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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments=
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]
06 May 2015
Suspected sockpuppets

I don't want to relive the disaster that happened last time I filed a report on Dicklyon, but I feel this is necessary. This account is new, created on the 1st of May. As soon as it was created, it started making the exact type of edits that Dicklyon, now indefinitely blocked for sock-puppetry, usually made. These consist of dash fixes, removing commas from names with "junior" and "senior", and removing capital letters. This new user created a user page with his second edit. At that page, he describes how he is a "newbie", a claim he repeats numerous times elsewhere, seemingly overcompensating. His user page describes his editing philosophy. If one reads it, one will be clear that the issues being mentioned are the hallmark Dicklyon issues. Notably, his changes have already caught the attention of one editor. He has also participated in the RfC created by Dicklyon on the "junior/senior comma issue". However, what clinched it for me was this section that the new user opened at the help desk. The title of the section is "Fixing clusters of problems". This concept of a "cluster of problems" or a "pocket of overcapitalisation" is language that only Dicklyon himself has used for this exact issue, that is, when he runs into problems with content editors at a certain series of articles. RGloucester — ☎ 14:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
More