Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DreamGuy

User:DreamGuy

 * Suspected sock puppeteer


 * Suspected sock puppets


 * Report submission by
 * Arcayne  (cast a spell)  14:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence
 * As per this edit, which is written in the style of DreamGuy - and the only other person than an anon and DreamGuy who might be interested in posting such a comment.


 * Comments
 * DreamGuy is under specific ArbCom |instruction to be more civil and not edit from anonymous IP addresses which, if the 206.IP is indeed that of DreamGuy. would constitute a violation of his parole.
 * If the comment was from DG, then IMHO it is a double arbcom violation, being a direct violation of the "No IP" ruling, and a rather blatent violation of hiw civility parole from the original arbcom ruling. OTOH, I can definitely think of at least one other possible scenario.  Given all the animosity that DG has stirred up against himself over time, I would not consider it implausible that someone among his enemies could try to frame him by making an IP post attack against Arcayne, knowing that Arcayne would assume it's from DG and a violation, thus stirring up trouble against DG.  I don't know if this scenario is true, but it seems plausible to me.  If this CU is accepted, then hopefully it can shed some light on which, if either, theory is correct. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction, this is SSP, not CU. Still, I see my alternate scenario as plausible. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This needs to be taken to Checkuser. TexasAndroid's scenario is entirely plausible, and we can't rule it out without having someone with Checkuser privileges investigate. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Arcayne actually filed a CU on this before he even filed this SSP report. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've confirmed with another Checkuser that the account is not related, lending more credence to TexasAndroid's theory. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, I'm glad that's been sorted out. I missed the checkuser request because the case was named for the IP account. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't mean we shouldn't find out who the anon belongs to, though. If someone is framing DG, I'd like to know who it is, so we can open a truck-sized can of whupass on them. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  20:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Checkuser has disproven any link between Dreamguy and these accounts, and likely would have taken appropriate action against the perpetrator, if there was one. No further action required here. Kevin (talk) 09:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)