Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive/1

'''This is an archive of an archive. More recent cases are located at the normal archive.'''

29 July 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

it could be that this account, obviously a sockpuppet, is controlled by, but that seems unlikely to me. In the past the main account A.K.Nole (the puppetmaster) has created a series of sockpuppets that have wikihounded me. This one is editing in a trolling way. He has been following minor edits on academia in an obsessive and finnickety way which seems to be the style of A.K.Nole and his sockpuppets (previously monitored by Shell Kinney and ArbCom and blocked, see above). At present he is engaged in disputing something which is widely known. Mathsci (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Mathsci (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This kind of edit is typical of A.K.Nole socks, once they've been found out. Julian Birdbath was also indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of A.K.Nole. Mathsci (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Echigo mole's response below is completely in line with the responses of A.K.Nole, Quotient group, Zarboublian, Julian Birdbath and Holding Ray. I had forgotten, whom I have added to the list now. This edit of Junior Wrangler and this recent edit of Echigo mole  are quite similar. As for the trolling comment below, I do have a recent history of editing articles on the history of Cambridge colleges, e.g. Cambridge Whitefriars and (unsurprisingly) God's House, Cambridge. The edit summary here  indicates that Echigo mole has been tracking my edits. Similarly his removal of my comment from a newly created user talk page indicates that he is not a newly arrived user. Mathsci (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The edits of A.K.Nole and his sock farm have been discussed by ArbCom earlier this year, when there was confusion with socks of Mikemikev. That the first edits of Echigo mole were to three pages:
 * the talk page of
 * the article
 * the talk page of Academia
 * where I had previously been editing for the first time in 5 years is an inexplicable coincidence.  Mathsci (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Echigo mole, your account is going to be checked by a checkuser as the header states. Please be patient. Concerning sockpuppetry (and meatpuppetry) my guesses have more often than not been correct.

The edit histories of the three pages I listed above show that Echigo mole edited all those pages after me, contrary to what he claims. Apart from the laws of probability, WP:DUCK and his unwillingness to have a checkuser examine his account are not positive signs. Mathsci (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If the account of Echigo mole is going to be checked (presumably editing in England and from somewhere near Bristol), no amount of rhetoric (see below) will help. I could be wrong of course, but that's a risk that is worth taking sometimes when wikipedia is being disrupted. A normal user, with only a few days editing experience of wikipedia yet still incorrectly accused of being a sockpuppet account, would have expressed bewilderment and would have asked for help. That is not what has happened here. Q.E.D. Mathsci (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, WP:checkuser involves a check of IP, browser version, operating system, etc. If Echigo mole has some complaint about that, this is not the place and I am not the person. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Of the two accounts discovered by Hersfold, the first made enough edits for the account to be auto-confirmed and then followed my edits first to User talk:Moonriddengirl  (trolling typical of  A.K.Nole and his sockfarm) and then to The Blank Slate and its talk page. The second account has played around in editing with information related to outing, disclosed privately to Hersfold and to checkusers on ArbCom, who have previously dealt with sockpuppetry related to A.K.Nole. I also forgot to add as one of the most recently blocked sockpuppets (trolling in an ArbCom case  in typical A.K.Nole style). Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This "goodbye" diff of  two weeks before his indef checkuser block seems to be written by the person who wrote the goodbye" diff. of Echigo mole. Julian Birdbath created the account, who trolled an ArbCom case about . Quotient group had disclosed in email to Shell Kinney that A.K.Nole was his original account. Echigo mole has announced in the above diff that he intends to start another account. Mathsci (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment As I have mentioned to Hersfold, ArbCom has followed A.K.Nole's long term wikihounding (which involves outing) and checkusers there have been informed of this report. Mathsci (talk) 05:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

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


 * I am trying to contribute correct material and get rid of mistakes. For some reason Mathsci appears not to want that to happen, and that means I must be an enemy of his.  In reversing my changes he is introducing historical and grammatical errors (it is not "widely known" and it is wrong -- where are his references?)  It is completely untrue that I am hounding him -- in fact he is hounding me by reversing all my edits.  Why is he allowed to behave like this?  Echigo mole (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mathsci's further comments of 09:54 are, to be blunt, intellectually dishonest. He asserts that I must now be the same person as Junior Wrangler only because we both made a cross response to Mathsci making groundless accusations against us.  This is false logic so feeble as to be unworthy of him  He asserts that I am stalking him because in the past he edited some other articles on a related topic.  If that were good logic then hundreds of people would be stalking him every day.    He calls my previous response trolling because he cannot refute it - quite a usual piece of internet rhetoric, but where are those citations?  He sys I'm tracking his edits because I point out that it took him 7 hours to notify me of these allegations, a fact that I could read for myself in the timestamps on this very page once he had the courtesy to point it out to me.  He has to know that this allegation is rubbish.  What's going on here is that Mathsci is wasting his, my and the admins time on pointless, frivolous and mendacious allegations which do not even begin to disclose any misconduct - at least, not on my part.  Is there any more of this rubbish to come or can we all get on with trying to build an encyclopedia now?  Echigo mole (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Mathsci's comment of 13:10 fails to refute, or even address, any of the points I made at 10:36, I assume that he accepts their validity. Instead he attempts to "prove" that I must be several other people by alluding airily to the fact that other people have been investigated for various unspecified misdeeds, and further "proves" that he is being stalked by the fact that I have edited two article talk pages he is interested in.  You will see that he does not, and indeed cannot, deny that the situation is in fact the opposite.  He has been tracking my edits and deleting them, without explanation or with misleading explanations, at Academia and University of Cambridge where he had not edited for years except after me and only to reverse me for no reason at all.  He claims that I am disputing "well known" facts for no reason, when he knows, or ought to know, himself as a self-proclaimed expert, that the wording is inaccurate and when challenged he has failed to produce any citations to support his so-called well-known facts, just abuse and spurious reports at this page.  He is currently adding illogical, incorrect and irrelevant verbiage to this page, none of which supports any allegation of misconduct on my part and only serves to underline his own complete lack of good faith.  Why is he allowed to do this?  Echigo mole (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So I should possess myself in patience while Mathsci continues to pile on illogical and irrelevant attacks? An interesting thought.  Just to nail some more of Mathsci's misrepresentations.  He revises his edit after I have refuted it.b I said that he edited University of Cambridge after I did, purely to reverse my edits, and that is undeniable (at least he does not deny it).  I maintain that he reversed my edits to Academia which had nothing to do with him or any edits he might have made previously.  Does he deny that?  My question at Talk:Euler had nothing to do with any edits he might have made there.  Does he deny that?  Finally, where did I refuse to be checked?  He can either point out where I said it or withdraw the imputations he purports to deduce from from this so-called reluctance, or stand exposed as dishonest.  To save myself time, let me state that whatever he may write, whether or not I explicitly refute it, I wish it to be understood that I accept or agree with nothing he states.  Echigo mole (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting that Mathsci thinks at 20:40 that rhetoric will not help if an account is to be checked. (I welcome a check on my edits, I stand my them as well-intentioned, as accurate as I can make them, and thoroughly constructive - can Mathsci say the same?)  But I cannot help but wonder why Mathsci chose to edit this page 14 times after a clerk posted that those checks would happen?   Was it perhaps to make - rhetorical points?  Apparently his latest rhetorical "proof" that I am guilty of something - he doesn't quite say what - is that I have successfully defended myself against those 14 attacks (which on his own logic were not going to help him.)  I can turn that argument back against him too: a "normal" person accused of intellectual dishonesty would probably wish to at least reject the charge, even if unable to refute it.  Mathsci doesn't even care. - is that some kind of admission?  Oh, and where are the references for those "well-known" assertions?  Still missing.  Finally we come to the latest development in this long line of irrelevant and illogical attacks - Mathsci starts to speculate about where I live.  Creepy.  Once again I ask: why is he allowed to behave like this?  Echigo mole (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So as far as I can make out, there is no evidence to connect me with any of the users Mathsci mentioned initially; it is "possible" in a "technical sense only" that I might be some other users not mentioned until now -- and rather than apologising for his farrago of unsupported accusations and creepy personal attacks Mathsci attempts to smear me by association with yet another name he has dragged in from nowhere. I suppose an apology from someone is too much to hope for?  Echigo mole (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Holding Ray and Zaboublian are blocked as socks of A.K.Nole. Something's going on here, so I'll endorse to find out what. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ya know, it really helps for you lot to check if accounts are before endorsing requests.... which in this case is all of them except for Echigo mole himself. Regardless, though, and speaking in a technical sense only...
 * is
 * is
 * Beyond this I have nothing because I have nothing else to compare to. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 01:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah damn. Sorry about that - I dropped the ball. :/ —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the results came in, this case has gone cold. None of the accounts listed have edited since August 1, and I get the sense that none of the clerks feel strongly enough one way or the other on this. I'm closing this with no further action taken, but relist if there are new developments. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

