Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive

31 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Rather obvious. First edits to User talk:Mathsci and Talk:Marseille, the latter being a page also trolled by. Now blocked after an edit war with Mathsci at Marseille, socking via IP addresses as well. The second step (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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

The filer is fairly evidently a sockpuppet of Echigo mole (see below). Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * because the filer is evidently . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

31 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The two recent SPI requests for checkuser are just trolling. has once edited logged off from an IP with an ISP in the Ile de France, the area around Paris, so is on a different continent from Captain Occam. (theoretically blocked at the moment) edits from Leicester with Orange a different ISP from any used by Echigo mole. His editing has no similarity at all with that of Echigo mole, who yet again is filing another report on himself. The second step made enough edits to be autoconfirmed and thus edit on this page. They have tagged an article I created (Caroline Elam), so the usual wikihounding. Again my name figures in both of the two trolling checkuser requests. This is not the first time Echigo mole has filed a report on himself. Mathsci (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2012 (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

 * Yes, this account does appear to be Echigo mole. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, done, closed and archived. Courcelles 00:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

09 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This SPI report is being made for the record. The IP is an anonymising open proxy as used before. Already blocked for 2 years following this report. Reverting tagging of sockpuppets, as previously. Leaving trolling/wikistalking messages about me on talk page of admin with usual detailed knowledge of back history. Mathsci (talk) 04:40, 9 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

 * Closing, procedural filing. IP already hardblocked as a proxy. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

16 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The IP is fairly obviously Mikemikv: Korean address and R&I trolling. The recently created Guitar hero account has been making similar remarks at Talk:Germans and User talk:Volunteer Marek: at the latter page the similarity between GH and the IP has already been commented on by VM. Evildoer seems to have the same POV and a similar obsession with attacking User:Maunus. Frobgwozzle (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The non autoconfirmed account making this report in their 5th edit,, appears yet again to be quite blatantly another sockpuppet of Echigo mole. He has imitated my edit summaries for tagging Mikemikev ipsocks (Korean IP + race related articles ==> Mikemikev sock), not quite accurately, since Mikemikev is actually teaching in Seoul at the moment. Otherwise Evildoer187 and the blocked user Guitar hero on the roof are as different from Mikemikev as one could imagine and neither is editing from Korea. This is typical Echigo mole trolling as we had before with two previous trolling CU requests he made recently (Sockpuppet investigations/Captain Occam/Archive and Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive). His idiocy manifests itself also in including an IP in a CU request. Please run a checkuser on Frobgwozzle. The username is similar to other nonsense names for socks such as and .  and  (now currently blocked) are evidently Jewish and have no similarities with Mikemikev at all. By contrast the Korean IP is without doubt an ipsock of Mikemikev, with his known anti-semitic rants. Typical idiotic trolling of Echigo mole to waste the time of checkusers.  Mathsci (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Thanks, technically possible Echigo, so blocked (plus and ). Closing, without looking into the Mikemikev claim.  Amalthea  22:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This case was originally filed at Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. It was later moved here, under Echigo mole. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

17 February 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Most likely Mikemikev from a Chinese proxy (approximately 10 CN IPs already in archive). Typical "One cannot help but wonder" attitude and sidelong references to MathSci. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

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

The creepy trolling style of this diff, centred on me and in UK English ("summarising"), is far more typical of. He has used open proxies in China before (e.g. ). I don't think that this edit was made by Mikemikev. I have posted a report on this IP at WikiProject Open Proxies (probably a better place to file reports in the case of proxies). Mathsci (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The sockpuppet has now been blocked as an Echigo mole IP sock by Future Perfect at Sunrise, having made a second Echigo mole style edit. Might it be possible to archive this report under Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive, deleting the fake entry for 17 February that NE Ent has created there? Thanks, in advance. Mathsci (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea as I was obviously mistaken in thinking this was a Mikemikev sock (Prior to this I was only peripherally aware of the Echigo mole issue... to which now I can only say OMFG. I need a drink). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * closing this case, given that the IP address has been blocked (although the block has now expired, but no further edits have come from the IP since). SpitfireTally-ho! 18:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (Non-administrative note) This request was originally filed under Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. Mathsci (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

