Yesterday I hastily wrote an essay detailing some of the activities related to team AGW which can be found here.
While the post itself correctly highlights the prevailing attitudes, tactics, and general modus operandi of that group of editors the argument I present, just like theirs, is fatally flawed in the following sense: it is based 100% on pure conjecture with 0% hard evidence.
So, with 20/20 hindsight here is what I should have said yesterday:
I know that there is no hard evidence against me so let them run their checkuser. If they claim that they have found hard evidence then I will know that the process is corrupt.
I know that the editing profiles of the sock puppets in question absolutely do not match my own editing history so, again, let them run their checkuser. If they claim that these puppets are me based purely on [[WP:DUCK]] then I will know that the process is corrupt.
The reality of the situation is that the originator of these puppets may never be identified. WMC clearly has plenty of wikipedia knowledgable editors who have a score to settle, but I contend that I am no where near the top of that particular list. It could be any of them. It could also be WMC himself or one of the other members of team AGW.
As this situation clearly highlights, the presentation of actual evidence does not matter when it comes to accusations of sock puppetry. In the end the only thing that matters is what the people running the place say the truth is.