08 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The previous case has not been archived yet. As HelloAnnyong suggested there, I was directed to make a second request if any of the sockpuppets identified by the checkuser became active again. A.B.C.Hawkes has just wikistalked me in the usual manner of A.K.Nole with a trolling edit to a request I filed at WP:AE. I have removed the edit (per the report) and contacted both Elen of the Roads (who has followed the A.K.Nole wikistalking as a member of ArbCom) and HelloAnnyong, who closed the previous report. Please can this disruptive sockpuppet be blocked? Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Both recent edits of A.B.C.Hawkes (e.g. the creepy trolling below) are typical of the wikistalking behaviour of A.K.Nole. Thanks, Sandstein. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Sandstein Echigo mole in his first edits followed me to two unrelated articles that I was editing and started fiddling with my edits in a silly way: this is standard behaviour for A.K.Nole socks (who is British with an undergraduate knowledge of mathematics). The "outing" comments related to Old Crobuzon have been explained in an email. These accounts are always disruption-only, sleepers waiting to troll on noticeboards and ArbCom pages like all of A.K.Nole's previous reincarnations. Mathsci (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: the accounts of Echigo mole/Old Crobuzon/A.B.C.Hawkes are all sockpuppets of A.K.Nole The account Echigo mole was created at 11:00 on 20 July. As I just discovered, at 10:55 and 10:56 immediately preceding the creation of this account,, in the vodafone range used by Mikemikev and previously blocked for 3 months by Shell Kinney, made this edit to the article Echigo Mole. I looked through all the IPs in that range and found ony one other editor,, who occasionally edits when logged off. Previous edits on Kac-Moody algebra and N=2 superconformal algebra were made by IPs from that range and then. The edits connected with me follow my own edits and fit the editing pattern of long-term wikistalking by A.K.Nole. I have made a detailed report in private to Elen of the Roads and have requested that A.K.Nole be banned from wikipedia so that the continued disruption by sockpuppets can be handled more easily. Mathsci (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Not sure how to respond to this tirade. Mathsci wants to ban me as a sockpuppet of retired user Echigo Mole because he thinks I must be A.K.Nole. Madness. His statement "I was directed ... sockpuppets became active"" is not what is written above and states, falsely, that I have been identified as a sockpuppet in the previous SPI. This is a lie.  When he says wikistalking, he means I made a comment at a public board that anyone can comment at, and when he says trolling he means that the comment I made was unwelcome and he could not argue against it.   This is part of his campaign of wikistalking against Miradre and anyone who dares not to join in on it.  A thoroughly bogus and disruptive tactic.  A.B.C.Hawkes (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Mathsci asked me per e-mail to look at this case. My assessment is that A.B.C.Hawkes is a sock- or meatpuppet based on behavioral evidence: they are an apparently new user who makes some innocuous edits and then inserts themselves into a dispute between Mathsci and Miradre, which does not concern themselves, on rather obscure pages (an admin talk page and WP:AE). No genuinely new editor would do this. Accordingly, A.B.C.Hawkes is indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts.  Sandstein  06:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Any more thoughts on the remaining two editors, User:Echigo mole and User:Old Crobuzon? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at their contributions, I see nothing immediately suspicious or actionable. I do not understand on the basis of this report why Mathsci thinks they are socks (for example, it's not clear how the second user "has played around in editing with information related to outing"), and so I see no basis for administrative action against them.  Sandstein   16:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Sandstein on this. I'm closing this whole case for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

29 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Identical behaviour to the vodafone accounts that ArbCom identified as sockpuppet accounts of the banned user discussed in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. They are all alternative accounts of User:A.K.Nole. A.B.C.Hawkes, now indefinitely blocked, was the most recent of these. All the edits by these accounts to ArbCom and project pages have used this range of IPs which was blocked for three months by Shell Kinney earlier this year. Mathsci (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll mark all future occurrences of this range of IPs as socks of Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 23:45, 29 August 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

 * Merged the cases - ABC Hawkes was tagged as a sock of Echigo mole. And the IP's been blocked for a week. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

30 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Continued trolling and attempts at disruption by this latest ipsocking by long-time wikistalker A.K.Nole, already active and blocked at another IP in this range within the last 24 hours. This user made similar trolling edits using this IP on 14 July and 22 July and was blocked for then by Tnxman307 and HelloAnnyong. Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 30 August 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've blocked 212.183.140.0/27 for a month. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

