Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:00, 25 February 2017

Pass a Method

Pass a Method (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method/Archive.

09 February 2017

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

I wanted to wait until I had more evidence on this issue (and that includes waiting until Petergstrom made any more incriminating edits), but, after seeing that editors at WP:ANI likely want to know how my suspicions that Petergstrom is a sock (one I am familiar with) are valid, and after seeing editors distressed by Petergstrom there in that WP:ANI discussion, and after seeing Jytdog trying to figure out who Petergstrom is at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/EyeTripleE, I decided to reveal what evidence I have on Petergstrom thus far. It is indeed highly likely that Petergstrom is sock of Pass a Method/North Atlanticist Usonian (talk · contribs). Why do I feel this way? See below.

Like Pass a Method, Petergstrom is interested in religion, sexual, medical, psychology, anatomy and social articles. The overlap they share is odd. Now for anyone who wants to state that Pass a Method was editing for much longer, so there is bound to be overlap between the two, compare RJR3333/FDR (an indefinitely blocked editor with a lot of edit history, including history with me) to Petergstrom. See here; there is barely any overlap when you look at that.

Pass a Method caused much disruption on religion topics. His main interest was religion topics, and he caused so much trouble in that area that he was topic-banned from it; see here, here and here. Likewise, Petergstrom is causing so much trouble on religious topics that editors are currently calling for him to be topic-banned from that area (and from medicine). Both accounts also have a bias against religion, especially Christianity; compare Pass a Method's comments here and here to Petergstrom's comments here and here. I'm sure that others, such as Jobas, can demonstrate more regarding Petergstrom's views on Christianity or article edits concerning it.

One might look at the edit histories of the Pass a Method and Petergstrom accounts and conclude that they are different people because Petergstrom is mainly focusing on religion and medical/psychology topics while Pass a Method's editing range was wider and he has a different edit summary style. But I believe that this different style of editing is meant to avoid detection. As noted in a previous investigation, Pass a Method has changed his editing style before. It was as GoGatorMeds that he started focusing more on medical/psychology topics. He had revamped his style. And I believe that he has taken the revamp even further this time. Yes, Petergstrom has mainly stayed away from sexual topics, but this edit indicates that he does have an interest in them. He is certainly interested in gender topics, and not just for the biological aspect of it either (as seen here and here). He knows that if he were to edit sexual topics, including LGBT topics, that would be more evidence against him. I have no doubt that he would have eventually moved on to these topics, however. And despite the revamp, certain things remain the same.

One of the things that remain the same is period use. There is example after example of Pass a Method not using a period at the end of his sentences. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here. The same goes for Petergstrom, as seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Of course, the accounts don't always neglect periods, but they do it often enough. Do you know of any other editor who forgets to add (or disregards using) a period so often?

Another thing that remains the same is deceptive edit summaries. Compare what is stated here to what Jobas states here.

Another thing that remains the same is the absence of an apostrophe for "its." Pass a Method often neglected using an apostrophe for "its" in cases where the apostrophe should be used; see here, here and here. Now compare that to Petergstrom, here, here, here and here.

Both commonly use bullet-point style (or similar) when arguing and/or trying to emphasize a point. Compare North Atlanticist Usonian/Cinemwallz44 here, here and here to Petergstrom here, here, here and here and here.

If in a significant debate and/or defending himself, Pass a Method would often state "firstly" (and, occasionally, "first of all"), and usually follow that up with "secondly" and so on after that. See here, here, here, here and here. Now compare that to Petergstrom here, here, here, here and here, here and here.

Both continue to have an interest in insomnia. Compare this to this.

Both focus on bigotry or ethics regarding Christianity/the bible. Compare here and here (the latter edit also talks about skeptical theism).

Both continue to have an interest in racism, as seen here and here.

I noted before that "Pass a Method often makes typos or other grammar mistakes when communicating, including rarely capitalizing the letter I; and by the 'I' matter, I mean that he usually only capitalizes it at the beginning of his sentences." I believe that, as Petergstrom, he has made a concentrated effort to not let this happen, but the "no capitalization" or other grammatical issue does occasionally leak through, as seen here, here and here.

Both have criticized editors with "if English is not your first language" posts. Compare this to this.

