Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2

Statements by uninvolved editors before the case was opened

Statement by ElC

This looks rather one-sided, both on the part of the initiator (whom I agree with on the content front, incidentally) as well as from an unofficial mediator who, by his or her own words, may not have been entirely objective and might have accepted a case prematurely. This is a good time as any for me to reiterate my unease of the Mediation Cabal (I note that an MC member, Ideogram, who recently launched and quickly withdrew a prior RfAr on DreamGuy, has recently been placed on a one year community ban); I always prefer formal mediation. As the admin chiefly monitoring the RfC, I've been struggling to keep it from being disrupted by editors mostly hostile to DreamGuy ^{(examples: [1] [2])} and although, DG was not entirely satisfied with me, either, I must say that if this treatment is the norm for him, I rather understand his talk page disclaimer (I don't approve of it, but it isn't that different than several others I know). Let me go beyond photoshopping, then, and discuss the conduct RfC.

As mentioned elsewhere, although the certifiers did not directly participate in disrupting this request for comment attempt, I do not feel they did enough (leaving it pretty much all up to me) to combat this negative atmosphere; moreover, they often seemed to argue that the focus should be placed exclusively on DreamGuy (I made it clear that, on Wikipedia, everyone's conduct is subject to review, at any time; there's no license for people to be uncivil simply because they are charging "reckless incivility" against the subject of an RfC). Conduct RfCs are not free-for-alls.

Members of the Committee, I've been struggling for long now to keep conduct RfCs from degenerating into indictment-like pages, where little if any prior or ongoing dispute resolution efforts are undertaken and illustrated (you may have only seen me act in high-profile RfCs, such as the Kelly Martin ones, and so on, but my work on that front has been extensive). This RfC was no exception. It started with editors violating the certification rules, continued through threaded discussions and top-page notices on the project page, and kept going down hill from there. Only thorough refractoring on my part kept the project page comprehensible and free from revert warring, but even this wasn't enough as unproductive discussion was simply diverted, mostly but no means entirely, to the RfC's talk page, where it appeared to me that several editors were already set on treating it as a step toward arbitration, arguably to impose punitive measures on DG, rather than a genuine dispute resolution attempt.

In this extension, I note the sheer volume of DreamGuy RfCs and RfArs; one of the former, which I recently deleted was created by-now two banned users who failed to undertake any efforts at dispute resolution (and yet, it was allowed to stay, with people "commenting," for years). This RfC wasn't quite as bad in some ways, but was worse in others. As I told Daniel Case (the author of the second diff I cited; and no, I do not retract my astonishment upon learning that he as an admin): "If this is the sort of expression that DG is ordinarily subjected to, that would work explain many things." Someone on the RfC has compared DreamGuy's with RickK's treatment, a comparison which, I, as someone who on several occasions personally spoken with Rick on what made him leave the English Wiki, is an apt one. El_C 19:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TexasAndroid

It was stated a number of times, in a number of ways, at the RFC, that incivility against DreamGuy does not justify DreamGuy being incivil back. And I fully agree with this: DreamGuy's incivility is not justifiable in any way by the actions of others, and should be fully subject to review and possibly sanction by this RFAr process.

But that said, it really is a two way street. If the hands of those that bring this RFAr, or who piled on DreamGuy at the RFC, are not clean in the matter, then others should be just as subject to the review and sanction by the RFAr process. So, assuming that this case is accepted, while I fully expect to see DreamGuy's actions to be scrutinized, I would hope that the actions of those that have been incivil towards DreamGuy are given just as close of a scrutiny as DreamGuy's own actions. There certainly appear to be unclean hands on both sides of this one. - TexasAndroid 20:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thespian

(This statement contains a fair bit of evidence, written at a time when I *had* time; I'm moving in 3 days, and can't write more right now. the clerk, David Mestel suggested, when I asked if I should move it to evidence, that I just add a note that this contains a fair bit of the evidence I might present regarding this not being one incident, but part of a larger pattern of repeated behaviour. --Thespian 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is said that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. People will, over the next little while, repeat over and over that while people have violated WP:CIVIL towards Dreamguy, of course they, themselves, were not innocent. This will be used both in his defense, and as an argument against him (and you will see, in the investigation of this, a number of people who start out civil, if contentious, and wind up as rude as Dreamguy is).

I first encountered Dreamguy on Otherkin and Therianthropy. Now, please note, I'm not a terribly unbiased editor; you'll find I once commented that The current self-identifying therians don't want to be mistaken for otherkin because, well, a lot of people think that otherkin are nuts. But to be honest, if someone says to me, "My soul is actually that of a panther," I'm going to think the same (therians never seem to realize that their soul is that of a boll weevil).[3] However, I have friends who are furries and Otherkin, I'm involved in fandom, and I know that a moderate voice could be used between the people who want to treat it as completely real and the people who want to treat it as a psychosis. Indeed, I said as much about the articles being edited by self-defined therianthropes[4], but that also applies to anyone who has an extreme view on the subject.