09 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Added wikilink in article The Bulldog to Rue Cardinale, an article created by Echigo mole but made into a redirect long ago. The false trolling statement about Aix-en-Provence was added by the second account: it is nonsensical anyway because since the 1990s there have been an English pub, bistro and speciality dog shop called "The Bulldog" in Aix-en-Provence. Echigo mole himself invented the harassment account, blocked as a sock. The account has the same pretence at using French in edit summaries. A series of hoax articles on Aix, now deleted, was created by Echigo mole socks a year or so ago. was another sleeping sock used for harassment on arbcom pages. The other accounts made edits including changes to Aix-en-Provence possessions ( is an unblocked sockpuppet account that has been abandoned for almost a year; see Articles for deletion/Guozbongleur). With the similarity in name and edits there and to the same hoax sentence in The Bulldog, this is another likely sock account. All three accounts made only a handful of edits shortly after their creation. Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 9 March 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

 * - Fairly sure all three are related. Due to continuing abuse a sleeper check/examination of underlying IP is in order. NativeForeigner Talk 10:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * listed socks plus:
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  16:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Users blocked/tagged. NativeForeigner Talk 18:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

14 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Blatantly obvious Echigo mole sock, wasting more time on wikipedia. A recently created account, like the previously blocked accounts, now editing article Aix-en-Provence in a trolling way. The username is a famous British sweet; courgette is the usual UK word used for zucchini; and this edit also is by somebody almost certainly from the UK. Previous accounts also used edit summaries pretending to be French ("lien"). The redlink provided here by Echigo mole to Gustave de Zarbouble pins this down as the troll sock. This was one of a series of gibberish hoax articles (cf Guozbongleur), now deleted, written by four other sock accounts of Echigo mole mentioned in the archive. So WP:DUCK but worth checking for other socks, given the large number found last time around. Mathsci (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * One of their edits to Aix-en-Provence has subsequently been repeated with a similar edit summary by an ipsock from the UK. Please could the ipsock also be blocked? Mathsci (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He has also just edited with another UK ipsock,, this time following me to an article I am in the process of creating (Borel-de Siebenthal theory). That is typical Echigo mole wikihounding. Please could this ipsock also be blocked? Mathsci (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Account has been blocked as an obvious sock by Future Perfect at Sunrise. Mathsci (talk) 08:33, 17 March 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

 * - —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  23:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

17 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The first recently created account is editing exactly the same articles as above. Both are editing articles which are referenced in Borel-de Siebenthal theory, an article which I recently created. The first account made an inappropriate link in Maximal torus to that article and added an inappropriate reference, which does not discuss the topic of Maximal tori. Like Fruit pastille, Intestinal villus has also edited spanking literature. The second recently created account has only edited Maximal torus, but has added a stupid question on the talk page, which shows no knowledge of the subject. It is unlikely anybody with that lack of knowledge would be editing an article like this. The commonly edited articles between Intestinal villus and Fruit pastille and their trolling edits related to the article I have just created suggest per WP:DUCK that they are both accounts of Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The main contributor to the article Spanking literature has been User:Kenilworth Terrace, who edited from the same IP as A.K.Nole/Echigo mole as User:The Wiki House (shared also with User:Groomtech). Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added Aquisextian after the obvious sock-trolling here as Echigo mole. Again editing Aix-en-Provence and pretending to have some knowledge of mathematics beyond their capabilities by trolling on this page, as they did on Butcher group as A.K.Nole, and later as Julian Birdbath, Ansatz and Southend sofa. That particular post is simliar to previous trolling posts of Echigo mile on WikiProject Mathematics, where he usually displays very little mathematical comprehension beyond a superficial grasp of the syntax of sentences. No new account would find this page in their second edit without being that being the wikihounder themselves.  Please semiprotect this page so that non-autoconfirmed accounts cannot edit here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Aquasextian has been blocked as an obvious sock by FPaS after trolling here twice. He also blocked Fruit pastille, who is almost certainly Intestinal villus, based on intersecting edits. Intestinal villus edits of the disambiguation page Torus show mathematical incompetence (just as they struggled with univalent holomorphic functions). Mathsci (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to DeltaQuad. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 17 March 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

 * Semiprotection applied to the SPI page due to trolling by ducks. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * - --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  19:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also of the opinion that the following are socks of Echigo mole (some of these below are listed because of data similar to Fruit pastille, who was marked as a sock on behavoir):
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  21:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * DQ The Great Oz has spoken. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 21:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

