Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy

Dreamguy

• DreamGuy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 68.47.175.159 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Supporting evidence:

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)

If you are adding a new request for this user please add it above this notice at the top of the page. Only the latest request will appear on the checkuser page. Please don't create a separate page with a different name. -->

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.

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)

Dreamguy

• DreamGuy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 71.203.223.65 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Code letter: B, E

• 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 [1].

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 [2].

• 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 DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) engaged in incivility, edit warring, abusive sock puppetry, and gaming the system to evade ArbCom sanctions. I'll add that DreamGuy ceased editing under his own account from Aug 24 until October 22 ("he has not been heard from since Aug. 24, so maybe there's no longer an issue" [3]), and used a sockpuppet during that time while his ArbCom case we being discussed. [4] [5] [6] This was apparently a ruse to avoid scrutiny and sanctions. I am going to block the account for abusive sockpuppetry, gaming the system, and 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) [7]

C. Suspected Sock Puppets/Dreamguy - summary:

• User:DreamGuy and User:71.203.223.65 are related.

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))

 Declined. These edits are weeks old. None of the diffs above seem to be incivility, only reverts. Please present your request with less irrelevant commentary next time. Dmcdevit·t 21:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy

• 2005 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DreamGuy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 216.165.158.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Code letter: G, and F [8]

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."[9] 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. [10][11]His communications were somewhat uncivil,[12][13] and I noticed that his communication style was similar to that of DreamGuy. When I asked him if we had interacted before,[14] he deleted my message off his talkpage.[15] When I later commented that 2005's communications could be more civil,[16] he deleted that too, with an edit summary of "rmv rant".[17] I found out later that right around the same time, DreamGuy had been blocked for link deletion[18] (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.[19] I asked him if he and 2005 were the same,[20] and he replied rudely.[21] Then within about a half-hour, 2005 deleted the entire thread from his talkpage[22] (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.[23][24][25] 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[26][27] and talkpage dispute at Therianthropy.[28][29]

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:

• 2005: 00:08 - 01:49,
• DG: 06:11 - 06:27
• overlapping edits: 06:29 - 06:38, agreeing with each other at WP:EL[30][31]
• DG: 06:41 - 07:36
• 2005: 08:17-08:28
• DG: 19:03 - 19:57
• 2005: 20:36 - 22:11

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)

 Clerk note: moved from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/2005 since a old case exists on DreamGuy. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

 Unrelated. With regards to 2005 and DreamGuy. Voice-of-All 20:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy

• DreamGuy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Victrix (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Recent suspected multiple subversion of 3RR at Beelzebub and 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 Victrix reverted 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)

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)

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

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)

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.