Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dolovis/Archive

Evidence submitted by Djsasso
Shortly after I reverted some edits by Dolovis, and mentioned to another user that he seemed familiar. Pooet started targeting articles I created for deletion. Both user accounts became active at about the same time. March 29th and April 10th. Pooet starts editing during the day when Dolovis stops editing. Both are editing the same sorts of articles and have had almost identical edits in a couple instances. 1 and 2. I believe this is a case of good hand bad hand. I also think there are probably others because they both have acted very knowledgeable for new users. -DJSasso (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Behavioral evidence is convincing, but I would appreciate a check here for confirmation and to see if there are any other socks. Tim Song (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

/ . You're going to have to use behavioural evidence alone. --Deskana (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * After talking with Deskana about the nature of the CU evidence, I've blocked Pooet indefinitely as a sock based on behavior. Dolovis is blocked for one week. Tim Song (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Djsasso
Dolovis and Pooet were blocked recently as being sock puppets based on behavior. I believe Andy14and16 is another one of the bunch. Both him and Pooet were active for only a handfull of edits 5 or so each in July 2009 and then dissappeared to reappear at pretty much the exact same time at the end of March beginning of April 2010. As Pooet was nominating a number of articles in bad faith in one subject area, Andy was prodding and tagging similar articles or related articles (ie albums of artists associated with the group and record label Pooet was trying to delete). While the dates of their return overlap a little bit at the beginning, Andy's edits get alot more busy around the time Pooet was blocked for being a sockpuppet. If you look at the edit summaries when both Pooet and Andy were active still they use the same language and wording to describe removing prods and adding tags in their edit summaries. It has changed slightly lately but back when Pooet was still active and Andy was active they were using the same wording. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Andy14and16 indefinitely blocked and tagged. Dolovis blocked 1 month for socking. –MuZemike 01:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

31 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Apparent continuation of contentious moves of articles using diacritics in their titles and then locking the redirects. A practice resulted in part to a topic ban for Dolovis. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. J Greb (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

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
Apologies for jumping the clerk, but I'm already involved here. Cerrot was reported at ANI as a possibly compromised account, so I checked it anyway. It seems unconnected, but I suspect the other three are the same person based on edits, so will carry out check. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

socks of each other. Bloodpoint edits all the redirects made by Daer55 and who in his moving spree on 8 November 2011 (returning after a break since May 2011) failed to edit the redirect after creation, to prevent it being rolled back.
 * is, but given that it is also
 * is also
 * is, but given that it is also
 * is also

Took me a while, a couple of tools (one of my geolocate tools is out to lunch) and a good map to sort it out, but these guys are all Dolovis on technical data, and given the loud quacking, I'd say he's the sockmaster. My best guess on the technical data is that Dolovis is moving around. Bloodpoint is definitely editing from a hotel. Daer55, Cerrot on 31 March 2012 Bloodpoint 30 March 2012 are all when Dolovis is not editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone's blocked, so I'll mark for close. TN X Man  17:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

12 August 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * 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 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, 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, much like Dolovis does, such as in 2014 (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. 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 ), 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)


 * Curious. Both Pooet and Andy14and16 (which was linked to Pooet, not me) were just recently re-blocked on August 7, 2014, even though both accounts were previously unblocked in October 2010  and have been dormant ever since (apparently my nephew wisely moved on to a clean start; in hind-sight something that perhaps I should have done also). There was no new sockpuppet investigation. What's going on with that?  Dolovis (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am only guessing, but perhaps the admin who did it took the 3rd time as a violation of the unblocks of those accounts so reblocked them. -DJSasso (talk) 19:30, 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 ). 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)