21 March 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Typical Echigo mole spoonerized username ("Speak roughly to your little boy" from Alice in Wonderland) like. Following my edits last year to amenable group with trolling comments on the talk page. Now like the previous socks (on the article maximal torus) making edits to article linked to the articles I'm editing Hermitian symmetric space, Symmetric space, etc. This time Triple system and Orthogonal symmetric Lie algebra are mentioned in the article and Echigo mole, unsurprisingly, has just edited those articlea. (I added a large number of references and a day or so later, a seldom edited article, has trolling concerning those references.)  Typical trolling and useless mathematical editing (quibbles about the reprint of Helgason's 1978 classic which they don't have the competence to understand). He is clueless as far as mathematics is concerned: just a time-wasting troll with bad attitude. Mathsci (talk) 09:26, 21 March 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

 * - Sleeper check. NativeForeigner Talk 18:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All I can give you is a and no sleepers. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  08:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Already blocked and tagged so closing. Rschen7754 08:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

06 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

All popped up from a (semi-related) sock sweep. Might want to check for behaviour match, bag, and tag if appropriate. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:58, 6 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

 * Found in sweep, all . &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All socks blocked and tagged, as I believe the combination of technical and (minimal) behavioral evidence is sufficient. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

14 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The sleeper account was created two months ago. He posted the standard Echigo mole message "You're not going to win this one" on the talk page of a user involved in R&I disputes. This is his standard trolling strategy. Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Mathsci (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks FPaS. Since the account was created in February, it's worth checking for other sleeper accounts. Mathsci (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Three more accounts that may be worth checking: User:Cawdor to Glamis express and User:Blue cheese mite, both have edited Spanking literature recently, and User:Mandrake turn has edited Professionals in the City (in common with Moping marsupial) and The Bulldog edited by recent sockpuppets. Peter&#160;James (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the previous sock put a prod on The Bulldog (reverted by Elockid) and  later started an AfD, with more or less the same reasoning.  who edited the same article Confederate effect very shortly after Cherubic chub is probably Echigo mole again. The account made just enough edits to become autoconfirmed.  also made edits related to Aix-en-Provence, which again fit the Echigo mole profile. The elementary undergraduate mathematics in the edits  also fits the Echigo mole profile. Both Mandrake turn and Moping marsupial blanked the same section of Professionals in the City. The clusters of socks editing the same articles is a new departure. Mathsci (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Nutritious nut looks like another, and possibly User:Xanxia. Peter&#160;James (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, for the first one, since he has made edits related to Aix-en-Provence including to the article Victor d'Hupay which I extensively rewrote. Not sure about the second. They have edited two articles related to people from Aix-en-Provence. Mathsci (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Others include Mathsci (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (short burst of editing, recently created account, articles on Fabrot and Campra, both from Aix)
 * (similar, d'Entrecasteaux and Eysseric, both from Aix)
 * (similar, Fabisch and Fabrot, both from Aix)
 * (similar, Sbalbi and Savant-Aira, both from Aix + mathematics edit)


 * Note that since being located, but not yet blocked, has trolled on this page and then later complained about being blocked by FPaS. Presumably, since he also edited Wrasybury, he also made the ip edits to Wraysbury and Aix-en-Provence with obviously false claims of a twinning arrangement. Mathsci (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Obvious case is obvious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * these are related to the named sock:
 * Several more I can't mention because there is not a hint of behavior connection, and I could be hitting random positive editors with these results. It might be worth a second CU looking through it.
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  09:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with DQ's assessment of the three accounts listed above. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing this section as no new edits since the SPI was filed and behavior isn't strong enough to block yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 13:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  09:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with DQ's assessment of the three accounts listed above. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 19:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing this section as no new edits since the SPI was filed and behavior isn't strong enough to block yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 13:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

15 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets



Outstanding unchecked suspected sockpuppets from previous request.




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

Very recently created account trolling in typical Echigo mole style on another SPI page very soon after being created. Only someone following my edits would have found that page. In this case they made comments about, a disruptive account blocked by the arbitration committee. I have added the other accounts found by Peter Jones and myself that came up in the last report that have not yet been checked. Mathsci (talk) 06:55, 15 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

 * As normal, . was not checked due to insufficient evidence presented. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  09:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed section as it looks complete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

17 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Very recently created account which has discovered one of the most recent mathematical articles I created Bony–Brezis theorem (no new user would find it or even know why it was created) and has added superficial links the article. This is typical Echigo mole trolling and mindless wikihounding. Mathsci (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Here are some comments.



These accounts both followed me to stubs or articles I had recently created. In the case of The Disambiguator, he saw the preliminary version of Invariant convex cone and noticed that the Roger Howe wikilinked was ambiguous. The name of the account name explains itself. Edits are superficial wikilinks to mathematics articles, so apart from the first edit, it's hard to say. But if they appear to be the same user as Asysygetic, then there is high probability this is Echigo mole (since the was discovered without extra knowledge). This further edit by The Disambiguator to Oscillator representation, a long article I created, is repeat trolling by Echigo mole. He trolled previously on the same article as another Echigo mole blocked sock.



