Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:02, 20 April 2015

Dicklyon

Dicklyon (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

16 April 2015

Suspected sockpuppets

• 73.222.28.191 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

I was suspicious when two IPs showed up at an RM at Talk:Blackfriars Massacre. Both mirrored Dicklyon's line of thinking, and it is clear that neither are new users, given their "familiarity" with MOS:CAPS.

It just so happens that one of the IPs geolocates to Santa Clara, California, and that Dicklyon's user page indicates that he works in Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley is properly called the "Santa Clara Valley". Is this a coincidence? I doubt it. Note the rest of the IP's contribution history, which has strong overlap with Dicklyon's. Especially note this contribution to a move review that Dicklyon opened, clearly following Dicklyon's use of language and thoughts on the matter. Here is another contribution, which was to an earlier move request at the Greenbelt station page, which Dicklyon also opened. Here is another contribution to a move request, this one that Dicklyon opposed. It once again mirrors Dicklyon's thinking. Even more obvious, it seems that Dicklyon has been the only person to place a note on the IP's talk page.

Dicklyon has faced intense scrutiny of his MoS-related behavior (see this long AN/I thread), and recently was granted a 6 month page move ban. He has a history of evading both scrutiny and consensus, so this is not at all out if character. Reading the above AN/I thread will be elucidating. RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Bbb23, what more evidence do you want? This is absolutely obvious, and cannot no unnoticed. First of all, the motive is clear. Yes, the problem was moving pages "without consensus". However, I quashed that behaviour, requiring him to go through RMs in controversial cases. The fact remains that he wants to move the pages, no matter what the consensus is. This is only further evidence of that. He has complained before about how RMs are often stacked against his point of view, so it isn't a surprise that he is packing the RM with an IP supporter. What's more, the IPs concerns match Dicklyon exactly. For example, notice this message, where the IP replies to a comment that the Dicklyon account earlier made (also note that Dicklyon has been the only one really "disappointed" with that closure). They both characterise the events as a "mess". In another case, the IP goes on about "inexplicable not broken claims", which is something Dicklyon himself has made frequent complaints about. It amazes me that this has been marked "closed". Are you telling me that this IP isn't a sock? He marvelously knows all about "MOS:CAPS", move reviews, and WP:USSTATION? He marvelously supports Dicklyon in many move requests? He geolocates to the area around where Dicklyon resides? He uses the same writing patterns, and rails on about the same things? What the heck more do you want? RGloucester — ☎ 01:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
• Who is it then, Bbb23? Who the hell is this person? Who the hell else would be doing this? It clearly isn't no one. If not a sock puppet, he's certainly a meat puppet who happens to live in the same damn area as the sock puppeteer. Are you going to let this behaviour spread across the encyclopaedia like a plague????? It is pure corruption. The only person who has expressed repeated disappointment with the "mess" of the Greenbelt station moves is Dicklyon. This is absurd. It is easy to change up a few stylistic elements. That doesn't matter. The substance is EXACTLY the same, and this MUST be dealt with AT ONCE. RGloucester — ☎ 01:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This again? I left a notification on the IP's talk page, as with all the other participants in the linked discussion. I am not socking. Dicklyon (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is quite apparent that you're socking. There is no point in hiding it. Why not admit it, and get it over with? You might receive a lighter sanction. RGloucester — ☎ 00:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This is very regrettable, and Dicklyon's adversaries, chief among them User:RGloucester, must be crowing now he has a scalp. What I now know is that Dicklyon committed user-suicide, as it were, by creating the sock, since he recognised a cyclical situation he couldn't get himself out of. All very silly, unwise, and dysfunctional. We've lost a very skilled editor, although in its own frame this was the right decision. Tony (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Check declined by a checkuser - Checkusers will not connect an IP to an account per the privacy policy. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm closing this with no action as I don't find the evidence presented persuasive enough to block Dicklyon for supposedly editing while not logged in. For one thing, I simply don't see the motive. In the run-of-mill case of this nature, it might seem that Dicklyon is trying to get another editor to agree with him and thus establish a stronger consensus for his position. However, based on the descriptions of Dicklyon's behavior at ANI, it would appear that one of his problems is moving pages without consensus. I also think his reason for posting a message at the IP's talk page makes sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Because of the outrage expressed by the filer, I've reviewed the latest evidence they've presented as well as doing a little more on my own. There aren't a lot of edits by the IP, which, of course, makes it harder. I don't find the new evidence presented by the filer any more persuasive than the original evidence. I agree that the IP is not a newbie, but that doesn't necessarily make him a sock and certainly doesn't necessarily make him a sock of a particular account. I've looked at the Dicklyon's and the IP's edits stylistically, and I find some obvious distinctions. Putting aside the citing to policy and guidelines, Dicklyon also frequently cites to other things, whether they are outside sources or other parts of Misplaced Pages. I don't see the IP ever doing that. The edit summaries are also different, although I have little to go on, and Dicklyon doesn't use as many edit summaries as he "should" (my personal view). The only thing I see them share in common stylistically is they both are relatively proficient in English, although I would characterize Dicklyon's style as "better" than the IP's. Based on that, my view of whether the IP is likely to be Dicklyon has not changed. Mind you, as always in these sorts of evaluations, I'm not saying that the IP is not Dicklyon, only that I don't think it's more likely than not.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Noting in passing that this request is currently being reviewed further by the checkuser team. Risker (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Risker:@DoRD: Given that Dicklyon has now "been blocked for violations of the sockpuppetry policy" by DoRD , would it not be more appropriate to provide some further on-wiki explanation -- in fairness to Dicklyon and other involved editors? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As Risker noted, this was discussed amongst several members of the checkuser team before I took this step. However, since the block is based on evidence gathered using the checkuser tool, the Privacy policy limits us in what we can discuss publicly. Suffice it to say that this was not a decision I took lightly, and that we are open to hearing an unblock request should he submit one. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)