Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Thunderbird2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Thunderbird2

Suspected sock puppeteer

Thunderbird2 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets
Report submission by
Evidence
  • The Thunderbird2 and Tom94022 appear to be editing very closely related topics and have the same point of view. I suspect a sock puppet or meat puppet is at work here. I suspect either Thunderbird2 is a puppet of Tom or Thunderbird2 and Tom are meats, either way for the purposes of this report as per the guidelines meats and socks are considered to be the same. In a case like this of suspected long term violation of the sock puppetry rules it is actually hard to pin the puppet master on one particular account because while one account might have been created first the actual use of the accounts could be that the sock master account is the one that is used most often. Which means of course that in this situation with Thunderbird2 being most active I chose to tag that account as the master. Therefore the timing of the account creation is not relevant as far as my argument stands. For example:
    • [1] Editing the same thing. Then Tom takes it upon himself to present the link from Thunderbird2's talk page.
    • The Tom account seems to be used for the purposes of making fallacious comments (weak ad hominem personal attacks) about "shouting" [2] [3] which is similar to how Thunderbird2 describes being "'shouting done[sic]"[4]. A case of good hand bad hand socks/meats?
    • When Thunderbird2 used a lot of reverts (for which he was later blocked for edit warring) by placing unwanted tags on the article [5] then Tom makes a similar edit[6]. The timing is such that Thunderbird2 stopped making the reverts once I filed the 3RR report at 16:00 but then Tom's edit happens shortly afterwards at 17:06.
    • Tom complains about "a notice" [7] and then shortly afterwards on a different page Thunderbird2 makes a very similar complaint [8] [9] about being informed. Both complaints are wrong for the same reasons [10] so I find it odd that two supposedly different people (who are the topic of this sock puppet report) would make the same mistake at very similar times.
    • Now "anonymous" users are appearing and making threatening remarks. [11] [12] (and the rest listed above) I would not be surprised to learn they are located near where Thunderbird2 lives.
    • Special:Contributions/TimTomTom Although TimTomTom has been blocked as a sock of User:NotSarenne, reviewing the kind of supportive edits made directly to Thunderbird2's talk page reminds me of Tom's comments. Also note the choice of name "TimTomTom" is obviously similar to Tom.
    • Tom94022 does not like my edit to this page that refutes what he posted so he repeatedly tries to move the comment to somewhere it does not make sense in the context of his edit. [13] [14]. I then warned him about 3RR in the edit summary [15]. Then the "anonymous" user comes back and tries to remove [16] the same comment that Tom doesn't like. The edit summary also contains gross personal insults. The "anonymous" user then tries the same edit again [17]. It is not uncommon for "anonymous" sock puppets to be used to try to disrupt sock puppet reports, often these puppets are found to be operated by the editors who are the subject of the report.
    • Since adding the above evidence many "anonymous" editors have since appeared and all of them are trying to remove the same chunks of text that Tom was earlier so insterested in moving. A lot of these "anonymous" users have also then gone onto vandalise other pages, like the check user and other "bonary prefix" articles. The edits are far too numerous to list and a lot of them have been removed via oversight due to their gross persoanl attacks. Hoewever an admin should be able to view the deleted edits on this page and then follow the trail of destruction caused by this "anonymous" user. The timing of this user coming back to this sock puppet report after having been dormant for many months speaks volumes.
    • In referring to this (Thunderbird2's) sock puppet report Tom uses the phrase "my alleged sock puppet case" [18]. Note that the sock puppet report is named after Thnderbird2 but Tom uses the word "my, perhaps this is a mistake where "Tom" forgot he was not meant to be "Thunderbird2". Fnagaton 08:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence from Greg L:
After seeing “Tom94022’s” response to Xenocidic, I looked at his user contributions and saw that he was busy here responding to an accusation of sockpupetry against Thunderbird2 (lending moral support?). Two of my sixteen patents were the result of extracting undiscovered patterns out of seas of data on physical phenomena. Though I haven’t invested an enormous amount of time into this issue (and haven’t pulled the histories into Excel, where I can really do some good), I’ve studied the contribution histories of the two and am suspicious that Tom94022 and Thundbird2 could be one in the same. I would like an administrator to use whatever tools are at their disposal to confirm or refute the theory.

TIMING OF EDITS
I very carefully looked at these two earliest contributions:

Tom94022 earliest, and…

Thunderbird2 earliest

These cover the same time span. What T-bird was doing back then was logging in as Tom when he wanted to do binary edits, and as T-bird when he did anything else. One never sees the two “editors” overlap on workdays. If there is a flurry of activity as Tom on binary issues, then T-bird is silent. And visa versa. For instance, on 17 June 2007, T-bird logged in as Tom to do binary-related editing from 1:59 to 4:32. Then he logged in as T-bird from 7:36 to 17:32. This entire time, “Tom” is silent. Then he logged back in as Tom at 19:51. Then T-bird did a flurry of activity on 19 June from 7:00 to 18:21, during which is “Tom” identity is silent.

You will find this consistently. Tom logs in early in the day for some binary work. Then T-bird logs in for work throughout the day. Then Tom logs in for a brief smattering late in the day. But the two never edit at the same time; they just leap-frog around, always “binned” in batches that are almost never simultaneous nor interleaved—but which often butt right up to each other. Further, when one identity of T-bird is busy in marathon sessions for an entire day, his other identity always falls silent on that same day (and visa versa)

Take a look at these:

Thunderbird, ≤31 April 2007

Tom94022, ≤31 April 2007

Note how “Tom” is busy on the 13th, 14th, and 19th. What would you expect to see of “T-bird”? Indeed, activity on the 11th – (*gap*) – 20th. And again, the only same-day activity one sees always comes in mutually exclusive binned sessions.

This is clearly the classic hallmark that betrays a single user logging in under two identities in sessions.

AS IF EDITS FROM TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS DURING THE DAY
Referring again to this set of histories:

Tom94022 earliest, and…

Thunderbird2 earliest

…examine the entire page but focus on the period of 13–17 June 2007 for both editors. Note how the frequency of Thunderbird2’s start to dribble in starting at around 07:30 and there is a constant dribble until about 16:00. Then his edits jump markedly starting at 16:08 until about 18:30. This is consistent with someone editing the “easy” (non-confrontational) articles at work and of someone picking up the activity at the conclusion of the day when they stay late. Then he makes the commute to his house where the edits instantly pick up from 16:30 into the late morning hours. His peak productivity period at home lasts about four hours (from 16:30 until about 19:50).

This explains why the two editors would absolutely never ever overlap; the editor simply edits under two different user accounts from two different locations.

What essentially proves that these two editors are one in the same, is the couple of hours at the end of the day he sometimes devotes to editing “Thunderbird-style” articles at work: sometimes he stays late, and sometimes he doesn’t. How does this gray area coincide with the edits of Tom94022, since he picks up at around this time of day? Do the two ever overlap during work days? At all? Check for yourself. In the area of 16:08 to 18:30—a time when both editors do their work but one is quitting and one is starting—I can find no work days when they ever overlap each other. The transition point when the editor jumps from one identity to the other varies across a 2.5-hour range, but is always a sharp transition with no overlap. Mathematically improbable.

Note the below edits. The 6th of July is late Sunday, and the 7th, of course, is a Monday. The blue underlined edits are work-time edits by Thunderbird. The rest are the bracketing edits made by Tom94022.