This account came up with DeltaQuad. He made exactly the same blanking to Professionals in the City as the blocked sock Mandrake turn, who tried to speedy delete the article, so this is almost certainly Echigo mole.



Two acccounts created on 20 April. The first username is of the same type as the already blocked Nutritious nut. They have made wikilinking edits to a mathematics stub, but the edits were superficial and careless (just checking for wikilinks in an arbitrary way). For the second account similar careless edits to a logic article (misspellings). Superficial edits. In both cases only two edits, so at the moment too soon to tell. But worth keeping an eye on them. Mathsci (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * is the latest blatant sock. Acording to the edit summaries he has left "welcome messages" on almost all the outstanding cases found by CUs. However, the edits are in fact templated notifications of these SPI reports. Having started a bogus CU/SPI request here as Nutritious nut (deleted a while back), he is now trying to create more mindless disruption. I already asked FPaS to block the account Evenings and mornings per WP:DUCK. Mathsci (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

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

I make no comment on the user in question: I've not even looked at their edits. However, the claim that "no new user would find [some article] or even know why it was created" makes no sense. The article is the first hit for a Google search for its title so anybody who is interested in that area of mathematics can find it quite trivially. Knowledge of why the article was created is irrelevant. (Presumably, it was created because somebody thought it was interesting enough to write about.) The idea that no genuine new user could possibly edit a technical article on an obscure topic is dangerous and wrong. Indeed, one might expect a new user to edit only technical articles on obscure topics until they gain the confidence to do things that might be more noticeable to the world at large. Dricherby (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The user in question is community banned and a wikihounder. Every WP article appears first in a googe search, once somebody expects the subject might exist. And how precisely would that happen? Of three other articles I created for example Borel-de Siebenthal theory, and Earle–Hamilton fixed point theorem and Markov-Kakutani fixed point theorem, the last is well known, but the other two and the title in question are not so well known. So Dricherby's reasoning and also his decision to ignore the existence and editing behaviour of Echigo mole (about whose other types of editing and disruption, e.g. in the previous request, a whole arbcom motion was enacted) is unhelpful. Why comment on an SPI report concerning long term abuse if you're going to ignore the patterns? This page for example is permanently semiprotected to prevent Echigo mole commenting. Sometimes he opens reports on himself, once even a whole arbcom request. Mathsci (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I dispute the contention that my comment above is off-topic but I have made my point. Meanwhile, I assume that this IP troll to my talk page is from a range used by the sock family? Dricherby (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * These mathematics topics are far too specialized to be edited randomly in this particular way. But yes, clicking on the list of confirmed sockpuppets of Echigo mole or looking at the two sets of archives will reveal that the UK ranges 94.196.*.* and 94.197.*.* have been used extensively by Echigo mole. (There are even more on the list of suspected sockpuppets that were not worth reporting.) The edit by the IP sock is again mindless trolling by Echigo mole. He cannot edit here since the page is semi-protected. Although of course he did edit this report as one of the socks unearthed by DeltaQuad  and was reverted and nuked by FPaS. Mathsci (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Matches a regular behaviour pattern for me compared to previous accounts. Let's see if we are missing anything. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 10:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As with previous results, all of these are, but someone more familiar with the behavior will need to make the call:
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * is a ✅ match to several of the above and is now blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the ones that can be linked with some confidence. Closing section.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 11:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

28 April 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Recently created account. Standard trolling message on Memills' talk page "You're not going to win this one," Plan A, Plan B, his signature trolling "advice". Also disruptive trolling on related WP:ANI thread created by me. Worth checking for more sleepers and blocking the outstanding accounts that have not been blocked. (He has also trolled at another SPI/CU request, etc.) Mathsci (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Deskana. The behavioural evidence (eg the advice to Memills) is straightforward WP:DUCK. Mathsci (talk) 22:16, 28 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

 * , on technical evidence alone. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Booted down to behavior, then, which brings us this comparison. Silicate minerals: ; earlier EM sock Rhabdophobe: ., blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

02 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Account created on 28 April. First edit is to troll on WikiProject Mathematics, having stalked my edits. WP:DUCK but worth checking for other sleeper accounts. Mathsci (talk) 06:23, 2 May 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
. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Behavior is very consistent, blocked. Closing.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 11:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

