Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dubious.achievement/Archive

Evidence submitted by M.nelson
This seems pretty clear-cut. added a section about Jason Zengerle (cited to blogs) to The New Republic in late Jan 2010, and expanded that section in early Feb 2010. Then, user (apparently the subject of the material) and deletes it as being "unfounded and inaccurate accusations against [him] and a family member". quickly shows up to reinstate it.

Based on User:Jasonzengerle's discussion with User:Evlekis at User talk:Evlekis, this user does appear to be the subject; he has been notified to contact OTRS by User:Paul Erik (see other discussion at User talk:Paul Erik) who locked the page due to the BLP dispute.

Even if the material should remain in the article, it's clear that the accounts in question are the same person (all SPAs, similar usernames) likely trying to establish false consensus in favour of the material. Would a CU check be able to pre-empt the creation of further SPAs?

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by -M.Nelson (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

all appears to be pretty duckish, the edits are spread over a fairly long time and are the subject of BLP concerns, so this is fairly long term disruption. Endorsing for a check to check the link, identify any sleeper accounts, and to implement an IP block, if deemed feasible/necessary. Thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 11:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No real way to see if non-stale account is related, and no obvious sleepers. J.delanoy gabs adds 03:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please also note that this matter has come up in 4868432. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)