Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malarious/Archive

25 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Used for block evasion during 's one-week block; first edit was on 11 September and Malarious was blocked on 8 September. Similar edits, mostly pertaining to senior British politicians and Liverpool F.C. footballers. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Does look to be a case of DUCK - behavioural similarities include the lack of edit summaries; when they are used, they are normally rude/abrupt. GiantSnowman 18:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to use edit summaries! I am disappointed that you find my edit summaries "rude", although I don't dispute that they're abrupt! I don't understand what I am supposed to do now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frailea (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just wait for a someone to come and look at the evidence. GiantSnowman 19:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to ask for somebody? I'm a bit confused by all of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frailea (talk • contribs) 19:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not at all, somebody will be along. GiantSnowman 19:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frailea (talk • contribs) 19:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Response from Malarious - charming. GiantSnowman 19:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  02:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Guess what, the two named accounts are a ✅ match; I could find no sleepers. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 21:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeffing the sock and giving the master 1 month for socking and block evasion. Closing.

21 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

First edit on 28 September, two days after block of confirmed sock. Like with the aforementioned sock, edit pattern is similar, mostly pertaining to senior British politicians and Liverpool F.C. staff. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I think this can be closed as a sock via the DUCK test. Note that 's last edits were to 2012–13 Football League Cup and 's first edits were to that page.  There are a number of pages edited by all three.  There's also a similarity in the writing style of the edit summaries.  I'll also note that Lexstraviex showed a high rate of edit summary usage from account creation, probably as a response to lack of edit summaries being raised in the last investigation. Ryan Vesey 06:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Should Malarious' block be extended? Ryan Vesey 20:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I tend to agree with Ryan, pretty obvious, particularly some of the "obvious sock" behaviors when the account was new. Blocked, tagged, closed. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Master re-blocked indefinitely, was originally due to expire tomorrow. – Steel 02:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

02 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

First edit on 16 November 2012, three weeks after block of confirmed sock. Edit pattern is similar to other socks, mostly pertaining to senior British politicians and Liverpool F.C. staff. Sometimes leaves insulting messages on other users' talk pages, such as this and this. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2013 (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
✅ that Paleohelper == Lexstraviex. No obvious sleepers. T. Canens (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely. Closing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

12 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

First edit on 5 January 2013, two days after block of sock. Similar edit pattern, as with the previous socks. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2013 (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
✅. T. Canens (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Behavior and CU makes this a one/two punch, indef blocked. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 14:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

03 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

First edit on 21 January 2013, nine days after block of sock. Similar edit pattern, as with the previous socks. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2013 (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

 * - - Similar interests and edit summaries. Requesting CU to confirm. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This account is all over several dynamic ranges belonging to the same major ISP as known socks, so from a purely technical standpoint, it is that this is Malarious. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on technical and behavioral evidence, I consider this confirmed. Blocked and tagged. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

06 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Similar edit pattern, as with the previous socks. Is now trying to stir up an edit war at Jordan Henderson by removing sourced content. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to engage in a consensus with Mattythewhite. As you will see on his talk page, I posted a comment asking him for his opinion. He ignored it and then deleted it. I do not want to "stir up" anything, in fact I repeatedly said the opposite. Will Mattythewhite PLEASE talk to me about this? I want to reach a consensus on this topic, but he is refusing to talk to me and I see is now trying to get me in trouble presumably so I won't bother him anymore? Please, will you discuss this with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.186.66 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This is also untrue. I have removed NO sourced content whatsoever, the sourced content is all still in place. I feel now it is getting to the point where Mattythewhite is trying to bully me, not engage with me and is trying to link me in with other people to get rid of me. How can this be fair?! I am willing to discuss this topic, but Mattythewhite refuses to talk to me about it. I don't know what I can do.

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

I have seen I am supposed to type here. I am trying to engage Mattythewhite in a conversation about this and he refuses to discuss it with me and now I see he has written this about me. What am I supposed to in this situation? Is it really fair for him to just ignore me and carry on regardless? I removed no source content as he says and want no edit war. I feel that Mattythewhite does not want to discuss this edit at all for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.186.66 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel it is right that I put here the following: I tried to communicate with Mattythewhite on four separate occasions; in all of them I was courteous, polite, and explained that I had removed no sourced content, and was seeking to establish a consensus.

Mattythewhite not only ignored me, he deleted all of my comments on his talk page (see his contributions history for yourself to see that the comments were totally fair and not rude in any way). Surely there is some way I can complain against him? He has treated me very unfairly as somebody who edits this without an account. I am not in any mind to get one now either, bearing in mind how he has treated me. I hope you bear this in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.186.66 (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I have a feeling 81 is not new, but he also seems to have ceased using that IP. Closing for now. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

11 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Similar edit pattern. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2013 (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

 * You haven't provided any information with this report whatsoever. Please explain what makes their editing pattern "similar" and provide some diffs to suppor the case. Thanks. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 15:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed. No evidence provided. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)