31 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The IP has already been reported under a very recent Echigo mole/A.K.Nole SPI; that range of IPs has been blocked. Hersfold as checkuser also found that the accounts of Old Crobuzon and were related to Echigo mole. The IP left a message on my talk page about Gringo Madre. The account Old Crobuzon then filed an SPI report about. These different pieces of information, and Old Crobuzon's sudden interest in Mikemikev (who is wholly unrelated to his previous Dr. Who-related edits), suggest beyond any reasonable doubt that he is yet another sockpuppet of A.K.Nole/Echigo mole, etc, as already suspected. (He could be right about Gringo Madre, but that is another matter.) Mathsci (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Mathsci (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It was Hersfold who unearthed the two accounts Old Crobuzon and A.B.C.Hawkes (of which I was unaware). A.K.Nole/Echigo mole bided his time before using the A.B.C.Hawkes account on a project page. After his failure with that account, A.K.Nole/Echigo mole made the mistake of using the instantly recognizable vodafone IP range to prompt me to start a request for an SPI. I did not respond, because I don't read trolling by IP socks in this range. Having no response, it appears A.K.Nole/Echigomole decided to use the account Old Crobuzon to take over matters from the ipsock. He has now been caught red-handed and is venting below, as A.K.Nole has done in the past. How a new user like Old Crobuzon could have even found this page would normally be a mystery; on the other hand A.K.Nole/Echigo mole has spent a considerable amount of time stalking my edits and then trolling on project and ArbCom pages (he has previously been reverted by both clerks and arbitrators), so there is no particular mystery here. A sad case. As a "new user", Old Crobuzon has been unable to provide any even slightly plausible explanation of how he came across the account of Gringo Madre. So WP:DUCK applies here, in conjunction with all the other damning evidence. Mathsci (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The analysis at User:Mathsci/SPI shows why edits in the vodafone range mentioned here are exclusively edits of the wikistalker A.K.Nole/Echigo mole. They have nothing to do with Mikemikev. Old Crobuzon's user page has never been tagged with anything remotely connected with Mikemikev,: it has been tagged only as a sockpuppet of A.K.Nole. Old Crobuzon familiarity with Mikemikev would be inexplicable in the circumstances, if it were not for the now obvious fact that he is a sockpuppet A.K.N/E.m. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Old Crobuzon's response overlooks the fact that ArbCom has actively discussed in private the sockpuppetry of A.K.Nole; the vodafone IP range was blocked for three months earlier this year by Shell Kinney because of A.K.Nole/Echigo mole disruption on project pages, including ArbCom pages. His long attempted self-justification again just adds yet more evidence of sockpuppetry per WP:DUCK. It is classic A.K.Nole trolling. That a new user should come onto this page with so many stored up grudges about me and my editing was not the greatest idea that A.K.Nole/Echigo mole has had. The inexplicable coincidence between the subject of the IP's edit to my user talk page and Old Crobuzon's subsequent SPI request is completely damning, no matter how much Old Crobuzon wikilawyers. Again this conduct is typical of A.K.Nole/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Personally I couldn't care less about User:Mikemikev but since Mathsci decided I was a sockpuppet of his (that is, before he became equally convinced that I was A.K.Nole ) it seemed like a good idea to prove that I wasn't, and I'm glad to see that he now accepts that at least one of his mutually inconsistent, but vehemently publicised, theories was incorrect.  Could we now hear from someone who actually knows what's going on please?  Old Crobuzon (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed reading Mathsci's "proof" that Vodafone editors are "exclusively edits of [...] Echigo mole". I didn't quite get what Pythagorean field had to do with Mathsci, or Grandiose delusions come to that.  But I am sure that he sees the connection.  He seems to have missed out about a thousand or so other edits made by Vodafone IP addresses -- are they also A.K.Nole, or did they just not support his case?  However, what the "proof" reminded me of most was his similar if less comprehensive analysis of the Vodafone range here which "proved" that Mikemikev was responsible for all the Vodafone edits.  I think that contradiction in his reasoning is by itself sufficient to sink an otherwise admirable effort.  Old Crobuzon (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Mathsci keeps asserting that various people are socks of A.K.Nole. It is curious that nobody else at all has supported that through all of these investigations.  Indeed, only one SPI was ever held into A.K.Nole and it led to no conclusion.  Mathsci has alluded vaguely at times to various checkuser investigations which he claims to have been privy to, and if there were any substance to those assertions then presumably the results would have been published, or at least the parties concerned would have been sanctioned.  But no, the Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of A.K.Nole appears to have been created and populated entirely by Mathsci.
 * Finally let me just point out another little flaw in Mathsci's argument: i already gave the link above to the page where he asserted (falsely, as I hope he now accepts) that I was Mikemikev. (Apparently I could not have possibly have found it all by myself, because hitting "What links here" on my own user page was too difficult for me.)   So his argument -- that I must be A.K.Nole because otherwise how could I know he had accused me of being Mikemikev -- is an illogical argument based on a false premise.  To borrow a phrase: "a sad case".
 * It should be clear by now that Mathsci treats any comment on his behaviour which is not entirely to his liking as a personal attack, attributes it to his arch-enemy of the moment, and spares no effort to repeat that attribution indefinitely across multiple pages, relevant and irrelevant.
 * I am pefectly content to have this case adjudicated by an actual administrator who knows what is going on. Until then, perhaps Mathsci would care to rest his case?  As someone once said, "Please be patient"  and "no amount of rhetoric will help".   Old Crobuzon (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * This case has been untouched for days now, and I get the sense that none of the clerks want to touch it. Interestingly enough I see that the autoblock for the IP has kicked in, yet neither of these accounts are blocked. I don't know what's going on, but I don't think there's really enough evidence to convict just yet. As such I'm closing with no action taken. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking things over, the comments towards the accused are very braodly constructed and do not make enough to combine CU evidence and behavoir into a block. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  04:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

07 September 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This editor has three times now tried to remove pages analysing the list of vodafone IPs which detail the serial socking by A.K.Nole/Echigo mole. This is described in User:Mathsci/SPI where edits within the range of vodafone IPs are analysed. It was Elen of the Roads who indicated to me by email that arbitrators had concluded this range of IPs was connected with A.K.Nole, so the statement about "lies" in the third diff (MfD) seems to be WP:TROLLING and contradicts all previous blocks. That this user challenges the line of A.K.Nole socks contradicts checkuser findings and statements by arbitrators who are checkusers. The ipsocks have consistently appeared on ArbCom pages and here to challenge requests with disruptive trolling. Like a previous account, blocked by Shell Kinney, this user made a number of early edits related to my real life name, which is known to HelloAnnyong. They have consistently wikistalked my edits. The current MfD of Old Crobuzon is a statement that challenges the wikistalking which began with A.K.Nole and proceeded through the remainder of the sockpuppet accounts. Shell Kinney followed most of the subsequent accounts, confirming early on by email that Quotient group was an alternative account of A.K.Nole, and eventually blocked many of the new accounts indefinitely. If Old Crobuzon reappears to argue against the serial wikistalking by A.K.Nole and his multiple reincarnations, that will only provide extra confirmation per WP:DUCK that he is indeed this long term argumentative wikistalker. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment Mathsci must be more accurate in his assertions.  The word "lies" which he purports to quote from me does not appear in the polite requests I left at the talk pages of himself and his alternate account,  or the MfD request .  The fact that one item on his laundry list of grievances may have been supported in a private exchange does not make it all true, and I invite anyone other than Mathsci with actual evidence to bring it forward.  It is untrue to say that the MFD challenges anything: it gives sound policy-based reasons for deleting a page which is not even the page Mathsci refers to above.
 * Mathsci purports to prove that I am a sockpuppet of Echigo Mole by bringing forward a list of complaints which, he claims, prove that other people are A.K.Nole. This argument is complete nosense and Mathsci must know it.  Mathsci did not get the answer he wanted at a previous SPI so has simply brought it again without any new evidence or arguments of any kind -- this is sheer harassment and disruption.  Now will he please either bring forward evidence relating to me for review by admins, or withdraw -- and will an admin please review Mathsci's conduct and comment on whether it is appropriate?   Old Crobuzon (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Yes, rather . Kindly continue reporting these socks, because RBs weren't feasible. AGK  [&bull; ] 09:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The socks were blocked and tagged, but I blocked the master for three days (if it matters). —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

16 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Fits prior wikistalking behaviour of the multiple socks of A.K.Nole and later Echigo mole. Sole purpose of account, which has made just two edits in 2009 and now, has been to make creepy remarks about me on public noticeboards. Mathsci (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * User has been indefinitely blocked by MastCell for sockpuppetry. Mathsci (talk) 04:52, 16 October 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

 * , same ISP as the ones in the archive. No sleepers. Courcelles 05:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

16 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

More trolling from A.K.Nole / Echigo mole on MfD using an ipsock in his usual IP range now that his sockpuppet account has been blocked. Mathsci (talk) 13:37, 16 October 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

 * IP blocked 2 weeks per WP:DUCK. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

22 October 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

A recently created account with same trolling British style as A.K.Nole / Echigo mole in his recent edits. After a 16 day break from editing, he reappeared to make overly personalised comments directed at me on two public project pages. Mathsci (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * More common characteristics with A.K.Nole / Echigo mole per WP:DUCK. First finding this page which indicates that he is tracking my edits; his recognition of Echigo mole; and his awareness of what a sockpuppet is (new user, eh?). Also the argumentative dismissive know-it-all style is typical of A.K.Nole / Echigo mole. I cannot think of any reasonable explanation of how a new user might be familiar with Miradre and events from July, August and before on ArbCom noticeboards. Mathsci (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added another suspected sock that has recently become active again (15 October). His editing also conforms to that of A.K.Nole / Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * (1) Yes I am British and yes I took a 16-day break from editing. So what?  (2) Overly personalised comments = rubbish.  I made a sensible, policy-based argument at a AFD page rebutting points made by other people and politely pointed out a misunderstanding on FTN.  (3) Why does any of this suggest that I am another user?  (4) Thanks for not informing me about this rubbish.  Tryphaena (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
As of 06:50, 24 September 2011, this was the account's first edit, although the account was created in February 2009. WilliamH (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * - I'd rather not specify the justification for why I'm endorsing (CU, email me if necessary) but I think something's up. Endorsing to find out what. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

All accounts appear to be ❌. –MuZemike 18:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unrelated accounts - closing investigation AGK  [&bull; ] 20:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Post-closure note: I looked into this again, and pulled data on both Echigo mole and Tryphaena. I'm not sure why MuZemike arrived at a different conclusion from me, but the two accounts are ✅ by checkuser to be the same. AGK  [&bull; ] 22:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Post-closure comment: I had a look for others' reference, as for non-CheckUsers this looks like one CU's word against another. I also find Echigo mole and Tryphaena to be ✅ as the same. WilliamH (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

