Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac

User:Achidiac

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer

See AfD#2 Potential meatpuppet. See AfD#2 See AfD#2
 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Gnangarra 15:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

All three (Achidiac, Rdpaperclip, T3Smile) are primarily SPA editors who edit articles in relation to Anthony Chidiac, each have participated at the AfD's #1 #2, and at the current DrV in relation to the subject an all give extensive commentary when discussing matters. After visual checking and comparison of edit histories for each editor I find no time overlaps where editing occured inconjunction with each other, there are occassions where one stops editing and another starts
 * Evidence

example of most recent occurance copy of T3smile contribs


 * 12:19, 4 November 2007 (hist) (diff) m Internet café‎ (Undid revision 169061573 by Sarah (talk) Relevant content, not advertising - oz cafe is closed so nothing to advertise. ta.) (top) [rollback]
 * 11:31, 4 November 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 2‎ (→Anthony Chidiac)

Between these edits from Achidiac contribs


 * 12:09, 4 November 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 2‎ (→Anthony Chidiac) (top) [rollback]
 * 11:57, 4 November 2007 (hist) (diff) m Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 2‎ (→Anthony Chidiac)

Additionally Image:O3 ph2.jpg to my eye I'd say that these people are the parents of Anthony Chidiac(User:Achidiac) as seen in this Image:Mega2.png which is an apparent copyright violation from Network Ten notice the watermark on at the bottom left. Both images were uploaded by User:Rdpaperclip. Who indentifies the people in Image:O3 ph2.jpg as mum and dad in upload. Then on the 31st July 2007 diff User:T3Smile removes the copyright and fair use disputed tags changing them to self with GFDL-no-disclaimers and cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0 without any contact or discussion with User:Rdpaperclip about the licensing on any page I also checked if is there was any discussion within deleted edits to Anthony Chidiac and its talk page, Rdpaperclip also made no edits in response to the changes. There was also no bot edits to the article history where the image was used that would have notifed other editors that a problem existed. Image:O3 ph2.jpg was uploaded on the 18th July without any category listing nor did Rdpaperclip notify anyone of there existance, looking at Rdpaperclips edit history no edits where made by this account for almost 2 days immediately after uploading ph3. Yet on the 19th July T3smile added the images ph1,ph2 and ph3 to Internet Cafe

Complimentary and sequential image naming meta data on ph1,ph4,ph5 indicate the same type of camera was used an Olympus C-3000 Zoom with the same software v574p-74.
 * Image:O3 ph1.jpg uploaded by Rdpaperclip,
 * Image:O3 ph2.jpg uploaded by Rdpaperclip,
 * Image:O3 ph3.jpg uploaded by Rdpaperclip,
 * Image:O3 ph4.jpg uploaded by Achidiac
 * Image:O3 ph5.jpg uploaded by Achidiac

The first date of editing by each account:
 * Achidiac - 04:11, 19 July 2007 (see deleted contributions)
 * Rdpaperclip - 13:26, 18 July 2007
 * T3Smile - 09:49, 15:55, 17 July 2007 (see deleted contributions)

Except for a few wikignome-type edits, all the editing has focused on promoting A. Chidiac connected entities.


 * Comments


 * My take... We have a claimed relationship between the three people. T3Smile is a student. Rdpaperclip is T3Smile's professor . Achidiac is Anthony Chidiac. T3Smile has had at least one face-to-face interview with Achidiac and used some of this material in writing the article. Achidiac has provided a "shoebox" of stuff to T3Smile to help with the article. Rdpaperclip and T3Smile work together to parse through the files from Achidiac. I think that the copyright and fair use tags on the images are seen as a nuisance (no offense intended). I think that the images were tagged in the "easiest" and "most passable" way without regard to whether the tag actually applied. (I will come back through and add links to these points... but that's the basics.) I don't think this is a case of sockpuppetry (one person controlling multiple accounts). I think this is a very convoluted WP:COI meatpuppet dance. -- Ben 16:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * After a word with Gnangarra I see that this is the proper place to discuss meatpuppets. In light of that, I would like to add a little more... I find it very unlikely that the three editors in question intended to break the rules. I think that they have a common goal and probably see nothing wrong with participating in the same discussions. It may not be considered harmless, but I think that it was probably without malice. -- Ben 16:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm Tracey. I concur with Ben's thoughts above.  Ben is in contact with me the most via here.  I have interviewed chidiac (Achidiac) and RDPaperclip is my lecturer.  Before doing such project here in wikipedia I had no more an association with he two gentlemen other than RD being my lecturer and Chidiac being the subject of my interview.  In order to complete the article, I need help by both people.  I don't believe that is a COI if I needed info to complete the piece and need guidance to do it properly.  I contribute to wikipedia on other subjects I know about or enjoy writing about, as it says on my userpage.  I have had to stay involved in the chidiac article as its in my userspace and I have not finished my studies until I get it published and I've spent far too long a time on this to now change my topic.  Because of such I have become the "nominated person" for it, which means that I have had to keep some form of communication between chidiac and my lecturer until the article is good enough to go to mainspace.  Its coming to the end of the school year and my motivation is to finish the piece so I can pass my subject, hence my "desperate" effort to finish the chidiac piece.  To save any COI claim I thought that I shouldn't vote but comment if an article had to do with the subject of chidiac.  I nor the others involved with the chidiac article have no malicious intent, nor am doing such to vandalise or spam wikipedia.  We all collaborate on this particular article - we go to the person to get facts (chidiac himself), I get guidance from my lecturer, and of late I am the main person who is editing/modifying the piece.  Sometimes RD has come to my userspace to do some editing on the piece.  RD did a minor edit on the STUB when I got the article onto mainspace and the article got nominated for an AfD, which is a bit rich methinks.

