Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Bigglove


 * 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)


 * Both of your are inappropriately moving two other discussions, one on the RFC against CSloat and one on the ban of Isarig to this page. Please take your discussions to the appropriate pages.  If you like, PalestineRemebered, I will remove my remarks from the Isarig page.


 * Regarding why I have not replied to some of the issues CSloat raises on the project page, since you are both casting aspersions based on this, let me explain. I would have been more than happy to answer the questions CSLoat posed above if he had just asked me nicely on my userpage or dropped me an email... are you quaiqu?  why are you so good at editing wikipedia right off the bat???  how did you run across this article?  how are you interested in Ellison or Saudi Arabia?...no problem.  He did not do this, however, rather he made a formal accusation first on this page.  In the context of this project page, I thought it best to concentrate on the points relevant to the specific accusation CSloat brought.  After reading the policy page carefully, I answered with what I felt were the relevant points only.  If you read the policy page, Csloat or Palestine remembered, you will see the issues that CSloat raised that I did not reply to were actually irrelevant to the policy.  This is why I didn't comment specifically.  Bigglove 13:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not true. csloat 17:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, CSLOAT, the above is not a very userful remark as it contains no information beyond a blanket dismissal of what I said above. Which part of what I am saying is not true?  Did you actually bring questions to my user page in non-accusatory way?  (answer: you did not).  Are you psychoanalyzing me (which you've promised NOT to do henceforth) and saying that I would NOT have been happy to answer questions had you asked them before bringing these accusations?  I think you disagree that I answered all of the relevant questions in my reply.  I've said above that I consulted policy and answered in a way that I felt was appropriate to that policy, but in reply you fail to quote any policy to support your assertion that any points I might not have answered are actually relevant.  Or maybe you feel that I am wrong in my opinion that you two are both inappropriately moving discussions that belong on the RFC or Isarig page to this one.  Given your statement above, it is really impossible to decipher your meaning, so it is unsuccessful in being a vehicle of communication.  The blanket dismissal feels rude to me, and reading it makes me feel frustrated and a little angry.  Why not try to deal with me in a more reasonable way than you have been up until now instead of firing off stuff like this?   Why not give that a shot?  Bigglove 15:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant was your statement "the issues that CSloat raised that I did not reply to were actually irrelevant to the policy" is not true. Hope that helps.  And, for the record, yes, I also think you're wrong that "you two are both inappropriately moving discussions that belong on the RFC or Isarig page to this one."  That is not the case at all.  It doesn't matter; this page is not a formal accusation (despite your attempt to paint it that way).  And from what I have been told, checkuser will not be run against a user as old as Elizmr.  A checkuser can be run on Isarig but I find it less likely that you are Isarig than PR does, and you have stated clearly and boldly that you are not Isarig on his CSM page.  So I'm happy to let this go; if your behavior improves perhaps we can get along whether or not you are Elizmr. csloat 16:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You opened a formal inquiry on a sockpuppet project page, and left a note on my user page that reads, "you have been accused of sockpuppetry". YOu asked for the accounts to be checked. What could be more formal that that? Maybe you don't consider it formal accusation becuase you said you thought I might be another user and did not say that I was another user??? hard to know. I saw the remark on your user page regarding your report and request. The user who commented there mentioned the relevant policy points, as I did in my original reply. The quaichu account you are accusing me of being a sockpuppet of was never blocked or banned and is not currently editing so there is no possibility of any illegal sockpuppeting going on. The similarities you raised were just conjecture, contained personal attacks in your characterization of quaichu, and was likely to have been done in bad faith coincident with the timing of the RFC, so I couldn't bring myself to dignify them with a reply (although I started to numerous times). I did reply that I am not Isarig, because if I were there would be a policy infraction and I certainly felt you were entitled to that reply given that Isarig and I were both editing the same page at the same point in time, so I gave you a straightforward answer. I also recused myself from the Isarig discussion based on your concerns and PalestineRembembered's concerns after it was brought up to me. "If your behavior improves" is a vague personal attack suggesting that there is something wrong with my behavior. I have several times invited you to, and still invite you to make specific comments regarding my behavior. Failing that, please don't make insulting comments like the above. Bigglove 17:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right about the note but I did not write that; all I did was put in the template that is called for on this page. Again, if you actually read what I wrote on this page, you would see I did not accuse you and stated clearly and quite honestly that I did not know.  I simply stated my suspicions and the evidence for those suspicions (which have not been cleared up).  My interactions with Elizmr were extremely unpleasant and I got the sense that s/he left the project with a lot of acrimony towards me.  Along comes a brand new user with the same acrimony and the same topical obsessions starting edit wars and hurling invective and showing an advanced knowledge of Wikipedia policy -- you have to admit it is suspicious.  Your claim that my actions were in bad faith is a dramatic and bold violation of WP:AGF, something that does not look good for you coming on the heels of your extremely uncooperative actions regarding the RfC.  Your whine that I am personally attacking you by commenting on your behavior -- which has been utterly unacceptable -- is not persuasive.  I think it is time for you to try to put this behind you and start cooperating, as I have been honestly and earnestly trying to do. csloat 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * HOpefully an admin witll close and archive this discussion soon. There is no evidence that I have "hurled invective" at you in any way.  I did assume bad faith, and I should and do apologize.  However, if you  feel I have "hurled invective" then please be good enough to be specific in your complaint.  YOu are welcome to file an RFC.  I will request a check user on the Isarig thing myself if you or PR don't do it just to clear the air about that if you like.  Over and out.  I shall not be looking at this page again.  I am taking it off my watch list.  Bigglove 19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I went to the discussion page on Isarig to find that the discussion had been archived as it resembled a lynching. I made a remark below that my remarks should be disregarded as I have been accused of being the same person as Isarig by both of you. I hope this satisfies both of you. Bigglove 13:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A checkuser will be more satisfactory. csloat 17:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the complaint of PR's that I commented on Isarig's case while concurrently being accused of being Isarig. Bigglove 19:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)