In reviewing this, note that it can easily happen that two users who are located in the same area, especially students at the same school, may show up as identical in checkuser, if they ever use the same computer. It is easier, as well, to generate a false positive with checkuser of they use the same ISP, more so if it is the same IP, and use the same computer and settings.
False positives like this are more common in third-world countries where computers are more uncommon.
With this in mind, some of the identifications of socks as Mmbmmmbm are questionable. Many reports rely on "behavioral evidence," which often means a common interest. For example, in the first report, participating in a Deletion Review as a new accout was considered evidence. In the first report, reported accounts were globally locked, which would then disallow appeal.
The following accounts and IPs were found in w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmbmmmbm/Archive
04 May 2011
- Special:CentralAuth/Rirunmot 510 standing edits on enwiki, none elsewhere, first edit 22 Mar 2009, filed Deletion review.
The sockmaster was "stale," that is, no checkuser data. Identification of the accounts with Mmbmmmbm was then done because of behavioral evidence. Rirunmot, by behavior, was plausibly Boubaker as to his attempts at collegiality. This, then, makes the socks strange. Rirunmot, if running multiple accounts, would be shooting himself in the foot with no benefit. He would know, by this time, that multiple votes don't help. Frerejak does not resemble, in history, Boubaker, at all. Scattered edits from years earlier. Because Rirunmot also had non-related edits, much more likely, I'm thinking, that Rirunmot was a student of or otherwise involved with Boubaker.
Rirunmot created a draft article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rirunmot/User:Rirunmot/sandbox, which has been deleted as a recreation. However, in the DRV, there is remarkable comment. This will be reviewed at Boubaker Polynomials/Wikipedia/Deletion review. The deletion review was shut down as having been filed by a sock. This, then, becomes circular. User files deletion review, is suspected of being a sock because of the filing, other new accounts support the review, they are all locked because of this activity, and the review is closed in spite of their being support from regular users. The regular users are not sufficiently motivated to file a review themselves. And so Wikipedia content now is controlled, not by notability, but by the reputation of users creating it. The deletion review was filed 4 May 2011. The resource here was created 09:07, 15 May 2011. I think this version would be what was on Wikipedia, or close. I see problems with the version, but it addresses the prior objections.