Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chloe81375/Archive

Evidence submitted by Yankees76
On May 29 User:Chloe81375 posted some alleged personal information (including home address) about myself in a failed attempt to WP:OUT me as writer TC Luoma in order to have a number of sourced edits attributed to his magazine removed from the Bill Phillips (author) article. Today User:Getfit1980 who's only previous edits were to this same article posted a complaint about me on WP:ANI, again implying that I am this writer again (even though the original posts on the Talk:Bill Phillips (author) talk page were quickly removed) again with the intent of harrassment and intimidation in order to have this sourced material removed. Clearly this is the same person using a sockpuppet account to get around a block - two new accounts, who are both claiming I'm TC Luoma, one posts a complaint a day after the other is blocked for posting the alleged personal info and making threats against another editor to post his/hers. Seems cut and dry enough that I don't think a checkuser is required, though I'll go that route if needed. --Yankees76 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
I was one of the editors that Chloe81375 threatened to expose personal information about. Getfit1980 is clearly Choloe81375 and is continueing to accuse Yankees76 of being real life writer TC Luoma, while also personally attacking him with false accusations of misconduct in order to remove sourced information from an article and add product advertising to it. now that the outing attempt has failed. I suspect that this user has also edited as BillEditor and possibly others.-- Quar te t  15:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I cite WP:Duck on this, and why they both haven't been blocked yet is a mystery. Old Al (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Old Al (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And lets not forget about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Chloe81375


 * Agree. Is there enough here for a checkuser to be performed? --Yankees76 (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
. I don't think anything else can be done here, alleged misconduct will need to be discussed elsewhere. Amalthea 20:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * After another, deeper look, it is ✅ that
 * are all the same. In reply to Yankees76 and Old Al, I cannot say anything about Getfit1980. The data I have here is inconclusive, the accounts in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chloe81375 (which I missed the first time) are all stale, the edits of Choloe81375 are oversighted so I can't attempt to compare them with Getfit1980's. If any CU wants to double-check I welcome it, of course. But I think this needs to be decided on behavioral evidence. Amalthea  14:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at the oversighted edits from Choloe (per a request from Icestorm815 on my talk page). The first edit is a blatant outing of Yankees76 (complete with address, real name, and birth year), as well as an allusion to a future outing of Quartet; the other three edits are merely minor wording tweaks to what Chloe had written previous (though the fourth was an attempt to mildly obfuscate the address posted, but damage done, and it was a half-assed attempt). Given Getfit's vendetta against Yankees76, that definitely suggests to me (though I rarely deal with socks, so take my opinion here with a grain of salt) that there's behavioral evidence to tie Chloe and Getfit together. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * are all the same. In reply to Yankees76 and Old Al, I cannot say anything about Getfit1980. The data I have here is inconclusive, the accounts in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chloe81375 (which I missed the first time) are all stale, the edits of Choloe81375 are oversighted so I can't attempt to compare them with Getfit1980's. If any CU wants to double-check I welcome it, of course. But I think this needs to be decided on behavioral evidence. Amalthea  14:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at the oversighted edits from Choloe (per a request from Icestorm815 on my talk page). The first edit is a blatant outing of Yankees76 (complete with address, real name, and birth year), as well as an allusion to a future outing of Quartet; the other three edits are merely minor wording tweaks to what Chloe had written previous (though the fourth was an attempt to mildly obfuscate the address posted, but damage done, and it was a half-assed attempt). Given Getfit's vendetta against Yankees76, that definitely suggests to me (though I rarely deal with socks, so take my opinion here with a grain of salt) that there's behavioral evidence to tie Chloe and Getfit together. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just took a look at the oversighted edits from Choloe (per a request from Icestorm815 on my talk page). The first edit is a blatant outing of Yankees76 (complete with address, real name, and birth year), as well as an allusion to a future outing of Quartet; the other three edits are merely minor wording tweaks to what Chloe had written previous (though the fourth was an attempt to mildly obfuscate the address posted, but damage done, and it was a half-assed attempt). Given Getfit's vendetta against Yankees76, that definitely suggests to me (though I rarely deal with socks, so take my opinion here with a grain of salt) that there's behavioral evidence to tie Chloe and Getfit together. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the checkuser data and the comments made by EVula, I've blocked all users involved. Icestorm815 •  Talk  20:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)