Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mo ainm/Archive

08 August 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

At Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents it is clearly stated by a sysop that User:Mo aimn is User:Bigdunc and advises him to clearly show on his old homepage that he has a new username. He is warned that coming back to edit in an area where he previously had difficulty, blocks and bans does not entitle him to WP:CLEANSTART. I believe the reason for this is that he wishes to hide his extensive block log here. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Editor has been asked to drop this and even a cursory reading of the post by Cailil will see that his words are being twisted to suit the agenda of editor who again brings another trivial matter to admin attention. Below are a couple of links for interested admin to view. CU is not for fishing Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User is clean, nothing more to do here.
 * Do not feed the trolls. ArbCom has an email address if you're actually concerned about this.


 * I was advised by a sysop to start this enquiry because : at User:BigDunc the user page clearly states "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia."  It would normally be fair to extend WP:CLEANSTART to such a user but in this case we have the new identity User:Mo ainm making forays onto pages where he previously had difficulties requiring the intervention of sysops, for example; Ulster Special Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment.  So he clearly is active, he has certainly admitted above that he is, therefore the statement at User:BigDunc is untrue.  One sysop has clearly told Mo aimn that if he wishes to do this he cannot take advantage of WP:CLEANSTART and must declare his new identity on his former user page.  He has not done so.  One is left thinking that this isn't a new start for the user but merely a sockpuppet identity to allow him to operate in controversial areas without the encumbrance of the substantial block log shown here, which makes very unpleasant reading as it contains blocks for incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, violation of WP:1RR, problematic language/behaviour and foul language.  It can certainly be seen over the last week or so that he is drifting into these habit again.  According to WP:CLEANSTART The two most common reasons for wanting a clean start are to make a fresh start after recognizing past mistakes, and to avoid harassment. The old account must be clearly discontinued, and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior.   We're not seeing a recognition of past mistakes in the case of mo aimn, we're seeing exactly the same editing patterns and behaviours which got him into so much trouble as BigDunc.


 * From the perspective of an ordinary editor, who has been on the receiving end of BigDunc and Mo aimn's more unpleasant editing habits, I would suggest Mo aimn has a choice: declare his new account on his old page and vice-versa in order to continue his troublesome editing patterns or accept WP:CLEANSTART and stay away from areas where he has caused trouble in the past. Either way, as he has already violated WP:CLEANSTART I would venture that he is operating as a sockpuppet of BigDunc.SonofSetanta (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Whilst I am not sure whether or not this is the right place for this - AN/I perhaps? It seems apparent that some admins know that Mo ainm is a "clean start" of BigDunc. I for one however never knew until this week that they where one and the same and had I known it I would have mentioned it anytime I've raised Mo ainm's past uncivil and antagonistic behaviour. For me, and no doubt many others, they have used this account to evade scrutiny and comparison with their old account - two accounts which are both involved heavily in the same Ireland related topics and similar styles of aggression. Thus I must agree with the basis of SoS's arguments, whether or not it is simply the escalation of hostilities between these two editors. Mabuska (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will admit that I am wary of any editing by Mo aimn on articles to do with the The Troubles. I would venture that this is because of past experiences where he and his alter ego BigDunc have been most uncivil and displayed WP:BATTLE tendencies.  His issue appears to be one of passion for his version of certain aspects of Irish history which he imposes on articles to the detriment of fact, and accusing those who disagree with him of POV.  As you say though, even if it's only for the benefit of sysops who have to deal with his problematic editing style, he should clearly link the two accounts together.  Otherwise we get situations such as at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents where he can be seen to engage in WP:OUTING when I brought a complaint against him because of evidence of problematic editing at Ulster Special Constabulary.  This clearly falls under WP:SCRUTINY.  I'm concerned as well about the amount of tag teaming he has been involved in such as here  where he teams up with someone else to ensure their version is the one which is recorded on the article.  I have also seen examples of WP:HOUNDING and WP:HUSH over the past two days.  He appears to have admitted here that my account is on his watchlist, or possibly it's the articles I edit?  All very unpleasant when you're on the receiving end of behaviour like this or disruptive editing. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Tag teaming between these editors is infamous, however it is no crime to follow someones edits, however that is usually if they are a editor making poor edits that need tidied or trouble editors committing vandalism. Certain editors however will use these excuses to vindicate stalking which we've all suffered. Mabuska (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems to have been used against me recently and sysops have not been properly informed because Mo aimn hasn't got his pedigree noted on his two user pages. SonofSetanta (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I am closing this case since I believe it requires more than just one sysop to look at it. The accounts are controlled by the same user; however, one was retired before the other began editing, so there don't appear to be any obvious violations of the sockpuppetry policy. If he is misusing clean starts to continue the same behavior, then please seek consensus at ANI rather than here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)