There is no foundation to support this investigation and it should be closed. Dolovis (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - without being familiar with the hockey project details this does look from the clear presentation above from Resolute like someone's sock, and a Checkuser is justified, also to pick up sleepers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * was it who suddenly resurfaced in August 2013 following 17 months of inactivity after you and I AfDed three of Dolovis' articles? Hwy43 (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The account I was looking at was from 2012, but looking back, that Outreels account certainly seems to quack as well. The comments made in their keep rationales are extremely similar to Dolovis' style when he defends his articles. Resolute 14:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've just realized that “Outreels” is an anagram for “Resolute”. Looking at Resolute's edit history for the same period, Outreel's edit summaries of “unsourced” and “irrelevant” are similar to those used by Resolute about that same period of time. So Outreels is quacking, but it looks more like Resolute, not Dolovis. Dolovis (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If Outreels was a sock of Resolute, why would Resolute use a sock to register votes that conflict with his nominations/votes? See Articles for deletion/Kane Lafranchise, Articles for deletion/Jim Lawrence (ice hockey) and Articles for deletion/Derek Couture. What an absurd accusation. Hwy43 (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is an anagram and that you would notice such an odd thing, makes me actually think that Outreels is definitely you creating an account to harass Resolute in the way that you have created socks to harass me. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh. As noted, I am rather not likely to create sockpuppets to undermine my own AFDs. *rolleyes* But for all your bluster, it is notable that Outreels; keep rationale in the AFDs Hwy43 links to are the same as the keep rationales you were providing under the Dolovis account, namely, "keep because they played x games in a low level league": e.g.: Andy Powers, Travis Bell, Julius Junttila.  You're getting desperate, Dolovis and this comes off as just petulant mud flinging.  While you may yet be able to skate by this this time if the reviewing admins choose to err on the side of caution, I think we all know you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Again. And this time you can't blame a phantom relative. Resolute 13:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Dolovis: This is turning into a witch-hunt. Despite the fact that there are no disruptive edits, and no check-user verification, this sockpuppet claim made by an editor with a clear grudge against me has not yet been closed. Resolute has been hounding my edits for years. The very fact that Resolute has now disclosed that for the past several years he has also been scrutinizing the edits of multiple editors within the Ice Hockey Project to look for similarities with my account, demonstrates a stunning lack of good faith. Yet despite his on-going scrutinization of accounts, he has failed to demonstrate any conclusive link to my account. Given that I have made over 50,000 edits, similarities are certain to exist with many different accounts. It must take more than the unproven speculation of an editor who has a professed conflict of interest to warrant a sockpuppet charge. Dolovis (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Where does he say he was scrutinizing your edits for years. It says he went back and looked at your edits and saw similarities with others. Secondly he has demonstrated quite clearly that you are the same accounts, I am rather surprised actually that the admin above isn't completely convinced. With a geographical link from the CU and very clear quacking and a history of having been caught for it 3 times now. This isn't unproven speculation. Frankly I think its quite a damning case. You really need to stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you or who has had an issue with you as holding a grudge against you when your edit history quite clearly shows you hold grudges and run campaigns of harassment against users who disagree with you. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply not true. These are not my accounts, and if the CU has determined a geographical link (where does it say that?) one should remember that both Resolute and I live in the same city, so any geographical link would also be a possible match for Resolute as well as many other editors. I am not accusing everyone else, but I am strongly professing my innocence. This is a sockpuppet fishing trip which is based on nothing but spurious speculation. And I still have not seen any evidence of disruptive editing. Dolovis (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Way back on 24 August 2014, the Clerk voiced his opinion that there is "insufficient evidence", and since then this discussion has gone stale. It is long past the time that this unwarranted investigation be closed. Dolovis (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * He actually said he was leaning that way. He has since asked for a second opinion. So I am sure it will be closed once another Clerk comes and comments. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - While no particular piece of evidence is by itself strong enough to justify CU, the sum of all the evidence along with the fact that Dolovis has socked previously justifies a check IMO. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've run a checkuser, and the result is that a connection between the accounts is . PhilKnight (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by Dolovis: Please explain what you mean by "possible". Did you also check for a connection between "Stacilynn"? I am editing solely under my user name "Dolovis". There is no connection between these accounts. There is no disruptive editing, and no evidence of sock puppeting. Dolovis (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The checkuser tool provides the IP address, which in turn can be used to give an approximate geographical location, such as the nearest town or city. In this instance, I checked your account and Coycan's (but not Stacilynn) and the accounts locate to a similar geographical location. PhilKnight (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Currently, I'm leaning towards the opinion that we have insufficient evidence to declare that they are the same user. While Coycan's recent AfDs are indeed of articles created by Dolovis' opponents, Coycan's previous interest could also be a factor. Also, what's with Coycan's sudden interest in sheep in 2010? Either this is an excellent job at disguising a sleeper or it's further evidence of them being unrelated. So at this point I'm really not sure. Resolute: Could you name the other account from 2012? That might help to establish additional links. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have to search back, but as I am out of town on vacation at the moment, it will be a couple days before I can check back for it. I don't think that account will prove anything though. I just noted it as one to consider if I suddenly see it becoming un-dormant and following the same patterns. Resolute 14:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , sorry for taking so long. It was that caught my eye.  Of note with that account, notice the mass creation of one-sentence sub-stubs of Academy Award nominees created on January 25, 2012, that are not much different than the mass creation of one-sentence sub-stubs of Academy Award nominees created by Dolovis on February 3, 2014.  And despite his protests above and below this comment, there are two or three accounts listed here that seem to appear and disappear at need around his edits, each of which carry the same general habits.  I have a definite recollection of another account that really only voted keep on a series of AFDs of Dolovis' creations before disappearing.  I tried searching, but either it was >4 years ago, or I was thinking of Outreels. Resolute 18:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm... still not sure. I'd like to request a second opinion from a clerk. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * - Pending information from the Commons team, then I'll make a final close on this case. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * From reviewing what Commons was able to provide, it matches the information I have from here. With details I was able to dig up, I'm upgrading the result to, given the fact they appear to be within a 15 minutes drive of each other. That added to the "coincidences" found here, and one particular line of the evidence (which I won't comment on for WP:BEANS sake) puts me to the point where I feel these two people are the same person. With that, the standard offer is availible to them. I don't think the user at this time is demonstrating an understanding of why they were previously blocked, and that's why I have indef'd the master. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  19:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)