19 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This seems to be classic A.K.Nole / Echigo mole editing, with trolling on a mathematics article where he barely understands the syntax. This user has a history of following my edits to speciailized articles like this one. They have been blocked on previous occasions for trolling on mathematics articles (Julian Birdbath, was one of the last cases; one of the first cases involved A.K.Nole on Butcher group). The new IPs are almost certainly explained by Xmas vacation. If the range cannot be blocked, please at least could the article page (Grunsky matrix) be semiprotected? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did see threembb.co.uk listed as a proxy server on one list of UK proxy servers. Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Just to point out that Mathsci's comments are quite false. In particular, my edits to the article were entirely constructive, and indeed consisted mainly of correcting his obvious errors.  My comments on the talk page, which he improperly deleted contrary to guidelines rather than addressing, were entirely sensible.  Mathsci may not like "his" articles being criticised, but I suggest that the venom of his reaction is an implicit acknowledgement that the critique was justified.  Sad really -- Mathsci wouild be a much better controbutor to the project if he could work constructively with his peers. 94.196.201.70 (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In view of the continued disruption here, again typical of Echigo mole / A.K.Nole, some kind of range block might be necessary. Echigo mole/ A.K.Nole self-identifies with his final sentence per WP:DUCK. Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've protected Grunsky matrix for 3 days. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

20 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Editing history and the tracking of my edits with unsourced, mathematically illiterate and unhelpful content suggests that this very new user is a sockpuppet of our friend A.K.Nole / Echigo mole, who cannot now edit this page using ipsocks as they were doing very recently. I have never seen such chronically bad editing, which shows almost zero understanding of the subject: it's somebody trying desperately to fake familiarity with content way beyond them, which is one of the hallmarks of the sockpuppets of Echigo mole. A.K.Nole attempted to play around with the theory of Renormalization and Julian Birdbath with N = 2 superconformal algebra in exactly the same embarassingly naive way, when they were fairly evidently completely outside their depth. From the trolling/wikihounding point of view a registered sockpuppet account was the obvious and unfortunately expected next step in Echigo mole's relentless disruption. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * After this report was filed, our friend Echigo mole used another one of yesterday's ipsocks to leave a trolling message on my talk page. More WP:DUCK but this time through a megaphone. Mathsci (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is evident from his editing since I made this report that Ansatz has no competence in mathematics beyond a first or second year undergraduate course in a provincial UK university. In a fairly naive way, typical of Zarboublian, A.K.Nole and Julian Birdbath, he has attempted to add xontent making serious undergraduate errors, which show that he has no hope of mastering the material, which is at an advanced graduate level and some of it beyond. Asatz seems to have problems grasping even the most elementary aspects of the subject. His explanatations of why he should suddenly choose this very difficult and highly specialized area are not credible, in view of his inability even to grasp the basics of the subject. The other sockpuppets of Echigo /A.K.Nole have been no different. Like them, his spelling is British and his wikilawyering below and elsewhere, where has tried to explain away his serious mathematical errors is not credible. It is exactly what all the other sockpuppets did: Quotient group had to be questioned in private by Shell Kinney before he admitted that he was the same person as A.K.Nole. At that stage he promised to cease his wikistalking but that was an empty promise. As the reports here show and his numerous attempts trolling comments on ArbCom pages show, at no stage has his wikistalking stopped.


 * Ansatz's attempt at writing an article was a failure. Mathematical abitlity cannot be faked with a google search and it was his inability to show any grasp of the material which gave him away. Following me to this area was also not such a great idea. The flimsy error-ridden stub that he created at quasicircle was exactly what I would expect from someone with barely an undergrauate knowledge of mathematics trying to write a summary of highly advanced mathematics, way beyond their expertise. The article, initially created by Ansatz as a fork of an article that will take me several weeks to write, contained statements which were false. It was so badly written that I stopped my work on Loewner differential equation and the companion articles to produce a properly written article, with proper sources, correct history and a readable summary of what is known.


 * I assume that Ansatz is displaced in the UK for Xmas and this is one of his recreations over the holiday period. Wikipedia, however, is not a magic wand that can suddenly transform someone with hardly any mathematical training into an expert post Ph.D. level mathematician: Ansatz claims that he is being insulted when his error-ridden content has been removed. His indignation below and failure to admit to having made errors is exactly how all the drawerfuls of socks of A.K.Nole / Echigo mole have behaved. They have all been blocked, even when they arrive on ArbCom pages to make self-righteous condemnations. At the moment Ansatz, while making clueless errors, is still trying to fake being a post Ph.D. mathematician. This is evidently not the case. His  wikistalking, trolling and puffed-up denials are just a continuation of past disruptive and dishonest conduct. Mathsci (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Ansatz could clarify at this stage whether his account bears any relation to the edits in the previous SPI reports on Echigo mole/A.K.Nole. His account started editing Grunsky matrix almost as soon as it was semiprotected by HelloAnyong. How does he explain that "coincidence" or the similarity between his own mode of expression and that of Echigo mole / A.K.Nole and their various reincarnations? Certainly it's not a particular bright idea to start editing an article clearly tagged with an "underconstruction" template. A cursory glance at Ansatz's recent edits shows that he has been buzzing around articles connected with my recent edits. No different from the editing patterns of the socks of Echigo mole/ A.K.Nole, now indefinitely blocked. I know it's Xmas time, but there really is far too much WP:DUCK around here.  Mathsci (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This user to me seems indistinguishable form A.K.Nole / Zarboublian / Quotient group / Julian Birdbath per his most recent comments. His mathematical editing is uniformly poor and a net negative to the encyclopedia. That was already the case with A.K.Nole / Quotient group / Zarboublian / Julian Birdbath in the past, who were eventually identified as wikistalking sockpuppets and blocked indefinitely. Ansatz, on the basis of all his contributions and the checkuser evidence, seems to be exactly the same person. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:DUCK and checkuser prevail here. Ansatz's mathematical incompetence is a matter of record, no matter how much he protests (like his previous incarnations). Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Thanks to the three admins who have commented here and seasons greetings to you all. Mathsci (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I suppose that Mathsci is entitled to his opinion of my editing. But. It seems that Mathsci wants to protect "his" articles by a campaign of aggressive and misleading accusations, rather than engaging in constructive discussion for the benefit of the project. Shame. Ansatz (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused User:Ansatz
 * "Unsourced" - no, that is not true. I challenge him to show any significant material I have added which was not properly sourced.
 * "Illiterate" - no, to the extent that it is not a mere insult, that is not true either. Again I challenge him to provide an example.
 * "Unhelpful content" - I suppose this means that he disagrees with my views about the logical and pedagogical order of some material. He should discuss it sensibly at the relevant article talk page.
 * "Chronically bad", "zero understanding", "trying desperately" - these are just insults.