Both accounts have been blocked more than once for edit warring; see here and here.

The main difference I see between Pass a Method and Petergstrom is that Petergstrom is more aggressive. Other than that, it's difficult for me to look at Petergstrom without seeing Pass a Method.

Oh, and as mentioned in previous sock investigations on Pass a Method, he is British or very likely British. If Petergstrom wants a WP:CheckUser to examine his IP to vouch for him not being in the United Kingdom, he is obviously free to do so. But, given that Pass a Method has indicated before that he will not always be in the United Kingdom and has seemingly used a VPN before, it won't matter much to me. I did not request a CheckUser for this case since the previous Pass a Method accounts are stale, but CheckUsers can take the matter on if they want to. After all, that was done before.

Given the interactions that John Carter, StAnselm, In ictu oculi, Adjwilley and Ian.thomson have had with Pass a Method, they might also have something to state on the above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Although there are obviously similarities in our poor use of punctuation and capitalization, do you see the same sentence patterns, word use and general tone? I don't. Although there might be some overlap in edits, only a really insignificant part of my editing actually goes into those contentious articles. Most of my editing actually goes into the neuro/psych area. He wrote more in other areas, politics, islam, biographies, countries, current events, and he was WAY WAY more focused on religion than I was. Just look here, and here. Half of that stuff bores the hell outta me. This goes on and on, have I ever gone 500 edits without touching medicine? It keeps going on and on with him, I have never edited these cultural topics the way he does, here, here, and here. His pattern of editing religious topics is pervasive, focusing on multiple abrahamic religions, and every aspect of them. My focus was on the ethics and psychology of it....which is what I focused on. My focus on gender, was again solely from the biological viewpoint. I also never said I was an atheist....I'm not. Hell I was baptized Catholic. But thats besides the point. Not only that, but if you get a check user, you will note that both of the areas that I edit from are in central CA. I have only been to Britain once(08), other than that I have no affiliation with the country, and unlike this dudes edits, I have not touched the region. I have also not had a trend for increased focus on gender and religion, I actually edited it more at the beginning. Also, I have more of an edits in common with you , Flyer22, than I do with him. Are you me? is Flyer22 reborn my puppet? I could go on more, but I really don't think it's worth it. All I can say is, I am not that dude. Whoever he is, I am not him. Petergstrom (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I stated above that you changed your style. That was done once before with the GoGatorMeds account. And two years before using that account, Pass a Method expressed the intention to change his style if he should ever use a different account. As seen here and here, GoGatorMeds focused on medical topics too, and his expansion style/citation style is like yours (it contrasts what he did as Pass a Method). But some things remain the same, and I pointed out what they are. I also noted that Pass a Method indicated that he would not always be in the United Kingdom (I assume as in "not for the rest of his life") and it seems he used a VPN before. Pass a Method liked to state "dude" too; see here. And you've just done it above. If editors want to chalk up everything I've presented above to just being coincidences, then so be it. But I believe that they will be making a huge mistake. I have never seen an editor state "firstly," "secondly" and so on as much as Pass a Method does/you do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a comprehensive report, there's no denying that. El_C 06:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

GoGatorMed barely edited anything related to medicine. He focused on a lot of random stuff, much like Pass a method. Also this "I stated above that you changed your style", is quite concerning. Is this really a "guilty until proven innocent thing"? I don't know what else to do but say I am seriously not him!!! I mean this guy...went to such lengths to state his intentions to get around being banned(such as style changing, VPN use), that there is really nothing I can do...Just assume for a second, for a second, that I am really not this guy. What can I do? Not much...I can share my IP, but that defense is invalidated by his VPN use. I can point out the significant style differences, but that is invalidated by him stating he would continue to be a puppet master, while changing his style. One thing I do have to point out though, is that if I wasn't a newbie, and was a try-hard puppet master, maybe I wouldn't be stupid enough to be as aggressive and raise as much attention as I did??? Maybe I wouldn't have misinterpreted the primary source policy, in a way jydog said many newbies did?? Maybe I wouldn't have listened to him(more or less after enough edit warring....*sigh*), and maybe I wouldn't have started using secondary sources? Petergstrom (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Petergstrom: How is it that in the 58 minutes between Flyer22's analysis of GoGatorMeds' editing, you were able to do an in-depth analysis of that editing -- unless you were already familiar with it? I suggest to SPI clerks that the evidence presented here by Flyer22 is sufficient for either a CU run or a behavioral block. Petergstrom is clearly not a newbie, and is most likely the sock of somebody; Flyer22's evidence provides an extremely good probability that that somebody is Pass a Method. Let's not allow another sock to get away with disrupting Misplaced Pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

