C1cada is the Wikipedia editor who was blocked July 2015 by the Wikipedia checkuser bbb23 following a sock puppet investigation request by the Wikipedia administrator Drmies (Michel Aaij at the Auburn University at Montgomery (AUM), Alabama).

C1cada was a work colleague of the editor Coat of Many Colors,  whose "sock" he is claimed to be.  They shared a common computer network and it is scarcely surprising in the circumstances that similarities were found in the data Wikipedia stored about them. It is unlikely, however that a common IP address were found for them as both had dynamic addresses. Moreover for similarities to be found implies that Wikipedia held checkuser data for Coat, who ceased editing at the end of 2014,  for longer than the three months declared in Wikipedia's published privacy policy

There was nothing ever in the least bit "illegitimate" about C1cada's account. Indeed he and Drmies had already interacted cordially on C1cada's Talk page. What really prompted Aaij to block his account was undoubtedly C1cada's (and Coat's) editing at the Wikipedia editor Hafspajen's art articles.  Hafspajen, manipulative, narcissistic, and agressive,  is an exceptionally problematic editor protected by Aaij. Hafspajen is undoubtedly Aaij's most frequent visitor on his Talk page with 4,630 edits over a six year period recorded at 18 February 2016. Her importance to him is underscored by the image of an ostrich head Aaij currently maintains on his User pagesupplied by Hafspajen after Aaij was elected to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee with the edit summary "giving you a head. Enjoy". For an analysis of Hafspajen's Wikipedia accounts see here and for a discussion of Aaij's early interactions with Hafspajen when she was editing using her Swedish  account Warrington see here.

We wish to clarify a comment made by Aaij: "The overlap between Coat and C1cada has, of course, Van Gogh but, more significantly for those who know Coat, Revenge porn, an old favorite. Note also their edits on Paul Gauguin--Coat always had an interest in, shall we say, underage human sexuality, and it's evident here as well: here is a reference they added to that issue."

We're not aware that Coat edited on van Gogh. Her collecting interest was in textile and prints (van Gogh famously executed just a single etching in his life). Her editing contribution at Wikipedia was on the the American impressionist artist Mary Cassatt. She also made substantial edits, both on Wikipedia and at Commons, on Charlotte Salomon, whose work entered the public domain at the beginning of 2014.

We think it unlikely that Coat ever made substantial edits on nonconsensual pornography ("revenge porn"). She did, as it happens, make a final single edit on the subject on behalf of her group,  apparently as an act of defiance, before being blocked by Aaij.

"Coat always had an interest in, shall we say, underage human sexuality..." is a ludicrous remark. The only possible edit that could be said to lie in that domain occurs in her editing at Mary Cassatt,  when she of necessity referenced, very briefly, a famous thesis, postmodern and rather hard to comprehend. That thesis, due to  Harriet Chessman, suggests Cassatt used her paintings of children to encode female sexuality, essentially advancing the notion that they served as an erotic sublimation. It is absurd to construe that as a prurient interest in pedophilia (plainly what is being suggested by Aaij), and in fact amounts to an attack on Chessman as well as on Coat.

Coat vigorously opposed valorizing as a Featured Picture an unpleasant painting (in its voyeuristic implications),  "September Morn", by a notable French salon  painter, specialising in paintings of naked or scantily dressed young girls provocatively posed in isolated surroundings, who is no longer exhibited in any European of American gallery that we are aware of, precisely because his themes are plainly pedophile fantasy. It was that discussion which got her blocked, although the real issue was plainly her interaction with the Wikipedia editor Hafspajen, a plainly vulnerable and immature individual championed by Aaij, who had at first groomed Coat on her Talk page and then harassed her when she happened to oppose her on a number of editing issues. Aaij affected not to be aware of the underlying issues, but reproached Coat for driving Hafspajen from editing ("retiring"). In reality Hafspajen, indeed Aaij himself, regularly retires (known as throwing "diva" fits in the Wikipedia community) when she does not get her way. Recently, from April to August 2015, Haspajen "retired" herself following another issue with another editor documented here.

In our short-lived Wikipedia account blocked by Aaij, we made a single highly techical edit highlighting that Indonesia (specifically Bali) has become a paradise for Australian sex tourists, specifically citing and referencing a noted Indonesian academic  who first brought the issue to public attention. We made that edit, the first edit in Wikipedia to notice Indonesia's sex trade, as an irony and courtesy towards Coat, who had been harassed and eventually blocked by the  editor Crisco 1492 (Chris Woodrich) , a schoolteacher in Indonesia, over the "September Morn" painting he had nominated. Likewise this was highlighted by Aaij as somehow prurient.

C1cada's editing interests were deliberately diverse.  His main editing interest, however, centered on internet surveillance and privacy issues. For example, he started Max Schrems and  Microsoft Corporation v. United States of America. He edited at Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA and at Edward Snowden. He edited at Costeja and made a start, long planned by our group, for P v S , the landmark European Court of Justice transgender rights case. He also planned a very substantial edit at Perinçek v. Switzerland  before the European Court of Human Rights, where he had hoped the Court would uphold Switzerland's appeal and declare the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1916 a genocide as defined in international law. In the event the Court upheld Perinçek's right to free speech.