• 23:42, 7 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
• 21:19, 7 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
• 16:36, 7 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tom94022
• 11:36, 7 July 2008 (hist) (diff) File Allocation Table
• 09:17, 7 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m Dutch language
• 07:51, 7 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Thunderbird2/my sandbox
• 05:40, 7 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
• 05:33, 7 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tom94022
• 21:31, 6 July 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tom94022
• 21:27, 6 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Advanced Technology Attachment
• 17:38, 6 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

And this is one of the rare cases where the edits do overlap:

• 19:01, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Binary prefix
• 18:30, 5 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Binary prefix

Just as I had predicted when I was wading through the edit histories, this occurred on a weekend (a Saturday in this case). Also interesting is why the breakdown in discipline. The first post, was by “Tom94022” to rebut something Fnagaton wrote (Fnagaton’s post and Tom’s reply here). Then, needing “support,” he changed hats and posted a notice as the more capable Thunderbird2 (here) 31 minutes later (he had been busy making three preparatory edits in the interceding time).

The above-cited histories are here: Thunderbird2’s, and Tom94022’s.

I’m not sure about the capabilities of check-user, but these two 5 July edits would be a great opportunity to do a check-user and see if they are coming from the same I.P. address.

TIME OF PEAK EDITS
Another line of evidence that suggests the two editors are one in the same and can also be interpreted as supporting that Thunderbird2 and Tom94022 are two different editors is a frequency analysis of when they make their edits. The two editors’ peak activity occurs at the precise same period of the day (in the range of 16:00–22:59 UTC) but their periods of minimal activity (sleep?) are about eight hours apart. This eight-hour separation of what seems like a sleep period supports “Tom94022’s” statement here in the Comments section (since redacted), that his “zip code is 94022” (Los Altos, California). Examine the following two edit periods:

Thunderbird2, ≤Feb. 2008, 500 edits, and…
Tom94022 ≤Feb. 2008, all edits to start of account.

Note the general time of day when both editors are at peak activity (16:00–22:59). This can be explained two different ways:

  1. That Tom94022 is not a sock puppet, lives on the U.S. west coast (like he claims he does), was not encumbered during this time period by a regular 9-to-5 job, which allowed him to make most of his edits first thing in the morning, or…

  2. One individual living a couple hours before UTC is behind both “editors”, has peak productivity in the evening after work, and never does his contentious binary prefix-related when at work.

So this data is both supportive of a sock puppet theory and is exculpatory; the coincidence of peak activity is hard to ignore when considered in context of the other lines of evidence. The exculpatory interpretation (what seems like sleep for the two) begs for an administrator’s check-user to get to the bottom of this whole affair.
COMPARATIVE FREQUENCY OF EDITS
Hour
Range 		T-bird
# Edits 		Tom
# Edits
00:00–00:59 1 21
01:00–01:59 0 21
02:00–02:59 0 16
03:00–03:59 0 7
04:00–04:59 0 15
05:00–05:59 0 21
06:00–06:59 14 23
07:00–07:59 13 13
08:00–08:59 15 3
09:00–09:59 11 0
10:00–10:59 11 0
11:00–11:59 19 0
12:00–12:59 24 0
13:00–13:59 16 0
14:00–14:59 33 0
15:00–15:59 35 5
16:00–16:59 26 51
17:00–17:59 55 59
18:00–18:59 49 50
19:00–19:59 28 45
20:00–20:59 27 28
21:00–21:59 25 44
22:00–22:59 76 47
23:00–23:59 22 23

SOCKPUPPETRY PERMITS FACAD PERSONALITIES IN NEGOTIATIONS
This also explains T-bird’s tactic of trying to sound like a moderate in the early days of MOSNUM debate and wheeling & dealing with me on Follow current literature (FCL): he wanted his “T-bird” persona to come across as an undecided moderate who was sitting on the fence and needed to be convinced. It explains why, when I gave him precisely the concessions he asked for in the FCL wording, he reciprocated with a “1” vote (on a 0–5 scale of support). Why? Because the moderate T-bird was really the radically pro-IEC prefix Tom94022. And since “T-bird” eventually “came out of the closet” and got aggressive, he didn’t dare also try to use “Tom’s” identity at the same time in such a heated environment with accusations of sockpuppetry already flying about.

All this time I had been responding to “Tom94022’s” arguments about how he “thought the issue was resolved” (second greenbox here) on WT:MOSNUM. I was wondering to myself how any human being could possibly have believed the issue was settled. This logically explains why Tom94022 fell silent.

LACK OF INTEREST IN MAINTAINING A USER PAGE
Although not all editors choose to maintain a user page, the fact that Tom94022 has a talk page but no user page is another fingerprint of sockpuppetry.

CONVENIENT PUBLIC ADMISSION THAT “IT’S ALL MY FAULT”
This also allows Tom94022’s post on T-bird’s talk page to be cast in a new light. It is Tom writing an “apology” to T-bird for causing T-bird to just look like he had violated the 3RR when he really hadn’t: “BTW, I'm sorry it was my edit that lead to your 3RR suspension.” It is just T-bird trying to worm his way out of the violation.

WRITING STYLE: ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL
Maintaining a sockpuppet even explains the bizarre “texting” style of Tom94022’s 01:02, 4 August 2008 post on T-bird’s talk page: “How and where would u like my comments on yr summary of the issue? Without pride in authorship I could update yr page, or put my comments on its talk page or ????” It’s just “ransom letter”-type theatrics in T-bird’s first ever ‘message to himself,’ thinking it would be an effective cover for one’s writing style.

However, in the heat of the moment, the two persona’s writing styles seem to increasingly converge. For instance, when this individual is writing terse edit summaries, his natural self tends to come out and the personalities of both “editors” take on an uncanny similarity. Note the use of “nonsense” in this edit summary comment by Tom94022 when responding to me here today (31 August), and this edit summary comment by Thunderbird2 April of this year.

CONSPICUOUS LACK OF COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO KEEP PROPONENTS OF THE IEC PREFIXES
Another telling bit of information is revealed by looking at the conspicuous lack of user talk between the *two* key proponents of the IEC prefixes (User talk history for Tom94022 and User talk history for Thunderbird2). It is noteworthy that Thunderbird2 has no e-mail. Technically, T-bird could e-mail Tom, and the two could interact behind the scenes via e-mail and bypass the user talk pages. But what story does the pattern we see tell us? The binary prefix issue raged on WT:MOSNUM from 18 March to 7 June of 2008 (Binary Archive B8—B13). Throughout that entire, intense period, neither Tom posted messages on T-bird’s talk page nor visa versa. Not once. And the timing of the message closest to this time frame of activity is this 15:35, 13 July 2008 post, six days after the new binary prefix guideline was uploaded to MOSNUM. And the message? Conspicuously self-serving. It’s an invitation from Thunderbird2 to Tom94022 to join and help *support* him in a cabal for mediation in an attempt to reverse the decision on MOSNUM.

So why weren’t these two die-hard advocates of the IEC prefixes communicating on each others’ talk pages during the most intense debate on WT:MOSNUM? And if they were communicating, but were doing so via e-mail, why then the need to post an open message asking for support in the cabal when it could be done via the supposedly well-used e-mail avenue—after all, it is Tom94022 who has the e-mail account set up. So even if T-bird had lost track of Tom94022’s personal e-mail address, it would have been easy to privately e-mail him simply by using Wikipedia’s “E-mail this user” link.