04 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Mikemikev was just blocked by CU as after trolling on WP:AE. This very recently created account is now making related edits on WP:AN. (Note I misidentified that account as Echigo mole and there could be a similar error here.) Mathsci (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks TC. Not the first time that socks have caused confusion (it already happened with Grawp socks). Mathsci (talk) 08:07, 4 May 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

 * Indeed, this looks like Echigo to me. Also . T. Canens (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing; the accounts are already blocked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

04 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Recently created account. Obvious sock of Echigo mole, creating Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mathsci and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mathsci, which I have listed for speedy deletion. More trolling disruption by this idiot. Mathsci (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A second obvious sockpuppet account has been created, this time trolling on User talk:Akuri. Mathsci (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Third obvious sock trolling on a related CfD page. Mathsci (talk) 12:54, 4 May 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

 * Smite ancillaries, Slime carnalities
 * Shred the cirque
 * Everything is blocked now. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  18:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

04 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Very recently created account, hot on the tracks of the 3 other accounts created recently. Here he has followed me to the subject of Jordan algebras, exactly the topic I've been creating content for at the moment and one that hardly any other editors touch. For mathematical articles, that has been typical behaviour so far. There are various mistakes, but, apart from trotting out some defintions, he missed the main textbook on the subject and most of the main results. He did the same thing as, following me there to the theory of univalent holomorphic functions. Today he has been hyperactive with socking. Mathsci (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added the second editor because they edit rarely with a bizarre style. They made three edits recently which seem odd and connected with Echigo mole. On wikiproject mathematices, EM trolled in a Jordan algebras-related thread and afterwards Boodlepaounce left a similar message. He edited Jordan algebras on 3 May immediately before Algebraic Jordanian, on the exactly the same new topic of Jordan Banach algebras. He then restored Algebaric Jordanian's edits with a bizarre comments on the talk page. "the material added seems validly summarised from Upmeier, "Jordan Algebras" pages 1-6." (Note this is also British english, "summarised".) Algebraic Jordanian made exactly the same comments (in normal language) on my talk page. "They follow Upmeier's CBMS tract, pages 1-6." So the fact that Boodlepounce added the reference, which apparently was the source for Algebraic Jordanian, suggests that they are the same person. Both refer to the same page numbers. Again if Boodlepounce knew the subject, there is a more famous source which he has omitted plus a major topic area that anybody with a slight acquaintance with the subject would know about. There is too much coordination between the edits of Algebraic Jordanian and Boodlepounce.   Mathsci (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the subsequent ineptness of the edits and incompetence in mathematics, on behavioural grounds the identification seems solid. Echigo mole socks make errors (mistakes and omissions) in copying out formulas which they try to dismiss. The same happened here and Boodlepounce has not even yet been able to find the omissions and errors. As they were no different, arguing interminably. At that stage they didn't understand what "invariant subspace" means for a non-self-adjoint operator. They have a bare knowledge of the syntax, but little else. That's mathematical trolling and utter incompetence. Mathsci (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The only issue here is whether Boodlepounce, editing evidently from the UK, is the same editor as Algebraic Jordanian. Perhaps he can explain why he added a reference that was immediately used by Algebraic Jordanian and that both of them made the same claim about page numbers independently. Since I'm the only editor that previously adding content on normed Jordan algebras (finite dimensional JB algebras), it's almost impossible to dismiss this as a coincidence. But the trivial errors are the common factor. And yes, anybody adding content on graduate mathematics would have to be at a sufficiently advanced post-graduaten level to understand this material. The idea that without ay proper mathematical education these graduate mathematics topics in functional analysis and operator theory magically become accessible to wikipedians on the street is a fantasy. That is where Echigo mole and his socks come unstuck. Mathsci (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Boodlepounce notes that the charges against Boodlepounce appear to be founded on use of the Upmeier book in the article on Jordan algebra. Boodlepounce added that reference to the article and then Algebraic Jordanian used the first few pages of it.  Boodlepounce does not see that this proves anything other than that Boodlepounce and Algebraic Jordanian have access to a certain book.  Boodlepounce freely admits that Boodlepounce has a copy of this book on Boodlepounce's desk at this very moment: bindeed, that is why Boodlepounce added it in the first place.  Indeed, Boodlepounce notes that prior to the edits by Algebraic Jordanian, Boodlepounce had added more bytes to the article Jordan algebra than Mathsci.