He indeed edited extensively at Revenge porn, and had further planned a detailed edit on the US upcoming legislation. On the Talk page he expressed unease  that the navigation box  for the article was one to do with pornography and discussed the term"child pornography"  in the course of his remarks; in his view and many others a contradiction in terms which only serves to legitimise indecent images of children. The navigation box was replaced by one to do with sexual abuse by the (late*) Wikipedia administrator Kevin Gorman.

* Kevin Gorman died July 2016. We offer our condolences to family and friends.

We can note here that C1cada was harassed by Aaij (frankly a transparent act of spite by a scarcely published academic of negligible significance) over his article start for the American academic Deborah H. Gruenfeld, noted for her analysis of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.  Similarly over the Oxford Human Rights Hub

C1cada made extensive edits at Paul Gauguin, considerably expanding the biography there (on his Talk page he described this project, which is left unfinished as a result of Aaij's block, as an 'accident'). Of necessity he was obliged to deal with what was formerly called Gauguin's "lolita complex", these days frankly referenced as pedophilia (for example by his biographer Sweetman and the novelist Mario Vargas Llosa). His article text was confined simply to recording, without comment, the ages of his native wives. He originally cited a blog from the Saatchi gallery for Gauguin's pedophilia, but this was reverted by the editor Modernist on the gounds it was a blog. There was no edit warring over that issue. He simply provided another source (this was the edit singled out by Aaij). At the same time he provided, in the interests of "neutral point of view (NPOV)",  a citation to a piece by a living grandaughter of Gauguin's defending his reputation. His interaction with Modernist was respectful and ironic rather than patronising. There are subsequent courteous interactions with Modernist on his Talk page.

Added 25 December 2015: Regarding Aaij's unhealthy interests in "underage human sexuality" slight, our tireless new researcher Amy* points out that in fact C1cada removed a pointed reference to Gauguin's sexual preferences.

*Welcome, Amy. Thanks for the extra zero.

One tires of repeating it, but the whole point of C1cada's position, and others like him, is that they deny the concept of underage (human) sexuality.

It is frankly astonishing that an associate professor (apparently) at an American university can be so transparently self-serving in their comments.

In connection with the van Gogh painting Houses at Auvers singled out by Aaij, this article started and edited by Hafspajen described the painting as one of a "peasant's cottage", for which she received a "Did You Know" DYK badge. It is not. It is of a townhouse that belonged to a stonemason. The article highlighted in its lede that many of van Gogh's Auvers' painting revisited the theme of "peasant life and their cottages" (both of the offered citations saying nothing of the sort). They did not. Of the seventy or so paintings ascribed to van Gogh from the Auvers period, not one depicts peasant life in any situation. Van Gogh painted a range of accomodation at Auvers, from thatched cottages to middle-class villas (which he records in his letters as attractive as the picturesque thatched cottages Auvers was famous for)  as well as a very significant painting, the first of his double square canvases, of the chateau. It is in any case a question whether a prosperous tourist resort such as Auvers can be said to have accommodated "peasants",  long since emancipated and become land-owners.  When C1cada attempted to get information from the web on the peasantry at this time in Auvers, he was unable to because the search-engine results were swamped by Wikipedia and numerous mirror sites repeating the entirely fallacious assertion of this article that van Gogh painted peasant cottages at Auvers (also described as "huts" allegedly quoting his letters, a fiction perpretated by the Wikipedia editor Corinne, a Hafspajen groupie, working from a poor Russian source who, despite declaring a wide range of languages on her User page, did not pause to think that "hut" might be a poor translation of the French word  chaumière, a thatched cottage, in the context). He had to apply to the Van Gogh Museum, who directed him to Carol Zemel's work cited in the article.  The whole article was naive and riddled with errors.  As a term paper it would undoubtedly have been failed outright. C1cada's edits vastly improved this  very poorly conceived and executed article. His additions included a biographical background, a description of Auvers as an art centre and tourist resort, and detailed notes on the painting and related paintings.That Aaij belittles Cicada's efforts in effect amounts to an attack on scholarship itself, or as Wales would have it, on research

In his request for a sock puppet investigation, Aaij says this: "Coat had a track record of following Hafspajen around, and that's what C1cada is doing as well, with 152 edits to Houses at Auvers, an article Hafspajen started and edited extensively." In the case of Coat that simply wasn't true (rather the reverse).  As for C1cada, he edited at this article simply because he had noted the DYK was false. The editor responsible for the "peasant life and their cottages" theme edit was not Hafspajen but an editor 7&6=thirteen, a DYK badge collector who began his exalted editing career at Wikipedia outing celebrity toilet cottagers. In all, this editor made 235 edits at the article. It's surely worth noting that after C1cada was blocked, this editor returned to the article and attempted to delete all of C1cada's edits, reverting the article to the state he had left it in. This is the reality of the scholarship Aaij champions.

