Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muffizainu/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Muffizainu is the parent sock which was warned many times about the sanctions on dawoodi bohra topics due to succession controversy by the admins, this new sock Immanuel was created and he is directly accessing the sandbox of Muffizainu suddenly which means both are actually same:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Muffizainu/sandbox&oldid=725381425

I got the above diff from Immanuel contribution page.

Also like before they both have again started disrupting the Mufaddal Saifuddin page adding many promotional materials for the single faction which he supports:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&action=history

The entire FGM section was blanked out by staging a farce consensus between Immanuel and Muffizainu

Also see the other activities of both users they are completely devoted to narrow list of articles. And work almost at the same times.

I have successfully reported many socks in the dawoodi bohra domain and most were correct. Summichum (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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

User Summichum is using this report to get around the dispute by attempting to harass users opposing him. I edited User:Muffizainu's sandbox after his request to do so on the talkpage. Admins, please verify this fact on article's talkpage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mufaddal_Saifuddin#My_Edits

I did (publicly) help User:Muffizainu to make a few edits in to the article but remaining edits were my own decision. Some of them were even erroneous which Muffizainu corrected. Even the edits I helped him code in wikipedia markup were requested on the talkpage. There's nothing hidden from anyone.

Removing the FGM section does not relate to Muffizainu's point of view or any other point of view. I have no personal opinion of the subject as Summichum has. I removed the section after a third editor Taha, pointed out on talkpage that the section was not following wikipedia policy and guidelines. Even Before that, I thought that the section was a collection of statements and this thought has been enforced by a third user after which I removed the section and its heading. It will need to be discussed and rewritten before putting it back.

Summichum is making another false accusation about list of articles. I have edited different articles on wikipedia and this is the only one that was problematic and of my subject of interest for editing continuously. Summichum's accusation of mine and Muffizainu's editing on same time is also false. Admins can verify this from our editing history. I am not in the same country or timezone. I am not afraid of getting my IP address checked as well. Summichum is reverting edits on this article but I see absolutely no talkpage discussion, comments or collaboration by him within a year.

The consensus on the talkpage of the article is between 3 editors to which Summichum has not added a single comment. He is only reverting without discussing for which he should be blocked. I contest that Summichum be blocked if the final findings of this report tell, as they shall, that I am not the same person as Muffizainu. --Immmmanuel (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Summichum also wholesale blanked content once before but only gave reference of alma_mater in edit summary. This is suspicious and sneaky tactic of removing content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&type=revision&diff=725703819&oldid=725694969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Immmmanuel (talk • contribs) 10:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The allegations put by User:Summichum are false. I do not have any other accounts other than this one. I do have a fair scope of information pertaining to the Dawoodi Bohra community, and would like to contribute to Wikipedia to the best of my ability. unsigned comment added by Muffizainu (talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Man, an admin on Muffizainu's talkpage said "This topic is constantly being disrupted by enthusiasts for one faction or another". I do not want to get pulled into this sectarian editwar. I agree with Muffizainu that allegations are false. Summichum should be blocked. he is not being part of our debate just reverting all editors indiscriminately, accusing new users of being fake and lying that admins restored his revision. I am not from any faction... ! His weak and so called evidence is that I edited Muffizainu's sandbox on his request, publicly... wow. --Immmmanuel (talk) 06:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Both jumped to the Sock investigation at almost similar times is quite telling. Also I request the admin to see their edit histories they are favouring one of the claimants to the post of Dai which is still under dispute. Typically removing any content which is even slightly against them and adding promotional content to promote the claimant on wikipedia.Summichum (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

09:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC) and 06:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC) look "same time" to you? Do you think admins are blind that you are writing commentary on this report itself too? You accuse two users, should they not defend against your allegations? Nice going. --Immmmanuel (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
The three accounts are ❌. Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)