 * So, when challenged Mathsci refuses to bring forward any actual evidence. Presumably that is because there is none, and he knows that.  Mathsci repeats the claims as "undergraduate errors", but again without evidence.  An "attempt at writing an articile was a failure" -- what does that mean?  That he didn't like it?  That quasicircle was "created as a fork of an article that will take me several weeks to write" is a plain lie.  It was created as a stub to define and give a couple of keys facts about a concept referred to in another article, where is went completely undefined, and not otherwise referred to on Wikipedia.  Mathsci may think we owns the articles he has written, but can hardly claim to own articles he hasn't even started yet!  Continued repetition of the claim "contained statements which were false" does not make it any more accurate -- it contained a simplified version of a theorem which was fully cited with a url to a public version of the exact statement.  Putting simplified versions of mathematics is what we do when writing articles.  Mathsci does this too: for example, he furiously reverted to the claim that "Grunsky matrix" and "Grunsky operator" were synonymous, when that is of course literally false.  It stands as a simplificiation, but I suppose that if I had written it he would have called it an "undergraduate howler".
 * All of this has nothing to do with the merits of the accusation he repeats but cannot substantiate.
 * Let's be clear about what is going on here. Mathsci cannot bear to have his articles edited, or even discussed, by anyone else at all, and he is especially angry when those comments have merit, or the suggested changes dare to be improvements.  The editor who dares to venture onto his turf must be met with a barrage of insults, vilification, personal denigration, intellectually dishonest misrepresentations of their comments, wikihounding onto other articles, speculation and insinuations as to their profession and location bordering on outing, and completely unsupported assertions that they must be guilty of sockpuppetry, block evasion, ban evasion, and any other wiki-crimes that come to mind.  The true crime is venturing onto Mathsci's private turf, and that he cannot forgive or forget.  Ansatz (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mathsci says It's not a particular bright idea to start editing an article clearly tagged with an 'underconstruction" template. Since that template says  You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. I would have said that it was reasonable to assume that in fact that was exactly what he did want.
 * "Buzzing round articles connected with my recent edits" is a miseading way of Mathsci expressing him following me to quasicircle, which he edited within two hours of my creating it, or contraction (operator theory) where he reverted my edits within seven hours of my making them, in spite of not having shown any interest in in its four-year history. I think that he has been doing most of the buzzing -- I confidently expect to find him finding fault at Lethargy theorem (new article by me) or FRACTRAN (added reference) or nice name (added reference) or infinite descending chain (added reference) soon.  Does he believe he owns all the mathematics articles, or that we all need his permission to edit them, or that we have to submit our qualifications to him for assessment before he will allow us to edit?  He certainly behaves like it.
 * Now let's get back to some of the assertions that I challenged Mathsci to substantiate. He has had several opportunities to justify his negative remarks about my editing but has failed to do so (not surprising as they are completely false.)  I can only assume that he made the remarks deliberately  knowing that he could not substantiate them or at the very least not caring whether or they were true.  From where I sit, there's no other word for that -- it makes him a liar.  Ansatz (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "His mathematical editing is uniformly poor and a net negative to the encyclopedia" Just saying it again doesn't make it true.  This ceaseless repetition of mendacious insult and invective demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of Mathsci's position.  It makes it crystal clear that he simply wants to get everyone else off his turf and he does not care what he says, or what conection it has to reality, or how often he says it, to achieve those ends.  Ansatz (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ansatz's mathematical incompetence is a matter of record" -- where? Oh that's right - nowhere, because Mathsci just made it up.  So let's get some actual evidence here of that allegedly "illiterate" "unsourced" "uniformly poor" "incompetence":

I think that's enough to nail Mathsci's lie for what it is. Ansatz (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * , correct sloppy minor error by Mathsci
 * improvement accepted by Mathsci
 * improvement, with source, subsequently accepted by Mathsci
 * ,, , add reference
 * ,, clarification
 * remove obviously incorrect material

So, to summarise. Mathsci's case against me rests on three main pillars: his statements about my edits; his statements about my response here; and the user check.

His statements about my edits can best be cast as a syllogism: The first clause is untrue. Mathsci has repetedly failed to produce anything other than tediously repeated bald assertion, without evidence of any kind. On the other hand I have produced ample evidence to show that the verifiable content of these charges is in fact false. I therefore have no hesitation in descriing them as lies. The second clause may or may not be completely false, I have not troubled to look at those edits in any detail, as they are irrelevant to my response. The only comment I make here is that Mathsci refers to Nole's edits at Renormalisation, and I see no evidence that Nole ever edited that article. So this clause fails too. The third clause would be supremely illogical in the absence of some kind of assertion that Nole, Birdbath and Mole are known to be the same person. Perhaps there is some evidence to that effect - I would not know. But Mathsci has conspicuously failed to provide it, and in the light of his cavalier approach to the truth in respect of my edits, I think he needs to bring that evidence forward and pretty soon too.
 * 1) The mathematical edits of Ansatz are illiterate, unsourced, poor, desperate, unhelpful, chronically bad, naive, a failure, synthesis and original research -- and all of these to an extent unique on Wikipedia
 * 2) The edits of A.K.Nole and Julian Birdbath were equally and characteristically bad
 * 3) Therefore Ansatz is Echigo Mole

I briefly comment on the next pillar, that Mathsci thinks I sound like someone else. Well maybe I do. I think actually I sound rather like Mathsci too. Perhaps I'm really him? Just joking. Again, bald repetition is not evidence. perhaps he can point to some characteristic turn of phrase that ony I and Nole and Mole and the rest of the gang use? No? Again, he needs to bring that evidence forward or admit that it is mere ungrounded assertion.

Finally, the user check. In what universe is "Not likely" the same as "Guilty"? Only in the strange parallel universe that Mathsci inhabits, where his word is law and nobody is allowed to contradict him.

I rest my case. Goodbye and Merry Christmas one and all. Ansatz (talk) 12:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Maybe.. though I would think Ansatz would've come up in the last sweep. Anyway, should be usable for a check. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see a relation between Ansatz and Tryphaena. I would almost say, but I would like another CU's input before going that far.  TN  X  Man  15:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see grounds enough to duck it without the CU result. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  15:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

28 December 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Same IP range as used on December 19th, prior to resuming Ansatz account. Again wikistalking articles created recently by me, with identical behaviour to Ansatz. Evidently A.K.Nole / Echigo mole is back out on their campaign of watching and tracking my edits in their usual creepy way. In this case he made edits to Koenigs function 13 minutes after I had made edits to it. I am intending to add an example; I don't really feel happy with A.K.Nole / Echigo mole lurking around (as in the last SPI case). Mathsci (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The second IP above edited this page (I reverted his additions) adding a USA IP of a quite different kind of editor (a wikignome), whose editing seems to have no relation whatsoever to the sockpuppetry of Echigo mole / A.K.Nole. Mathsci (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not unexpectedly, per WP:DUCK, with a third ipsock listed above this editor is now intervening with trolling comments during an ArbCom case as he has done in the past. The content of the latest message refers to documentation of socking by A.K.Nole / Echigo mole; the page was approved by AGK. Mathsci (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't request a check user, since these are IPs. Please could a clerk fix this? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 4 January 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

 * Duck. Keegan (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, no one ever requested a CheckUser be ran. Tiptoety  talk 06:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * None of the IPs has edited in the past week, so I'm going to call them stale for now. Relist in a more timely fashion and we can take care of it. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment HelloAnnyong, this advice is not helpful. These IPs were reported as soon as they edited (28, 29, 30 December). Keegan made a mistake on 4 January in assuming that a checkuser had been requested, which was not the case. Then nothing was done for three days. I could not have "listed in a more timely fashion", but there could have been a more careful response here. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're correct; I'm sorry. I struck part of my comment above. Anyway, it still stands that the IPs are stale, so relist if any new ones show up and we'll do our best to take care of them. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 06:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Mathsci (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

08 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Echigo mole / A.K.Nole is back again with his standard disruption during an ArbCom case, this time leaving trolling messages on the ArbCom clerk's talk page. Exactly the same range of IPs as used in the previous report. Note that I am not requesting checkuser here. Perhaps if the IP range is only used by Echigo mole, it should be blocked for a period. Mathsci (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what A.K.Nole / Echigo mole suggests below, I do not wish to add any usernames to this report. There is more WP:DUCK however. Mathsci (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

added a trolling statement on an arbitration page. I have sent an email to the arbcom list about this. Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * More trolling in the mean time by A.K.Nole / Echigo mole, this time in connection with a different ArbCom request. More WP:DUCK. Please block the IP ranges temporarily. Mathsci (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The trolling has continued this morning in the same place from the 5th and 6th ipsocks. A.K.Nole / Echigo mole has been encouraging more disruption there. Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The trolling is continuing over wikipedia and again below. Please could something be done soon? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And more trolling below. Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In view of Echigo nole's persistent trolling (which I have removed), could this page please be semiprotected in the future? Mathsci (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Last IP trolled about Echigo mole on AGK's talk page (now removed). Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I was asked to look at the activity detailed above because I have investigated this case in the past. However, I do not feel we can do anything here from a technical perspective. on the link between the anonymous accounts and previous Echigo mole activity. Range block for the abuse by the above anonymous users is  due to the significant collateral on the underlying range(s). My recommendation is that the IPs be blocked for a short time by the patrolling administrators (I do not wish to get involved for now).  AGK   [• ]  18:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not say there was no connection to Echigo mole. I said I have no comment as to whether such a connection exists. The specific identity of the anonymous accounts does not matter in this instance: they can be blocked at the discretion of an administrator for abusive behaviour. AGK   [• ]  21:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ugh, what a mess. I've blocked all the IPs for a week, and protected an article or two. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