C1cada similarly rescued and expanded the article for Gauguin's painting Fatata te Miti (By the Sea), the subject of another fatuous, immature, barely literate,  and wholly misconceived and inaccurate article start by Hafspajen, who is simply deluded in her estimates of her worth as an art historian and critic (as are her camp followers, including  obviously Aaij).  Hafspajen's recent (2 August 2015) article start at The Lute Player (Orazio Gentileschi) is likewise an astonishing mix of fantasy and error hard to credit as an attempt at an encyclopaedic article (and this after some considerable editing by Hafspajen's camp followers). It includes the claim that the sitter was Francesca Caccini, but there is no evidence for this whatsoever and the "citations" provided by Hafspajen mention nothing of the sort.  A later attempt to nominate the painting as a Featured Picture attributing Caccini as the sitter, no doubt with an eye on eventual DYK badge, would have undoubtedly succeeded but for the efforts of an IP and another editor. For their pains the IP (i.e. an editor editing from his Internet Protocol address rather than an account) was threatened, blocked and eventually locked out by Aaij, while the editor was blocked by Aaij. The IP, despite being repeatedly reverted by Woodrich, eventually managed to raise the issue at Wikipedia's "Village Pump".

The impression one has of Aaij, looking though his edits, is of a fundamentally lonely individual, possibly sidelined by his academic peers. We think this quite possible given his compulsive editing of Wikipedia. There's not much evidence that any of his Wikipedia editor friends come from academia, let alone his own university. But he has visited Britain and the Manchester circle centered around the controversial editor Eric Corbett: controversial only within Wikipedia it is worth stressing  - Corbett has authored nothing outside Wikipedia beyond creating a few web pages on the care of ferrets, apparently a family concern. Corbett began his Wikipedia life as "Malleus fatuarum", later claiming that he was not aware, despite an apparent background in classics, that this translates as "hammer of stupid women".  It so happens that his father had murdered Corbett's stepmother the year before, a fact that Corbett vouchsafed in a Wikipedia discussion over an insensitive remark Corbett had made concerning the suicide of a young Wikipedia editor. His choice of moniker in the circumstances strikes us as ("shall we say") refracting a certain tropism. Such, at any rate, is the choice of company Aaij has managed to acquire for himself. It strikes us an inadequate proxy for a social life. Aaij occasionally still makes edits in article space. He pulled an article in the course of preparation out of C1cada's sandbox into article space (we imagine that in itself represents something of a breach of Wikipedia etiquette) on the Dutch Golden Age art collector Petronella Oortman, his own edits nevertheless containing significant errors of fact that needed correction. We suspect this latest response from Aaij is in reality motivated by narcissist rage. Notwithstanding these contributions to article space, by far the greater part of his contributions are as administrator and on the infamous Wikipedia drama boards. But the reality of the latter, however, is that he presides over what amounts to mob rule.  It is a strange model for Auburn university to valorize and take into account as a basis for offering tenure.

Finally regarding the curiously named editor "Xanthomelanoussprog" Aaij invokes, we note without further comment that the term "xanthomelanous" is a reference to skin color (specifically 'auburn'), and "sprog" is a British term for a child now considered disparaging .  

It is perhaps worth commenting, however, that in the single interaction C1cada made with Eric Corbett (where he was supportive)  Xanthomelanoussprog thought fit to comment that C1cada was a sock of  Coat, and it is this comment that appears to have inspired Aaij's sock puppet investigation, having nevertheless interacted cordially with C1cada previously on his Talk page. It's difficult to know what to make of this. The event in question concerned Eric at an early hour in the morning, when he's known to become ("shall we say") rather emotional,  picking a fight with a Wikimedia employee Kaldari, notorious for the discovery that he  owned the  website Snuffster, a parody of the earlier social media website Friendster, featuring images of corpses of murder victims including children, for which he was duly stripped of his Wikipedia adminship but allowed to continue as one on other projects. In the course of those latter duties he had appeared laterally to offend Eric, who draws the line one understands at doing in kiddies and uploading images of their corpses ( a soft and cuddly side after all thus) and Eric went so very far as to call him "reptilian" for which he was immediately blocked for one month, we being not the only outfit it seems who monitor Eric's every little ("shall we say") poop in real time.  On this occasion C1cada rather agreed with Eric and later we even tweeted our support.

It is hard to understand Xanthomelanoussprog's intervention in the circumstances.

We believe Xanthomelanoussprog is a sock of the Wikipedia Arbcom member Doug Weller and that his moniker is a jocular reference to his sandy hair and florid compexion.

Examining (June 2016) Xanthomelanoussprog's account more closely, we find very many references to Coat of Many Colours, some of them extremely unpleasant, that we were not aware of before. It amounted to stalking and it persists.