Eventually, there was an issue with external linking to the WikiFur project at Wikia. I was not severely attached to either side; I was more pro towards allowing the link, because things in the softer sciences, humanities, etc., are quite simply not as rigorously citable, and I do feel that if people are looking up an obscure term like therianthropy, there's a very good chance they encountered it, at this time, through the Therian or Otherkin communities. The link is, in my opinion, useful and relevant to the audience for that page. But I wasn't going to go to a throwdown WP:OWN issue over it. The link was added, removed, discussed briefly on the talk page, and readded, and it was solid. And then Dreamguy removed the entire section[5] after returning to the page after a little over eight months away (12 Oct 2006[6] - 28 May 2007[7]). No one really knew who he was, he just showed up, ignored the varied consensus that people on the page had been working for on a tricky subject, and started making up rules, such as a declaration that 'competing wikis absolutely DO NOT meet WP:EL guidelines.' [8] He was asked to come to the talk page where other discussion of the links had been had, and discuss his change but he instead decided that his non-existant rule was all he needed, and talk was irrelevant[9] (please note that regardless of whether Dreamguy believed Mermaid was blind reverting, Mermaid had been consistantly around making an edit or two every month on the page while Dreamguy wasn't - this wasn't someone who was just wikistalking him, though Dreamguy claims otherwise, and perhaps they have elsewhere. It was certainly not the case here). Bryan Derksen pointed out that this wasn't just Mermaid from the Baltic Sea, and attempted to get Dreamguy to speak with other editors on the project.[10]

I can continue outlining this bakklewheep, but the page history is easily browsed at this point.

Now, I present you with this: first thing I ever said to Dreamguy. I think, all told, it was moderate and polite. I did say I felt he sounded aggressive (but if you read up...well). He never responded to me. Over the next couple of days, he kept firing off pretty randomly at people. Now, please note, I genuinely believed that he was editing in Good Faith, even if his random attacks and use of edit summaries to editorialize on other editors were stretching it - I believed that Dreamguy's editing was IGF, even as his meta-behaviour was becoming unacceptable. After a couple days of several editors being in consensus that all the EL links that Dreamguy had removed were good removals, except for WikiFur, and him abusing anyone who reinserted it, I filed a MedCab on Therianthropy (not, please note, on Dreamguy, but instead a way to simply get someone completely random to come in and straighten out the issues). I was a newish experienced editor at the time (nearing 1000 edits), and I've realized since that an RfC would have been a better option. That, however, didn't seem to matter. Though the mediation was intended for the whole page, and for all editors (and I was only slightly biased by my inclusionist tendencies to want to leave resources available, and not because I was passionately wanting the link to stay), Dreamguy decided that because the argument did mention it was 'a number of other editors, including myself, Bryan Derksen and more' and 'Dreamguy' as the sides, it was actually Mediation against him. He refused the mediation, and closed the case by himself. You can see it here.[11]

Dreamguy often refers to any attempt to speak with him by someone who disagrees with him as harassment. At one point, he referred to the recent RfC about him as such. I asked him how people were expected to have civil conversations with him considering his banninations from his talk page, his abuse in edit summaries, his attacks on people who try to disagree with him on talk pages.[12] He never responded to me. When the subject of this Arbitration came up, I noted that I still believe that he's editing in good faith, but that when doing something for the first time (the MedCab), he attacked me and indeed I felt he gamed the system to take advantage of a new editor and avoid the process.[13] He never replied. I asked at one point what was going on, because he doesn't seem to be enjoying Wikipedia these days; indeed, he seems to be holding on tenaciously though it's making him bitter and angry, and discussed the fact that Dreamguy just plain seems to dislike a lot of the people that he works with on Wikipedia, which is problematic because while you don't need to befriend them all, you do need to be able to collaborate with them.[14] He never responded. Indeed, my 'squeaky wheel' metaphor back there refers to this -- I often feel like the only way you can even get Dreamguy's attention these days is agreeing with him or sinking to his level of incivility - my comments, which were low-key even when I was angry, simply don't hit his radar. There is a circular argument that Dreamguy behaves the way he does because so many people are attacking him, but he seems to treat every disagreement as an attack, 'justifying' his responses.

Despite the fact that Dreamguy abused me a fair bit with his napalm-like accusations at WP:EL that everyone who disagreed with him (wanting the WikiFur link in) were 'pro-furry' and more, I've stayed fairly clearheaded on this, as Wikipedia is enjoyable and stimulating, but Not the Most Important Thing In The World. However, I have admitted on WP:AN/I that I no longer edit pages that I see Dreamguy has been editing, simply because the chances of being dragged into fights as he lays down edicts seems to escalate on any page he works on. It would be pleasant to add to several pages he works on, but it's just simply not worth it to have to deal with the anger and incivility that comes when you try and do anything he disagrees with. --Thespian 06:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghirla

It looks like a certain clique of editors seeks to impose punitive measures on DG, no matter what, although their own behaviour merits closer examination. I don't think any of the people casting stones at DreamGuy would do any better if they found themselves hounded to an even remotely similar degree. There have been no good-faith attempts at dispute resolution, rather a sustained campaign to have their opponent chastised for real or imaginary offenses. This is not what dispute resolution is about. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wizardman

