As for the rest, he posted a list and made it clear that most on that list were not downvoting him, but there were some who had. He didn't say that he suspected any of them in particular. It is unreasonable to assume (as many apparently have) that he has singled out that list of people and cast a mental blot on their names. What he is saying is that if he does this a few times, he will get an idea of who some likely candidates are.
Which he probably will. With some room for false postives. But in a few iterations, taking into account the people who are always around, he will probably get a reasonable idea. of a few.
And frankly, while I don't like the tone of the response, he has so far done a better job of analysis than the people criticizing him. He was voted down 3 times, fast, on a node with useful information. (Namely the contact address through which O'Reilly wants to receive typo corrections on their books.) That means 3 login accounts at least. And it wasn't the quality of the node that was in question, so all things considered it was almost certainly personal. Care to take odds that 2-3 of them were still around when he took his chatter snapshot...?
When I see him post a conclusion that I doubt, I will be first to tell him publically that I do not agree with him. But that hasn't happened yet.
And flipping your theorizing request around, if it is unfair for him to leap to the theory that everyone on that list is downvoting unreasonably, isn't it equally unfair to leap to the theory that he thinks that?