58 minutes? No it took literally 30 seconds, because I am not whoever that guy is. It is not hard to point out the difference between someone else and yourself, because you know what you would not do...For example I would never touch the angelina jolie article, because that stuff bores the hell out of me. And I would never go within a mile editing half the stuff that other guy edited....because it's not me. Am I allowed to post my IP? Actually one second, I am going to edit this page, from my IP. Hold my beer.Petergstrom (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is my IP. Use the location tool. Not in the UK. Not the same as Pass a method. Because I am not him. 2601:646:8100:3F68:E48B:3248:C363:945C (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

GoGatorMeds changed his style to partly focus on medicine, and his style differed from Pass a Method's usual style; that's the point. That change in style was not enough for me to not recognize him. I have also considered that you are Cali11298 (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive), especially given that you have such an aggressive nature, but your way of editing (including grammar issues) is closer to Pass a Method's way of editing than it is to Cali11298's way of editing, despite the fact that Cali11298 would also state things along the lines of "guilty until proven innocent" and "I am not that person." As for whether or not you are guilty, that is what this investigation is for. I'm leaving this matter in others' hands. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Jesus, every editor has similarities with a sock puppet when under intense scrutiny. Did Pass a Method, or any of his socks actually express interest and show a real passion for creating and thoroughly improving neuro articles, to the extent I have? Is the fact that I missed a couple of periods, and didn't capitalize some "I"s evidence? I'm pretty sure everyone misses them sometimes. As for the use of firstly and secdonly, they are common phrases...used everywhere. And for the focus on religious articles, I barely edit them. How much of my contributions did they make up? 1%? 2%? You would think that if I were a puppet, I would at least trend towards previous goals or POV pushing that resulted in the necessitation of a puppet? My account shows none of that. Because I am not a puppet. This is actually my first account on wikipedia. First time editing. Cali(cameron or whatever) also focused largely on politics, and lived in New Jersey I stay away from that stuff and have never even been to New Jersey. Petergstrom (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, please indent correctly, so it's clear who that response is directed to. El_C 07:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

People make those mistakes sometimes. But you, like Pass a Method, commonly make them. And, sorry, in my many years editing here, I have never seen an editor state "firstly," "secondly," "thirdly," "fourthly" as much as you/Pass a Method do. As for your editing style being different, we've already been over that. Do you know how many socks I've caught? You would not be the first to change your editing style. Again, GoGatorMeds was a change in style too. And, as stated above, it does not appear that you changed your style enough. "Trend towards previous goals or POV pushing"? You did that. Editors want to topic-ban you right now because of your edits in religious areas. I recognize the IP range you showed off above, and I went to see if it aligns with one of Cali11298's various IPs. I couldn't find a connection. And I'm not sure about Cali11298 being from New Jersey. Either way, I've argued my case. You are clearly free to keep arguing yours. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

So that editors don't have even more to read, or are discouraged from analyzing this case because of the length, I will refrain from commenting further for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Response to Petergstrom's rebuttal that Pass a Method's "pattern of editing religious topics is pervasive, focusing on multiple abrahamic religions, and every aspect of them." Firstly, that is a surprisingly accurate assessment of Pass a Method's religious focus, but not one that is immediately obvious from glancing through edit histories or looking at top-edited articles. Secondly, the term "Abrahamic religions" isn't one you hear every day, and I find it interesting coming from someone who is so disinterested in religious subjects. One of the things that made Pass a Method unique was his peculiar obsession with the using the term "Abrahamic"

  Upon inspection, however, I don't believe that this user is Pass a Method, unless they moved to a different time zone. They sleep at different hours than Pass a Method did.