There is, of course, two sides to this story. Those who find DreamGuy incredibly destructive and hurtful to the wikimedia community, and those who feel that DreamGuy, though uncivil, has been given a very bum deal. While I agree more with the former, (DreamGuy's lack of RfC support says I may be in the majority there) I feel that the latter is skewing the situation a bit, and that it's not about him retaliating so much as him being a problem here. Of course ArbCom has to accept this case, it's about time this guy is at least looked at by ArbCom. To say that there have been no good-faith attempts as resolution is flat out wrong, there was just an RfC that was clsoed only when both sides really started attacking each other. That just means we need to bring this here even more. I note that even the people on his side note that he's been abusive and incivil, so the sooner this is accepted and taken care of, the better Wizardman 15:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alucard (Dr.)

There is a history of accusations that have been thrown around on all sides about lack of civility, POV editing, wiki-stalking, sockpuppetry, questioning motives/intent, edit warring and the like, to the point where certain articles are now a hostile editing environment, which I see as counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. Various remedial procedures have been attempted and have failed. Discussions about content issues are tinged with anger. Whether DreamGuy or the various people that contributed to the RfC are found to be at fault is, as far as I am concerned, academic at this point - this needs to stop, for the good of the encyclopedia. According to my understanding of the dispute resolution process, I see this as the logical next step, and am pleased that the scope is to look at everyone involved, rather than just one person. I encourage this case to be opened. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 19:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also note similar-style edit-warring with accusations is going on in the article Adobe Photoshop. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by clpo13

While it is true that DreamGuy is often a good editor, his attitude when he comes into conflict with other editors is really quite a problem. This is only natural when one does anti-vandalism and anti-spam work, as DreamGuy does; however, when an editor objects to his/her edits being called spam or vandalism, DreamGuy does not appear to stop and take their complaints into account. He merely brushes them off and goes on his way, even going so far as to remove their comments to his talk page as "harassment." Now, I will not deny that certain editors (myself included) involved the various dispute resolution processes are guilty of the very things DreamGuy is accused of. The case may very well be one of the pot (or pots) calling the kettle black. But the fact still remains that both the pot and the kettle are black, meaning that there still exists a problem that needs to be investigated. If that means repercussions for editors other than DreamGuy, than so be it. As Alucard said, a hostile editing environment is completely against what Wikipedia is about, and extreme attitude by even a single editor (even if there are some understandable reasons for it) doesn't help things at all. --clpo13_(talk) 08:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bryan Derksen

I'm not a party to the current Photoshopping dispute but I did participate in the RfC (I was directed to it by an editor who had referenced a mailing list posting of mine in it and I felt I should clarify what I'd said there) and have had occasional disputes with DreamGuy in the past. I was a significant participant in the Therianthropy external link dispute described by Thespian, for example. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2#Procedure question (about halfway down the section, a text search for the string "my past interactions" should jump to the correct spot) for brief descriptions of how DreamGuy and myself each perceived a major event in the incident, along with direct links to the source material so one can judge it for one's self.

DreamGuy's taken on a number of unenviable tasks in tidying up articles that tend to draw "crankish" or otherwise difficult contributors, and over the years has clashed with a lot of editors that probably needed to be clashed with. However, in my opinion he's developed the attitude that everyone who disagrees with him is someone that needs to be clashed with. I pride myself on being good at discussion but in my past encounters with DreamGuy I've found that there seems to be no way to disagree or compromise with him in a civil manner. He's very quick to make assumptions of bad faith on the part of other editors and is completely confident of his own position's correctness in the face of widespread disagreement, even going so far as to refuse to acknowledge that there is disagreement to begin with. It's unfortunate that it's come to arbitration but I think his bad behavior is causing more problems than his good editing makes up for and there seems to be no other way to address it.

Statement by mikaul

Background: my limited interaction with DreamGuy has concerned the troubled photo editing article, in which I started out broadly supporting his objections over content. I have been drawn into this wider misconduct issue as it seems I'll be unable to progress the article until it's resolved. I've found constructive dialog with him has gone from difficult to impossible, despite a number of significant early compromises which have cut down the section in question to comply with DreamGuy's expressed main objections (WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:UNDUE, WP:RS) There is still no indication that he is in any way happy with the proposed amended version. My last request that he (specifically) review this [15], plus a direct request on his talk page, have been ignored. This isn't new or surprising re this editor and seems to me to be very much in line with his wholly exclusionist editing style; looking at his contribs, he concerns himself almost entirely with removal of controversial content, often regardless of the weight of opinion against such removal, to the extent that partial inclusion of said content is not a negotiable solution, or at least this has been the case at photo editing. I have no problem with exclusionist editing generally, if there is a willingness to accept a compromise position in the face of clear opposition. DreamGuy has shown no such willingness, and the photo editing page is paralyzed as a result.

