Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:19, 24 September 2008

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)

Evidence

• Bogorm was recently briefly blocked by Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 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) 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.

• Bogrom 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) and I am never awake at that time.

• Here User:Toddst1 accuses me of having editing User:Tiptoety's talk page (a mendacious claim as per the history of User:Tiptoety's talk page - I have never editted it). He founds on this base the conclusion about equivalence between me and the IP despite the fact that I have never launched attack's 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.

• 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)

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"(). 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)

Conclusions