  Note: Pass a Method is one of the few users I consider myself to be WP:Involved with. ~Awilley (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding terminology, I was going to include "denominations" because Pass a Method was the main editor I saw use that term. I don't remember seeing any other editor working on religious topics (the times I found myself looking over religious debates, especially those involving Pass a Method) use "denominations" so often. In fact, I don't think I remember others using the term. And Petergstrom has been using the term too; see here, for example. But, ultimately, I decided not to include that as evidence. I mean, others might have seen "denominations" used often by certain editors editing religious topics. As for Pass a Method having moved, that is clearly what I suspect in this case. Every time I saw Petergstrom display the patterns I noted above, I saw him as Pass a Method and couldn't chalk it all up to coincidences. For example, I know of no other editor who forgoes period use so often. But, anyway, if this case closes without him being indefinitely blocked, I at least did my part. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I do have to agree with Beyond My Ken's observations and points on timing and also familiarity with all of this. As such will lean on that.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

One more thing: For those giving the CheckUser data more weight... Like I just stated at WP:ANI, the Petergstrom account being in a different continent does not mean that he is not Pass a Method. Keep in mind that Pass a Method was last identified in a sock investigation in 2014 and that it is now 2017. Because of statements by Pass a Method in the past, I considered that he had moved, which is why I noted that Petergstrom might be interested in having a CheckUser confirm that he is no longer in the United Kingdom. Sock investigations are not solely based on the CheckUser data; they are also based on the behavioral data. Sometimes solely on the behavioral data. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5/Archive for an example of a case where the CheckUser data was put ahead of the behavioral data and I then had to compile more behavioral data just to get the sock blocked. If you had edited Misplaced Pages for a significant length of time as a problematic account, then maybe took a break from Misplaced Pages for two or three years, and had moved in the meantime, the CheckUser tool would be on your side too. The CheckUser tool would not, however, be able to identify your behavioral patterns; only editors can do that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

That does seem possible and also there are simple technologies that re-route the location of IP addresses or just moving will change the location. Behaviors should carry quite a bit of weight.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate you giving this deeper thought. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a classic case of WP:DUCK, as the diffs provided above show. The aforementioned evidence (especially the edits about religious topics) show way too many similarities for this to be coincidental. I wouldn't be surprised if User:Pass a Method was using a proxy or Tor node in order to edit under a new name (ths explaining the geolocation difference).--Jobas (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Seeing the above Tor speculation and latest reverts in the edit history of this investigation, I felt that I should state the following since editors often have so much faith in my sockpuppet analyses: Although it's true that I am usually right when I identify an editor's sock, I am not always right. And although Bbb23 and I have had disagreements, which includes me disagreeing with giving the CheckUser tool more weight than behavioral analysis, what he stated about Petergstrom not using a proxy or the Tor tool is sound. CheckUsers are usually able to identify single proxy use and probably high quality VPN use too, and Tor is usually not available for use on Misplaced Pages; see WP:TOR. That stated, I stand my above behavioral analysis and my suspicion that Pass a Method moved. When it came to me seeing a behavioral pattern between these two accounts, it is because I am familiar with Pass a Method's typing, including his failure to use a period, his failure to use "it's" instead of "its," his tendency to use bullet points or similar when arguing or trying to emphasize a point, and his tendency to state "firstly," "secondly," "thirdly, "fourthly" and so on when he is feeling particularly argumentative or threatened. There are obviously other similarities as well, including what Awilley stated about "Abrahamic religions"; I can confirm that Pass a Method in particular used that terminology. It is likely that this SPI will be closed without Petergstrom being blocked as a Pass a Method sock, but I hope that, in the future, editors keep in mind the strength of behavioral analysis even when the CheckUser tool casts doubt on a connection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, that not only does the checkuser support the fact that I am not a puppet, but the behavioral evidence is not evidence. The fact that typos appear in my writing is not evidence of anything. The fact that I use a commonly used term is not evidence of anything. The fact that I have used the term abrahamic religions, which is not an uncommon term used to refer to abrahamic religions, to refer to abrahamic religions is not evidence of anything. Evidence does exist, however, that I am not Pass a method, in that we edit very very different areas. Too different to just be him changing his behavior to scramble his identity. I'm sorry you have encountered such behavior that drives you to be suspicious of me, but really, the edit style is to significantly different to provide any behavioral evidence. I just want to close this(hopefully near done) thread by saying I am attempting to decrease my aggression while editing, by not racing to edit, and by using talk pages in concordance with wikipedia policy.Petergstrom (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Unless you can point to another Wikipedian who types and acts like you do (and I do mean in a consistent fashion, not occasionally missing a period, for example), the behavioral evidence is evidence. I've caught sock after sock on behavioral evidence alone. I am very good at identifying such patterns. You have no valid explanation for chalking up everything presented against you above to just coincidences. And your repeated defense that "the edit style is to significantly different" has already been countered by pointing to the GoGatorMeds account. And let us not forget that you do edit some of the same areas as Pass a Method. As for "Abrahamic" or "Abrahamic religions", Awilley noted this because Pass a Method was particularly focused on using such wording. I don't think that any other editor editing religion topics used that terminology so often. Awilley would know. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