Desires: I would hope this RFAr softens his hardline exclusionism and elicits a modicum of respect for the opinions of fellow editors, in particular that AGF become more prominent in his interaction with them. I second calls to reopen mediation on the photoshopping issue: refusal to accept this (overseen by a neutral, informed 3rd party) is surely unacceptable.

Concerns: I'm concerned, primarily, that without mediation, the article remains in jeopardy, should the lock be removed. A secondary concern is that this process (RFC, MEDCAB, and now RFAR) has created an atmosphere of persecution which has in turn provoked an astonishing display of rhetoric in his defence which (from where I'm sitting) swings from genuine grievance to paranoid delusion and is in danger of seriously misrepresenting the intent of other editors (vis absurd claims that editors are "stalking", "grouping together" or "ganging up" against him re. photo editing) This clever but frankly Machiavellian manoeuvring has attracted some well-meaning support from editors who appear to have taken his protestations largely at face value. Sure, there is impatience and intolerance creeping in, but it's more due to exasperation [16] than bloody-mindedness. Please, read carefully between the lines here, as fantastical claims of cloak-and-daggers are little more than smoke-and-mirrors. Far from rabid persecution, I'm convinced that the only real desire here is that people be allowed to edit in peace. Amen.mikaul ^talk 09:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status of this RFAr

DreamGuy last edited on Aug 24, while the RFA was unopened. He left no quit notice, so there's no way at this point of knowing if he has truely left, gone on vacation, or anything else. Now the RFAr is open, and of all the people who commented for/against DreamGuy at his RFC, only dicklyon has bothered to present evidence in the case, and that was almost a week ago now. If DreamGuy is gone, this RFAr is moot, but there's no way of knowing for certain at this point. So, what's the normal procedure for cases that sputter to a halt like this? Do they just get closed out with no action, being moot and all? If so, how long is generally given before it's decided to close out the case. And what would be the procedure if DreamGuy were to return at some point after the case was closed? If the case is not closed, I suspect it will be difficult to get people to work up much energy at moving the case forward in his continued absence. - TexasAndroid 18:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the ArbCom has never expressed a decision in absentia; if DreamGuy has simply taken a Wikibreak without telling anyone, the case will probably be tabled until he reappears. If he fails to return after a reasonable time (I dunno, say a month), then then it will be closed. If he should reappear after a lengthy period of time (say a year or more) & he also continues in his old habits, I expect that a new case will be quickly opened & accepted by the ArbCom & not dismissed should he vanish again. (Note my emphasis: if he improves his behavior significantly, I doubt the ArbCom would be interested in reopening this matter.) -- llywrch, jailhouse lawyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llywrch (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's back

Dreamguy is back. See Jack the Ripper etc. Colin4C 18:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification (November 2007)

I've blocked DreamGuy initially for one week for abusive sock puppetry, incivility, and edit warring. I am requesting a review of his sanctions because there are additional factors that ArbCom was unaware of at the time. I recommend increasing the length of the block, and also a checkuser to confirm what appears to be an obvious case of sockpuppetry. See ANI thread and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2. In brief, DreamGuy appeared to be laying low during this case, but was actually editing with an IP sock puppet to avoid scrutiny. Just five days after the case closed, his sockpuppet was used for incivility and edit warring. I view this behavior as cynical manipulation that calls for stronger sanctions. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulties following Jehochman's exposition; i.e. links to more links to more links, etc. El_C 17:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, with Jehochman's permission, I have lifted the block. See my unblock notice for detail. El_C 03:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editing restriction placed on DreamGuy applies to the person, not the account; if he's being incivil under another username, any admin is free to block him. I do not think there is any need for additional sanctions at this time. Kirill 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem experienced by Demcdevit and myself was to be shown evidence of any recent incivility as grounds for the block. El_C 03:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kirill. That's helpful. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I urge the committee to investigate Jehochman's disturbingly uncommunicable conduct. El_C 06:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to submit a formal request for arbitration, you may do so further up the page. A request for clarification regarding an already-closed case is not an appropriate venue to consider the actions of an uninvolved editor. Kirill 06:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Looks like I've been left with no choice.~~ El_C 07:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest a little patience, El C? Perhaps try to resolve this via some other means...I would be glad to mediate.--MONGO 07:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the matter is now resolved. El_C 08:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2

I am requesting an extension of sanctions against DreamGuy, to add restrictions on abusive sockpuppetry and edit-warring, along with the civility restrictions from the October 2007 ArbCom case.

DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been systematically using anon sockpuppets in an abusive manner, to avoid scrutiny and sanctions. This is a violation of WP:SOCK: It is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.

It is therefore my request that the sanctions should be extended to cover:

Abusive sockpuppetry, meaning that the editing restriction should be extended to state that DreamGuy is to make all of his edits under the DreamGuy account.

Edit-warring. During various incidents since the October 2007 ruling, there have been multiple examples of DreamGuy edit-warring (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy), but a block was not issued, because the ArbCom sanctions did not specifically include edit-warring. I would therefore like to see the sanctions extended to cover this, such as to put him on a limit of one revert per article per day.