 * Boodlepounce notes that Mathsci regards his style as bizarre. Boodlepounce does not see how insults help the investigation.  In particular, Boodlepounce notes that Mathsci regards Boodlepounce's request to discuss disputed matter on an  article talk page as bizarre.  Boodlepounce on the contrary regards this as perfectly normal.
 * Boodlepounce notes that Mathsci has used the "possible" finding to justify removal of Boodlepounce's edits and talk page comments. Boodlepounce suggests that this is one reason why Mathsci made this request.  Mathsci notes that the material in question is incomplete, and Boodlepounce agrees.  Boodlepounce suggests that Mathsci add to it and thereby improve the encyclopedia.  Boodlepounce cannot see how a discussion of the deficiencies of this technical material relates to the question of sockpuppetry.
 * Boodlepounce suggests that the underlying reson for this request is that Mathsci is unhappy that Boodlepounce recently criticised his conduct towards another editor.
 * Boodlepounce has spent time on this vexatious drama that Boodlepounce could otherwise have spent improving the encyclopedia.  Boodlepounce does not believe this is the best use of Boodlepounce's time.  Boodlepounce (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Boodlepounce is intrigued to note that Mathsci is reporting the result of this frivolous complaint as "probable" and then "possible/likely" .  Boodlepounce asks one of the administrators to clarify whether these words are all synonymous with "true".  Boodlepounce (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Boodlepounce notes that Mathsci seems more concerned to win a trivial content dispute with some other editors than to present his case in an orderly fashion. Boodlepounce notes that Mathsci's "evidence" about errors applies entirely to other users.  Since Boodlepounce has not attempted to, or claimed to identify the errors and omissions, it seems odd as well as irrelevant to claim that Boodlepounce has not been able to: Boodlepounce has confined himself to saying that the material added by Algebraic Jordanian appears to be validly sourced, to a book first mentioned by Boodlepounce, and on the whole a net positive, a position implicitly accepted by Mathsci in using it as the basis for his content fork at Jordan operator algebra.  (Boodlepounce wonders if we are now in a situation where editors must pass a test set by Mathsci before they are permitted to edit his pages?)  Boodlepounce regrets that the discussion appears to be returning into historical encounters which have nothing to do with the question.  What relation, if any, does Mathsci see between the edits of Boodlepounce on the one hand, and those of the sockpuppets of Echigo mole on the other, and why does Mathsci believe that that evidence tends to support his contention of the connection he claims?  Boodlepounce invites Mathsci to lay that evidence out fairly and squarely, if he has any, and develop his conclusions logically.  Boodlepounce is confident that there is no connection to be found.  Boodlepounce finally notes that Mathsci continues to assert the connection as if it were an accepted fact instead of his unsupported personal opinion: this seems wrong to Boodlepounce.  Boodlepounce (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Boodlepounce thanks Mathsci for finally raising a specific issue that it is possible for Boodlepounce to address. Boodlepounce added a valid and useful reference to a book that is currently on Boodlepounce's desk to the relevant main article, namely Jordan algebra, an article to which Mathsci recently made a minor contribution.  Boodlepounce cannot of course say how any other person has access to any other copy of that book, but it is presumably available in other libraries, and, perhaps significantly, the first few pages are available on Google Books preview.  If Algebraic Jordanian is following Mathsci's edits, then Boodlepounce suggests that this is why Algebraic Jordanian decided to use Boodlepounce's reference to add material.  The reasons for Boodlepounce and another user giving the same pages numbers is of course that the material added is taken from those pages and so any two people comparing the material with the book will give the same answer (Boodlepounce is surprised that Mathsci would think this latter point needs explanation).  Boodlepounce is indeed editing from the UK and his copy of the book was bought in the USA: again Boodlepounce does not see this as needing explanation.  Mathsci's comments about the level of the material and the competence or otherwise of other editors does not seem relevant to Boodlepounce.  Boodlepounce (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Heading off to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics so early and the other styles looks just like him as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 20:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * *yawn*. It's him. T. Canens (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Boodlepounce is . T. Canens (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Boodlepounce is blocked and tagged. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

06 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Three edits two of which continue long running attacks on mathsci by this group of sock puppets. Salix (talk): 07:45, 6 May 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

 * Blocked and closed. At this point, I really don't care if it's or &mdash;WP:DENY is probably the best strategy to use when dealing with trolls. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

06 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Recently created account continuing the mindless trolling on WikiProject mathematics. It is a continuation of his performance as Algebraic Jordanian, Boodlepounce and Scrim in sin. I tagged the last account yesterday but didn't follow the trolling today. Please check for other sleeping accounts. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Mathsci (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Now CU-blocked by Timotheus Canens. Thanks! Mathsci (talk) 20:50, 6 May 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

