Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fnagaton

User:Fnagaton

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Fnagaton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

DavidPaulHamilton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Omegatron (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

User:Fnagaton is an account used predominantly to argue about a single section of the Manual of Style guidelines on units,[1][2]. This section is heavily disputed, but he uses his own interpretation of it as justification to engage in tendentious editing across many articles, changing all units to his preferred style. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Other users have been banned for similar behavior.

He has been caught using sockpuppets in the past, and I believe he is continuing to abuse them, both to circumvent WP:3RR and to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists. I alluded to this in a previous discussion, but since this user is familiar with the use of Tor and open proxies to evade detection, I doubt there will be any IP evidence, so I have tried to gather a significant amount of circumstantial evidence before bringing this up.

Specifically, I believe User:DavidPaulHamilton is a sock of Fnagaton for the following reasons:

• After registering, DavidPaulHamilton immediately jumped into the Talk page of the disputed policy, with his first edits backing up Fnagaton's position.[18]
• DavidPaulHamilton has all the hallmarks of a single-purpose account. He has only been active since March, but at least 75% of his edits are related to this dispute.[19] The rest of his contributions, to unrelated articles, are trivial edits like adding links, likely in an attempt to "cover his tracks".[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]
• DavidPaulHamilton consistently backs Fnagaton up in edit disputes and makes the same sweeping edits and reverts
  • MOSNUM talk page
  • Template:Quantities of bytes
  • Physical Address Extension[28]
  • Bondwell[29]
• Mannerisms - Fnagaton has an odd propensity for repetitious statements that other users are "wrong" or "incorrect", as if assertion alone will convince others. David follows the same pattern:
  • F 'You are wrong, I am not the one who is edit warring, you are.'
  • D 'you are wrong there is consensus'
  • F 'You are wrong and do not attempt to misrepresent other editors with your incorrect anonymous rants' ... 'You are wrong because the units are de facto standards.'
  • D 'You are being uncivil because you have no valid counter and that means your post is wrong.'
  • F 'This neatly proves you are wrong.'
  • D 'JEDEC memory standards proves they set computer memory standards.'
  • F 'You are incorrect because you are at fault here ... You are utterly wrong to try to misrepresent what you think are my motives. You are also wrong when'
  • D 'Your statement is incorrect.'
  • D 'it is incorrect for anyone to say they are deprecated'
  • F 'you are incorrect'
  • D 'jeh is not correct'
  • D 'That is inaccurate. The chips...'
  • ...
• Timestamps of edits
  • Both accounts edit during the same time of day, neither has edited during the hours of 2:00 and 6:00 UTC. If you look through their edits you'll often see a string of edits by one account followed by a string of edits by the other, never editing at the same time.

I am not the first to make this accusation.[30][31][32]

Comments

• I was curious why Omegatron had been inactive on a particular MOSNUM issue and see that he seems to have focused his attentions on one of the lead proponents of an issue that had been extensively discussed on Talk:MOSNUM and which was later adopted as a MOSNUM guideline against Omegatron’s wishes. I will grant Omegatron that, indeed, the vernacular of the two writers appears similar. But it shouldn’t come as any surprise that since statements like “you’re a liar” are considered as personal attacks, that rather limits available options to generic pabulum like “that is incorrect”. It also should come as no surprise that two editors live in similar time zones. I suggest that this issue of sockpuppetry should be very simple to resolve: can’t administrators simply perform a ‘check user’ on Fnagaton and DavidPaulHamilton.

  I’d also like to point out that Omegatron’s above charge (“He [Fnagaton] has been caught using sockpuppets in the past”), doesn’t strike me as being the least bit fair to Fnagaton. I’m not an expert on digging up past history on this sort of stuff and can not prove a negative. But the linked text Omegatron provided is to a post by a user, NotSarenne, who was complaining about treatment from Fnagaton. In fact though, the end result of that linked thread was not a conclusion that Fnagaton had been caught using sockpuppets (though it was suspected), but that the complainant (NotSarenne) was himself proven to be sockpuppet, who was blocked indefinitely during that discussion thread.