For further details, please see: User:Elonka/DreamGuy report

--El on ka 01:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the level of IP usage by DreamGuy, I would suggest that remedies are extended, limiting DreamGuy to using only his one account and no editing through IP's - his edits often go undetected for a while and make blocks punitive. Likewise I see edit warring from the account and a motion to include edit warring looks to be a good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, just so long as the restrictions specifically state that he is not to edit from IPs as well. Wizardman 02:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Did something happen recently? It's difficult to tell from the above. If not, why fix what isn't broken? El_C~~ 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how he violated his restrictions, specifically. Eloka's report suffers from inaccuracies. And isn't there a priori bad blood? El_C 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, yet another Checkuser was filed by yet another user, which alerted me to the fact that DreamGuy is using yet another anon to avoid sanctions, despite multiple admins telling him in the past that he has to stop doing this. DreamGuy keeps repeating, "There's no rule that says you have to login." And yet, WP:SOCK says exactly that, that you do have to login if other editors have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. DreamGuy didn't just "forget" to login once or twice, he's been avoiding his DreamGuy account, and has been systematically using an anon for weeks. See my report at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report for details. --El on ka 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That dosen't answer the question about bad blood, so I'll pose for the third time. As for the login-in requirement — so long as there's no troubles from those ips, I don't think that sockpuppet clause can be invoked, as much as some may take an interest in his contributions, he has a right to edit without login-in. I asked you about these troubles and you said: "bad faith and uncivil comments. Just look at his contribs." I don't really have time to review these in their totality, so again, please provide diffs. Thx. El_C 03:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's using IP's to evade transparency in his editing. He's under arbitration restrictions, and by using IP's, he stops the possibility of having his contribs looked at. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand El C's point. Is he saying that an editor engaged in a revert war can use up his 3RR allowance in his registered identity and then be granted an extra 3 reverts unregistered (and then go back to the registered identity ad infinitum thus having a six for the price of three revert allowance). Is that legal or not? I am a complete duffer when it comes to wikilawyering and would like some clarification on that point! If the same person is using a registered and unregistered identity in tandem is that classed as one user or as two users on the 3RR rule? Colin4C (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a red herring. Of course nobody can violate 3RR by signing out and using an IP address. That's not at issue here. I am not using a registered account and an IP address in tandem and am not violating any policy. There are no 3RR violations, attempts to pretend to be another party to confuse people, or anything else. DreamGuy (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply ridiculous. Elonka has been making false accusations of sockpuppeting for years as part of her longstanding grudge against me, which came to a head recently when she was up for admin (in which Ryan Postlethewaite was her biggest supporter, accusing me of lying about harassing emails Elonka sent, etc.). In fact, her history of falsely accusing me of sockpuppets to try to get her way was in discussion as part of her admin application, and, whattya know, now that she's an admin right away she's continuing on with it. Her accusations here are nothing more than a major violation of WP:AGF -- In effect, she wants me punished or restricted in some way because she assumes, without any evidence, that I am up to no good. The bottom line here is that there are no rules here that I or people in general here HAVE to edit signed on if they have an account, and considering that it's all too easy to end up not signed in anymore after you change browsers or the cookie expires or whatever, is a good thing. None of my edits on IP address has violated any sanctions or indeed any policy on Wikipedia whatsoever... This is just a desperate attempt by Elonka to find any excuse she can come up with to harass me some more. Please note also how Elonka assisted Jack1957 in filing the false sockpuppet report this time around. She really needs to demonstrate some of that good faith and letting go of personal conflicts she promised, and if she is unwilling to do that she needs to be told to stop making false accusations and trying to invent trouble.. DreamGuy (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had nothing to do with Jack1956 filing his Checkuser, he did that completely on his own. The first I heard of it, or your latest anon, was when I saw that the Checkuser page had been updated. I did advise Jack1956, after he filed that report, that he should probably inform the affected editors.[17] I have also informed him about this extension request, since his name is on my report. But that's the extent of it. So no, I'm not "behind" this latest checkuser, I'm just reporting what I'm seeing, and recommending that the sanctions be extended to prevent further evasion. --El on ka 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just confirm that no one has 'put me up' to filing a sockpuppet report concerning Dreamguy. I did it entirely myself after noticing what I recognised as Dreamguy's editing style coming out of another anon. account. As this anonymous editing had been going on for days while Dreamguy's regular account was dormant raised suspicions in my mind, valid or otherwise. I do not accept that some one 'forgets' to log in for days on end. I can accept that it happens from time to time, but not consistently in this manner. Jack1956 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamguy consistently "forgets" to log in and continues causing problems in the editwarring/civility departments until someone notices the IP is him. He's been asked not to do it multiple times and doesn't seem to want to do so voluntarily. Since he is already under ArbCom restrictions, it seems incredibly reasonable to ask him not to avoid scrutiny in this manner. Lets get past this "you can't sanction me because Elonka and I don't get along" nonsense once and for all. Shell ^babelfish 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out as well, that the last time this occurred (immediately prior to his last ArbCom enforcement [complaint), he had been editing anonymously - and then supported them as DreamGuy (posting within 15 minutes as first the anon and then as DreamGuy, supporting the anon user's edits). He of course denied ever using the IP account, despite having been asked specifically by Dicklyon about it. The fact that he evaded answering the pointed inquiries as to his usage of the account clearly indicate that he is well aware of the sticky issues regarding editing anonymously. And since this isn't the first or even third time this specific problem has occurred, it might seem like the proper time to perhaps deliver a stronger message that this is not going to be tolerated by users in Wikipedia, and is certainly not going to be tolerated by users currently under behavioral restriction. editing anonymously allows DG to act as he will (and again, its indicated that this anon activity has yet again been uncivil), specifically thumbing his nose at the ArbCom restrictions. I don't care how good an editor he is - if we allow his behavior to continue, what do we say to other editors who contribute less and act as poorly when they point to the non-enforcement of behavioral restrictions? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(as per a request for clarification as to the socking and other events, I have provided diffs and links for the things I've pointed out. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

