Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rotaryenginepete/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

StanTheMan0131 created their account exactly 30 hours after the Rotaryenginepete. Both editors have edited almost exclusively on Talk:Impeachment of Donald Trump, attempting to promote a fringe POV that Trump has not actually been impeached.

Their commenting styles are very similar. Both frequently bold large sections of text in their comments and use ALL CAPS in comments and headings. The best evidence is the recent discussions on Talk:Impeachment of Donald Trump that both editors have dominated. first suggested that these users might be socks at ANI.- MrX 🖋 14:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I will acknowledge that there is a small possibility that these two accounts are not the same user. It's possible that StanTheMan0131 is a troll who is intentionally imitating Rotaryenginepete's style. See user page. - MrX 🖋 14:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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

It might also be worth checking the list of users Rotaryenginepete declared to be on his side: User:MugwumpSpirit110, User:MoMoBig, User:Sonar1313, User:50.37.100.51, User:Jacket2018, User:Xenagoras, User:50.37.112.189, and User:Partytemple. Many of these also seem to be SPAs. WMSR (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * These were checked this morning and are technically ❌. ST47 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * if you're going to accuse eight users of being socks, you need to provide actual evidence, i.e. diffs and/or specific editing quirks which are identifying. Some of these users have thousands of edits going back many years.  Trump engenders strong emotional feelings from both sides of the political spectrum, making what might otherwise be considered "fringe POV" into motifs shared by many people.  I'm going to look into StanTheMan, but I'm inclined to carve out the others as not credible suspects unless there's better evidence provided.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I just added them because Rotaryenginepete listed them as his allies on a previous thread. I will gladly withdraw their names if that's not sufficient. WMSR (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, to give a specific example of how this is difficult to evaluate, you've said that Rotaryenginepete listed them as his allies. But, I can't even find where that was written, without a diff.  Please read the section headed by, Evidence is required at WP:SPI.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the diff, but I understand that, as far as evidence is concerned, it's rather weak. Again, if it's insufficient, I am glad to withdraw the extra users. WMSR (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Closing this for lack of evidence. I looked at some of the edits by Rotaryenginepete and StanTheMan0131.  The writing style strikes me as very different.  I certainly don't want to drag any political arguments into SPI, but given that the "not impeached until presented to the Senate" theory has gotten coverage in such politically diverse media as NYT and WSJ, I think it's hard to label it fringe, dismiss it out of hand, and make that the basis for a SPI case. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)