 * Already blocked, so CU not necessary. Closing.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 22:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

07 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Very recently created account, trolling on WikiProject mathematics and in articles related to Jordan algebra where the most recent blocked sock was already blocked. That editor edited User:R.e.b.'s new article Noncommutative Jordan algebra (e.g. ) and with the new account added these naive but trolling comments on the article talk page. Has also edited another of R.e.b.'s new article Okubo algebra, also related to Jordan algebras. As usual adding wikilinks; but it is the pattern in his recent edits and no other new users are editing this narrow range of articles. His British English spelling of "generalisation" is also confirmation (if needed) that this account is Echigo mole. Yawn. Mathsci (talk) 08:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile an IP from UK range has appeared levaing messages about Hyperbaric oxygen's WikiProject Mathematics postings. These messages, connected with the named account, have been left to make mischief. No normal user would do that. (The Cloud network, the UK ISP connected with this IP, has been more often used by Mikemikev than Echigo mole.) Mathsci (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone. Mathsci (talk) 21:39, 7 May 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

 * Nothing much to say really. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Apt identification. I'm not going to tag the IP as one or the other (both are possible) but it's certainly extremely disruptive, and hence I just blocked it for a week. NativeForeigner Talk 21:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

10 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Recently created account the sole purpose of which was to make a trolling remark about me on WikiProject Mathematics. It conforms the editing pattern of recent socks per WP:DUCK. Mathsci (talk) 08:33, 10 May 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

 * - Obvious sock is obvious. Previous incarnations haven't turned up any sleepers. Blocking and tagging is all that's needed here. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 10:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked, tagged, closing. Rschen7754 01:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

20 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Echigo mole's latest stunt has been to make simultaneous unblock requests. He dad that as, as the perviously blocked sock and most recently as. What makes it bltantly clear that it is Echigo mole is that all these accounts and others, like are coordinated, making trolling edits to the same highly specialist mathematical topic I am editing (new articles realted to Jordan algebras) and that he is now using am ipsock in the usual range to comment on his other edits and make mischief. All 3 unblock requests were denied. He tried harder with Hyperbaric oxygen whish several administrators reviewed (Deskana, NativeForeigner, The Bushranger and Anthony Bradbury). D.Lazard has been made aware of Echigo mole socking but has refused to acknowledege the phenomenon has received a warning from Anthony Bradbury. The ipsock trolled on his user talk page in typical Echigo mole fashion. Likewise with the current arbcom block of, a likely sockpuppet of Captain Occam, the ipsock has trolled on AGK's talk page, an arbcom-related page. These are typical creepy wikihounding edits by Echigo mole. Please block the IP and revoke the talk page access for. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * IP already blocked as obvious sock by FPaS. Mathsci (talk) 10:12, 20 May 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

 * Was already blocked by someone else. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 18:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

22 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Two sockpuppet accounts created to troll in the subject of Jordan algebras, an area, where apart from User:R.e.b., I have been the sole editor. Echigo mole has been trolling in that area recently with multiple sockpuppets. Echigo mole has barely any knowledge of mathematics and produced a nonsense article, now changed to a redirect. The latest sockpuppets have attempted to play the standard Echigo mole game of pretending to have some knowledge of graduate mathematics. That is unfortunately not the case. Both sockpuppets use British English for "generalise" and have not been able to write any coherent content on Jordan algebras. They both attempted that in the fake article J-algebra (now a redirect). The construction of Tonny Springer is easy enough to describe as a short sentence or two in Jordan algebras. Where poor Echigo mole made his mistake was in not recognizing that Hua's identity (Jordan algebra) already exists (created by me as a direct to a section of mutation (Jordan algebra)) and was used by Springer as the starting point for his own axiomatization of Jordan algebras. That is of course what happens when a banned editor attempts to troll in mathematics. Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Added probably a sleeper, with few edits and weighing in here and WT:WPM .--Salix (talk): 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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