These efforts in support of Elonka's attempt to extend DG's sanctions appear spurious and needlessly longwinded. It is also, blatantly, a punitive one, unless the ip/s can be demonstrated to have been abusive, recently. Her subpage looks dated, poorly organized, and convoluted. El_C 06:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree here, if you edit anonymously in the same way that caused you to be sanctioned by Arbcom in the first place, that's a clear case of evasion/circumvention of the penalties. Unless the policy is in dispute (or the facts are in error) it's pretty clear: "Evading sanctions will cause the timer to restart, and may lengthen the duration of the sanctions." (italics mine) policy link. R. Baley (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now all we need is proof that DG "edit[ed] anonymously in the same way that caused [him] to be sanctioned." Any recent diff will do. El_C 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without prejudice, "recent" is an additional qualifier not found in policy. All that would need to be shown is that the violation was made during the same time period as the sanction. The point of socking is usually to avoid detection, that one does it successfully for a while does not earn exemption (or a cookie). R. Baley (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC) (add: lest anyone think I'm here to keep arguing this will most likely be my last post on this topic -R. Baley (talk))[reply]

If there hasn't been any violation in months, then we can, and should, assume good faith about conduct having been refomred. El_C 10:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, while I think that it has been pointed out that the behavior under the anon wasn't very civil, it seems clear that El_C thinks we should AGF with DreamGuy yet again. I think that anything else that pops up ont he radar about DG should be directed immediately to El_C or Dmcdevit, so they can act on the matter quickly enough that. As a matter of timely action repeatedly seems to be the deciding factor in this matter, let's all stay on our toes and be sure to report anything that occurs right away. Satisfactory? -

What about your behaviuor? I keep asking for evidence, you keep responding with rumor, and round & round we go. El_C 10:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If DG lost his patient due to this sort of tendentious conduct, I can't blame him. El_C 10:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has within the last few days twice reverted my sourced and referenced edits on Walter Dew, once as Dreamguy and once as the anon. user, putting in unsourced and unreferenced material instead. Jack1956 (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not proof of a violation, or anything. He is allowed to revert "twice within a few days." It looks like he argued that you were presenting the "sourced and referenced" additions as original synthesis.^[18] It's a content dispute. El_C 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At Walter Dew Dreamguy has appeared in three different identities (two unregistered numbers and his registered Dreamguy name) between 3rd and the 9th of Jan. of this year. As I know nothing about wikilawyering I am not saying that this is right or wrong, but, for what its worth, it's a fact. He has used each of the identities to revert one other editor's (not me) contributions. This might confuse some editors who might assume that they are dealing with a majority three editors against one editorial conflict, wheras it is just one against one. Colin4C (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could always ask the two ips if they are him: assuming good faith and focusing on the contributors not the contributor/s. People are permitted to edit when from ips, and some people edit from different places. El_C 11:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will ask him. I assume thay are the same as Dreamguy from past experience as an editor on the wikipedia: they both use the same confrontational language and both revert stuff without talking about it on the talk page. But that is not really my point. My point is that neophyte editors might assume that there is a concensus against their edit if they see three seemingly different editors reverting their stuff. Therefore swapping between registered and unregistered gives one an advantage in an edit war if the other editor doesn't know that the three are one and the same person. The neophyte editor might think: 'The concensus is against me: I will withdraw my obnoxious edit!' That seems to me unfair: but once again I must state that I'm not a wikilawyer and if it is permissable to use three different identities in the space of 6 days engaged in the same revert war then I'm fine with that! Colin4C (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that that incident counts as a revert war,; and wikilawyer is a very negative term here. El_C 11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about one particular case. I would just like to know in a hypothetical case on the wikipedia whether it would be acceptible in an edit war to switch between a variety of different unregistered addresses and your registered address and not indicate to the other editors that the same person is behind the the different identities. Is that acceptible or not? Also if a registered editor is asked whether the user was using an unregistered address on the same article would he be obliged to answer or not? Or is it wrong to ask in the first place? Where does the burden of proof lie? There is also the Catch 22 of either not assuming goodfaith or being duped by the same multiple identity trick for the twentieth time. In my first encounters with Dreamguy on the Jack the Ripper page I assumed that the unregistered identities and Dreamguy's were separate editors, but he uses the same tactic in many different articles and is once again using it now at this very moment at the Walter Dew article. Can unregistered identities be required to declare themselves or not? Where does the burden of proof lie? Colin4C (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:DreamGuy has remedies dealing with "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith", as well as enforcements. Also the spirit of the arb ruling and prior decisions took note of disruptive behavior. He has since been gaming the system via IP socking (and arguing the fragmenting of his edit history) and edit warring, blockable under standard rules separate from the case. In the light of prior arbitration, I have therefore listed his 96 hour block under this case because although not strictly within said restrictions, his conduct is a continuation of gaming and other activities. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit at request of Rlevse who had to run, per his edit of the RFAR page. I think this is what Rlevse wanted; if there's been miscommunication I'm sure he'll clarify and fix it and meantime apologies if it's imperfect in the interim. The conversation was a rushed one and the note left here a summary one only. Sorry if its not perfect, I imagine he'll do the write-up properly when next around. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did ask FT2 to wrap this issue up. His edit of my edit is fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka's DreamGuy report

