Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mazi99/Archive

Mazi99 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

27 December 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

• Wadaad (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every six hours.

Please list evidence below this line. Remember to sign at the end of your section with 4 tilde characters "~~~~"

The editor above, User:Mazi99, has been a very disruptive presence on the Somali-related articles since he first started editing them again (at least with this particular account) in October 2010 after a hiatus of several years (c.f. [1]). He first attempted to add some rather obvious original research to the Darod and Isaaq articles, which I and an administrator discuss here with him; he also removed reliable sources. It has been back and forth like this with him for months now, typically over something Arab-related (he apparently does not like Arabs or any reference to them).

The latest is a paper from a self-admitted Afrocentrist author that the editor above repeatedly attempted to add to the Somali people article. I've detailed the specifics in this post, but the gist of it is that the editor is again uncomfortable with references to non-African relations or affinities. The main difference is that this time, the editor used a new account, User:Wadaad, to perform what are essentially the same sorts of edits (i.e. Afrocentric ones). I know for a fact that he is the same editor since he himself admitted as much in a reply he drafted ("First of all, this is not a sock puppet but a new account of mine" [2]) -- but quickly deleted minutes later [3], apparently realizing that he had just outed himself -- to my charge that he was "a likely sock of User:Mazi99". Also rather tellingly, the editor then took it upon himself to delete my suggestion that he was probably a sock of Mazi99, claiming that it was "personal nonsense" ([4]).

Besides the actions enumerated above, it's doubtful that this was simply an innocuous new account he created to start afresh because he created this account while he was still using the Mazi99 account. More importantly, he used the new Wadaad account on one of the main pages the Mazi99 account would routinely frequent and argue over (the Somali people page), whereas WP:SOCK indicates that one of the inappropriate uses of alternative accounts includes "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts". Middayexpress (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Very pathetic attempt, this is indeed Mazi99. However, this is a new account of mine, I haven't used the other one for about two months and I am not planning to use it anymore. That isn't against the rules I suppose. My contributions to the Somali peoples page are not disruptive at all, we could say the same about your robot-like mini-edits. Myself being a native Somali wouldn't try to portray any false information about my people.

Wadaad (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are indeed disruptive. The latest attempt to introduce a source by a lay, Afrocentric author is a perfect example of this; especially considering the fact that it had already been pointed out to you that the man is an Afrocentrist & that such ideological sources are not allowed on Wikipedia. You now insist that you weren't socking but simply starting anew. However, your attempts, in particular, to alter my comments linking your account with the Mazi99 account belies that suggestion [5]. Someone who had nothing to hide would not have felt the need to do that. Your Wadaad account was also created in October of this year [6], while you were still using your Mazi99 main account ([7]). You also never disclosed anywhere on your Mazi99 page that you had started a new account or even so much as added a retired tag, as WP:SOCK recommends. You simply went right back to editing the same page, only this time using a new account (whose userpage you have only just edited for the first time [8]). Middayexpress (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that comment was an ad hominem and not useful to the discussion, again I am not using a sockpuppet. It was just a misunderstanding. I am not a frequent wikipedia user, I forgot to mention it on my old user page, I just did. Feeling happy now?

Wadaad (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Clerk declined declined as CU evidence is not needed here; it is clear that Mazi99 and Wadaad have both been operated by the same person. Referred to administrative discretion to decide whether or not the is a legit clean start (note that the Mazi99 account was blocked in 2007. The user compare report will be significant in deciding the outcome of this case). Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: This is a tough one. The edits are the same, I do not see it as a legitimate clean start. Yet, I do not see anything that would merit a block on any account, and the original account has not edited for a bit. Although there are certainly content issues here, and it's probably not a technically correct clean start, due both to time length, and the scrutiny of the topic. Still, taking this into account, the user should choose one account, and the other should be blocked. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note So following the discussion here, as well as this edit, I've blocked Mazi99 as being an unused account. Editor is reminded that, if they want to change their account name in the future, to do so via WP:CHU. Relist if this becomes an issue again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]