 * It would appear that the only reason to suppose that is anything other than legitimate is that Mathsci regards his work on J-structure as "nonsense".  He states that Hua's identity was the starting point for Springer's work on J-structures, and suggests that failuire to mention this proves that Gongfermor has barely any knowledge of mathematics, is unable to write coherent content, and so on.  That may be Mathsci's opinion, but it does not seem to be shared by Springer himself, who rather unkindly does not mention Hua in the index or bibliography of his book on the subject (as referenced by Gongfermor) and does not mention the identity in that form at all: related identities are used, for example in the characteristic not equal to 2 case.  In his review for Zentralblatt, Dieudonne also fails to mention Hua's identity and prefers to emphasise the algebraic geometry as the "idee fondamentale".  But I suppose he did not have the advantage of Mathsci's advice on the matter.  Is it not the case here that Mathsci has jumped to an understandable but unsupported conclusion and is now making some rather silly quibbles about peripheral issues to support his rather too sweeping judgement on an artiucle by a new editor which seems to the impartial observer a perfectly adequate summary of some of the main points of Springer's treatment, as mentioned by expert reviewers?  Coal scuttle (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It would be more helpful if you didn't tag the user's edit page with a sock tag. One, if you are wrong, you just bit a new users.  Two, if you are right, it tips them off so instead of continuing to edit, they change, making our jobs harder.  Same with notifications.  Best to just report it here and not tip anyone off.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  - © - @ - Join WER 12:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * - Edits are highly consistent with Echigo, there are probably more of them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, to be Echigo Mole:


 * Gongfermor is Echigo Mole.
 * The normal for Coal scuttle. --  DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  08:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks DQ NativeForeigner Talk 08:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

26 May 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

This is one of the original accounts of Echigo mole, now reactivated, and attempting a clean start. Unortunately there are arbcom motions concerning the editing of Echigo mole, so the conditions for a clean start are not satisfied. They have been involved in WP:LTA, attempted outings and have misled arbitrators (Shell Kinney). They did recently give a list of some sockpuppets that have been reported previously in an SPI report (under A.K.Nole) which I will reproduce with comments below. Mathsci (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Administrators. Echigo mole is disrupting the editing of this page. Mathsci (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In the list below there are gaps for 2010, 2011 and 2012, so the list is far anything remotely close to a full admission, which I imagine would take several dayd. Other obvious sockpuppets at the same time as Nellie Seamonster and Silver starfish are not mentioned. These include and . Just a few days ago this user was arguing as  that were a good faith editor in mathematics. But that was a blatant lie given this hoax article in incubation  by  in which the joke name snozbarg is mentioned along with wikilinks to two no-deleted hoax articles created by Silver starfish & co. While he has been lying in such a blatant why should he expect any kind of special conditions to apply to him. It is ridiculous. This arbcom motion was created because of his disruption. Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets reported by A.K.Nole

2009


 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (previously identified by Nishkid64)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)
 * (February 2009, earliest known account)

2010

2011

2012

2013
 * (previously identified by CU and at SPI report)
 * (previously identified by CU and at SPI report)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * This user has accepted the WP:Standard offer and a discussion is underway at Administrators' noticeboard. --Salix (talk): 06:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cannot apply because arbcom restrictions apply to his editing. There were issues of outing that Salix alba has no idea about. Salix alba should take a little more time to find out about the background and the lying as Quotient group to Shell Kinney. Salix alba is likely to be a party in an arbcom case if he continues to try to reverse a community ban and act as the advocate for someone against whom this arbcom motion was passed. Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Salix alba is abusing his administrative powers in trying unilaterally to campaign for a community banned user that, as indicated above, has spent his time telling blatant lies on wikipedia. Echigo mole is a community banned user and Slaix Alba has no authority to declare otherwise, ignoring as he has Echigo mole's disruption on arbcom pages. The lies by in his unblock requests were clear enough. They are now confirmed by the sandbox edits of  where he created a hoax article about Snozbarg. Salix Alaba should check these things far more carefully before creating needless drama on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Excuse me answering here, DeltaQuad. Echigo mole filed a report at Sockpuppet investigations/A.K.Nole listing the accounts above. I copied them over here and sorted them by year. Some of the usernames were not associated with registered accounts. Mathsci (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Mathsci, I'm obviously going to need more info on these users or have a link to where he admited these accounts were him before I proceed. Per ANI I did block AKNole. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  09:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops...my bad, thanks for pointing that out, I'll take a look a little later. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  12:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My time to take this up is effectively 0, so I have opened it back up for all CUs/clerks to look at. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  17:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what is to be gained here, other than adding to the archive. Many of the recent accounts have never edited at all.  It doesn't look like any CU wants to look at it, nor clerk. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  14:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see the benefit to dragging up accounts that haven't edited in years. Closing.  If someone wants to reopen with just the accounts that have edited in the last 90 days, they can be looked at then. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  19:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)