Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bogorm

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Bogorm

Suspected sock puppeteer

Bogorm (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Suspected sock puppets

209.172.104.100 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

Report submission by

Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Bogorm was recently briefly blocked by Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 3RR and upon expiry, he/she immediately launched into attacks on Tiptoety, both on his/her talk page, and bringing seemingly ridiculous allegations to ANI.

This eventually led to me blocking Bogorm, immediately after which, this IP popped up and made similar allegations on my talk page. Both unrelated user Biophys (talk · contribs) [1] and I concluded that the IP was Bogorm (per WP:Duck), which Bogorm denies.

As a result, I extended Bogorm's block but to question my own actions, I opened this RFCU. The CU turned up inconclusive but the IP is a proxy.

Tiptoety came to the same conclusion of sockpuppetry.

Bogorm appears to be upset as evidenced by this so I thought I should open the official sockpuppet report for further discussion. (I thought it was put to rest with the RFCU and discussion.)

End of Toddst1's evidence

Contra-evidence from Bogorm:

The user IP in question is residing in San Jose (demonstration, WHOIS)

The CheckUser decided that the outcome is inconclusive, id est, no evidence besides Toddst1's suspicions.

The IP makes his edits in 23:44 UTC, when in my country it is deep night (02:44 EET) and I am never awake at that time.

Here User:Toddst1 accuses me of having edited User:Tiptoety's talk page (a mendacious claim as per the history of User:Tiptoety's talk page - I have never edited it). He founds on this base the conclusion about equivalence between me and the IP despite the fact that I have never launched attacks on any administrator's talk page nor elsewhere!

I have posted an e-mail on the CheckUser with info about my IP so that he assures himself that I reside in Bulgaria and it is a sheer inanity to claim that I might have been in 21:34 in Sofia and in 21:36 in San Jose.

I never condescend to making usage of the abbreviated forms of "do not", "I have" unlike the IP on his talk page.

User:Tiptoety has founded his actions on the 8 "reverts" ([2] here, together with their confutation) and is therefore not to be considered impartial.

"appears to be upset": I was aggrieved over the reckless actions of administrators founded on inconclusive "evidence" and inept suppositions and hitherto am.

The independent User:Biophys questions the righteousness of User:Toddst1's blocking actions by admitting that the IP may be a deliberate impostor. This is highly possible considering the fact, that on 2008 South Ossetia war several users seem to find my sourced edits inconvenient and regularly engage in deletions despite the fact that they are based on reports of venerable and prominent medias. Bogorm (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

What User:Toddst1 disparages as "ridiculous", is my complaint about blocking perpetrated by uproven edits, by accidentally handpicking 8 of my edits on an article and demandng my blocking without naming the versions reverted to. Eventually, 5 of them have been refuted on my talk page. Therein originates User:Toddst1's claims of "ridiculousness" when I question the blocking.

Actually the attack was launched against me, when the proponent for my blocking claimed that I was "hard to deal with and cannot be convinced of anything"([3]). If you strive after blocking users because you cannot deal with them as with an instrument, is this an Argumentum ad hominem or not? Furthermore, User:Toddst1 deliberately blanks the evidence diproving 5 of the 8 "reverts". Bogorm (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased actions of User:Toddst1

He is summoning the admin who blocked me without investigating the stringency of the 8 confuted reverts. The "revert to" field has been left blank by the proponent, so User:Tiptoety may have been impressed by the sheer number of the 8 handpicked edits of mine. (see above link)
Deliberately questioning the notability of the spouse of a long-ruling head of state, for whose notability I provided more that sufficient evidence - articles in El País, El Mundo, the Japanese Foreign Ministry, Makfax and A1. I consider this edit of his provocative, to put it mildly. I beg all impartial admins (i. e. besides the two in question) to take decision whether this action by User:Toddst1 founded on the sole reason that User:Bogorm had edited (expanded) the article, is POV/personally motivated. On my complementary citations of all non-English sources he relapses into adding a second template (Template:Refimprove, whose documentation is "This template is intended for use in articles that need additional references" !, bold by me; the "friendly" in his summary in the diff is a sheer sarcasm), when quoted sources comprise 83% of the whole volume of the article and the actual text is 17% ! Bogorm (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support administrative actions by Toddst1 and Tiptoety. Although a hypothetical "impostor" might be involved (as I said), this is highly unlikely. Therefore, the decision made per WP:DUCK was right decision. Bogorm blows this story out of proportions, apparently to scare admins away and prevent any other possible future sanctions. Actually, he deserved a warning with placement him here. Biophys (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions: Likely sock, indef blocked for other issues. Toddst1 (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]