Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chetsford/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

your superior. 
 * Lacypaperclip2.0 left a message on my talkpage to me which said, I am
 * Lacypaperclip2.0 probably chose this username in an attempt to cause disruption by impersonating me and using multiple accounts abusively. []


 * Earlier in the day the sockmaster made some odd comments at an AFD that I recently nominated. Please see here: lhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Natural_Information_Society&oldid=821004136]

I will be adding more diffs shortly. Thank you. Lacypaperclip (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Lacypaperclip (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

,, ,

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' In reference to the above accusations: I am concerned this SPI is not advanced in GF, as it follows a long string of similarly unproven accusations Lacypaperclip has shotgunned against me in recent days, specifically: I am also concerned this SPI was in response to a 3RR report I filed here. Edit - nevermind, looks like I filed that after this was entered. Chetsford (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Artrainschool's account was created in October 2017 as an obvious SPA on topics related to the Chicago fusion band Natural Information Society. On December 4, 2017 he/she submitted an AfC for Natural Information Society. Earlier this week I approved that at AfC. Other than on the page itself, this is the extent of our interaction. Further, if I wanted a page on Natural Information Society I would have just added it. I have more than 70 articles here and am autopatrolled, I don't need to use AfC and then secretly approve my own AfCs weeks later to avoid detection.
 * Of the 212 AfDs I've registered a !vote on, Burley22 and I overlap on two. We have no other common interaction there, or in any other area, of WP. Chetsford (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 86WikiEditor has been an editor here for more than three years with more than 3500 edits (98% of which were manual). In that time, we have exactly one interaction, which occurred today and involved a 52 byte copyedit by him.
 * Lacypaperclip2.0 is an obvious attack account blocked earlier today for harassing Lacypaperclip. I have nothing to do it with it. It is obviously a sock of cencoredme who was also blocked for harassing Lacypaperclip and creating attack pages about Catholic priests (cencoredme, in turn, is a sock of Jack Copit). An edit interaction of me and any of those three accounts shows no overlap. Nor have I ever created a page about the Catholic Church, nor edited anything related to it (all articles I created can be seen on my userpage).
 * This originated with my nomination of James D. Zirin for deletion, which Lacypaperclip approved at AfC (this was Lacypaperclip and my first interaction with each other, of which I'm aware, in our wiki-careers). Forty minutes after I submitted that AfD, Lacy lodged a request to have my AfC privileges revoked, which was closed 15 hours later without action.
 * She subsequently nominated two pages I approved at AfC for deletion. Since we had no previous mainspace interaction prior to that point, I construed this as some kind-of attempt at WP:WIKIHOUNDING. TonyBallioni and I discussed one of these two AfDs and, I believe, he seemed to indicate I had done nothing untoward (I'll defer to him to clarify, if not).
 * After I removed a highly questionable "source" that the subject of the WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, User:JZirin, added about himself (the source in question was just the words "James Zirin" in parantheses ) Lacy started a Talk page thread she titled "Disruption at this article by user Chetsford" in which she characterized it as "the constant removal of perfectly good references".
 * When I tried to initiate a RfC about a formatting question at said page she told me I should "seek some help" and then slapped "This RFC is flawed with a non-neutral statement!"  over the RfC template. Galobtter subsequently removed that, and explained to Lacypaperclip the RfC was correctly formatted. The RfC is now closing on a consensus here.
 * The "odd comments" Lacypaperclip mentioned above came after she signed "Delete per nominator" to an AfD on which she was the nominator. I said "Sorry, aren't you the nominator?" as I didn't understand why she was both double-voting and referring to herself in the third person. I have no idea how my confusion about someone referring to themselves in the third-person demonstrates I'm 86WikiEditor, Atrainschool, etc.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Insufficient evidence poorly presented. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)