And just to be clearer on what Pass a Method stated two years before using the GoGatorMeds account, see the following: "I will be editing different topics or related topics but different articles. I might also edit the same articles but at irregular intervals so you probably won't recognise me. Good luck finding me." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought: What if Petergstrom is a meatpuppet of Pass a Method? Java777 (talk)

Just a thought: What if User:Java777 is actually Obama? What if he is actually Albert Einstein?Petergstrom (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought - are some of you capable of understanding that this page is intended to be a review of conduct, not, as Petergstrom seems to believe as per his last comment above, a site for truly pointless, off-topic, and frankly useless, commentary? Personally, I remember seeing a certain degree of behavior which I thought of as really blind, stupid, and rather poorly thought-out arrogance in PaM, which I did not see in someone who was later accused of being PaM, and blocked for same, in a situation both Flyer and I thought was inappropriate. I mention this last fact as an indicator that Flyer can not only be effective at determining socks, but is also at the same time fairly good in seeing and admitting when people who are thought to be socks might not in fact be such. The WP:DIVA and/or WP:DRAMA issues of both PaM and Petergstrom seems to me to be similar, though. The insistence on repeating clearly hypothetical, possibly useless questions, like Petergstrom does above, along with a certain tendency toward self-aggrandisement and a sometimes obvious assumption of bad faith, certainly is at least in line with the conduct of PaM as I remember him. I can and would expect the behavior of any individual to change over time, and this might be particularly obvious in cases like PaM where the individual has developed, if he has developed, independent of the project here for some time. I also am once again struck by how Petergstrom seems to be making statements or using abbreviations which it would be unusual for a new editor to use. He above refers to what is and is not evidence - most college students, which is what I believe Petergstrom indicates he is, would I think be a bit more humble about policies, guidelines, and procedures with which they are, presumably if they are new editors, not familiar. The same holds for the easy use of the CU abbreviation earlier. I haven't reviewed all the evidence presented here, but some of it, like the period point, seems to me to be particularly interesting. I myself am not convinced of the sockpuppetry, as I haven't done a full review and will lead that for the closers, but I do believe that, at the very least, there is a very significant basis for thinking that the possibility exists. The recent history of major unilateral changes at Religiosity and intelligence is also reminiscent of PaM, and the statement from Petergstrom at ANI in which he expresses fear of a block or ban is also interesting. I tend to think that someone who knew he was innocent wouldn't have such fears, particularly with the first CU returning negative, but he seems to think there might still be a basis for some sort of action. Odd behavior for an innocent party. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The point of that thought was to point out how ridiculous the continual bombardment of accusations that are not supported by evidence are. Despite not being supported by evidence, these accusations still provide a risk, albeit small. I want to finish this by pointing out all of the unreconcilable differences(although poor attempts will be made to reconcile them)

• We edit at different times
• We edit from different continents
• Our IP's are not the same
• I do not use a proxy as has been accused
• I edit largely different topics(Neuro/psych) while only barely venturing into religion(an area PaM largely edited) and when I do venture there, I do not edit the same articles as PaM did
• I do not edit politics
• I do not edit the random bio's and other pages that PaM edits
• I, in the past, have edited more aggressively than PaM. However, I am attempting to change how agreeable I am in editing
• I use american english,he uses British english.

