Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bigglove

User:Bigglove

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Bigglove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Quaiqu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Isarig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

csloat 08:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence

Quaiqu (talk · contribs) is the name that replaced User:Elizmr, a contentious and abrasive user with whom I had several unpleasant interactions surrounding various Middle East related pages. Elizmr asked to "disappear" from Wikipedia, blaming me in the process, and took the name Quaiqu. A few months later, Bigglove (talk · contribs) began editing, curiously drawn to similar obsessions as Elizmr/Quaiqu:

• Keith Ellison (Quaiqu: [1][2]; Bigglove: [3][4])
• "Apartheid" in Saudi Arabia (Quaiqu: [5][6]; Bigglove: [7])

Such examples do not tell us much, of course, but the user showed a strong knowledge of Wikipedia policies and customs early on; his/her earliest edits showed an understanding of how sources are cited here, an understanding and use of the term "wikify" (an odd term to use on one's second day of editing), and his/her aggressive participation on a deletion review suggests a user with a far longer familiarity with Wikipedia than a few weeks.

I was a little taken aback when this user rather suddenly and viciously went after a page on a Muslim community newspaper, first raising a notability case that appeared incorrect to me, and then being very aggressive about pursuing an argument about notability but never actually listed the case for AfD. I did not want to waste time arguing with him/her since such a debate was useless outside of an AfD context, and I urged him/her to list the article for deletion if s/he felt it was non-notable. I should add that this user's participation on the page came after I had been attacked in talk by User:Isarig and User:Armon, two users who Quaiqu (then Elizmr) used to ally with against me in long and fruitless (and often acrimonious) arguments in talk pages and on my user talk page. Bigglove's appearance on that page seemed sudden and seemed intensely committed and vehement -- to the extent that I began to wonder why he/she was so focused only on going after me. I protested his/her actions, and made comments that were perhaps inappropriate and uncivil (for which I have apologized). But the more I thought about it, the more I saw a familiar pattern between this user's attacks and those of Elizmr. Then the user launched an RfC against me based on incivility. Again, I found the RfC completely out of line and uncalled for, and it made me wonder if this was the same user who had attacked me in the past and then "disappeared." It seems very strange for a user that has been around just over a month to already be filing a conduct RfC.

Comments

I don't know at all if this user is a sockpuppet, and I'm not sure it would be so bad if he/she were, since the Quaiqu/Elizmr account is no longer active. But I do think it is problematic if this user created a sock account just to cause trouble for me and try to get me blocked (he/she asks for a week long block in the RfC). I ask only that an admin look into it; I am not accusing this user as I honestly don't know. But my suspicions are strong enough that I think someone should look into it.

Conclusions

I have not reached any conclusions about this at all, but I hope someone who understands how to look into the issue can offer evidence that he or she is or is not a sockpuppet. If he/she is not, I apologize for bringing up the case, but I could not in good conscience let it go, especially after the RfC.

Discussion

• Comment from the Accused party:

• It does not look like the user Quaiqu (talk · contribs) or User:Elizmr was ever blocked from editing Wikipedia for any infraction of policy
• This user is not currently editing the encylopedia. The last note on the talk page of this "contentious and abrasive editor" is a thank you (from what appears to be a Muslim editor) for helping to improve a page on Hezbollah [8].
• I have made many edits on many pages; there is no evidence that this is a single purpose account established to create trouble for another user.
• Commodore Sloat mentions the user conduct RFC that I have filed against him for calling me "Islamophobic". I feel this user should concentrate there, and own up to breaking the WP:NPA policy rather than sidestep into other accusations such as this one. Bigglove 12:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

response -- (1) and (2) are not relevant to this case. I don't know about the comment referred to in #2, but if one looks over Elizmrs comments on my talk page one will find ample evidence of said contentiousness and abrasiveness. But it's really not relevant to whether this new user is a sock. (3) I think I mis-worded the above - I don't think the sock was created just to make trouble for me, but I do think it was created so that the user could get involved in disputes without being identified as Elizmr/Quaiqu. (4) The fact that this frivolous RfC was filed is itself evidence that this user could be Elizmr. If s/he is not, it would be great to have that known in the clear so the suspicion subsides.

I notice that the user did not bother to address the evidence I presented. Particularly, s/he has no explanation at all for why s/he came to Wikipedia with such a vast knowledge of its policies the first couple days, and was advanced enough of an editor to be filing conduct RfCs within the first month of use. Again, I could be totally wrong here and I welcome the evidence that disproves this, but it is all very suspicious. csloat 16:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I addressed any relevant issue rasised by CSloat in the four points I have already mentioned above. Bigglove 01:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask whoever does the checkuser on this case to also compare Bigglove's IP to that of Isarig (talk · contribs), who has also been involved in these disputes, and who is now confirmed as a sockpuppeteer. csloat 19:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, with all due respect I feel like now you are just fishing. It is really time for you to issue a true and straightforward apology in the user conduct RFC for your personal attacks rather than spending so much energy accusing me here of some policy infraction that I am not committing. Bigglove 23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not fishing. Now that we know Isarig is a known sock puppeteer, a checkuser is entirely reasonable. I am also not accusing you here - as you can see above, I am presenting evidence of my suspicions and that is it. The fact that you have no answer for this evidence is telling, but only a checkuser can provide concrete evidence. Finally, I have straightforardly and honestly apologized to you OVER AND OVER in the conduct RfC you have started. Your actions are making a mockery of the process and I urge you to stop. csloat 00:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the accusation that User:Bigglove is a sockpuppet of proven sockmaster User:Isarig is credible, perhaps very credible. Nevertheless, User:Bigglove has ignored what is going on here and asked that Isarig not be site-banned at the Community Sanction Noticeboard. PalestineRemembered 10:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

---