  I have no interest in engaging in a running battle on this, particularly since the evidence is sketchy and proof is even harder to come by. Further, I am at a disadvantage since I am not an administrator. Seeing though, that there is a “comments” section here, I saw no reason to remain silent on what I thought were slanted charges. Greg L (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't see how my inactivity on WT:MOSNUM is relevant to Fnagaton's sockpuppetry.
  • Checkuser User:Dmcdevit found that User:QuinellaAlethea was a sockpuppet of User:Fnagaton. Of course Fnagaton's going to deny it, just like Sarenne denies ever using socks. Doesn't mean they're telling the truth. — Omegatron (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Help:CheckUser works on IP addresses. An individual using Tor or another proxy system can defeat checkuser. As Fnagaton himself noted, Dmcdevit apparently indicated to Kwsn that QuinellaAlethea was a sock of Fnagaton. As Kwsn said, "QuinellaAlethea has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock of User:Fnagaton". That is consistent with QuinellaAlethea's edit history, which consists largely of reverting edits by NotSarenne (who was identified as a sock of Sarenne, a long-time enemy of Fnagaton). Most of these reverted edits were replies to comments by Fnagaton. Apparently QuinellaAlethea decided that NotSarenne was "not allowed to reply to" Fnagaton. That sort of thing also seems to be something of a Fnagaton-ism. Additionally, I should note that HyperColony was engaged in essentially identical edits over the same period of time, but (as noted on the linked ANI page) was on Tor. And while I'm here, I should also note that starting a large number of replies with "you are wrong" (and simple permutations thereof) is actually pretty uncommon. It is a factual statement that Fnagaton does so much more frequently than your average editor. You may judge the significance of that as you like. — Aluvus t/c 05:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I want to add a few facts to this case. Calling edits "tendentious" shows a lack of good faith since reading my edit history you'll see comments such as "Making units consistent within the article and with those used by the article sources" which demonstrates the edits are made to improve Wikipedia. Omegatron is correct I am familiar with Tor but that is because Tor has so often been used by a user to make personal attacks against me and to insert my personal infromation into Wikipedia, for which I've had to repeatedly request Oversight. I am also active in trying to discuss about getting Tor blocked from editing [33] [34] this is because of the personal attacks made against me and I see little benefit in it being allowed on Wikipedia. The user accounts Omegatron cites as "not the first to make this accusation" are themselves blocked for being sock puppets of a user NotSarenne/Sarenne Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NotSarenne (2nd) and the IP belongs to the ISP that has a history og being disruptive on this subject Wikipedia:Abuse reports/217.87.x.x and is also linked to the many socks of NotSarenne/Sarenne [35]. So I don't see what Omegatron would have to gain from trying to cite edits made by the same blocked and banned users who make these accusations. Also when a new user joins a talk page I've been very active in (WT:MOSNUM) and makes this edit then of course their edit history is going to be checked by myself and I will check the articles the editor recently edited and perhaps lend my help. Please note the edit comment "In the interests of trying to stop the numerous reverts this adds extra disambiguation for 1 GB = 1024 MB and for the other values". Omegatron's claim "with his first edits backing up Fnagaton's position" is incorrect because the first edit by DPH is to reply to something I've not even replied to at that revision [36] and doesn't include a signature. I don't see Omegatron complaining that these edits by a different user [37] are a "single purpose account" (using Omegatrons' definition) but then again the user did write supprot for Omegatrong ("I support the changes just made by Omegatron. Tom94022 (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC) ") in [38]. Omegatron's claim "neither has edited during the hours of 2:00 and 6:00 UTC" is also refuted simply by looking at the edit history. Looking at the very early edits I came to the conclusion that DPH is someone who is interested in the subject but who has branched out to general Wikipedia tidying after a period of time. Looking at [39] and the comment "Greg L is wrong to claim that it is always easy to determine what units " by Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC) does this mean, for example, that Omegatron can try to claim DPH is a sock of Gerry just because Gerry used the phrase "xxx is wrong"? No of course not, the same applies here too, I mean looking at DPH's edits the editor doesn't always agree with what I do either, for example this complete revert of my change. The edit comment style is also different to mine and so is the spelling. Lastly, I'm on holiday, as my last talk page edit shows and to make a sock puppet report whilst I'm obviously away and also not putting notification of this report on my talk page or on the talk page of DPH who he is accusing is not following correct procedure for reporting potential sock puppet activity. Fnagaton 08:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  I welcome Greg's suggestion of running a "check user" and of course I agree to abide by whatever findings it will show, it will clear up this matter once and for all and remove any potential for the "slanted charges" (Greg's words). Fnagaton 08:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Fnagaton's behavior is exactly like that of User:Bobblewik and User:Sarenne before they were blocked; a sweeping campaign of edits to change units to his preferred style. He knows very well that his edits are controversial and that there is no consensus for them, but he continues to make them, and even revert war over them, despite being told not to. I honestly don't know how he's lasted this long, considering his editing pattern and attitude.

I've never assumed bad faith on the part of Fnagaton. Assuming good faith is all about motives, and I know that he thinks he's improving the encyclopedia with his edit campaign. But this isn't about motives; it's about actions, and Fnagaton's actions are disruptive and harmful to the project.

I'd also like to see a checkuser, though again, I suspect it won't find anything, which is why I spent a lot of time digging up other forms of evidence. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser says "Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. Whenever possible, use other methods first." So I think we're supposed to try it this way first, anyway. — Omegatron (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Attacking Omegatron's motivations does not do anything to indicate you are not operating a sockpuppet. I have privately expressed to Omegatron my concerns that DavidPaulHamilton might be your sockpuppet. The account showed up when you had indicated you were away (but continued to make edits). The account's edits (including that first one) have consistently supported your position. While the account's first edit preceded your first direct comment on that matter, your first comment agreed with his. Even the incident you cite when the account reverted one of your edits, the reverted version of the text agrees with what you had argued on the Talk page and had previously argued for months. The account has edited a number of pages related to binary prefixes but made only trivial changes to articles on other topics (generally linking single words; sometimes linking bare years despite, ironically, what MOSNUM says about that), which sockpuppets sometimes do. There were also IP edits [40] [41] made when you stated you were away that I believe you made (the first calls up obscure details you had previously used to attack Omegatron, the second makes the same nebulous "does not have consensus" claim that you have used repeatedly). In short, the evidence Omegatron has provided is certainly not airtight, but little if anything that you have provided actually suggests that he is wrong. — Aluvus t/c 06:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

---