The more plausible explanation for this is that T-bird was simply trying to create the plausible appearance of *inviting* a fictitious and sympathetic supporter to join him in the cabal. This puts a new—and somewhat humorous—slant on one of Thunderbird’s posts on WT:MOSNUM where he complained, in bold text, as follows: I do take offence at being accused of bad faith.

THE ODD “SINGLE-PURPOSE EDITOR”
There is also something seems terribly unusual about the nature of “Tom94022’s” edits. Examine again Tom94022’s earliest edits. With rare exception, this is a single-purpose account: binary prefixes and all the computer-related articles that—in his opinion—ought to use the terminology. This is yet another characteristic of a sock puppet. As of this writing, “Floppy disk” still uses “KiB” and “MiB” (in violation of MOSNUM guidelines). This editor (by both names) is—if anything—persistent.

In the above mentioned history, there are 395 edits to 61 articles. The top five, shown below, clearly demonstrate this single-minded focus:

Wiki Article # of edits
Binary Prefix 96
Hard disk drive 77
Floppy disk drive 70
History of hard disk drives 25
Memorex 16
And after 12 March 2007, (after the “Thunderbird2” account was created), the exceptions to this single-minded focus become rarer yet. This would be highly unusual for an editor to go for such long stretches of time with only one focus. But it is a classic signature of an editor maintaining a single-purpose sock account to work on a contentious issue.

What is especially interesting is how, six days after the new binary prefix guideline was uploaded to MOSNUM, then suddenly Thunderbird2 “came out of the closet” and started taking a deep interest in the very type of articles that had been previously been jealously segregated as the sole domain of Tom94022: computer-related articles that mention binary prefixes. Wearing his “Thunderbird2” hat, he started maintaining this list of “Articles affected by the new MOSNUM guideline”. And the reason for this concern? To accomplish the same editorial objective as Tom94022.

One might ask: “why would any editor make a sockpuppet account for converting articles to the IEC prefixes?” It is well explained by the fact that the user Sarenne—who was eventually banned for life—had been converting hundreds of Wikipedia’s computer-related articles to the IEC prefixes. This activity was quite controversial and all the editwarring resulted in WT:MOSNUM archiving its “Binary prefixes”-related issues as a separate class. Note the number of “Binary” archives in the upper right-hand corner here on WT:MOSNUM. There are fourteen archives devoted to this one single issue of binary prefixes since Wikipedia’s failed experiment with the IEC prefixes was first implemented three years ago. Allowing the use of the IEC prefixes was the least successful, most bitterly fought issue in the history of MOSNUM. So any editor who wanted to aggressively edit towards that same end during this time frame might be tempted to create a single-purpose sock account for just that purpose.

For the benefit of administrators who are unfamiliar with the underlying dispute behind all this friction between editors, this whole issue of the “binary prefixes” was a battle between those who thought that Wikipedia should lead the by example in its adoption of the IEC’s prefixes, which provided new terminology like “kibibyte” (Symbol: KiB) and “mebibyte” (Symbol: MiB), even though no computer manufacturer on the planet uses them when communicating to a general-interest audience. On the other side of the fence were the editors who realized Wikipedia communicates best when it uses the same language, terminology, and unit symbols that are employed by all the general-interest computer magazines (and the computer manufacturers and manufacturers and sellers of aftermarket RAM). Even the proponents of the IEC prefixes agreed that they were entirely unfamiliar to the typical reader. The arguments of the pro-IEC prefix crowd were considered and soundly rejected by the majority. MOSNUM is a much quieter place now and Wikipedia is much better off as a result of the new guideline. We’ve finally put an end to process of adding more “Binary” WT:MOSNUM archives; fourteen over three years is enough. Were we to go back to what Thunderbird2/Tom94022 wants, there will be a 28th Binary archive three years from now. This issue is settled in the majority’s mind.

SO MUCH EFFORT AT MAINTAINING A DUAL IDENTITY EXPLAINS THE OBSESSIVE BEHAVIOR
And lastly, we now know why Fnagaton, Headbomb, and I have had to spend such an inordinate amount of time in dealing with “these two / this one” editor. Over the course of a single, fourteen-hour period, T-bird made 74 edits to his sandbox, where he maintains a list of articles “damaged” because they no longer use the IEC prefixes. It even has a list of 56 incidences of “harassment.” And now he is saying he will no longer participate in en.wp because—really—he’s simply not getting his way. The 2.5 year-long effort this editor invested into carefully cultivating and maintaining these two identities on Wikipedia explains the obsessive behavior. It’s a lot of effort to devote to a single issue and have it all crash down around him.

IT’S TIME FOR A CHECK-USER
I strongly urge a check-user on these two. I believe you will find the two users hail from the very same city. Though this would not constitute conclusive “proof” that these two editors are one in the same, it would be an extremely strong piece of circumstantial evidence. I believe we will find this editor lives in a city that is one to three hours ahead of UTC—London, Paris, or Nuremberg perhaps. If I am wrong about this, I will apologize profusely to both editors. Greg L (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Tom94022

To the administrator who reviews the above case:

Please be aware that, in early July, I rejoined a long running serious dispute that Thunderbird2 (T2) and several other editors were having with Fnagaton (Fnag) and Greg L (GL) regarding the use of Binary Prefixes in a variety of articles, including but not limited to MOSNUM. In this recent dispute, Fnag and GL have operated in consort to suppress all tagging of a dispute on any article's page; their combined ability to revert has allowed them to suppress all such indications of dispute without coming afoul of the 3RR rule. Within the talk pages they then shout down any and all discussion. As a result of their bullying a number of editors have stopped editing in this arena. IMO, this frivolous charge is one more instance of such bullying. You should also note that this is Fnag's 4th involvement in an accusation of sock puppetry against an editor who disagrees with Fnag about binary prefixes; I am now the 3rd editor accused by Fnag of being a sock puppet of T2. You should also note that there is a finding that it is highly probable that Fnag is a sock puppeteer and is suspected of being the master of two other puppets.
If you wish to keep this page short you should consider blocking Fnag and GL from further edits until you have made your decision. An example of their bad manners can be found on the talk page of Doug where my simple answer to a question by Doug led to an acrimonious debate about the answer until Doug ended it with,

Please stop! I did not invite you to bring your debate to my user talk page.

Not withstanding Doug's request, Fnag now injects himself into a dialog between T2 and Doug[1]. These two have no shame in mindlessly advocating their position.

With those introductory remarks I request that you immediately terminate this abusive case.

The so-called evidence is a collection of frivolous statements, non sequitors, oxymoronic assertions, misrepresentations, half truths and or lies. I will not at this time bother to rebut each such assertion because I think they are for the most part fallacious on their face. I do suggest you do what GL (acting for Fnag) did not do, and carefully look at the earliest edits by T2 and me:

To save you some time (it took me about two hours to get to usable data on a spreadsheet), I will summarize what are the relevant facts in this early edit data that should lead you to conclude that I am neither a sock puppet nor a meat puppet:

  1. I began editing first, 14 April 2006, about a year before T2, doing about 395 edits to 56 61 articles thru 31 December 2007.
  2. I began editing in the binary prefix arena on 26 May 2006, T2 had not made his first edit.
  3. T2 began editing on 12 Mar 2007, doing about 428 edits to 94 articles thru 2 July 2007; he was more prolific.
  4. I am interested in articles related to computer data storage, my top five earliest articles: Binary prefix, Hard disk drive, Floppy disk, History of hard disk drives & Memorex. Feel free to sample my edits of articles other than the Binary Prefix article; you should find some but not many edits having to do with binary prefix usage in such articles. Binary prefixes are used in data storage so given my interest in this field, some such editing should be expected, but you will find it to be de minimus in such early articles.
  5. T2 is interested in Ocean acoustics, his top five earliest articles: Underwater acoustics, Sonar, ASA Gold Medal, Liquid bubble & Bioacoustics
  6. A cross analysis on a spreadsheet shows ZERO‎ common articles, confirming my visual observation; however please note that there may in fact be a few common articles that were missed due to errors in data reduction, spelling, etc. [As an aside, you should note that I did take the time to analyze data in a spreadsheet; GL specifically above did not bother]
  7. Analysis of the 825 edits by the two of us shows I made ZERO edits from 0.6 am until 8.4 am (not surprising that this is when I sleep in my time zone) and that T2 made ZERO edits from 17.3 pm until until 0.6 am, clearly establishing that we are in two different time zones, about 8 hours apart. [FWIW, it appears that UTC times are translated into local times for edit histories, I then converted them into decimal hours, ego 0.6 am is betwee 00:36 and 00:43]
Items 1 thru 3 suggest that T2 could be my sock puppet, but Fnag cannot make that accusation given his previous accusations.
On their face, I believe that items 1 thru 7 prove that I am not a sock puppet of T2.
On their face, I believe that items 3 thru 6 prove that I am not a meat puppet of T2.
Items 1 to 7 are obvious, indisputable and easy to do! The fact that neither Fnag nor GL bothered to perform such simple tests suggests they are uninterested in the truth and more interested in pouring on whatever it takes to drive me away or in the alternative win this fraudulent case. This is particularly egregious given Fnag's extensive experience in sock puppet matters - he clearly is neither incompetent nor stupid, that leaves willful.

FWIW, having watched Fnag and GL conspire to subvert discussion and support each other as hereinabove, I thought that they might be related as one the puppet and one the puppeteer - after performing the above analysis on their early history I concluded they are neither sock nor meat puppets, just two ill-mannered advocates.

IMO, after considering just the above facts you must conclude that I am NOT a puppet of T2! If after careful review of the so-called evidence you have any questions, I will be happy to respond on a point by point basis, but now I see no reason to waste your time or my time (e.g. do the spreadsheet GL didn't bother to do). I should not have to go this far, but again and only if you feel the need for it, I will be happy to present you offline with conclusive rebuttal existence proof, such as name and address (time zone), work status, other web presence, etc., my email is active.

[added]You should note that at this point Fnag added three more purported sock puppets of T2 without adding single shred of evidence hereto, other than Tom is common to TimTomTom and Tom94022. This is typical of his abusive ways, making charges with little or (in this case) no evidence. Tom94022 (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do conclude that this is an abusive and fallacious matter, then I do ask that you as an administrator consider sanctions against both Fnag and GL for such. I would propose a one month edit block on Fnag as the instigator and a two week edit block on GL for the long list of fallacious arguments.

Tom94022 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thank you Greg for helping to add such a large amount of data to this report. I have been suspicious of the editing styles of these "two editors" for quite some time. The fact that Tom has recently announced his intent to Wikistalk is yet more evidence against an abusive WP:SPA and that combined with the other allegations of lies and weak personal attacks by the same user means I don't think it is necessary to assume good faith here. Fnagaton 06:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if GL and Fnag kept their comments in this section Tom94022 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it would be an outstanding idea, given that this is a weekend and all, to get both Tom94022 and Thunderbird2 posting some comments here at around the same time (within a minute or two of each other). The check-user on the outcome would be definitive. Yes? Greg L (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the opening remarks by Tom are completely false and are not supported by any valid evidence at all, especially his incorrect comment about "Fnag has been found to be a sock puppeteer" because obviously my block log contains nothing of the sort. It is yet another example of the type of misrepresentation Tom/Thunderbird2 writes. The bad manners of Tom are those bad manners demonstrated of Doug's talk page, not the bad manners of anyone else and it was actually the repeated misrepresentation and weak perosnal attacks by Tom that resulted in Doug's comments. In fact all of Tom's comments on this page go to further demonstrate how Tom uses repeated misrepresentation which is the modus operandi of Thunderbird2. Basically Tom/Thunderbird2 is trying to throw up lots of rubbish to distract from the evidence presented against him. Fnagaton 09:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the administrator reviewing this case: In defense of Fnagaton, Thunderbird2/Tom94022’s statement, “You should also note that Fnag has been found to be a sock puppeteer”, is not correct and that is what he is chafing about. The bureaucrat’s finding in that case was that the “editor” DavidPaulHamilton was clearly a sockpuppet. However, it could not be determined who controlled the sock. Fnagaton, as a possible culprit (and the lightning rod of a great deal of wrath from Omegatron in that complaint) was simply warned that it better not have been him. That comes far short of “being found to be a sock puppeteer.” Thunderbird2/Tom94022: if you are going to be lashing back at your accusers, it would behoove you to be, uhm… factual  here. Greg L (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GL is being quite disingenuous in characterizing the bureaurcrat's finding; here is the quote:

That leaves us with the question: Is Fnagaton his master? I think it highly probable. People have been indef blocked with less evidence and had it stick. Here, the solid evidence (I'm ignoring the massive amount of hyperbole herein) is rather convincing, yet there is enough evidence on the "not sock" side to just strongly warn Fnagaton

"Highly probable" is close enough to "found" and apparently has been sufficient to block some editors for life! However, while I believe my original language to be accurate, I have modified it to be even more precise. Tom94022 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the administrator reviewing this case: the accusation of sock puppetry is just a bald-faced attempt to undermine the message by slandering the messenger. No one has ever charged me with operating sock puppets and I added most of the evidence here. So I view this accusation by Thunderbird2/Tom94022 as nothing more than a diversionary red herring.

    My main motivation for volunteering so much time to add evidence of sock puppetry here is the extraordinary amount of time that Headbomb, Fnagaton, and I devoted on WT:MOSNUM to building a consensus in the face of stiff opposition from these “two” editors. And since then, we’ve probably devoted another 60 man-hours to answering this editor’s complaints in every conceivable Wikipedia venue. It was doubly frustrating to Headbomb because Headbomb, as moderator, truly presumed good faith of “both” these editors and kept pressing “them” to articulate a sensible reason for taking the position “they” did. He became quite frustrated after his requests were persistently flouted. So I certainly want to get to the bottom of whether or not all that effort was due to one editor who simply couldn’t “let it go” and accept the consensus view and further, had cheated the system the whole time to make it falsely appear that there were two like-minded editors we were dealing with.