Re: Pics - I see no issue with using an image with watermark as chidiac has the letter of permission by the network to use it. Its in the press kit both RD and I have. But, I am unaware as to how to put it here as I didn't put them up in the first place. Seems to me that RD and I tried to put the same pics up maybe at or around the same time? I remember seeing a notice from an admin saying that duplicate pics exist, so I recall going over to RD's version uploaded and helping him out as he was away on holidays and they were to be deleted. These things happen when two people get the same material from the subject of article - its called a double up! (we should have talked about it beforehand to avoid duplicate uploads, but we hardly see each other off wikipedia and usually at a lecture!) I manually cleanup my user discussion page when I have completed issues, to avoid clutter. As mentioned in discussion, Chidiac's dad is deceased, so I cant tell you whether the pic is of his mum or dad, RD's mum and dad, or someones mum and dad! They look like a mum and dad but they could be my gran and pa! - (My mum married my dad who is of Italian origin). Either way, the pics are owned by chidiac and chidiac has given the OK to use them. They were pics used in advertising both at the venue and in the press (in particular, the ad with the mum and dad came with a slogan - "even mum and dad can come!" - so thats where the mum and dad came from I'm guessing!!!). I am unsure as to how to put "public" pics here, so I'm sorry if I did something wrong there by getting RD and chidiac to do it, but assure you the pics are cleared by subject of article. I've only been hooked on wikipedia for four months, so would appreciate the help not the hinderance. Ta T--T3Smile 06:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am the subject of article. I find the behaviour of the instigating admin to this claim quite a worry.  Bit of a bully really.  Please respect my privacy and close this and other outstanding discussions of and about my name.  If this behaviour continues I will be taking further action out of pure necessity to protect my name and my past career.  I seriously didnt think a little article about my career made by others would have me end up at a talk about something called a sock or meat puppet?  Does that mean everyone that collaborates on wikipedia is a meat or sockpuppet? Thanking you in advance to clear up this mess made by wikibullies :) --Achidiac 08:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Does someone have so much time on their hands to raise such false allegations? Thanks Ben for clarifying that we are all individuals. Rdpaperclip 09:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Achidiac can you please clarify your statement If this behaviour continues I will be taking further action out of pure necessity to protect my name and my past career, please note WP:LEGAL, also note that any information posted on wikipedia can and should be scrutinised hence the requirement for sourcing independent of the subject. A sockpuppet is one person operating many acounts, a meatpuppet is a person editing under instruction from another person. Gnangarra 09:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Gnangarra's evidence looks conclusive to me. It's worth noting that the article 'they're' 'collaborating' on is a vanity article on the alleged sock puppeteer (Anthony Chidiac - User:T3Smile/Anthony Chidiac is aparently a copy) which has been deleted as the subject was judged not to be notable. This article has so far remained deleted after some very unusual looking reviews in which anonymous IPs appeared out of nowhere and voted to restore the article as their first ever edit. I would argue that the claimed relationship should be treated with extreme scepticism and not be taken at face value. It defies belief that a masters student and their supervisor would appear out of nowhere and dedicate their time to fighting to keep a distinctly non-academic article up on Wikipedia while also spamming other articles with references to Mr Chidiac's business and adding personal photos of Mr Chidiac and his family. --Nick Dowling 09:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that such bizarre arguments about masters/honours research often emerge on the oddest of articles - see this one for example (completely unrelated with different players involved). Orderinchaos 09:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Achidiac was the only contributor to T3Smile's page User talk:T3Smile/. See . -- Jreferee    t / c  17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Should further research be needed, Achidiac posted an email address here. -- Jreferee    t / c  17:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yesterday, after learning that these accounts had been blocked, I decided to check the autoblock for the three accounts, User:Achidiac, User:Rdpaperclip and User:T3Smile. Of particular interest, all three accounts had triggered the autoblock at exactly the same time: 2007-11-05 17:36:00. Since then, T3Smile has apparently triggered it again, and her log now has a different time, however, the other two have lemminged out but are still listed in the log at 2007-11-05 17:36:00: Achidiac's autoblock log, Rdpaperclip autoblock log, and T3Smile's autoblock log. Sarah 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

These accounts are the same person, or several people in collusion. I recommend indef blocking all of them for abusive sockpuppetry. - Jehochman Talk 15:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * They have all been blocked by . - Jehochman Talk 21:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * T3Smile confirmed as IP 60.241.91.14. See this post by TravisTX. -- Jreferee    t / c  16:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)