This report is archived here at the case page, from the information that was originally posted at User:Elonka/DreamGuy report

--El on ka 20:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

==Requesting extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2==

Note: This page is an extension of the request initially filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2, and then archived at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2#Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy 2.

I am requesting an extension of sanctions against DreamGuy, to add restrictions on abusive sockpuppetry and edit-warring, along with the civility restrictions from the October 2007 ArbCom case.

DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been systematically using anon sockpuppets in an abusive manner, to avoid scrutiny and sanctions. This activity goes back at least as far as 2006, and has resulted in multiple blocks and ANI threads. However, the "shell game" that DreamGuy has been using, to spread out the abusive behavior on multiple anons, has enabled him to avoid centralized and definitive actions to be taken against his main account.

DreamGuy's actions are a violation of WP:SOCK, which states, "it is a violation of this policy to create alternate accounts — or to edit anonymously without logging in to your account — in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions."

A few of the anons that he has been using, which were tied to DreamGuy either via a CheckUser or his own admission:

Victrix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (account created in 2005, rated by CheckUser as "likely" DreamGuy sockpuppet in June 2006) (ANI thread)
216.165.158.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked multiple times in April 2007) (April ANI thread) (another April ANI thread) (June ANI thread)
69.19.14.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (highway rest stop IP, used by DreamGuy in July 2007)[19]
71.203.223.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (blocked and unblocked in November 2007, see below)
68.47.175.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (account currently being used by DreamGuy, as of December 26, 2007)

DreamGuy has become a master of using sockpuppets to confuse the issue. For example, in April 2007, DreamGuy used one of his anons, 216.165.158.7, to "scrub" the sockpuppet category off other of his anons, such as 172.147.121.198[20] and others[21][22]

In early April 2007, before it was identified as his, DreamGuy's 216.165.158.7 account was blocked for incivility and personal attacks.[23] Then when it was identified as his,[24] and his behavior continued to escalate, it was blocked with the clear reasoning of "He's using his IP to go wild, and to avoid scrutiny"[25][26] Multiple admins confirmed this behavior at the talkpage.[27][28][29][30]

Summer 2007, DreamGuy was the subject of more ANI threads regarding incivility and edit-warring. (May 2007 ANI thread) (another June 2007 ANI thread) (July 2007 ANI thread) (another July 2007 thread)

October 2007, DreamGuy placed under a strict ArbCom behavioral editing restriction, from the ArbCom case DreamGuy 2. However, the sockpuppetry was not included in sanctions as part of the case, possibly because the editors bringing the case were unaware of the extent of it.

In mid-November 2007, administrator Jehochman, upon noticing that DreamGuy was using another anon, 71.203.223.65, attempted to issue a block for abusive sockpuppetry,[31][32] and Gnangarra also blocked the IP.[33][34] DreamGuy's block was reviewed and confirmed by Adam Cuerden,[35] but then overturned by administrator El C.[36] The activities by DreamGuy were seen as disruptive, but since they were weeks "old" at the time they were discovered, and involved edit-warring instead of incivility,[37] the block was deemed improper.

On December 16, 2007, DreamGuy stopped editing under the DreamGuy account.