    • You GL did not post this accusation, Fnag did; as his meatpuppet in this matter I can understand why you will devote extraordinary effort to prove that T2 and I are one - notwithstanding your misrepresentation above, you and Fnag have admitted I did not participate in the so called consensus. So because I am real, your false claim of consensus regarding deprecation falls apart - but we will deal with that at a later time. BTW, how would you respond if you were falsely accused of being a puppet? Tom94022 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you are wrong when you posted that "Fnag is a sock puppeteer" because as the report made by Omegatron shows I am not blocked and there is enough evidence on the not a sock side, so now you can strike all of those kinds of accusations. If I were you I would stop responding like Thunderbird2 would respond because with every new thing you write you make it more obvious you are violating the sock puppetry rules. Fnagaton 00:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, I wondered why u have been so silent. Is there anything about the current statement that you disagree with? A Bureaucrat said it is "highly probable" you are a sock puppeteer - not me! Also, I would appreciate your help in getting the correct number of sock puppet accusations you have supported, instigated and/or started to instigate, my count is now up to 7, Sarenne, NonSarenne, NonSarenne(2) and T2, separately as the master of 3 different persons (myself included). To be fair to you, the record of one of the 3 T2 matters has mysteriously disappeared so it might be me and then I have a double count, leaving 6. Please, let me know which is the correct count. Tom94022 (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A suspected sock puppet is not the same as being proven a sock puppeteer and having a closed sock puppet report page where I have not been blocked is not the same as being a proven sock puppeteer. Shalom said "Bottom line: I don't feel there's quite enough evidence to block DavidPaulHamilton as a sockpuppet" and the check user proved not, so you are wrong. Also if you cared to actually look at the edit history of those users you cited as suspected sock puppets you would see at least one of them has put the suspected sock puppet text there themself because the real puppet master has an unhealthy fixation about trying to link my real life name to this account. I'm not surprised that user has suddenly appeared on this page to defned Thunderbird2/Tom. Fnagaton 01:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And finally, to Thunderbird2/Tom94022: “Bureaucrat, as you would fully well know as “Thunderbird2”, is someone who is higher in authority than an administrator; it is not a “pejorative” term. If the editor Tom94022 is found not to be a sock, you stand corrected. If Thunderbird2 is found to be operating that account as a sock puppet… well played. Subtle, but well played. Greg L (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I don’t care to turn this comments section into a tit-for-tat running debate that is best done on talk pages. But your last rhetorical question (“how would you respond if you were falsely accused of being a puppet?” ) proved irresistible. Why, I’d sit back and wouldn’t lift a finger. As in American law, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Since the evidence would be flimsy-to-nonexistent, the case would fall apart on its own. In your case, we’ll see what the admins decide based on the above evidence and based upon their own investigations use the tools at their disposal. Greg L (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Rlevse is a bureaucrat. Has been for a long time. But don’t “soften your language” in order to keep the last several posts making any sense at all. Strike the text if you need to. Greg L (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe it reads and looks better to change the comment rather than cluttering up the page with strikethru text; I did leave your response in and annotated it with my admission of ignorance and apology. I would suggest you just delete your response, my admission, your P.S. and this comment or leave them as you see fit. Tom94022 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by jeh (talk)

This accusation is unwarranted and frivolous in the extreme.

Fnag's suspicions are based on his observation that 

The Thunderbird2 and Tom94022 appear to be editing very closely 
related topics and have the same point of view.

Then he proceeds to find a number of examples of this. So I suppose every pair of editors who share the same point of view on a particular topic, in opposition to Fnag, are suspected by Fnag of being socks. Hey Fnag! Why don't you accuse me of being a sockpuppet too?

Fnag also observes: 

The Tom account seems to be used for the purposes of making fallacious 
comments (weak ad hominem personal attacks) about "shouting" is similar 
to how Thunderbird2 describes being "'shouting done[sic]". A case 
of good hand bad hand socks/meats?

And I suppose that if they were both "good hands" or "bad hands" that would be evidence of sockhood as well.

GL adds "analysis". He claims (er, citation needed) that he has patents derived from "extracting undiscovered patterns out of seas of data on physical phenomena." However even with this background in data analysis he overlooks, even misstates, the most important data: He gives links to the "oldest 500" history pages of both Tom and TB2, claims that he "very carefully looked" at them, and that "these cover the same time span."

But that claim is a mistake at best, a deliberate lie at worst, and either way the truth is so trivially discovered that it will be a wonder if GL ever shows his face again. The oldest 500 edits of Tom94022 range from 2006-04-14 to 2007-12-31. The oldest 500 of TB2 begin on 2007-03-12 (starting almost a year later) and run only until 2007-07-02.

Yes, the two periods overlap but they are hardly "the same."

Furthermore, it appears that TB2's first posting on anything regarding the binary prefix issue was not until months after his first edit, on 2007-10-06.

Although it is true that Tom contributed to a great many articles on computer data storage, notably those regarding older technologies with which he is markedly familiar, his first edit specifically on binary prefix issues looks to be on 2006-05-08. Something that anyone "very carefully looking" at the edit histories would be able to see.

Note that the binary prefixes were already in that article; Tom did not add them.

So what we have here is Fnag and GL claiming that TB2 had the foresight to set up the Tom94022 account and go to all this work to establish the Tom94022 "alternate personality" about seventeen months before TB2's first "binary prefix" edits... eleven months before TB2's first edit ever!

GL assumes, with the ease of jumping to conclusions that is so typical of someone already convinced of the conclusion and merely looking for confirmation, that this is an illustration of "obssessive [sic] behavior". It looks more like clairvoyant behavior to me! Forget calling for a checkuser; we should call JREF. Or take a trip to Vegas.

GL's other "evidence" is equally specious. Tom and TB2's edits almost never "interleave" in time? Why that must be evidence that they are the same person, editing from two different locations, e.g. work and home. The possibility that they are (for example) in different time zones, both editing either after work or at work, never seems to occur to GL. (Addend: He has since amended this part of his claim to include that as a possibility.)

What compounds the preposterousness of this charge is that in other suspected sockpuppet claims, I've seen "interleaved" edits used as evidence that people were the same person, "after all they are editing at the same time!" Haw.

And, lo! GL indeed goes on to note that there are indeed occasional "interleaved" edits. Then of course he claims that those are evidence that, yes, these two are really the same person.

Well which is it, GL? Do interleaved edits show sockpuppetry, or does a preponderance of non-interleaved edits show sockpuppetry? You can't have it both ways.

btw, GL, I noticed a batch of interleaved edits on 2008-03-28. That by the way was a Friday, not a weekend. One pair (one from Tom, one from TB2) happened within 45 seconds of each other. Here's another one: 2008-03-01, around 2300 hours. Again we have a pair of edits within well under a minute.

Oh, and look at 2008-08-11 (a Monday), two edits at around 19:25, this time within 14 seconds of each other. Granted the second one was a very minor edit... but can you even log out of WP, log in again, and complete a minor edit in that time? (I tried, I can't do it. I got it down to 23 seconds and it seems unlikely I could shave another 9 seconds off of that. I'm on a very fast connection; WP delays swamp the total time.)

(I now expect a rebuttal from GL noting that the second edit could have been done from a second computer, already logged in as the other account. Anything but admit that he's made a mistake here.)

One more btw, GL: I spotted these "interleaves" purely by Mark 1 Eyeball... so the fact that you didn't spot them when you "very carefully looked" (but didn't load the histories into Excel) doesn't say much for the quality of your analysis.

Or for your lack of bias.

GL accuses Tom94022, in particular his earliest edits, of being "a single-purpose account: binary prefixes and all the computer-related articles that—in his opinion—ought to use the terminology." But this is another example of either misstatement or lie, and nearly as easily caught as the first: Tom's earliest edits (as GL would have seen had he bothered to check the actual diffs, as I did) had nothing to do with binary prefixes. Tom works (or worked) for several firms in the computer storage business, and has near-encyclopedic knowledge of many fine details of early computer storage technologies (as he established to my satisfaction in a discussion at TALK:SCSI). So he has expertise in that area. So those are the articles he edits. Wow! What a coincidence.

Yes, computer storage is where the "binary prefix" issue is raised, so that's how Tom got into that. Tom continues to edit in a wide variety of articles in the computer storage field, and while the devices described are subject to the "binary prefix" controversey, Tom94022's edits to those articles are mostly not in regards to the use of prefixes in size measurements. A fact either completely ignored, or not researched, or perhaps discovered but not revealed, by GL.