While the only similarities we have are weak coincidences at best

• We have both had typos in our writing. Saying that you perceive our typos to be more frequent than normal is no evidence. Find the average typo's per sentence, the stdev, and give me a P value and then, maybe maybe, it would not be more than a weak coincidence
• We both use "firstly". This is a weak weak coincidence

And then the evidence that I am a supposed puppet

• I use abbreviations(uhhh monkey see monkey do. I use abbreviations I see others using....not evidence of anything)
• I didn't respect wiki policy. This is not true. I just interpreted it differently. I interpreted the policy that primary sources are preferred not to be used differently from the community consensus. I didn't "disrespected" or "disregard" the policy, I interpreted it like a newbie
• "I edit in an unpleasant, aggressive fashion". This is evidence of nothing other than rash behavior. This doesn't indicate previous use of wiki, if anything it indicated the opposite. If I was a puppet attempting to fly under the radar, I would probably want to avoid conflict. Unlike a newbie

I again, want to (hopefully) get near to closing this by saying I am attempting to make my editing more agreeable by compromising and working with other more experienced editors. I understand the complaints brought against me when by ANI discussion boomerang-ed, and I hope to change my behavior to avoid conflict.Petergstrom (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to let you in on a little secret: The vast majority of sockpuppet cases are built on behavioral evidence, and that includes editors making mistakes that are uncharacteristic of newbies. You, sir, are not a newbie...no matter how much you claim to be one. And your writing style combined with some of your other behavior very much aligns with the one previously known as Pass a Method. The main thing you have going for you not being Pass a Method is the "in different continents" argument, which means little to me, given that people do move and that there are non-proxy ways to fool the CheckUser tool. The "in different continents" argument and perhaps the fact that you are a little more aggressive than the Pass a Method account are the only things allowing editors to doubt that you are Pass a Method in light of the evidence presented against you. I'm going to go ahead and point you and others to two posts from Misplaced Pages Review which outline how key behavior, including typing style, is to identifying an editor as another editor: See this and this post. Note how that first user explains exactly what he did to avoid detection, including "us one sock at home in the suburbs and another at office downtown (in a major American city)."? That first user cautions against signing your first few posts. Why? Because doing is very uncharacteristic of newbies, which is what I noted on your talk page when identifying you as a sock. You gave the typical response. Yes, signing your username is not rocket science, but it is very unusual for a new user to sign their very first post, or first few posts, just like it is very unusual for a newbie to create a user page right of the gate. Notice how the second post, from an editor who still edits Misplaced Pages, notes the mistakes editors make while acting like they are newbies? Both posts note the most egregious mistakes. You made those mistakes, which is why a number of editors (including those in the aforementioned WP:ANI thread) are certain that you are not a newbie. The second post even states, "If you're a poor speller, have one of your accounts use Firefox's spelling checker. If you always spell you as 'u,' well, you shouldn't do that for any reason. But if you do anyway, make sure your other account doesn't do the same thing. Writing style can quickly give away a user's true identity."

You edit at different times? So what? As an aforementioned user stated, "It's trivial to map someone's contributions throughout the data. And sock trackers regularly use this tactic to spot patterns between accounts. Edit at different time zones with different accounts. Direct overlap between two accounts always looks suspicious."

You edit from different continents? So what? This has been explained by moving.

Your IPs are not the same? So what? This has been explained by moving. There are also other possibilities.

You "largely different topics (Neuro/psych) while only barely venturing into religion (an area PaM largely edited) and when do venture there, do not edit the same articles as PaM did"? So what to editing different topics? Pass a Method declared that he would do so and he eventually did. Editing different topics is also key to not being recognized. Your edit history that shows you have a significant interest in the topic of religion, particularly Christianity, regardless of edit count. And you push a negative POV regarding Christianity, which is what Pass a Method did. You also passionately edit war over the matter, just like Pass a Method did. Editors are also calling for you to be topic-banned from the area of religion, just like they called for Pass a Method to be topic-banned from that area. For all your talk about barely editing religion topics, you've made quite the impact in the area in a short amount of time.

You do not edit politics? Gender inequality is a political issue, and one edit you made at the Gender inequality article has nothing to do with natural sex differences or psychology. But so what that you mainly don't edit politics? You are not being accused of being Cali11298.

