Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bazzajf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. 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.

[edit] User:Bazzajf

Evidence
Bazzajf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 62.77.181.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • 62.77.181.16 started editing articles on June 6 shortly after a 3RR block was placed on Bazzajf, and stopped editing articles after the Bazzajf block disappeared.
  • 62.77.181.16 edited many of the same articles as Bazzajf, including Bazzajf's user page.
  • Compare also [1] with [2]: both ranting comments use the same strange "agenda-based communications" formulation.
  • Bazzajf picked up right where 62.77.181.16 left off on Talk:Henry M. Jackson.
  • An administrator blocked Bazzajf for other sockpuppet use in this time frame, but I don't know the sockpuppet's name.

-- FRCP11 12:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional Evidence

--FRCP11 14:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • IP is out of Dublin, Ireland, and Bazzajf's user page indicates he's from Ireland.

-- FRCP11 15:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

  • On 28 June, Bazzajf was blocked for a month for continued personal attacks. This page was noted at WP:AN/I, and since the block, the sockpuppet tags on the IP's userpage and talk were blanked by the IP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Comments

The block extension for sockpuppetry was, I believe, unjustified. User:Bazzajf says that User:Bazzajful is his roommate, and I see no reason not to believe it. That doesn't address the current accusation, of course, but I think that item of evidence shouldn't be considered for this case. Powers 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would his roommate choose so similar a name? Why would the roommate, if a genuine user, not have continued? William M. Connolley 13:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that I've looked at Bazzajful's single contribution, I'm skeptical that that user is a sockpuppet, but I think it's pretty clear that 62.77.181.16 was a sockpuppet evasion of a block by Bazzajf. -- FRCP11 13:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
3 contribs [3]. OK, I see him asserting its not a sock, but the reasonning seems odd. Anyway, its the anon we care about? William M. Connolley 13:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The anon evasion of a 3RR block, yes. Not thrilled with the bad-faith editing and the violations of WP:CIVIL, either, but Wikipedia procedures really don't do anything about that. -- FRCP11 13:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
FRCP11 is correct, I am user bazzajf, I log in on my home PC as bazzajf but on my work PC when I was blocked, I logged in as an anonymous IP address as I could not log in as myself and edit. I was not happy with
  • An extension of a ban for sockpuppetry as user bazzajful when I clearly illustarted I was not indulging in deceitful sock-puppetry and let my housemate express my vested interest even though I quoted him what I wanted said

and

  • An unfair application of 3RR in that the principle to treat reverters equally on the same article was not applied despite the evidence I provided. I welcome LTPowers apology however.

I look forward to another ban and I probably deserve it. I've been a bit of a bollocks on line, I don't know if I'm here because I like trolling around looking for somebody I deem to be overly self-righteous to take on in a debate of if I have a genuine contribution to make.

It is probably the former.

Thanks for your time and attention and apologies if I caused any offence, obviously it wasn't personal, how could it be, i don't know you people. It was in the spirit of the debate I s'pose.

Take it easy 62.77.181.16 15:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No it was not in the spirt of debating, unless you debate badly. I suggest you read up on logical fallacies (things people use when they can't debate properly) which personal attacks fall under. Personal attacks only take away from the issue at hand and are an improper way of supporting your position by attempting to discrediting your opponent. Personal attacks are in the spirit of childish name-calling to get what you want. Paul Cyr 17:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


The statements you make amuse me. My debating skills are reasonably good, I merely throw in the odd jovial catchphrase here and there to add a bit of colour, I always deal with the issue at hand, the "personal attacks" you speak of in relation to me are amusing in nature and are used very infrequently by myself and are hardly vicious or majorly offensive so desist from the lecture because it certainly doesn't apply to me. Like I advised you before, go looking for vandals who engage in irrational debate and irrelevant insulting language and leave me in peace. Bazzajf 10:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't find the comment "knucklehead" amusing. Powers 12:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hopefully, with both the user and the IP blocked, the user will click-on. Other admins have already blocked whomever. Iolakana|T 12:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Case closed: Iolakana|T 12:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)