"conspicuous lack of communications between [them]". I suppose if there had been much visible communications that would be taken as evidence of an attempt to disguise the sock! Oh, wait: I don't have to suppose - that's exactly what GL said, re TB2's post to Tom's talk page on 13 July 2008. Again, GL wants it both ways. Lack of communication is damning evidence, and communication is damning evidence.

GL's accusations have all the hallmarks of a witch hunt: "Throw her in the pond, if she floats and survives she's a witch and we'll burn her, if she drowns she was innocent."

Finally, I will note that GL's accusation of "obssession" [sic] seems strange, coming from someone who wrote "I won’t rest until I’ve done my part to help put an end to this hogwash". "Not resting" has, in Greg L's case, for some time included repeated instances of ridiculing anyone who disagrees with him. As Tom94022 pointed out above, this bullying (combined with Fnag's support) has driven many people away from the binary prefix discussion and a few away from editing WP altogether. Now, "not resting" seems to include frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry as well, backed only by completely specious and circumstantial "evidence."

Jeh (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very simple Jeh, in a case like this of suspected long term violation of the sock puppetry rules it is actually hard to pin the puppet master on one particular account because while one account might have been created first the actual use of the accounts could be that the sock master account is the one that is used most often. Which means of course that in this situation with Thunderbird2 being most active I chose to tag that account as the master. Therefore the timing of the account creation is not relevant as far as my argument stands. Fnagaton 04:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words it doesn't matter which way the data points, GregL will still use it as evidence of a sock, and you will thank GregL for his support while simultaneously saying that any of his points that are discredited have no bearing on your case after all. Well forgive me if I am not impressed by your "heads I win, tails you lose" ruleset. Perhaps the timing of account creation is not relevant for your argument but certainly it is for GregL's. After claiming "very careful examination" he made several obviously false claims about data that was right in front of him to see - and, fortunately, for all the rest of us to see as well; his credibility in this matter is now just about nil. As for you, you still are left with little more than "waahhh, two people seem to have the same opinion in opposition to mine, one must be a sock!" Hey, guess what - there are more than one of us out here who still support IEC prefixes - in fact there are more than two. Even as you and GL attempt to back each other on this very page, you just can't accept the notion that other editors (more than one, really, honestly, maybe even more than three) might disagree with you over similar topics at the same time - not the least of which topics would be your tactics. Speaking of that, regarding two (or more) people accusing you of "shouting"... given the extent to which you and GL are seen as having been rude to people, it is not at all surprising that many will tend to support each other against the two of you, watch each other's talk pages, etc. And even an ad hoc group will tend to adopt a commn lingo, in unconscious support of each other if for no other reason. In short you brought this on yourself and these ridiculous, continued accusations of sockpuppetry (i.e. your further attempts at bullying your opposition) are not going to help you in the slightest. Jeh (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore re. your claim re. "in a case of suspected long term violation of sockpuppetry rules" you are using the assumption of guilt to justify relaxing the rules of evidence before the evidence has proven any guilt. That's circular reasoning. The fact is that neither of these are single purpose accounts; if you actually look at the edit histories you will see a large number of highly technical edits by Thunderbird2, and a smaller, but equally technical, edits by Tom94022 on a completely different set of subjects. And Thunderbird2 still did not get into the "binary prefix" debate until about seven months after he created his account. So even if you assume things were the other way around, with the Tom94022 account being the master, you have to assume that Tom presciently created the TB2 account and then maintained a posting rate there many times that of "his own" account, on topics far from his previous areas of interest, and kept this up for seven months before the TB2 account joined in the binary prefix debate. Oh wait, I know the answer to this one -- "that just proves how fanatical he is!" (That's circular reasoning again.) Jeh (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As refuted below you are wrong to keep on trying to use ad hominem instead of providing valid arguments. It is also not circular reasoning because obviously the statement you quoted of mine specifically does not mention any assumption of guilt at all, in actual fact it uses the word "suspected" which neatly refutes your claim. As for the "sole purpose" accounts it is not unusual for puppets to pad their edits with other fluff to try to avoid detection and that coupled with timing you mention it actually helps (does not refute my argument) to explain why one account will appear to go silent while the other has high use and vice versa. It is also rare that an account will be a pure sole purpose and survive for so long because they tend to get blocked early. Sole purpose in this case means an account that has shown a remarkable tendancy to apply unusual energies on a narrow topic in an absuive way, for example maintainin an edit history of certain editor's changes and misrepresenting those editors on multiple forums. You cannot reasonably deny the bad behaviour (harassment, Wikistalking) demonstrated by Thunderbird2/Tom with their fixation of editor's changes on TB2's user talk sandbox. Fnagaton 08:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeez, lighten up Jeh. This isn’t a “some of my cattle are missing so I’m going to capture, convict and hang T-bird this evening”-sort of affair. Because of a variety of coincidences, we’re suspicious. That alone is enough to start a case here. The seemingly single-purpose editor with no home page alone is enough to make many an editor just a tad suspicious here. I assume the administrators aren’t going to “string both of them up” based solely on the above information; they have check-user capabilities—as I understand it—that can look to the users’ I.P. address. That should cinch it; if they’re both from the same damned city, Tom94022 is a sock. If not, they are two different editors. And I’ll be the first in line to apologize to both editors if the admins confirm there is no sock puppetry going on.

    I’ve seen more improbable coincidences than what I’ve seen here. I once had two boxes of some hydrogen sensor PCBs I had designed. Each box had 24 cards. I pulled the first card out and it was defective. A signal didn’t make it from one place to another on the card (bad interlayer “via”). The second card I pulled out of the first box was bad too. The third worked fine. But the fourth card was again defective. That’s three out of the first four I pulled out that were defective. Based on this sampling, I called the manufacturer and told them to stop making them until they sorted out the problem. I reasoned that even if only three cards out of the entire 48 cards were defective, three was too many. I was certain I’d find a crap pile more as I checked through the remaining 44 cards. How many more defective cards did I find? None in the first box. And only one more defective card in the second box. We calculated the odds of that happening (finding only 1 more defective card out of 44 when it was a failure rate of 75% based on a sampling of four pieces) and it was one in a thousand.

    So I don’t expect anyone to get strung up based on the above evidence; there are certainly better than one-in-a-thousand odds the two editors are really two distinct editors. Fnagaton and I can’t prove this on our own; administrators have tools at their disposal that are unavailable to mere editors like us. And if the check-user finds the two editors do hail from the same city, then the above evidence just helps cinch the case that if it walks, swims, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. Greg L (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The seemingly single-purpose editor with no home page alone is enough to make many an editor just a tad suspicious here." Tom94022 is not a "single-purpose editor," and if you had bothered checking on the actual diffs in his edit history (instead of sloppily and prejudiciously concluding "oh, he edited an article about some computer storage device! His edit must have been about--oh no! horrors!--binary prefixes!") you'd have seen that.

    The same is true of Thunderbird2. Although it's true that he's largely been diverted to the binary prefix debate, early on he contributed (as Tom pointed out) to a wide range of topics having nothing to do with binary prefixes, or computers at all for that matter. He did show an early interest in consistency of units, which certainly seems to have carried over to the binary prefix issue, but that's about all you can find there. In TB2's case you don't even need to look at the diffs to see this; it's all in the article titles and edit summaries.

    And, gosh, I didn't have a user page for quite a while either. I still don't have much of one.

