Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MalikPeters/Archive

27 November 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This is not the real puppeteer, but I don't know who that actually is - see User Talk:MalikPeters for all the evidence. I think we need some action against the real puppeteer, if we're allowed to use SPI to identify them, and also a check for other sleepers - the above accounts are already duck blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2011 (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
I should've changed the block reasoning for ABTREP since I ran a check on it last night during a second CU opinion. It's a ✅ match along with the rest of accounts listed to MalikPeters. I think I can place a rangeblock but I want to gather more info. No other accounts found. If there even is a real sockpuppeteer, it doesn't seem like it's editing from the range Malik and socks are editing from. Elockid  ( Talk ) 14:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

01 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Not even hidden. Already blocked, here for the record. The Bushranger One ping only 19:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

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

02 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

 HurricaneFan 25  15:14, 2 December 2011 (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
Sleeper check after typhoon popped up. Alexandria (chew out) 15:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * With the subject's last edit to this page, I ran a check on the attack account. The following accounts are ✅:
 * False positive: public library. AGK   [&bull; ]  10:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * False positive: public library. AGK   [&bull; ]  10:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * False positive: public library. AGK   [&bull; ]  10:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * False positive: public library. AGK   [&bull; ]  10:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * All indeffed and . Those accounts are technically to be MalikPeters, who is running a separate sock mini-ring—all of which are already blocked.  AGK   [&bull; ]  16:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On an unrelated note, I noticed something pretty minor when I was investigating: is ✅ as .  AGK   [&bull; ]  16:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've finished looking into MalikPeters, and my investigation was . I compared the account to a number of more established accounts with a documented vendetta against Malleus (Mattise, for instance, was one), but all were unrelated; the sockmaster (which undoubtedly exists) is connecting on a different range, and I can't do anything about that: . Without a possible master in mind, I can't find a connection, and I'm unwilling to randomly check against any anti-Malleus editor: . Sorry, not much that can be done here from a technical perspective. If you get any brainwaves about who it could be, come back and see us. AGK   [&bull; ]  16:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused - the first ("original") two are openly Malik, but the others are not, even through they're all connected? Or am I reading wrong? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Every accused account here has been blocked, so we're done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Post-closure note: It has come to light (although it wasn't apparent at the time) that the range used here is a public network - specifically, a public library. The accounts above may be false positives, with at least one being established as such already. Please contact a checkuser if more unblock requests come through. AGK   [&bull; ]  10:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

08 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Only had time for one edit, namely. Clearly, it's either MP or one of our "steady customers", doing what they do best. In any case, it was so blatantly disruptive that I reverted it and blocked the account. Favonian (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Added "Mark Johnson the 3rd", following the diatribe below. Favonian (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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

I only had time for one edit because you and your kindred spirits have got such a fucking hard on for doing what you do best, blocking first, thinking later. All I am trying to do is restore that discussion to Jimbo's talk page, so he has a chance to see it and answer, which he has yet to do. It dropped into the archive before because he was away for a few days, as he clearly said. Yes, I screwed up and managed to replace his whole talk page while doing it, and if you lot weren't in a such a fucking hurry to win admin of the year, I would have had time to correct it myself. Other than that, there was nothing "blatantly disruptive" about the edit, except in this fantasy world where you are all convinced that I am an evil block evading sockpuppet, even though I make it as plain as I can for you retards that it is me making the edits. I even took to signing them as Malik P. in plain text rather than doing you favours by setting Malik P. as my signature mask, but wouldn't you know it, your friend and mine, sarcastic admin of the year BWilikins even managed to turn that simple courtesy into evidence of my dastardly deeds, blocking my account from participating in a discussion which surrounds his admin actions. COI much? Nah, didn't think so. ABF asshole that he is. Fucking numbnuts. I've given up hope that any of you has got the brains or the balls to just let me use the Malik P. account for the shelf life of the discussion. That would take a modicum of intelligence. No, you'd rather fuck up the lives of innocent bystanders while you play these silly games of 'investigation'. Now, for the last time, leave that discussion where it is until Jimbo either replies, or otherwise makes it plain that he no longer wishes it to be there. Or do you Flavvybollocks want to be added to the growing list of admins who seem to want to make Jimbo's decisions for him, because this is getting just fucking ridiculous. Yours sincerely Malik P. Yes, it's me, the one and only. Morons the lot of you. Anyway, no doubt someone will come and vanish this post like the last one I made here explaining the same things about the sig issue, so you lot can collectively claim ignorance of why you've pushed me right over the edge with this nonsense. Mark Johnson the 3rd (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ both, along with . Courcelles 17:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tagging and closing. Favonian (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

22 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Yes, yes,, but this is definitely suspicious given [ this edit].  HurricaneFan 25  —  21:52, 22 December 2011 (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 MalikPeters and. –MuZemike 22:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

22 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

self admitted Nobody Ent (Gerardw)  21:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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

How is this "self-admitted"? WebHamster denies it on his talk page. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe not self-admitted sock of WebHamster but a self-admitted sock, at least. causa sui (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but where's the smoking link to WebHamster? IOW, why is it listed here? --Pete (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Will a clerk please move this request to reflect as the sock-puppeteer? While I have not run a CheckUser, it would appear  blocked it as such. Thanks,  Tiptoety  talk 07:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * -- DQ  (t)   (e)  16:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)