reveals that Dreamguy and Victrix edit the same group of articles (particularly those related to the Victorian era, Jack the Ripper, crime and mythology), use the same lengthy edit summaries, the same terminology (ie "crap", "fucked up", "spam" etc when describing anything they disagree with), the same technique of accusing anyone who disagrees with them as "harrassing" them, and the same predisposition to conducting edit wars over content.

They are obviously the same person using multiple identities with the deliberate intention of circumventing the 3RR and attempting to influence the outcome of talk page discussions. Centauri 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentBoth have edited at similar times and periods. Both have been absent for prolonged periods at the same time as well, e.g. both DreamGuy and Victrix have been away from the early hours of June 1st, both also didn't edit from 13th onwards of may and both returned on 23 May 2006. Both use the same edit summaries and both step in to revert articles in order to avoid 3RR when nessessary. Both radily breach
WP:PA. DreamGuy has a history of being blocked for breaching 3RR. Englishrose 10:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

 Likely. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had [highly negative] dealings with DreamGuy before (weigh my contribution per that as you will; I mention it in the sake of fairness), and I can see a similar pattern in the two "different" users' methods. EVula 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DreamGuy&oldid=1170621308"