Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sotuman/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Same obsession with flood geology which earned the sockmaster a topic ban. and. Also, spelling errors (he has problems with writing orthographically and grammatically correct English). YEC advocacy as the only true Christian Truth:, and. Do note that baptism as liberation from original sin is a Catholic dogma. E.g. Adventist pastors say that baptism is pledge of a clear conscience toward God, i.e. it is a ritual which has nothing magical in it. He is Italian-speaking according to and so tu from Sotuman means I know you in Italian. Did you notice the You the man signature of Sotuman? Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Maybe I'm just not tuned into Christian philosophy, but I'm not seeing how the diffs you provided show these two accounts are socks. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have much to add, except:


 * At Talk:Flood myth and User talk:Philosopher81sp there was civil POV-pushing for flood geology by Philosopher81sp. I mean there were no real edits to the article, just POV-pushing that it wouldn't be neutral to present just the mainstream academic view.
 * Sotuman, after complaining bitterly of censorship and unfair play, has quit editing. After Sotuman ceased editing, Philosopher81sp began editing.


 * So, my two cents were that Philosopher81sp is the reincarnation of Sotuman. Of course, you may disagree. I will accept that. So no, I cannot show you incriminating edits by Philosopher81sp, since he basically did not edit about his pet topic. Just the same WP:IDHT, i.e. unwillingness to accept that pushing flood geology is unwanted at Wikipedia. Just read all the messages (whole page) from in order to get an idea of the IDHT behavior. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, thanks. I'm digging into this more.  For my future reference (and for the sake of future clerks), the original topic ban is here.  At one point, they were indef blocked for TBAN violations; that block was lifted, but the TBAN remains in effect. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2020 (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

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that a few months after Sotuman stopped editing, Philosopher81sp was created and has overlapping interests in Christian and Flood Myth topics. But, I don't see any specific overlaps in articles edited and when I look at some of the longer talk page edits from both, I don't see enough similarity in writing style to make me think sock.  Again, there may be clues in the writing that somebody who is more attune to Christian tradition may pick up on what I'm missing, but I'm really hesitant to label somebody as a sock based on what I'm seeing.  And, the timecards (Sotuman, Philosopher), while vaguely similar, seem different enough to me that I'm unconvinced it's the same person.  I'm tossing this back on the open pile for somebody else to look at.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is not the same person. Based on writing style rather than content, my conclusion is that Philosopher81sp is not a native English speaker, whereas Sotuman probably is. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

My two cents are that Philosopher81sp's English has magically improved since the investigation was rejected due to his poor English. If he did not make a deal with the Devil and did not receive the gift of speaking in tongues, he has a lot to explain. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Two weeks ago we had to do with a guy who couldn't write proper English. Now he writes complicated English phrases. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please don't send us on a scavenger hunt. The best evidence of anything is diffs.  Please provide specific diffs. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , : except for typos (meaning he does not use a spellchecker), this guy writes now advanced English.
 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu. Google Translate and similar services do not produce typos. So, yeah, two weeks later Philosopher81sp writes advanced English, without using a spellchecker and without using Google Translate.
 * And frankly, even previously analyzed messages from Philosopher81sp aren't poor English, but he was a very poor typist of his talk page messages. This made believe that Philosopher81sp cannot write proper English, but Philosopher81sp's edits to articles are correct English, and did write complicated phrases. So, yes, Philosopher81sp knows advanced English, but he is a very poor typist in talk pages.
 * Messages like, , are typed poorly, but they are correct English if you ignore the typos. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Messages like, , are typed poorly, but they are correct English if you ignore the typos. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2020 (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

 * - We looked at this less than two weeks ago. Two different clerks (myself and ) were of the opinion that these were not the same person.  What, specifically, has happened in the past 10 days to convince us that we were wrong the first time?  You need to show specific diffs.  I'm not being defensive about my earlier call, but just tossing it back for another look with no convincing evidence isn't enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * None of what's presented here is evidence of sockpuppetry. The diffs presented here seek only to refute my analysis that Philosopher81sp is not a native English speaker, and are unconvincing at that. Roy's analysis in the previous report was that these two accounts share a common interest, and some common positions, but that's as far the connection goes. While I didn't say so explicitly, I came to much the same conclusion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:42, 3 November 2020 (UTC)