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)

• Three facts: HyperColony is blocked as a sock of NotSarenne. QuinellaAlethea is blocked but the puppet master is not identified. Nothing appears in my block log or log regarding QuinellaAlethea. Or do you care to refute those facts? Then we have this statement: "...is actually pretty uncommon" - Not that uncommon as you might have thought. Fnagaton 10:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  It's pretty much your trademark, as several others have pointed out. And if you want to talk about Google searches: http://www.google.com/search?q=fnagaton+%22you+are+wrong%22 — Omegatron (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• The evidence that HyperColony was a sock of NotSarenne was that they had edited the same articles, and literally nothing else. That's no surprise, since the only thing HyperColony was doing was reverting edits by NotSarenne. That is spectacularly weak evidence that HyperColony was a sock of NotSarenne (but good evidence that HyperColony was being disruptive). That same test indicated that QuinellaAlethea was also a sock of NotSarenne, but QuinellaAlethea was blocked for being your sock based (apparently) on a checkuser. Kwsn was pretty specific: "QuinellaAlethea has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock of User:Fnagaton". And lastly, 15k instances out of (at a guess) probably 500k or more Talk pages and probably millions (or tens of millions) of edits... is not a high frequency. — Aluvus t/c 01:53, 13 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)

As you say the evidence Omegatron as provided is not airtight, that's why a check user is needed. The first edit you claim was an IP edit is an edit by you and does not "calls up obscure details you had previously used to attack Omegatron" and the second edit doesn't look like my home or work IP address. As for Omegatron's accusations of disruptive editing and "Fnagaton's behavior is exactly like that of User:Bobblewik" this is not the first time he has made bad faith accusations (as can be seen just above the quote I will make below) and in reply I will quote the comments from an uninvolved unbiased editor (SMcCandlish) and someone who attempted to mediate the situation. "The fact that Fnagaton is passionate about this issue, as others have been before (on both sides) has nothing to do with the validity of their arguments either way. Having been accused of WP:DE simply for being passionate and steadfast myself in the past, I sympathize in a Voltaire way - I defend Fnagaton's right to express what he is thinking (civilly), but if I disagree with his logic I'll certainly say so, since that's where the reason in argument is. Debate by flamethrowing is unproductive pen...sword-waving. I.e., everybody please chill"[42]. Since SMcCandish is uninvolved and has pointed out that I am not being disruptive yet Omegatron who disagrees with my work on MOSNUM makes accusations of being disruptive and threats about blocking then on balance who is most likely to be correct? SMcCandish of course, which means Omegatron is demonstrating bad faith bias by continuing with his accusations of disruption and obviously means that my behaviour is not like BobbleWik of Sarenne. Checking Omegatron's edit history, I also note this recent edit by Omegatron to someone elses talk page but Omegatron has still not followed procedure to place accusation warnings on the reported user's talk pages. This means DPH is most likely still unaware of these accusations and that is not following procedure. Not following procedure and placing a comment on an uninvolved editor's talk can be seen as attempts to garner support to unfairly alter the outcome of this report. I feel that the accusations here are nothing more than bad faith personal opinion and what Omegatron cites has been shown to be false, for example the editing times and the banned sock puppet user's accusations. That's why a check user should be used, to avoid the potential for Omegatron's personal feelings to cloud the issue. Fnagaton 08:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• I linked to my response to the first IP edit that you presumably made. The original edit was here. The IP editor never responded to my calling him Fnagaton, but you responded in a way that suggests you were that IP editor. I must say that your repeated attacks on Omegatron have utterly no relevance here. The question here is whether you have been operating a sockpuppet. No matter how much you may accuse Omegatron of failing to assume good faith, that does not in any way contradict the evidence that he has presented. You cannot prove yourself innocent by trying to prove someone else guilty. Additionally, you cannot prove yourself innocent through checkuser. Checkuser may prove (or at least very strongly suggest) that one account is tied to another, but it cannot prove that the accounts are unrelated. — Aluvus t/c 02:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point, following on from accusations of being disruptive, I'll quote Septentrionalis from here "And yes, Fnagaton is often aggressive; but not as much as you are. Still, you are both more constructive than Omegatron " because the editor is relatively uninvolved and chose to comment, just like Greg did, when he saw an injustice. Fnagaton 09:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The evidence may not be airtight, but I think it's more conclusive than most.

And it's not just one phrase. His incessant repetition of "you are wrong" is just the most obvious example for someone who hasn't interacted with him regularly (and these examples only scrape the surface). It's very apparent to me from the writing style of everything he says that these two accounts are controlled by the same person. Please read through their talk page contribs and decide for yourself.

DavidPaulHamilton was also autoblocked by an IP block.[43] I've never seen that before, and I don't know enough about IP blocks to investigate. Does it have any significance? — Omegatron (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Same IP as [44], for what it's worth. — Omegatron (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I’m not particularly invested in this issue, but I had to point out this little jewel as I found it rather amusing: The Talk:MOSNUM page is frequented by a semi-disruptive IP user known as “217.87…” who is widely assumed to be NotSarenne and Sarenne. Both are blocked for life due to disruptive editing. IP User “217.87…” has consistently been a proponent of using the IEC prefixes; that is to say, is on the same side of a contentious dispute as Omegatron. In fact, “217.87…” has repeatedly vandalized Fnagaton’s pages on numerous occasions and been extraordinarily uncivil to Fnagaton. My point in mentioning this is not to demonize “217.87…” but to point out that he is not an ally of Fnagaton and is certainly not a sock. With that point established…

  As I mentioned above, Wikipedia rules of “no personal attacks” and civility greatly limits the choice of verbiage when one is writing that they oppose the position of another editor. And here is a post from “217.87…” that begins with Omegatron’s hot-button three words that are a central part of his charges that “prove” this sock issue: “You are wrong.” Greg L (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. I am not Sarenne. I never was Sarenne. That was just a tactical rumour spread by Fnagaton to destroy my reputation. I'm pleased to hear you're amused about my comments. You know just as well as I do that I've used "You are wrong." and "There is consensus" to make fun of certain people's habits. You recently claimed yourself that it's perfectly fine to ridicule other's positions. I doubt that's the spirit of Wikipedia but if you, as one of the most uncivil editors around, has this right, then everyone is allowed the same including my very self. I also find something "amusing". That is, I am blocked due to false accusations under as much evidence as there is against Fnagaton that is none of any worth. In my case, hearsay and obvious laid out false evidence by Tor-driven sockpuppets lead to an indefinite ban of my previous account - and many other's who were never under my control or anyone person I know. Fnagaton and a few other seem to be immune against any honest accusation like frequent edit warring, uncivil behavior and treating any opposing individual as someone's sockpuppets acting with bad faith - if the circumstances permit. That Fnagaton attracts all these Tor accounts is certainly odd. Even when Fnagaton was caught red-handed using a sockpuppet, there was no block, no follow-up, no nothing whereas the other party (NotSarenne) was banned despite the fact that both of these puppets were actually acting NotSarenne obviously after Fnagaton and his friends had run out of measures and arguments. No matter what side anyone is really on, it is quite clear that some cabals are quite busy and effective. There is consensus. I am not Fnagaton because Fnagaton is ON HOLIDAY! Duh! --217.87.125.197 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

---