Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pastorwayne/Archive

Report date January 27 2009, 11:05 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets:
 * Please see User:Jc37/Tracking/Pastorwayne, the "active" section in particular. (No sense in duplicating.)

See also Requests for checkuser/Case/Pastorwayne. - jc37 11:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by jc37


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by jc37 11:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Endorse further CU to track apparent continuation of disruption Mayalld (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

formatted to remove spurious L2 heading Mayalld (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Most older proven puppets are stale. Perhaps another CU can take a look and see if I missed anything? -- Avi (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Suspected sockpuppets

 * Code letter: F.
 * Code letter: F.
 * Code letter: F.

Pastorwayne was indefinitely blocked, after about 9 months of efforts by various editors to persuade him to refrain from a variety of forms of disruptive editing, particularly his creation of masses of categories (often dozens per day). shows an almost identical editing pattern and style, and appears to be an attempt at block evasion. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Tnxman307
Opening case per request at the help desk. TN X Man 13:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Jpgordon has blocked this user as a sock. Since he is a checkuser, I will assume this action means Cahrlesdolphharding is confirmed as a sock (unless Jpgordon comments here otherwise). I'll mark for close later if there's nothing else. TN X Man 14:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

✅ that is a sock, but  is ❌ per User talk:Jpgordon on his talkpage. Transcluded by: -- DQ  (t)  (e)  13:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * relevant users have been blocked and tagged already. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  13:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Occuli
Similarity of articles edited and editing style. Also similarity of name to other PW socks: eg User:Magdalenamutz and various Hardings. The i.p. is editing in tandem with the user (populating categories created by the user). Occuli (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅:



Underlying IPs blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 15:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. TN X Man  12:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Occuli
Editing style, topics, name of first, created after August's socks were blocked. See eg User:Magdalenamutzharding. Occuli (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ as being the same: is the same. TN X Man 14:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Occuli
Editing style, categories edited, date created. In particular Category:Bishops of London, which has been edited by 2 known PW socks. Occuli (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * In particular this diff by the ip and this one by Gustavesebastien 30 minutes later. (Categories are not edited very often.) Occuli (talk) 08:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
The named account is the same as previously blocked socks. No comment on the IP. TN X Man 17:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

IP is autoblocked. Looks like everything is done here. Marking for close.  E lockid  ( Talk ) 12:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Occuli
Similarity of name to previous socks, nature of edits (mostly category space), topics etc. Occuli (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ are the same as, who was previously blocked as a sock. TN X Man 19:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bagged and tagged. — ξ xplicit  20:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. TN X</b> Man  00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Occuli
Editing style, obsession with categories, name of 2nd one, etc (Seville and Westfield recur in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pastorwayne). Occuli (talk) 23:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
✅ as Pastorwayne:



✅ as each other:



The relation of the above two groups to each other is via technical evidence, but remember that is different from behavioral evidence and edit patterns. –MuZemike 00:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Category:Burials at shrines has only been edited by Estherlois (a pastorwayne sock, possibly detected by behaviour rather than checkuser) and Evangelicalunitedbrethren. I expect Perry Heights is somewhere in Ohio with internet access ... let's see what google says. Occuli (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Perry Heights, Ohio is about 40 miles south east of Seville, Ohio and Westfield Center, Ohio - see google maps. And Pastor Wayne is a United Methodist pastor in Ohio: see eg Wayne William Scott (deleted). Occuli (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Tagged and blocked Sevillewestfield. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Occuli's points are good enough for me. All blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Occuli
Behaviour, categories edited, name (the article Cloverleaf High School mentions Westfield, Lodi, Seville, all names used by PW socks). Occuli (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * Endorsed per evidence NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be comparing Clover to, as that's the most recent account in the checkuser daisy-chain we have for this user. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or not. The following accounts are ✅ to be the same user as / :
 * It is that these accounts are Pastorwayne; they use the same ISP, and while they are on different subnets, those subnets are both allocated to the same city. There is, however, no overlap between those accounts (there aren't any accounts that use both subnets, that is). <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and no comment on the IP address as per usual, but do please block if the behavioral evidence looks good. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is that these accounts are Pastorwayne; they use the same ISP, and while they are on different subnets, those subnets are both allocated to the same city. There is, however, no overlap between those accounts (there aren't any accounts that use both subnets, that is). <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and no comment on the IP address as per usual, but do please block if the behavioral evidence looks good. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and no comment on the IP address as per usual, but do please block if the behavioral evidence looks good. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 16:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That IP quacked a bit, so I've blocked it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagged user -- DQ  (t)  (e)  02:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

21 February 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

''Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters " ~ "''

Editing style (no edit summaries), articles edited (Burials categories, anglican categories etc etc, eg Category:Burials in Regensburg has only been edited twice, first by EstherLois, a PW sock), obsession with categories, username (Massillon, Ohio) is yet another place in Ohio (where Pastorwayne is a pastor). The ip is editing in tandem with the user. Occuli (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Per WP:DUCK I've blocked and tagged, but I'm adding a CU to check for sleepers, as there have been sleepers before. The main account and all its socks are stale, though, so it'll have be a check against this current account. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the IP hasn't edited in more than ten days, so I'm considering it stale. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What about ? See eg this hist or this. Occuli (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can tell you that the autoblock has kicked in for that IP. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No sleepers. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  15:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)