Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pastorwayne/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pastorwayne

Pastorwayne (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date January 27 2009, 11:05 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
Evidence submitted by jc37

See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pastorwayne. - jc37 11:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by jc37 11:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]


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

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: formatted to remove spurious L2 heading Mayalld (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

 Inconclusive 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)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
30 August 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]

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). Charlesdolphharding (talk · contribs) shows an almost identical editing pattern and style, and appears to be an attempt at block evasion. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence submitted by Tnxman307
[edit]

Opening case per request at the help desk. TNXMan 13:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

information Administrator note 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. TNXMan 14:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Confirmed that Charlesdolphharding (talk · contribs) is a sock, but Willthacheerleader18 (talk · contribs) is Red X Unrelated per User talk:Jpgordon on his talkpage. Transcluded by: -- DQ (t) (e) 13:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

05 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Occuli
[edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed:

Underlying IPs blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 15:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and tagged. TNXMan 12:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Occuli
[edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed as being the same:

Loisnaomi (talk · contribs) is  Likely the same. TNXMan 14:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

28 September 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Occuli
[edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

The named account is  Likely the same as previously blocked socks. No comment on the IP. TNXMan 17:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: IP is autoblocked. Looks like everything is done here. Marking for close. Elockid (Talk) 12:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

05 October 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Occuli
[edit]

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

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed

are the same as Loisnaomi (talk · contribs), who was previously blocked as a sock. TNXMan 19:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bagged and tagged. — ξxplicit 20:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marking for close. TNXMan 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15 October 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Occuli
[edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

 Confirmed as Pastorwayne:

 Confirmed as each other:

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

Occuli's points are good enough for me. All blocked and tagged. T. Canens (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18 October 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Occuli
[edit]

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)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]


21 February 2011
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


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)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pastorwayne/Archive&oldid=1142566595"