User:Manul/Tumbleman sockpuppetry

This document expands upon the evidence of sockpuppetry by user Tumbleman. Note the sockpuppet investigation page already provides ample evidence that these accounts are sockpuppets of Tumbleman, and they were blocked accordingly. No admin decided that an account was not a sockpuppet.

• Sockpuppet KateGompert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • The following notes are provided in addition to the evidence in the sockpuppet investigation.
  • Tumbleman claimed that KateGompert is a "professional" he hired to make edits for him.[1] This explanation is inconsistent with the facts for (at least) the following reasons.
  • KateGompert made only two edits to Wikipedia. The first edit[2] was to express interest in participating in a "lively debate" on the Sheldrake talk page. The second edit was to support Tumbleman on the Sheldrake talk page.[3] If Tumbleman hired this person, as he claims, then that would be as bad or worse than sockpuppeting: paying a meatpuppet to support him.
  • A professional Wikipedia editor would use an established account, not create a new one. A professional would also not behave just like a Tumbleman sockpuppet. See the case page for the behavioral evidence linking KateGompert to Tumbleman.
  • If "Kate Gompert" were a real person, she could have immediately cleared up the confusion privately through a functionary or OTRS. Tumbleman's attempt to orchestrate this failed, leading a functionary to conclude, "I personally think this is likely just a troll. The email he sent me did nothing to help me decide whether this is socking or account sharing."[4]

• Sockpuppet KemRP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • This account is  Technically indistinguishable from the Tumbleman and KateGompert accounts; see the sockpuppet investigation.
  • The KemRP account was created just 13 minutes before the KateGompert account. [5][6]
  • As far has I can tell, Tumbleman has avoided any mention of this blocked sockpuppet. The explanations that he has proffered for the checkuser results are inconsistent with the existence of this KemRP account.

• Sockpuppet Oh boy chicken again (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • The following notes are provided in addition to the evidence in the sockpuppet investigation.
  • Notice at the sockpuppet investigation page Oh boy chicken again attempted to defend himself, but his defense itself provided more evidence of sockpuppetry.
  • Further evidence of sockpuppetry was discovered some time after the sockpuppet investigation closed, as discussed in this thread. An admin found that Oh boy chicken again had a distinctive habit of inserting haphazard spaces in comments, a habit that Tumbleman shared. Other Tumbleman sockpuppets also share this quirk; see for instance the confirmed sockpuppet SAS81 (the last bullet point).
  • There is strong evidence that, after Oh boy chicken again's disastrous defense on the investigation page, the account was passed to another individual. See the aforementioned discussion with an admin.
  • Not mentioned on the sockpuppet investigation page is the later checkuser result showing that the account is "quite possibly related, not unlikely as was mentioned before".[7]. Remember that checkuser is not pixie dust. The behavioral evidence is sufficient on its own, and the checkuser evidence just adds to it.

• Sockpuppet 23.241.74.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
  • The following notes are provided in addition to the evidence in the sockpuppet investigation.
  • The behavioral evidence alone is conclusive: we have confirmed sockpuppets appearing before and after this IP that were convicted on very similar evidence.
  • Especially damning is that fact that the confirmed sockpuppet Philosophyfellow used the very same IP, 23.241.74.200. See the fifth and sixth bullet points in the sockpuppet investigation.
  • The IP's geolocation matches Tumbleman's geolocation.
  • The admin who evaluated this case called the evidence "overwhelming".[8]

Six administrators concluded that Tumbleman's behavior on Wikipedia was a problem.[9]