Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Achidiac/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets

 * - same user, added after the case.
 * - same user, added after the case.
 * - same user, added after the case.
 * - same user, added after the case.
 * - same user, added after the case.
 * - same user, added after the case.

Evidence submitted by FT2
Reincarnation of the User:Achidiac sock-puppet ring: users Achidiac, Rdpaperclip, T3Smile, and 60.241.91.14, whose main wiki-activity is promoting A. Chidiac, his activities, and his (deleted) article.

Checked by behavior and CU confirmed with User:Versageek (Cafejunkie=Azurewiki=203.219.135.147 ✅, AntCee by behavior and CU, Antchid by behavior and self-disclosure)

FT2 (Talk 08:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims. None of the users know Chidiac or each other personally other than that of being editors on this site. Some of these entities have indeed edited other entries not related to this subject. None of these entities have any affiliation with subject. IP (this one, note below) is a shared wireless IP from a proxy server. There are over 1000 users of this service on this IP. Subject intends to take matter up as defamatory.--203.219.135.147 (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
All users indefinitely blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 08:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

01 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

User attempted to re-create (Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/2GreenDollars) deleted content (Articles_for_deletion/Anthony_Chidiac_(3rd_nomination)). Appears to be WP:SPA as contributions outside 2GreenDollars are minimal (Special:Contributions/Xmusica1). Prior history of similar behavior (Sockpuppet_investigations/Achidiac/Archive). Gm545 (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2014 (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

 * Possible, but the evidence is superficial. The attempt "to re-create ... deleted content" was actually a creation of a significantly different page on the same subject. In any case, there is little point in spending time investigating an editor who has not edited for over seven months. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)