IMPORTANT: See my statement found here regarding my own use of sock puppets.
See previous post here.
Well, the checkuser information for the most recent SPI accusation has come in. I believe that the following official SPI comments tell you everything you need to know here:
Clerk note: I suppose if we cannot definitely show that the two now-blocked accounts are GoRight (as with the previous SPI case), then I don’t think there is much else to do here. –MuZemike 17:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Emphasis is mine. The bottom line is that official checkuser result was inconclusive, so there isn’t any specific hard evidence linking these accounts to me. Color me (not) surprised.
Now, NuclearWarfare has blocked TheNeutralityDoctor (a.k.a. Rush’s Algore) for abusing multiple accounts but he has never stated who these other accounts actually are. Given this the blocking administrator has specifically chosen to not connect these accounts to me either. Note the block description and the tag that he placed on TND. This too is the proper way to handle these accounts.
There is another unsurprising set of actions we can observe in this case. The !Cabal (see this which was subsequently corrected here and this) and other similar vultures (see this and this) are running around attempting to rewrite history by tagging these accounts as being associated with me … something the official investigators and blocking administrators declined to do for the simple reason that there is no conclusive evidence here … a fact that does not surprise me in the least.
There are multiple questions here. Is it proven to a mathematical certainty that GoRight = TND? No, of course not. Is it demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt (ie, enough to convince a jury)? Probably not. But certainly we’ve at least shown that it is more likely than not that GoRight = TND and, in any event, editing through open proxies is explicitly forbidden. If TND were editing through a real ISP, I’d certainly be more open to the possibility that they were not the same person, but there’s enough here for me. Two accounts use the same style of edit summaries, the same formatting, have the same POV on the same articles, and are both editing from open proxies (which itself is against the rules)? I think we can call it a duck. —B (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Emphasis is mine. Obviously I disagree with the “proven more likely than not bit of this”, but at least B has made a logically feasible statement depending on each individual’s assessment of the subjective and circumstantial evidence which was presented. More importantly, he agrees that nothing has actually been proven here which is also an unsurprising result from my perspective. I expected nothing less.