Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dillonmcallaway/Archive

Evidence submitted by Explicit
Oh, this is just far too obvious. ChelseaChoice was created as a result of the several discussions initiated by Dillonmcallaway after his dislike of the current image of Lady Gaga, and editors were against the use his version. ChelseaChoice's first edit was to support the use of Dillonmcallaway's version. ChelseaChoice's second edit deals with the image in John Lennon's article. Unsurprisingly, Dillonmcallaway shows the same "concerns" over at Talk:Britney Spears. — ξ xplicit  21:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. Not done: This is completely wrong. This is based on assumption, I did not create another account to establish a decision. The only reason this case is open is because every single one of these users are jealous of me. I am done editing Wikipedia, this is most mindless, obsurd and sad article website I have ever used! - Dillon ' ( talk )

Comments by other users
At 20:40 October 5, Dillon writes that he would like to see other users comment on his proposal of the changing of the Lady Gaga main infobox image. At 20:46, Chelsea registers and writes in support of his proposal at 20:49. I don't think there's anything else left to say, really. – Chase  ( talk ) 21:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Way too obvious. And new users usually don't indent properly in talk pages, or sign their messages. Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will point out that Dillon, on the other hand, never signs his messages. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He does, he just edited his signature not to include the date. Nymf hideliho! 21:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not an actual Wiki-signature; it's code designed to fake an actual signature, but without date or links. Normally, he doesn't bother to do that. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the two signed their posts the exact same way here and here. For someone who uses such an, uh, eccentric signature, I find the likelihood of this happening highly improbable. — ξ xplicit  21:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If the CU turns up false, an ANI should probably be filed, as the user is acting tendentious, disruptive and it's quite obviously a meat puppet then. Nymf hideliho! 21:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Awfully suspicious, deserving of CU, as editing styles aren't exact matches. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

✅ –MuZemike 00:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't think CheckUser was necessary, but oh well. Sock blocked indefinitely, master account blocked for one week. — ξ xplicit  04:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Both blocked and tagged. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  12:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)