    So, there go the grounds for your suspicion. Will you now withdraw your accusation, instead of simply backing down from your previous statement of "absolute certainty"?

    You wrote: If they’re both from the same damned city, Tom94022 is a sock. That's an absurd claim. There are lots of pairs of WP editors who are from the same city. There may even be pairs of WP editors who are in the same city and are interested in overlapping topics. As you pointed out, unlikely things do happen.

    ...the above evidence just helps cinch the case. I've already discredited much of your so-called " evidence" and I note you did not write one word in rebuttal. Much of the rest of your "evidence" is simply circular reasoning. ("ah ha! This would explain...")

    As for "lighten up", I am not the one who needs to take that advice. You have written thousands of words and misinterpreted data that should have been (for someone with your qualifications) as easy to read as a neon sign, to support an accusation of "sockpuppetry" against someone whose only real "offense" was to agree repeatedly with Thunderbird2 (as have I, and as have many others). Now I come along and show several of your key points to be bogus, and I am the one who needs to "lighten up"? "Don't be so effective at rebutting me," I think you mean. Well, I will tell you one sure way you can have that result: Don't make so many obvious mistakes in your "very careful" analysis. Jeh (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeh you seem to think this sock puppet report is a "further attempt[s] at bullying your opposition" and you are completely wrong to state that because it has nothing to do with what you claim, so I expect you to retract what you wrote because it is useless ad hominem. When I make a sock puppet report is a way of bringing suspicious behaviour to the attention of someone on the outside who will look at the evidence and then decide to issue blocks if needed. If you really want to help then I suggest you stop trying to attack those providing evidence and instead you attempt to provide a valid argument. By the way, I'm not the editor who has been keeping a track of some editors and who has been misrepresenting those editors in multiple forums. It is Thunderbird2/Tom who has been harassing editors and Wikistalking their edits and his talk page sand box is proof of that unwanted anti-social behaviour. Also Jeh, I have not been rude, I have presented much better stronger arguments and obviously some people don't like that and have chosen to try to attack the person instead of the argument. Fnagaton 06:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like harrassment -- bullying -- to me, so my statement stands. As for "valid arguments", see above where I disabused GL of many of his mistaken notions. Since then he has softened his original "absolutely certain" accusation of sockpuppetry. My arguments would seem to have some validity, no? Jeh (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some people who have had their weak fallacious arguments refuted feel it is a personal attack or rather claim it is a personal attack to try to dodge the issue of presenting their own valid arguments, like you are doing now. But you would be wrong to mistake strong counter arguments are a personal attack because those arguments actually refute what you have been posting. You are wrong to keep on repeating that untrue accusation because obviously you cannot read my mind and I have stated what the actual situation is, so by doing so you are actually using deliberate misrepresentation to cause harassment, so I demand that you retract what you have posted. I conclude from your continued use of ad hominem that you are not going to provide valid arguments. Fnagaton 07:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course free to conclude anything you want, but the arguments do stand above and neither you nor GL have provided a single line of rebuttal against them. Jeh (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I again note you have not retracted the misrepresentation you have written above, since you've not provided valid arguments then there isn't anything to refute. Also it is misrepresentation to claim "neither you nor GL have provided a single line of rebuttal against them because you're relying on people to refute something that is already refuted by earlier evidence. In the one instance you mentioned something slightly valid (the circular argument) that also has been refuted, so again you are misrepresenting the situation. But on that I'll let you off because you might not have noticed the reply when you wrote your claim. Repeating a refuted position does not make it better. If, as you claim, your arguments "stand above" then you would not need to keep on responding, yet you do, ergo you must feel that your arguments are weaker. Fnagaton 08:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeh, you seem to argue for the shear joy of arguing. Haven’t you figured out yet that the question of whether or not Tom94022 is a sock isn’t going to be settled to your satisfaction based on the overwhelming logic & truth ®™© of your arguments here in the Comments section? Notwithstanding your fallacious claim that having these two editors living in the same city doesn’t prove anything, it actually means a lot when the totality of the evidence is considered in context. We’ll see what a check-user tells us about this editor(s). Maybe Fnagaton’s and my suspicions won’t be borne out; we think they are—at least—well founded suspicions (notwithstanding your ‘I poo on everything you say’-attitude.) Greg L (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey... if you can post paragraph after paragraph of your "evidence" (and now we know what that was worth, don't we?), I can just as well post paragraph after paragraph of response. Speaking of responses, I for one am still waiting to see your apology here. I of course expect no such apology from Fnagaton - heck, he posted more "evidence" (among the flimsiest yet) after the case had been settled against him. That really takes the cake. Jeh (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"After the case had been settled against him" - Oh really? Got any proof of the case being settled? No you do not because this report at the time of writing has not been closed therefore it is not settled. So since you are wrong I demand you retract such an obviously false accusation. Fnagaton 07:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Tom and the "anonymous" IP user keeps on edit warring this comment, as shown in the evidence. This comment refutes Tom's comment [19]) This is not true, as I have previously included in the evidence section I also mention the supportive kind of edits being very similar to your edits. For example going straight to TB2's talk page and trying to misrepresent editors. As I also said reviewing the edits shows this. So you are misrepresenting the evidence by trying to claim "without a single shred of evidence" and trying to imply I only said Tom is common to TimTomTom and Tom94022. Fnagaton 00:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frequency Analysis Table

GL, thanks for adding the frequency analysis table; it of course confirms from a different data set, my point number 7, above, T2 and I are in two different time zones about 7 hours apart. I admire your stretch to some how still see a possibility of a sock puppet; if you combine the distributions you have a 24 hour a day editor - not too likely. I hope u didn't do the analysis by hand; since the data are now likely in a form to be computer analyzed I wonder what the same data shows about simultaneous editing? BTW, you are correct - i do work out of my home and in the morning, after breakfast and email, i do see whatsup on Wikipedia (like right now :-) Tom94022 (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The upcoming check-user will reveal the truth. It certainly may prove that I owe you, Tom94022, an apology. We’ll also see whether I will owe T-bird one, for it may be that he is proven to be a sock master of other puppets. And… maybe he’s innocent of sock puppetry or I.P. harassment too. Yes, I saw the ramifications of the frequency analysis table and couldn't overlook the obvious implications of the apparent sleep period. What was nearly shocking was what happened when I looked at my own edit frequency: my “zero” edit times exactly matched those of the “Tom94022” editor—and I live on west-coast time. My purpose in weighing in here was not for my words to inconvenience the innocent, but to motivate admins to get to the bottom of what looked like an odd pattern of behavior. Greg L (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, Greg_L posted the apology... just not here. It would be nice if Fnagaton posted an apology to both "suspects"' talk pages as well. Jeh (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies? How about you contact Omegatron and Aluvus and get them to write their apologies on my talk page before you start calling for apologies to be made here? Fnagaton 07:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thunderbird2 filed. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since CU returns negative results, shall we close this case for good then? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:54, 18 September
Despite the RFCU I still think there is enough evidence of meat puppetry or other forms of disruptive editing patterns to be considered here, given Tom's and Thunderbird2's cited comments about monitoring other editor's changes and especially Thunderbird2's talk page sand box edit history regarding wiki-stalking. A promise by Tom to not follow editors around Wikipedia monitoring their edits, retracting his earlier comment[20]("now on I will carefully watch for unwarranted reverts by those two") that he would monitor editors, would go a long way to demonstrating he has good faith intentions. Also Tom should retract his comment[21] that he would "find a set of editors who can shout louder". Basically, if he does not retract and apologise then that would further demonstrate he intends to wiki-stalk and would further demonstrate intent for disruptive editing. A statement of disassociation from his edits related to Thunderbird2's sand box page would also help. Fnagaton 07:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does any of Fnags statement above have to do with Meat Puppetry? The data show that T2 and I are two different editors, having mostly divergent interests, who happen to agree about IEC prefixes and happen to disagree with Fnag. Fnag is intolerant of discussion of this subject and with the help of other like-minded editors suppresses all discussion, so with good faith I intend to

carefully watch for unwarranted reverts by those two and support an editor trying to have a dialog.

