Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malik Shabazz/Archive

04 April 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

MMShabazz is claimed to be a WP:DOPPELGANGER account.

This all started after in August 2015 when Malik Shabazz was Blocked and unblocked from editing Wikipedia. Abraham put a "retired" notification Malik Shabazz's user page. Shabbazz stopped editing Wikipedia under the username and instead began editing under IP addresses all while the "retired" notification remained. Finally in January 2016 Shabazz asked Abraham to remove the notification.

In this talk page discussion you could see that first Shabbazz uses two ip addresses and then finally logs in as MShabazz and continues the conversation.
 * 107.10.236.42 & 66.87.114.76 & MShabazz

Here Shabazz engaged in edit warring using 107.10.236.42 and MMShabazz

    And almost every other article.
 * Almost every article that was edited by 107.10.236.42 was also edited by Malik Shabazz/MMShabazz. See the history of the following articles -

In this conversation both IP Addresses were used to place warnings on E.M.Gregory's talk page.
 * 66.87.114.76 & 107.10.236.42

Also, after E.M.Gregory put a sock-puppet warning on the talk page of ip 107.10.236.42 - then user IP 66.87.114.76 removed the warning with the following curse language  "Taking out the trash fucking moron doesn't know what vandalism is or how to leave a warning template" (Without any mention of the sock-puppet concern). Also see this

This ip together with Malik Shabazz/MMShabazz engaged in edit warring against E.M.Gregory's edits. Deliberately uses the edit summary "the IP (-63.116.31.198-) has made a convincing argument on the talk page *to which you have not responded* -- please do so" This tricks other editors into thinking that this is a separate user.  
 * 63.116.31.198

Malik Shabazz/MMShabazz and 63.116.31.198 both edit the following page and user talk page:  

Here, experienced ip 107.10.236.42 was working on getting user Moetzes blocked and then - the experienced editors 63.116.31.198 & 107.10.236.42 repeatedly request to enforces the ban:  (The mere accusing user Moetzes of sock-puppet - shows edit experience)

Here are more examples of the same IPs running after alleged sockpuppet of user Moetzes User Moetzes talk page:


 * Here user 107.10.236.42 repeatedly deletes requests from other users asking to list previous accounts, and sockpuppet warnings from it's talk page. User 107.10.236.42 used false edit summaries including "Talking out trash" "“Taking out the trash; fucking moron doesn't know what vandalism is or how to leave a warning template”  etc.
 * Here is a ANI discussion where 107.10.236.42 again refuses to disclose if he/she had any previous accounts.Caseeart (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

There is much much more evidence (and possibly more involved) but let us go through the violations:
 * The user violates the WP:DOPPELGANGER rule "Such accounts should not be used for editing" - the user constantly uses the account to edit. This is especially a problem since Malik Shabazz has been blocked and MMShabazz has a clean history, and the Userpage Malik Shabbazz does not link to MMShabazz making it difficult to track edit habits. Also both accounts have even been involved in joint edit warring. See this example: (-Although Shabazz was correct on this edit and I made an error-).
 * "Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions...to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions". Especially because Malik Shabbazz does not even link to MMShabazz.
 * "Creating an illusion of support: Alternative accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists." Which is what user did by saying "the IP (-63.116.31.198-) has made a convincing argument on the talk page *to which you have not responded* -- please do so".
 * "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people." (Unless clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts). As mentioned the user constantly engaged in editing and edit warring using a variety of accounts.
 * "Editing logged out to mislead: Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy." Particularly that user repeatedly deleted warnings and concerns of other users of sockpuppeting.