13 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Obvious trolling from previous range on User talk:AGK concerning issues related to me, e.g. the ipsock added diffs of my edits and referred to the racist postings of Mikemikev. Why the penny has not dropped with AGK himself, I do not know. (I now use HelloAnnyong's excellent rangecontribs software, adapted from X!, to check edits from the ranges 94.196.***.*** and 94.197.***.***. ) Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Why did you include the snide comment about me? It was not necessary to this investigation. AGK   [• ]  00:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On your talk page you mentioned that you had not realized that the postings might have been from this user : that's all this means. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks both to AGK, who blocked these two IPs, and to HelloAnnyong. Mathsci (talk) 05:20, 14 January 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

 * Given the level of disruption a rangeblock is becoming increasingly more likely, but I'll close this for now. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

22 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Trolling on arbcom pages is one of the things this user has regularly done in the past. This account has previously edited on one day for a short period of about one hour in March 2011 to make the requisite ten edits (on Hertfordshire) to become auto-confirmed. No new user would troll like this out of the blue on an arbcom page. A previous indefinitely blocked sockpuppet,, made edits about Hertfordshire. Mathsci (talk) 16:00, 22 January 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
The Wozbongulator is a match to. TN  X  Man 16:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

25 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Account created back in 2009, never used until today. Trolling for the third time on Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 25 January 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

 * ✅, matches edits that were previously associated with Echigo mole. Blocked and tagged. Amalthea  11:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

29 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

One newly arrived user displaying the usual behavior, stalking edits by : one revived from 4 years ago (!) who might be or possibly. William Hickey (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * My assumption would be that William Hickey is a sockpuppet of Echigo mole just here to confuse matters and troll. If a checkuser is required anywhere it is for his account.


 * Echigo mole suggested adding W.M. O'Quinlan to a case I proposed quite recently through an IP sock. So per WP:DUCK (nobody else follows edits to my talk page that closely ), that suggests that William Hickey is Echigo mole. I have no idea about Jenny Longlegs as this user has only made three edits, and only one to an article of mine (so again William Hickey has stalked my edits). The whole request seems to be trolling by Echigo mole. This does not warrant a checkuser, except to look at William Hickey's recently reactivated account, unused since 2009 with the 10 edits then necessary to become autoconfirmed. Echigo mole has tried to create other forms of confusion here recently and that is why this page is semiprotected.  Mathsci (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * These latest trolling edits on WP:ANI are typical of Echigo mole's creepy style. More WP:DUCK, as if it wasn't obvious beforehand. Mathsci (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And now this creepy edit to an arbcom page, his third or fourth attempt so far. Mathsci (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And again.Mathsci (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And this. Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And this. Uninterrupted disruptive trolling. A duck with a megaphone. Mathsci (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have no idea why Echigo mole / A.K.Nole thought his stupid game of starting an SPI would not be seen through immediately, as it was. A boomerang. Mathsci (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - W.M. O'Quinlan is a really old account, so maybe it was compromised here. But yeah, I think William Hickey deserves a check. Let's see what the boomerang throw brings back. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hickey is a ✅ match to . TN  X  Man  03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked and tagged Hickey. What about the other socks listed? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen evidence of wrongdoing. Are they doing something suspicious? TN  X  Man  03:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WM O'Quinlan is at least weird. An account goes untouched for for years, then suddenly wakes up and the first thing they do is post on Mathsci's page about the Race and intelligence article with an accusatory tone? Very suspicious IMO. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * O'Quinlan appears ❌ to Hickey, at least. I don't see any other suspicious activity there. TN  X  Man  03:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay. It was just a one-off thing, so I'm going to let it go for now. And yeah, I don't see the connection with Jenny Longlegs, so I think we're done. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

30 January 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Usual IP range, wikistalking to an article I am in the process of editing, making clueless mathematical edits. Later edits to Reginald of Durham with similar wikistalking. Please semiprotect the article Contraction (operator theory) and block the IP. Mathsci (talk) 22:59, 30 January 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

 * I've blocked the IP for awhile, but I don't think there's enough action on that article to warrant protection at this point. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

02 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Trolling on WP:ANI this time. Same IP range, same obsession. Mathsci (talk) 20:25, 2 February 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

 * See the case below. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

03 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Trolling/stalking edits by first IP on Contraction (operator theory). This user has little intellectual grasp of mathematics beyond the first year or start of the second year in an UK undergraduate course. Please semiprotect the article as I requested before. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The second IP is trolling/stalking on WP:ANI, again mentioning me in his creepy way.  Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A third and fourth IP on Talk:Clavier-Übung III playing the same trolling games as the last sock William Hickey. (It is probably true that the account, which has suddenly become active after an hour's editing in 2004 and one edit in 2006,. is a sockpuppet account but of a different user.) Mathsci (talk)


 * A fifth now trolling about edits made last time to articles related to Cuthbert (Reginald of Durham) on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum. In his sole edit so far he makes one of his creepy references to me. Mathsci (talk) 20:55, 5 February 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

 * There's no constant use to these IPs; it seems they're used once and then dumped. Rangeblocking is a no-go on this one, too. :/ —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In view of the continuing disruption, might it not be worth listing Echigo mole / A.K.Nole under long term abuse? Mathsci (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

05 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Recently created account trolling about Echigo mole on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum after an ipsock of Echigo mole started a new section there relating to edits last week of the previous sockpuppet and his ipsocks. These are characteristic edits of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole. The later edits are also typical. He seems very disruptive this weekend. Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 5 February 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

 * Confirmation, sleepers, IPs - anything that can be done. We've had this case far too many times recently. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ as being the same as, but that's about all I can tell you. TN  X  Man  16:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The account was already blocked. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

17 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Standard Echigo mole trolling from usual IP range. Usual delusions, usual creepishness. Mathsci (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A.K.Nole/Echigo mole is back to his usual disruptive behaviour this weekend, IP hopping to continue his trolling edits which reveal like an amphibious bird quacking through a megaphone that he is Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 22:12, 17 February 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

 * Very likely, but no new named accounts that I can find. Can't help with the IPs beyond that, revert and ignore. And since I saw this approach led to a dispute, personally I wouldn't edit-war with other editors over removing comments from their respective user pages. If they want to keep it there then I'd let them, while reminding them of WP:DENY of course. Amalthea  11:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * HelloAnnyong has already agreed that because of the serial abuse by Echico mole/A.K.Nole, a separate long term abuse page might be necessary. The previous record of blocks and edits that led to them, shows an attempt to troll on wikipedia by disruptive edits. This user at the moment edits from the two ip ranges 94.196.1.1/16 or 84.197.1.1/16 either by using an ip in that range or through the named sockpuppet accounts, which he creates on a weekly basis. I don't understand why you find the rolling and wikistalking normal. Please could you leave this up to other administratprs if you're going to justify your actions by reference to User talk:Malleus Fatuorum? That is essentially feeding the troll. Any trolling edits that concern me (as in this case) will be removed. This particular user is evidently not here to improve this encyclopedia by any stretch of the imagaination: his is a disruption-only account. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You must be confusing me with someone? Amalthea  12:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see now. I was confused about which user talk page you were referring to. Mathsci (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he confusing your comment about my talk page with Malleus F. I agree that socks of long term abusers should be handled swiftly, However, when those reporting take it so personally that it affects their interaction towards others whose views seem similar, then IMHO they should step back a little. -- Trödel  20:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no wikipedia guidelines for how to handle wikistalkers who are serial sockpuppeteers. If they wikistalk one user, then evidently it will be a personal matter for that user. The reporting and tagging of all ipsocks is necessary for continuity to maintain a base to monitor all socking. Two years ago, while editing as Quotient group, the first alternative account of A.K.Nole, an arbitrator contacted him directly and he agreed to reform. A year ago, with a different IP range, several checkusers on arbcom identified his edits again, the range was blocked for three months and three or four sockpuppet accounts were blocked at the time. His activity and trolling is solely his responsibility and is unpredictable. Recently he used an ipsock and four different sockpuppet accounts to disrupt Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. There's been another example since Amalthea posted above.  Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So should I send this to the archives or are we going to act on the "HelloAnnyong has already agreed that because of the serial abuse by Echico mole/A.K.Nole, a separate long term abuse page might be necessary." ?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:20
 * I have no opinion on whether an LTA page would be helpful for anybody. Seeing that the Echigo mole that the original account has never been banned (or at least claims to feel legitimized, I actually think it's just a smoke screen), a formal ban discussion might be more helpful. But then again, it probably won't, any indef blocked editor with an SPI case history like this one is already effectively banned. Neither option will happen here though, so won't stand in the way of archiving. In general though I prefer to keep closed cases around for a bit and only archive them after a day to give everyone a chance at replying. But that's just me.  Amalthea  21:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, an LTA page may be useful so that Mathsci can point to it in any reverts; doing so may lead to fewer misunderstandings. Amalthea  22:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

