Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malcolm Schosha/Archive

Evidence submitted by User:Bali ultimate
Update. This diff over on commons, which is an accidentally logged out edit by User:Malcolm Schosha and then corrected by the editor logged in, i think makes it conclusive who the owner of the IP is. Duck test, all that.

At first I thought this IP was a sock for an old antagonist, User:Manhattan Samurai but i don't really care who it is. The more i think on it, probably someone who fell afoul of the Israel/Arab/Palestinian arbitration megillah. Whatever, the IP is clearly not a new user, seems to be here filled with grievances and gripes and I'm tired of the trolling and abuse. I'm convinced he's either someone evading a ban or someone evading scrutiny. I've asked him about sockpuppeting on multiple occasions, he hasn't denied it.. At least one other editor is convinced he's a sock and has asked him about it []. Here a third editor is asking him to get a named account, and seems to be alluding to concerns elsewhere that he may be a sock. . His early edits are unlikely for a new editor (i.e. . Most of my overlap with him is at the The New York Times and the Holocaust, where he's edit warred to include false information and generally been a pain in the ass.

He seems to harbor old grievances about me and others having something to do with the Wikipedia Review, past blocks of other editors (he refers to some old drama about a user named Science Apologist that appeared to have blown over before his current Ip started editing) and generally exhibits trolling behavior. Examples:
 * He goes to the talk page of a young editor who has a history of blow ups in editing disputes to write of me Bali ultimate never apologizes for anything, and certainly deserves the votes he got here . It is possible that you are right that he has a conflict of interest, and the same thought occurred to me. But it is also possible that he is a genuine mental case, taking out his real life problems on users here.
 * Visits the talk of User:Mbz1 to gripe about a block that user received for a violation of an arab conflict topic ban (the IP doesn't appear to have been editing on any of the pagers that led to this block to drop this helpful comment: I see Sandstein is being his usual charming self. See: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves.
 * Apparently was deeply aware that i was in the running for the Cojones de Laton award at the wikipedia review sometime last year (i was not aware of this myself). Per: Since you clearly do not know the meaning of troll, why should I think that you know the meaning of WP:V either? What stands out in this discussion is your inclination to bait editors who oppose your POV, (not just me, but all who oppose your POV), which is a recognized characteristic of WP:DICK. That is not a particularly nice characteristic is it?. But perhaps you are trying hard (no pun intended) for Wikipedia Review's 2010 WP:DICK of Distinction award ..

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

See: WP:CheckUser. I do have an edit history, which has nothing to be ashamed of. As for the dispute on the The New York Times and the Holocaust article see where Alpha Quadrant gives a rather different view of the article's problems. 173.52.182.160 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by Bali ultimate (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for a week (a year by BlackKite). I don't see much else to do here, but I'll leave for other comments. TN X Man  17:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * - CUs do not link accounts to IP addresses, and in any case the IP here is already blocked. Nothing to do here. Tim Song (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)