And much more. Caseeart (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per 's request, I will summarize some of what I wrote about the IPs, evidence was already provided. -After Shabazz was blocked for personal attack there was a retired notification on Malik Shabazz's user page. (Shabazz only requested it to be changed/removed a few months later when he/she began to log in. This gave impression that Shabazz was no longer active). The IPs were used to edit the same articles as Shabazz edited. Shabbaz was constantly deleting "Sockpupet warnings" from the IP's talk page (with false misleading edit summaries). The IP's together with Shabazz teamed up in edit Warring (in one case both were reverting User:E.M.Gregory's edit). Sometimes Shabazz gave a "false impression of support" that the ip is a separate user by saying "the IP (-63.116.31.198-) has made a convincing argument". Shabazz used the ip to call another editor a "fucking moron" - This was soon after Shabazz got blocked for a personal attack. Caseeart (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

As she/he so often does, Caseeart demonstrates a disconcerting inability to read, not only my user page and the sock puppet policy, but also the advice of multiple editors who told her/him six months ago that there was no case against me. ] — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please stop laughing at my reading skills. All that was without all the ip addresses involved. Those links also just prove more that you were well aware that you are breaking the sockpuppet policy with your accounts and you continue to do so (whether or not it was enough for a case). Caseeart (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Caseeart, if you don't want people to laugh at your poor reading comprehension skills, why don't you read more carefully? You've been told repeatedly that I never broke the sock puppet policy, but you refuse to believe it. Instead, you keep repeating yourself. Edit warring? Where? When? Please read the policy, then read it again. I never violated it. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 10:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I do remember the series of interactions linked above in October 2015; it certainly felt like I was being attacked by a foul-mouthed, aggressive, stridently POV editor manipulating IP addresses.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You should really change the wording at User:MShabazz page. It currently says that "This account (MShabazz) is a doppelgänger account...". But, according to WP:DG, [s]uch accounts should not be used for editing. So, you should change the tag from "doppelgänger account" to "alternative account".  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you asserting that Malik_Shabazz should continue actively editing under two separate accounts just because they are marked? Even in the above conversations User:NeilN, User:Chillum and User:Dennis Brown never said that it is allowed but rather pointed out that and that this in itself is not a big enough violation and Shabazz is no longer active anyways (because we did not know about the IP editing).
 * Also,  should'nt it be "More info req" instead of "Declined"? - I may be able to show cases of deliberate editing under an IP to game the system with problematic BLP edits.Caseeart (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying he should, I'm saying he could if he wants so. Yes, it is allowed, see WP:VALIDALT. Your request for WP:CheckUser is declined because there is nothing that CheckUser can do here. We have two accounts that are obviously connected, so we don't need CheckUser. We also have some IPs, but CheckUser is not allowed to publicly connect accounts to their IPs.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  15:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:VALIDALT lists very specific cases where 2 accounts are allowed. Thanks for clarifying. I was unaware that check-user is not allowed to connect ip's to accounts. I that case there is indeed no point of checkuser. If I believe there is a case what should I do next? Caseeart (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Isn't there certain specific rules when editing under 2 accounts is allowed? What about the edit warring using the username and the ip address together? Also what about the personal attacks? Caseeart (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While we can look at any behavior at SPI, we generally try to focus solely on sockpuppetry, or behavior that happens on this page. Because the two names are linked, even if improperly, you really can't call that socking regardless, as there was no deception as to who the person was. That doesn't prevent you from seeking input at ANI or AN3 for the other issues. SPI just isn't a good place to debate edit warring policy. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time (and excuse me if I disturbed you). Let me focus for a moment on the personal attacks. There were serious violations committed by the ip's. I could demonstrate much more personal attacks by those ip's which are now clean from Shabazz's record. Including this one confirmed by User:MusikAnimal - Should I list them?
 * Also we need to confirm if/if not they are linked to Shabazz who was blocked for personal attacks (and appears to continue this behavior). Caseeart (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - First of all, it is not true that Malik Shabbazz does not even link to MMShabazz. The connection has been properly declared at User:Malik Shabazz since at least 2010 . Second, it is not true that MMShabazz is claimed to be a WP:DOPPELGANGER account. I don't see the user mentioning WP:DOPPELGANGER anywhere.  is properly declared alternate account, per WP:VALIDALT. So, there is no need to use CheckUser, since the two accounts are properly declared. Now, about the IPs, I would like you provide more evidence to prove that Shabazz was using  and  deliberately to abuse the process. Take a note that logged-put editing is not forbidden per se. It is only forbidden to deliberately log out to abuse the process.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  09:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I am totally at loss. I just looked at the accounts again and see clearly that what I wrote is precise. Please take a second look.
 * "I don't see the user mentioning WP:DOPPELGANGER anywhere." ---Please look at the page you will see the statement "This account (MShabazz) is a doppelgänger account created by Malik Shabazz".
 * "The connection has been properly declared at User:Malik Shabazz since at least 2010" --- I just looked again and was still unable to locate anywhere on User:Malik Shabazz's page anything about user MShabazz. The DIFF that you provided does not show any mention of MShabazz at all. (Please correct me if I am wrong).
 * Regarding the IP's - I previously noted so many problems how the IP was abusing the process I could better explain, but first I want to make sure we are on the same page about the WP:DOPPELGANGER account. Caseeart (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, you are right about the doppelgänger, I failed to notice. On the other hand, you are not right about not declaring connection. There is clearly visible userbox on User:Malik Shabazz that says "This user has an alternative account named MShabazz." And, it's been there since 2010.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  19:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right. Finally found the box - thanks for helping me locate it. However we still have the problem that the doppelgänger MMShabazz who is not allowed to edit is actively editing wikipedia.