I am in fact watching a number of pages related to binary prefixes and will support any editor who is harassed by Fnag. One might note that in his usual style, Fnag did not cite the complete quote but only that portion which suited a pejorative interpretation. He calls it wiki-stalking but in fact it is an attempt to prevent his suppression of discussion, probably the worst form of disruptive editing. I have nothing to apologize for. I am fully supportive of T2s attempt to state in his sandbox The case against deprecation of IEC prefixes.
If this is Meat Puppetry, I then suggest the administrator take a careful look at this whole case, specifically the allegations above (Fnag initiated on 26 Aug but thru 29 Aug only provided 10 edits while GL provided 32) and the underlying history related to binary prefixes, e.g. the sequence leading to T2s 3RR suspension, in particular note:
Fnags reversion of T2, 10 Aug at 14:56 followed by
GLs reversion of T2, 10 Aug at 18:08
This is a classic example of the Fnag the puppet master and GL the meat puppet ganging up on T2. Accordingly, any sanctions considered against T2 and me should apply more so to Fnag. At least GL had the decency to apologize for this false accusation. Tom94022 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Tom, the person who has suppressed discussion is TB2 for failing to debate the issue on WP:MOSNUM and by trying to forum shop his weak point of view, this is proven by Headbomb and by all the other mediators who refused to accept TB2's weak unsupported statements. Also you Tom have refused to debate this issue properly and instead you resort to weak personal attacks, which is disruptive to the debate process. The quote I gave of you is accurate because the later part you wrote ("trying to have a dialog") is misrepresentation because I never stop anyone from having a dialog, I welcome people trying to have a dialog because having constructive dialog improves the guidelines I help to work on. Therefore your statement was trimmed to remove the misrepresentation show that you intend to wiki-stalk and you have failed to apologise for it. You are obstructing dialog because you throw weak personal attacks, that is what you need to apologise for. Providing strong arguments, which is what Headbomb, Greg and I have repeatedly done, does not in anyway shape or form stop people having dialog. Also Tom you do not link TB2's sandbox and therefore the link you did give is yet another example of how your statements misrepresent the situation. TB2's sandbox contains a lot of misrepresentation and wiki-stalking by showing a very unhealthy interest in other editor's edits and presenting them in a misleading and false way [22], this is what you should distance yourself from. But you failed to do so. To the closing administrator, please take the time to ask User:Headbomb and Greg L about the behaviour of TB2 if my evidence posted here is not enough. Also given Tom'2 comments above it is obvious he intends to continue his pattern of disruptive editing by throwing false accusations at those he disagrees with so I think this report demonstrates exactly the kind of behaviour that made me suspicious of his sock/meat puppetry in the first place. Please consider warning or blocking Tom for his failure to apologise and retract his threats to disrupt Wikipedia.Fnagaton 01:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Since Fnag says he will "never stop anyone from having a dialog," I assume he will now not object to placing dubious templates here and here. Of course he will object, because it has been the attempts to point out the dispute and open a dialog that he has suppressed, typically by combining with like minded editors (GL, Headbomb) to subvert the WP:3RR rule while simultaneously denigrating all proponent's arguments. I will post the templates later today and we shall see if Fnag can be taken at his word.
  2. It is not wiki-stalking to watch pages and promise to support other editors whose attempts at a dialog are disrupted by the likes of Fnag. It is wiki-stalking to watch an editor's contributions and rebut them wherever they happen to make a edit, exactly what Fnag and GL did to me at Doug's talk page as cited above, see User_talk:Doug#IEC_Binary_Prefix and at SheffieldSteel's talk page /User_talk:SheffieldSteel#My_alleged_sock_puppet_case. Again it is typical of Fnag to accuse others of doing what he does so well, Sock puppetry and Wiki-stalking.
  3. Fnag asked for "A statement of disassociation from his [my] edits related to Thunderbird2's sand box page ..." [emphasis added] but the only edits I have made at a T2 page were to User:Thunderbird2/The_case_against_deprecation_of_IEC_prefixes and I do not dissociate myself from anything thereon. I have not edited /User:Thunderbird2/my_sandbox; however I fully support T2s activity in this sand box to document the behavior by editors, Fnag in particular, in their disruptive editing regarding binary prefixes.
I have nothing to apologize for and the few factual errors I have made I have already retracted. To the extent an administrator chooses to intervene, he/she should seriously look at the behavior of Fnag and consider banning him for sufficient time to allow a dialog on the several articles related to binary prefix. Tom94022 (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Since you have not demonstrated any good reason (because you have to talk about it first on the talk page and demonstrate a clear case for the change) to place templates on the policy page then placing templates violates the policy about abusing templates. For policy pages the idea is that first you talk before adding tags or anything else to the guidelines. What you want to do is make changes before demonstrating good reasons. Also the tags you want to add were already added and were reverted by multiple editors, thus further demonstrating no good reasons have previously been made for adding such tags. In short you must demonstrate good reasons before adding such tags given the history of the subject. Also WP:BRD doesn't apply here because the exact same edits you threaten to make have already been made and reverted multiple times and the key thing here is that is the following discussions you and TB2 did not make any valid arguments for that change. Since you threaten to make the same changes again that would then be part of edit warring to push your point of view, hence why you need to talk about it first and gain consensus for your point of view. Just so you are clear here, if you do add those tags then you will be editing against consensus.
  2. Attempts at dialog have never been disrupted by me or Greg and it is misrepresentation for you to continue to claim that. You need to read the policy on Wiki-stalking because it actually states "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor". Your edits in repsonse to me contain weak personal attacks (for example your baseless accusations about shouting and disruption which you so often repeat) or your threats to find a group of editors who can shout louder (linked earlier) and every single time you have failed to actually tackle the arguments presented. You are attacking the person instead of tackling the arguments presented, ad hominem does not help you. Since your your edits demonstrate that you edit disruptively then the policy about Wiki-stalking stands against you and TB2. The fact that you and TB2 keep on repeating the same misrepresentation does indicate that you are the same person or closely linked meat puppets.
  3. The statement of disassociation is simple, you would hereby state that TB2's edits on his sandbox where he demonstrates an unhealthy fixation about edits of other editors is wrong and that you disassociate yourself from his behaviour on that page. Thus you would help to demonstrate that you are not a meat puppet of TB2. Since you claim you are not a meat puppet then you would have no problem to disassociate yourself from TB2's bad behaviour in such a way. Your claim that nothing is wrong on TB2's sandbox when it is obvious wiki-stalking is yet more evidence that you are linked to TB2 in some way.
Fnagaton 05:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

Alright. This entry hasn't been edited for over two weeks (or thereabouts), so I'm going to be bold. WP:TLDR. Archiving. Honestly - no wonder WP:SSP is permanently backlogged if this sort of shit goes on. GbT/c 19:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADoug&diff=235350623&oldid=234930727
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Thunderbird2&oldid=1142565535"