29 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Usual self-referential trolling on an arbcom page. This is now the 6th or 7th time on this particular page. Mathsci (talk) 07:47, 29 February 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

 * OK, and no question that this is the same user as before, but the situation is unchanged. Blocking this specific IP will be ineffective, blocking all required ranges would cause unproportional collateral damage. Amalthea  10:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Amalthea's note, closing with no action taken. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

01 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Usual trolling wikistalking about valid alternative accounts, one of which he has complained about several times as it documents his own disruption on a subpage. One of the previous sockpuppets of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole was and this user has editedthe article New Crobuzon just as Old Crobuzon did. Evidently he is just intervening to cause disruption on wikipedia, which is his normal form of intervention. [alternative account of Mathsci] Alternative-mathsci (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Other diffs are here where Southend sofa comments in a thread concerning me started by, another sock of A.K.Nole/Echigo mole. The first diff collapses a sockpuppet allegation and continues with mathematical trolling/delusional editing, typical of Echigo mole socks (e.g. as ). Here he mentions my name at ANI and here he follows me to an AfD, prior to the Noleander arbcom case. He also evidently is editing from England with a superficial knowledge of mathematics. So WP:DUCK, particularly in view of the trolling SPI report. Echigo mole has tried to have one page deleted before as Old Crobuzon. The MfD he started was deleted by AGK I think. Mathsci (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The phrasing of the actual SPI report (Echigo mole's irritation that his serial socking can be detected so easily) and his misrepresentation of the arbcom review pages (labelled extremely clearly) again point towards Echigo mole. He follows my edits in his own unique creepy way. He had already discovered Altmathsci  (as Old Crobuzon) a while back, and, having read on the arbcom review pages that I had created an alternative legitimate accounf for gathering diffs, set his mind to discovering that account. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 1 April 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

 * Contribution history sure is odd. No direct connection though, technically . Amalthea  09:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is just too much I can't ignore here about this being a sock. It's exhibiting signs all around and to ignore it doesn't settle my gut feeling to not AGF here. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

12 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

More trolling on arbcom pages using the usual IP ranges (94.196.*.* or 94.197.*.*). This is the is the seseventh time he has done so. He already interrupted the amendment page as     and. Mathsci (talk) 01:33, 12 April 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

 * Clearly him, not sure what I can do though in the way of admin action. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  21:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

07 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

More trolling edits concerning me on arbcom pages using the usual IP range 94.196.1.1/18. WP:DUCK: standard conduct for Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

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

08 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

More trolling edits on the PD talk page of the arbcom review from the usual range. Mathsci (talk) 10:34, 8 May 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

 * Temporarily blocked, for what it's worth. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

10 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

More of the same trolling edits on the arbcom review pages from the usual IP range 94.196.1.1/16. Mathsci (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now blocked by Elen of the Roads as ban-evading ipsock. Mathsci (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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

13 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

More disruptive trolling on the arbcom review pages on the same tired old theme that Echigo mole is not banned. However, that is not the view of administrators at WP:SPI or of the arbitration committee. The last ipsock was blocked for trolling by Elen of the Roads and I suspect that something similar will happen this time. Mathsci (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Plus more trolling edits related to the first edits on the talk page of an arbitrator by a third and fourth ipsock in the same range. Mathsci (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)\
 * It is possible to examine all edits in the ranges 94.196.1.1/16 and 94.197.1.1/16. All those with a vague relation to me (arbcom pages, articles, etc) have without exception conformed to the trolling edits of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole and the sockpuppets listed on the archive page. Amalthea has already suggested a LTA page which will give details of how he edits. The existence of the archive and listed socks, some blocked by arbitrators, means, as Amalthea has said, that Echigo mole and his Ipsocks are effectively banned from editing wikipedia. Roger Davies has said the same thing on his talk page: Echigo mole is de facto banned. Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Interestingly, Mathsci has admitted he does not bother to read comments that he labels "trolling", so his comments above seem to have little weight. Since EM is not in fact banned, as Mathsci now admits, and the admin is question is so far from regarding a sensible question as trolling that he gave a sensisble answer to it, it seems that this case is entirely a figment of Mathsci's imagination -- perhaps his grim determination shows that he sees this page as some kind of battleground?  94.196.223.219 (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)  trolling ipsock of Echigo mole - LTA file will follow soon

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * IPs blocked for block evasion. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

16 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

More disruption, this time on AC/N. Two messages by 2 different editors posted on the PD talk page of the R&I review case removed by the arbitration clerk Guerillero have been pasted on AC/N without the editors' permission. In addition a trolling message from Echigo mole has been added. If an IP in the range 94.196.1.1/16 or 94.197.1.1/16 comments here, please could this page be semi-protected for a month as has happened in the past? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As I suspected the deluded trolling continues below. Please semi-protect this page. Mathsci (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Now that another editor has suggested a community ban on WP:ANI/WP:AN, more creepy delusional trolling by the second two ipsocks. WP:DENY indicates there should be no conversation with this banned user. Mathsci (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The notion that IP users must be banned from this page so that they have no opportunity to defend themselves against accusations, well-founded or not, might seem a little arbitrary. However, Mathsci has been given special licence by ArbComm to revert any posting that he thinks might have been written by Echigo Mole, without formality and irrespective of any other considerations .  Admins on this page, please take note.  94.196.46.131 (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC) WP:DENY

19 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Obvious sleeping sockpuppet account. The account was created in June 2009 and only reactivated now to troll on an arbcom page, with usual Echigo mole style edits. Choice of username and first edit points to UK user. Echigo mole did the same thing, editing the Echigo Mole article shortly after creating his account with an ipsock from the vodafone range he used prior to December 2011. Several sleeper sockpuppet accounts were created back in 2009. The user also uses the British spelling of "behaviour" in the last sentence of his second edit. Just like the William Hickey account, he plays around with the phrasing I have previously used. This is a WP:DUCK shouting through a megaphone. Mathsci (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All subsequent edits and edit summaries confirm that this is trolling by the serial wikihounder Echigo mole, since they share the same detailed knowledge of my editing. WP:DUCK. Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 20 May 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

 * Looks like Courcelles nailed his head to a coffee table --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. TN  X  Man  14:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

26 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This sleeping sockpuppet account is a disruption only account trolling on noticeboards in a manner identical to Echigo mole. Like the previous account, blocked by Elen of the Roads, it is a sleeping sockpuppet account, not even autoconfirmed, that was created in May 2009. The long diatribe on WP:AN is a repetition of the familiar trolling rants of previous Echigo mole socks. Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 26 May 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

 * Indeffed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * per the above. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

26 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

As on previous occasions, Echigo mole has spent his time finding a declared legitimate alternative account used for gathering diffs in an arbcom case. This user made a similar complaint about. Mathsci (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why this user continues these games but if this board remains inactive they will reported at WP:ANI for a speedy indefinite block. Mathsci (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Indeffed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * per the above. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

