Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Thunderer

– This SPI case is open.

The Thunderer

The Thunderer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Thunderer/Archive.

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

• Requests for checkuser/Case/The Thunderer

27 October 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• SonofSetanta (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Evidence submitted by One Night In Hackney

Let's start with their third edit. "I'd also like to find a mentor", really? I could chop all my fingers and toes off and still be capable of counting the number of times I've ever seen a new editor ask for a mentor so quickly, exactly zero to be precise. That just doesn't strike me as being something a new editor would do before having problems. Then there's their fourth edit, he didn't know how to sign posts yet knows to ask for a talk page archiving. "The lady doth protest too much" as the saying goes. There's too much emphasis on being "new", while saying things that just don't tally with being "new". Then less than one hour later, and with their fourth edit to the article they do this, add {{Attribution needed}} to the article. That template wasn't used in the article previously (previous version), and how many "new" editors do you know that use that? I'm struggling to believe that someone who claims to be so new they don't know about signing posts knows to ask for a mentor, ask for talk pages archiving and knows to add a relatively obscure template like that one, it just doesn't wash. I'm sure someone might pipe up saying he does things that don't suggest he's an experienced editor, but who is to say those things aren't being done deliberately? It's the unconscious slip-ups where he does things that suggest he isn't a new editor that are important, not things like not signing posts.

So given we've established that certain aspects of SonofSetanta's behaviour don't tally with being a new editor, it's a case of deciding who they really are. Taking all things into account, namely being an Ulster Defence Regiment fixated single purpose account with major ownership problems and edit warring tendencies, that would mean they are The Thunderer. Common behavioural characteristics, or other evidence suggesting they are one and the same:

• [1] The use of Domer48Fenian, rather than his username Domer48. Previously used by The Thunderer here and here. The exact text "Domer48Fenian" only shows up in 4 places (now 5 obviously, since this page will be included in the results) on the entire of Wikipedia, SonofSetanta's talk page, WP:AE (which is a copy of the text from his talk page) and those two uses by The Thunderer. Worth noting is that if you copy Domer's sig from a page and paste it the result is Domer48'fenian', so it can't be excused as someone just copying a sig either.

• Playing the bullying and tag teaming card. [2], [3] and [4] for SonofSetanta, [5] ("You're not going to achieve concensus on this by bullying, tag teaming or edit warring" 21:02, 13 August 2008"), [6] ("this type of bullying" 13:06, 21 November 2008 and "Being honest here, I feel I am again being bullied, gamed and pushed into submission by people who know this system better than me. I feel my time on Wikipedia is coming to an end because this bullying can't be controlled and no matter what I have done in terms of compromise doesn't seem to have helped. It's a shame but I can't see any other way if I'm ever to get any peace" 15:55, 21 November 2008) and [7] ("The old team is up and running. I am being bullied" 20:05, 14 October 2008)

• [8] Compare the quote by Domer saying "Since the AE every single edit I’ve made has been reverted. There has been no dispute. Rather than revert, I’ve gone to the talk page and initiated a discussion. Currently there is a discussion titled “Proposal, History section.” Editors, bar one, have agreed that the information is relevant and should be included. Despite an open discussion, and no feed back, the information was reverted, and only then was the discussion resumed." at 20:25, 14 October 2008 - doesn't that sound identical to what has happened with this "new editor", to my quote here at AE saying "Other than the removal of the tripod hosted site, every single change you see in those two diffs has been repeatedly reverted by SonofSetanta. His ownership of the article is breathtaking, making whatever changes he feels like then reverting any changes made by other people and demanding they take part in discussions.....discussions that he ignores completely!". The ownership behaviour is identical.

• Kamikaze edit warring. The three reverts in less than an hour by SonofSetanta are hopefully accessible enough without me providing diffs, but was there similar behaviour by The Thunderer? Oh absolutely. First there's his block log, and a couple of declined reports and on top of that there's the times he escaped being blocked due to the page being repeatedly protected. They behave in the same way, they are well aware of the edit warring rules but will just ignore them and continue edit warring anyway.

• The "official historian" line. See [9] and [10] for SonofSetanta. Particularly baffling is the claim that the preface reads "official UDR historian, at the invite of the British MOD". To the best of my knowledge there's only one edition of the book and that isn't in my copy! The Thunderer has previously pushed the same lie about Potter being the official historion at [11] ("Not only did he have field rank but he [Potter] is also the official historian" 09:59, 19 September 2008), and I recommend reading the entire discussion, as The Thunderer constantly pushes that position. No reliable sources have claimed John Potter is the official historian, and nobody else on Wikipedia has (that I can find) except SonofSetanta and The Thunderer.

• [12] Initial (there are other diffs too) re-addition of, most pertinently, policy violating information I removed about George Lapsley and sniper activity. Why would SonofSetanta be so keen to maintain those? Perhaps because The Thunderer added the information about Lapsley ([13]) and the sniper ([14], [15] and [16]) in the first place?

• "Deleting information without discussion". A common tactic to both account to prevent information being removed. [17] and [18] for SonofSetanta, [19] and [20] for The Thunderer. I should also note that while researching this I found dozens of diffs where The Thunderer deleted information without discussion, the classic ownership behaviour is so obvious for both accounts. SonofSetanta get to add whatever information they want, but if anyone removes or tries to add information they don't like, they edit war to keep it in/out.

• Removal of "according to Potter" type text. I'll preface this by saying that I certainly agree that some of the usages in the article aren't necessary, and I've removed several of them personally. [21] for SonofSetanta (and his edit warring continues to make that edit), [22] and [23] for The Thunderer, and I recommend looking at the history of the article for 13 and 16 September 2008 in particular since I didn't want to list dozens of diffs.

Taking each piece of evidence individually doesn't necessarily scream "sockpuppet" (although I believe the Domer48Fenian use is quite compelling), but taken in totality this seems pretty obvious to me. Despite his protests, SonofSetanta isn't a new editor. He's behaving in the exact same way as The Thunderer did, the same article fixation, the same edit warring, the same ownership, the same allegations of bullying and tag teams, the same opinion about Potter being the official UDR historian, the same use of Domer48Fenian (which has only ever been used by SonofSetanta and The Thunderer), the same everything in my opinion.

A clean start means exactly that. It doesn't mean go back to the same article and behave in the exact same way while claiming to be ignorant of things like sourcing policy and have a completely clean state when it comes to potential sanctions being imposed. They were asked if they had any previous accounts, denied it, and continued to claim to be a new editor while arbitration enforcement was ongoing and in their appeal against the arbitration enforcement block. That's clearly attempting to evade scrutiny and breach of a clean start. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties   

See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I do like that "official historian" evidence. I'm inclined to agree based on behavioral evidence, as the IP data would definitely be stale by now, but I would appreciate another admin's comment. Nakon 00:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

---