On December 26, 2007, he began editing under another anon IP, 68.47.175.159

In January 2008, the behavior of the newest anon raised concerns with another editor, Jack1956, who has since filed a new Checkuser case. DreamGuy has apparently acknowledged that the new anon is his, but is insisting that "there is no rule that says someone has to be signed in."[38] This is an excuse that he has been using repeatedly, such as in the edit summary here when he used one anon to clean the account of another anon: "no rule says you have to sign in"

To avoid further examples of this type of "anon shell game" on DreamGuy's part, it is my request that the sanctions should be extended to cover:

Abusive sockpuppetry, meaning that the editing restriction should be extended to state that DreamGuy is to make all of his edits under the DreamGuy account.
Edit-warring. During various incidents since the October 2007 ruling, there have been multiple examples of DreamGuy edit-warring (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy), but a block was not issued, because the ArbCom sanctions did not specifically include edit-warring. I would therefore like to see the sanctions extended to cover this, such as to put him on a limit of one revert per article per day.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

ElC's report regarding Elonka and Acrayn's conduct

DreamGuy sanction extension request

Elonka's claims "bad faith and uncivil comments"

1. Elonka requests to have sanctions against DreamGuy extended. ("Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy")^[39]

2. I, ElC, ask her if there has been any recent violations by DG ("evading sanctions how?",^[40] to which Elonka responds: "Evading sanctions: Bad faith and uncivil comments. Just look at his contribs."^[41]

3. I ask with individual diffs. ("asking me, or the Committee, to 'just look at his contribs' is a bit much. Why not provide diffs, instead?")^[42]

4. Elonka refers me to her subpage: User:Elonka/DreamGuy report.^[43]

5. I insist on a diff. ("Can you not cite a diff or two here?")^[44]

6. Elonka declines my request. ("I would like to keep focused on the most important issue,which is that DreamGuy is continuing to use anons to evade scrutiny")^[45]

7. I reiterate that, at this point, I am interested in proof of the "bad faith and uncivil comments," noting that this is now the fourth time I asked for this (including requests on her talk page,^[46] where the toll soon rises to five^[47]), expressing my increasing puzzlement.^[48]

8. Elonka declines, again. ("I am equally puzzled why you are getting so focused on that one peripheral comment") ^[49]

9. I explain that just her not answering seems reason enough. ("am focused on it due to the non-answer.")^[50]

10. The next day, Elonka finally appears willing to oblige, although yet to provide specific diffs which, presumably, will be forthcoming. ("how recent do you want? When I scan the recent contribs of both 68.47.175.159 (talk · contribs) and DreamGuy (talk · contribs), I see multiple examples of incivility and assumptions of bad faith, just in the last couple days") ^[51]

11. I, of course, am interested. ^[52] I glance at 68.47.175.159 (talk · contribs) but see nothing beyond the word "silly" used in a nonoffensively. ("yes, this will be the seventh times I now asked you for recent instances of incivility from a DG ip (couple of days is fine with me")^[53]

12. Shortly thereafter, Jehochman also notes that providing diffs should be simple. ("If these comments exist, it should be trivially easy to provide the diffs") ^[54]

13. Elonka fails to provide a single diff, despite the above promise; instead she corrects a link.^[55]

Arcayne's claims "apparently, uncivilly, at that"

1. Seemingly due to Elonka's yet-to-be substantiated claims, Arcayne makes similar claims. ("editing through anonymous accounts ... and apparently, uncivilly, at that")^[56]

2. I, characteristically, request evidence. ("do you have evidence for that 'and apparently, uncivilly, at that' that's actionable?")^[57]

3. Arcayne declines, in so far as he does not respond to the request. (<no pertinent citation>)^[58]

4. I point that out. (in edit summary: "so, no proof for that 'and apparently, uncivilly,' then?")^[59]

5. Arcayne seems to agree. ("okay, that seems charitable enough") ^[60]

6. Yet, not long after, makes similar claims. ("I think that it has been pointed out that the behavior under the anon wasn't very civil" — italics is my emphasis)^[61]

7. I point out that no evidence was provided, then (see above) and now. ("I keep asking for evidence, you keep responding with rumor")^[62]

8. On Dmcdevit's talk page, I express frustration with regards to the lack of evidence in Arcayne's often confusing claims. ("I can't handle this mode of communication any longer. If you speak about the past, please cite pertinent diffs")^[63]

9. Arcayne declines, or at least fails to add the links to his claims, while making further accusations. ("Its pointless to ask for explanations form people who don't feel the need to tender them. I am disappointed in getting games and not answers")^[64]

10. Note that this follows earlier vague accusations on the same page. ("poorly characterizing the efforts of people acting genuinely to remove a deleterious influence to Wikipedia seems a bit out of line")^[65]

11. Arcayne edits this user subpage without asking for permission (it is obvious no such invitation was extended — for the record, he is welcome to comment on the talk page here). ^[66] He also refractors the subpage on his own user subpage for unknown reasons. ^[67]

12. Arcayne notes to Elonka that he mistrusts Dmcdevit and myself. ("I don't trust El_C and Dmcdevit")^[68]

Blocked by Rlevse, and future case

1. Rlevse blocks DreamGuy without providing a detailed explanation, except referring us to Elonka subpage in the block summary. ^[69]

2. Unblock request is declined by Lara Love, without detail again. ^[70] (I am noting, here and now, that it probably would have been better to have this reviewed by someone who did not support Elonka's third RfA^[71])

In light of that, I am likely to launch a new case. Hopefully, if the committee comments as a body, and is able to review this evidence, too, a clearer answer could emerge. A lot of the dynamics here simply do not fit and raise additional questions. More updates as they happen.

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