Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haiduc/Archive

Evidence submitted by Hipocrite
Obvious not-new user shows up after having been slept for years and starts adding details on a famous persons pederasty? Quack?

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Hipocrite (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

, this is unlikely to be a new user. Tim Song (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems ❌ to Haiduc, but Pdruknl does appear to be sharing a computer with other new users and, and quite probably on proxies. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 17:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They're completely different edit patterns, and Prince6309 is completely inconclusive on behavior. No action taken at this time. –MuZemike 18:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tonalone
Since creation of this account on April 14, this user has made a grand total of three edits (the other two edits on April 29 and May 11), all which were comments on my talk page requsting that I restore material that I deleted from a banned user (the suspected sock puppet). This account was created with the sole purpose of communicating with me under an identity I would not recognize.--Tonalone (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Tonalone (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

moved from Sockpuppet investigations/MelodiousEros, please see there for original history. SpitfireTally-ho! 17:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser note: ❌; they are from different continents. No other likely socks on the IP range. Risker (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)