Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dolovis

Dolovis

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dolovis/Archive.

12 August 2014

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.

Suspected sockpuppets

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

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

I have largely been on an extended wikibreak, so didn't pay too much attention when I noticed several AFDs filed by the Coycan account on old minor league hockey players at the end of July as they appeared to normal nominations made in good faith. When I saw them begin to close over the past couple days, however, I noticed something slightly odd. Coycan's rationale of "Non-notable hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY. No Evidence he passes WP:GNG" is a near exact match of the rationale used by Ravenswing in January when he nominated numerous minor league hockey player articles created by Dolovis for deletion (example). It was then I discovered that the Coycan account was primarily targeting old articles created by Ravenswing and Djsasso, both of whom have been in long-running dispute with Dolovis. (Full disclosure: I have also had a long-running dispute with Dolovis.) The Coycan account last edited in January 2012 before falling dormant for 2 1/2 years until mid July - just after the Dolovis account stopped editing briefly. A few unrelated edits, then the burst of AFDs, then the account falls dormant again, after which Dolovis resumes editing.

This led me to look at the history of Coycan. The Coycan account was created June 22, 2010, not long after Dolovis had come off a previous block for sockpuppetry (he used the "My nephew did it" excuse at that time.) Behaviourally, Coycan is extremely similar:

• Sub-stub article creation, typically only a sentence or two: Coycan (from 2012), Dolovis (from 2012), Dolovis (from today; literally hundreds of examples), Also a habit of blocked Dolovis sock Cerrot
• Bare URLs when creating or editing, then coming back with the Reflinks tool to marginally improve by adding a bot-generated title Coycan, Dolovis (from 2012, examples continue to today)
• Creation of redirects to alternate spellings of names (i.e.: Dave to David) Coycan 1, Coycan 2 (both from January 2012), Dolovis 1, Dolovis 2 (both from January 2012, examples continue to today)
• Coycan spent a lot of time on December 21, 2010, playing with images within hockey player articles. Dolovis was taking an interest in images of hockey players on December 19-22.
• Also on December 21, 2010, Coycan is using Twinkle to throw maintenance tags onto articles. Dolovis doing the same at the same time.
• Beyond the parallel interest in hockey, Coycan showed interest in the 2012 Academy Awards and related articles [1], much like Dolovis does, such as in 2014 [2] (See creations from February 3)

On the surface, Coycan's AFD nominations should not be an issue. The articles that were nominated were created at a time when SNG standards were extremely low compared to today, so what was valid then may not be today. However, given my belief that this account is an undisclosed sock of Dolovis, this presents two issues. First, is the use of an alternate account to target users Dolovis has been in conflict with in a way that attempts to avoid scrutiny. Second, Dolovis has loudly protested efforts by Ravenswing, Djsasso and myself to delete articles he has created on non-notable career minor league hockey players. Using Coycan to nominate similar articles under the same rationale in a good hand-bad hand fashion allows the Dolovis account to continue fighting to keep his own creations without the apparent hypocrisy. My belief is that there is some pretty loud quacking going on, but I would appreciate a checkuser's verification. While looking this up, I believe I came across another related account from 2012, but since the behavioural evidence is flimsy and the technical data will be stale, I'll leave it out of this report. I will keep an eye to see if it suddenly becomes active at some point in the future. Resolute 14:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Resolute 14:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

The logic for opening this sockpuppet investigation is baffling. A review of Coycan's edit history finds no disruptive editing, and even Resolute admits that the cause of his concern are a handful “normal nominations made in good faith” As a senior editor with some 50,000 edits, I am one of the 1,000 most active Wikipedians. The so-called behavioural evidence is contrived, scant and spurious, and linking my account to Coycan's (which is a non-disruptive account in any event) because Coycan's AfD rational is similar to Ravenswing's is an astounding stretch of logic. I look forward to seeing a speedy close on this issue. Dolovis (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A belief that these nominations were good faith relies on the assumption that you are not the owner of both accounts, because using a scrutiny-evading sock in good hand-bad hand fashion primarily to target editors you have been in a long-term conflict with certainly would not be good faith. And, of course, you are not just a "senior edit with some 50,000 edits". You are also an editor who has been blocked several times for sockpuppetry. It would be rather absurd to presume that your edit count stands as an actual defence given that history. Resolute 23:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I should note the first two of the three times he has been blocked for socking has involved him using another account to specifically target articles I created. So this wouldn't be the first time he used another account to avoid scrutiny on his nominations of articles I created. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

DJSasso, the fact that you bring up the 2010 block concerning myself and User:Pooet is disappointing. The fact is that four years ago I was a newbie editor, and Pooet showed me how to format a succession box. The blocks against both accounts were lifted when it was demonstrated that these accounts were not linked, and that no disruptive edits had been made by either party. Even you acknowledged that your sockpuppet complaint on that issue was made in error.[3] Your only concern seems to be that articles you have created have been nominated for deletion. The obvious reason why your creations may be tagged for AfD is because they are of low quality (as pointed out by another editor in a recent AfD [4]), but it is not me tagging them. Dolovis (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that it was never determined that you were not the other account. All that happened was that you were unblocked. No statement was made that your accounts were definitely not the same person (the fact that Pooet is still blocked as a sock is proof of this as is Andy14and16 who is still blocked as a sock from the second time you were caught socking). Secondly I did not acknowledge my complaint was in error. I just accepted your explanation. I still think it was very much correct and I did at the time. What that comment was doing was trying to bury the hatchet and move on which you have clearly not done. I have no problem with my articles being deleted being that they no longer meet the new NHOCKEY. My issue isn't with the deletions at all, I welcome them. Its the fact that this is the 4th time you have socked now and in all 4 instances it was to target me either directly or indirectly as in the case of the diacritics socking. -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that Dolovis welcomed Stacilynn, whose sole contributions (as an apparent newbie editor) were to vote on an AFD to keep an article that only Dolovis also supported keeping (see [5]). I must admit that I understand that MO because I practised it myself many years ago, back in the bad old days before I was reformed, regarding some horribly contentious and far more concerning IRA-related hagiographies created by Vintagekits. I don't say Dolovis should be banned permanently because I was granted forgiveness myself and allowed to return to the fold, thanks of course to Alison, but something clicked for me. It's circumstantial and I could be wrong, anyway. Quis separabit? 16:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no valid reason to assume that I am related to User:Stacilynn. Adding a Welcome templates to a newbie's talk page should be an encouraged action, and not cause for a sockpuppet complaint. Dolovis (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I could be wrong. If I am, I apologize whole-heartedly. Quis separabit? 18:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

---