 * Not sure why I was pinged here, but since I was: whether the other account is a doppleganger or alternate account is purely a matter of nomenclature, not sockpuppetry, as the accounts are clearly linked, even if suboptimally. The tag does need to be changed to "alternate account", so I just went and did it myself.  I'm sure Malik is wise enough to just leave it be.  As for the IP editing, if we just assume all of those edits are Malik (and I haven't established that), the question is whether or not he was using the IP's for "abuse" as defined by socking policy.  I don't see that, just some annoying behavior.  We aren't looking for technical violations of the words, we are looking for clear violations of the spirit of policy, and I don't things that threshold has been passed.  I would give a simple warning to Malik, who probably knows policy better than I do:  If you have have to edit as IP, I personally recommend putting "-MShabazz" or similar in the summary, something I do for quick edits.  This way, there isn't a question of linkage.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * it appears to me that all those IPs do belong to Shabazz (this links Shabazz to 66.87.114.76 and 107.10.236.42, this links 66.87.114.76 and 107.10.236.42, this and this link 107.10.236.42 and 63.116.31.198, etc). Shabazz was using IPs to edit-war  and for personal attacks . Those things happened months ago, and all IPs have been inactive for some time now. The role of WP:SPI is to stop possible disruption of Wikipedia, and there is no ongoing disruption, so I think there's nothing we can do here except say that they are connected. Issued of edit warring and personal attacks should be discussed somewhere else, not here. I am warning / not to use IPs without properly signing as Shabazz, as  already said. I am not going to block Shabazz for violations he made months ago.He should not repeat such behavior, and if he does, then we can talk about blocks and bans. That's all from me, and I'm closing this case now.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  16:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

It is stated on the user's TALK page that he/she uses both accounts. My understanding is "multiple accounts may not be used to comment on proposals or requests." The editor has used these accounts in apparent violation of WP:MULTIPLE to make comments on an RfC which can be seen here. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * As per WP:ILLEGIT, "Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion in a way that suggests they are multiple people. Contributing to the same page with clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts... is not forbidden." MShabazz is clearly marked as an alternate account of Malik Shabazz, and so there is no socking going on here. Closing. GABgab 21:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Looks like all from around the same area that Malik lists they have lived in Ohio. Also they poped up to continue an edit war only they were engaged in on Black Hebrew Israelites with edit summaries similar to how they interact. PackMecEng (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * There is a time limit for sock puppeting to edit war? PackMecEng (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally at SPI we do not action reports involving stale logged out edits unless there is a long-term trend and it is substantial. The purpose of SPI is to prevent disruption, not to punish. Two logged out edits weeks ago usually won't be viewed as ongoing disruption. If you think that it is a strong case here and that it is part of a long term trend of behaviour, you could take it to ANI or AN, but that'd be something out of the scope of SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah I understand now, thank you for the explanation. PackMecEng (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
One edit from each IP on April 26? Over two weeks ago? Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)