You use American English instead of British English. So what? Pass a Method was capable of changing his style after I reported it. He did so as AnarchoGhost (talk · contribs), as noted here, and he did so as GoGatorMeds (as previously mentioned).

As for writing style, it is not simply a matter of you both having typos in your writing. It is a matter of you two consistently typing the same way. Anyone should be able to see that. It is sufficient evidence to point out that you both commonly neglect to use a period at the end of your sentence, that you both commonly neglect to spell "it's" correctly, that you both commonly use bullet-point style or similar when arguing and/or trying to emphasize a point, that you both commonly state "firstly," "secondly," "thirdly", "fourthly" and so on when in a significant debate and/or defending yourself, that you both apparently like to state "dude," and that you both apparently like to state "Abrahamic" and/or "Abrahamic religions" when it is uncommon for editors who are not familiar with religion topics to use that terminology and when Pass a Method loved that terminology.

You are clearly free to keep arguing that you are not Pass a Method, but I think that any significantly experienced Wikipedian is unlikely to believe that you are a newbie. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You keep bringing up the signing thing, but if you look, you will notice that in my first edits I did not sign my posts. Or is that going to be written off as a sock trying to fly on the radar? Because that argument is a copout, as you can apply it to anything. Hell I could build a substantial case for you being a sock of anyone, if I could say that you were just chasing your behavior to fly under the radar. The fact of the matter is, there is way, way, way to much evidence pointing towards me having no relation to PaM, and pretty much no evidence(nothing more than hyped up coincidence) suggesting any relation.Petergstrom (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You signed your very first post, which, as stated, is very unusual of newbies. Missing a few signatures after that can indeed be chalked up to you trying to look new or to you forgetting to sign after years of being absent from editing Misplaced Pages. So far, it appears that you do not look new to any significantly experienced Wikipedian. A number of editors are convinced that you are not new, and I pointed to two Misplaced Pages Review posts for why that is. You cannot "build a substantial case for being a sock of anyone"; my editing style, like Pass a Method's, is unique (just ask those, including my brother, who have tried to copy it). But you can try. The fact of the matter is... There is much pointing to you not being new and to you being being Pass a Method, and very little pointing to you not being new or Pass a Method. You repeating that there is little evidence that you are Pass a Method does not make it so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

From an outsider: Upon inspection this sounds like meatpuppetry case for me. Did anyone think of this prospect? Java777 (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw your meatpuppetry post above. I ignored it because it is very unlikely that meatpuppetry is involved, and alternative suggestions like that help Petergstrom's case (his arguments of innocence). Different theories being thrown around do nothing but help him. It is best to stay on track, weighing in on the evidence presented. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: At WP:ANI, while some editors feel that the circumstantial evidence is strong enough for the assertion that Petergstrom is probably Pass a Method, it's clear that, because of the "editing from different continents" factor, the community would rather not block Petergstrom as a Pass a Method sock. Their view is that the circumstantial evidence is not enough. Although I believe in the strength of circumstantial evidence, and liken circumstantial evidence sock cases like these to those that are burdened by the CSI effect, I completely understand why editors are uncomfortable with blocking Petergstrom as a Pass a Method sock. I suggest that this case go ahead and be closed and archived. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Checkuser note: As Flyer22 correctly points out, all the accounts in this case are  Stale. However, as she also notes, there's been another case filed against Petergstrom in which I checked the account, so running a check, as BMK proposes, is a waste of time. I'm not going to confirm the accuracy of Peter's claim about his IP because policy prohibits me from doing that. I have looked at the CU logs from 2014 (I don't believe there are any more recent ones), and Peter's and Pass a Method's edits are from different continents.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There is virtually no doubt that Peter is editing from a different country. Contrary to what editors are saying, he is NOT using a proxy or tor node. Nor is he "re-routing" the location of his IP. Please leave the wild speculation at home. Technically, the only way it is possible for Peter to be a sock of Pass a Method is if he moved. There's no way for me to know anything about his personal life.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Close per filer. Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• SPI cases with the masters user talk page redirecting elsewhere
• Open SPI cases
• SPI cases awaiting archive