27 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Obvious trolling by this banned user from the usual IP range (94.196.1.1/16 and 94.197.1.1/16). Mathsci (talk) 17:25, 27 May 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

 * Blocked 48 hours. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

30 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Another sleeper account created in April 2009 and unused until January 2012 for small edits one related to Aix-en-Provence, a stub on the church where I've already said on WP that I play the organ. Today he appeared at WP:ANI to make trolling remarks at an WP:ANI report about an obvious banned user, who had been blocked for 1 month by checkuser Elockid. The trolling tone of the ANI message and the previous edits point to Echigo mole, who has been wikihounding me since 2009. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My suspicions that this is Echigo mole are confirmed by these edits to Beyond Vaudeville which just repeat edits and edit summaries ("hoax") that the community banned editor Echigo mole made as an ipsock  having trolled about me on an arbitrator's page with this edit. Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 30 May 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
A match to. TN  X  Man 13:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged sock. Keilana | Parlez ici 14:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

31 May 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets

---


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

These all seem to be sockpuppets of Echigo mole, a highly disruptive wikihounder. As with the previously blocked sockpuppet, Echigo mole found out where I lived, knowing me real name (easy enough on the Pages Blanches and he is an obsessed stalker). He has already been shown to have written articles based on that. I now discovered other articles that include Rue Cardinale, Quartier Mazarin, all forks from Aix-en-Provence and where there is almost no useful information to add. In addition, connected with these articles, Echigo mole appears to have created a series of hoax articles, some of which have been connected to the articles on Aix. The names seem to be related to previous sockpuppet unsernames and. That explains the plethera of connected hoax articles jointly listed for AfD: John Bargel, Gustave de Zarbouble, La Maison du Guozbongleur. Guozbongleur. Note that made this edit to "John Bargel" and was listed with A.K.Nole, a former  incarnation of Echigo mole, on . In addition as an ipsock he has commented in the AfD. That IP, in the usual range,, has repeated the vandalism edits of Caderousse to Beyond Vaudeville (see previous archived report). That article was also edited by Nellie Seamonster. I realize that some of these accounts are old, so it's probable impossible for a checkuser to make any pronouncements on some of them, but I think they are all linked. If some can be identified, the others will follow per. The first two are the most recent. Silver starfish already followed me to a long article I created here. Significantly the confirmed sock Caderousse also edited the hoax article "Gustave de Zarbouble," adding a link to a nonsensical and false claim. Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Silver starfish was created in 2009 at a similar time to many of the other socks. Nellie Seamonster 2 months later also in 2009. Captain Abu Raed in November 2011 and One of the Ruins in March 2012. Mathsci (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I shall concentrate on Silver starfish as the main hoaxer/sock. In his second edit he uses the Echigo mole word "hoax" in an edit summary. This edit would tend to pin him down as from the UK. This edit stalked a little known article created by me. This article created less than a month ago is nonsense. Mathsci (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Since Echigo mole used an ipsock to post on WP:BLPN and then reinstated the edit using a sleeping sock, I have added that account above. The contribution below seems to be from another sockpuppet, arguing in the style of. I have added that name to the list. Mathsci (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: the main point is the use of the four listed sockpuppet accounts to add blatantly false and nonsensical hoax content to wikipedia. Echigo mole has come to this page with a new sock and a sleeping sock to troll about other identifying features of the sockpuppets. Common edits are only used to identify socks. Echigo mole is set on making mischief. They have used an ipsock from a known range and then a sleeping sock Rita Mordio to troll on BLPN, (identical edit to ipsock) then to troll here and on an arbitrator's talk page.   Mathsci (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore the article Speculum Sophicum Rhodostauroticum, which the hoax articles cite and which in turn makes reference to them, was created by who was part of, a shared account with  and , one of the previous accounts of the banned editor Echigo mole. (The three editors who jointly shared The Wiki House account signed their contributions in their edit summaries as AK, CJ and Jo and then added the first names Alex, Chris and Jo to the user page.) Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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

See also my comments on the unusual editing patterns of the users mentioned above, at Articles_for_deletion/Guozbongleur. In short, each of them makes large numbers of edits (in the tens) for a few days and then goes completely silent for months or years before starting again. Dricherby (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think may be a false positive, or at least, a different hoaxer.  Her contributions appear to include a hoax entry  at List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles (see Talk:List_of_fictional_elements,_materials,_isotopes_and_atomic_particles)  However this latter  now makes me think that the huge and completely unsupported list of eccentric characters in Beyond Vaudeville is suspect: I would suggest adding  to the list to be checked.  The entries in Wack Pack probably need review too.  However, Nellie's vesrion  of John Bargel seems to be purely a UK-based joke, with no relation to Aix or to Mathsci.  It may have been discovered later by another hoaxer who decided to build on it with the Gustave de Zarbouble stuff.  The focus on Hitchin rather reminds me of Baldock Beer Disaster or Letchworth Corset Riot.  Thrapostulator (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)  likely sockpuppet of Echigo mole  - first edit so far


 * Tagging users at the start of an SPI is a violation WP:HUSH -- "should not be used to display supposed problems with the user unless the account has been blocked as a result of those issues" -- and constitutes harassment. Reverting users on the pretext that they might be banned when this has not been established is disruption as well as WP:NPA violation.  But the important question is, why is Mathsci so anxious to keep these BLP violations at Beyond Vaudeville in the encyclopedia and to avoid them coming under objective scrutiny?  Does he have any ulterior motive here?  Is the previous, improperly stricken, comment relevant?  Rita Mordio (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)  more disruptive trolling by sockpuppet of banned editor Echigo mole, not even autoconfirmed - see WP:DENY

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Thrapostulator is ✅, blocked, and tagged. Rita Mordio is a connection. I did not check the other (non-stale) accounts, as I do not see enough evidence to connect them to Echigo mole. The edits provided seem circumstantial, at best. I will say, however, that those accounts did not come up in my check of Rita Mordio or Thrapostulator. TN  X  Man 13:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

02 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Sleeper account created in 2009. Only edits since 2009 are today and follow the usual pattern of Echigo mole wikistalking/trolling on project pages (the deletion debate) and on the talk page of Drmies. Their comments self-identify them according to WP:DUCK. Mathsci (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious sock is obvious (see below). There is no content dispute, just the usual Echigo mole stalking, trolling and disruption. Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the claims of a "content dispute", Echigo mole seems to be admitting below that they previously created the articles on Aix-en-Provence that they have listed (Quartier Mazarin, Rue Cardinale). But, apart from one article on Aix  created by another blocked sockpuppetof Echigo mole, these articles were created by  and appallingly written with stupid errors. They were also previously linked to some of the five sophomoric hoax articles which have all now been deleted by Drmies. Since Vurrgh has now made this admission, can a checkuser please also look again at ? The account was last used on 27 April 2012 so hopefully is not stale. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Or to put it another way, Mathsci intends to win his content disputes at Rue Cardinale and Quartier Mazarin by any means possible. Vurrgh (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * If CU data were stale, I'd be inclined to block on DUCK grounds alone — when you edit for a few days and then go away for three years, you have no reason to jump right back into an SPI and an AFD about French restaurants, citing tons of policies that you'd never encounter after a dozen edits to Melbourne, History of Melbourne, and John Batman. Nevertheless, I'll not block, because a checkuser block is stickier and even more convincing than a DUCK block.  Nyttend (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * *yawn* and indeffed too *yawn*. T. Canens (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * is a match with . - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Updated tag on already blocked sock and closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

3 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Given the previous edits to articles on Aix-en-Provence of the recently blocked sock, in particular to rue Cardinale, and Echigo mole's persistent wikistalking and general mischief making, this non-autoconfirmed account appears per WP:DUCK to be Echigo mole. After not editing since 2011, if their first edits after the break had been to any other article, things would be different. But per, this looks like our tiresome puppetmaster and disruptive troll yet again. Mathsci (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for running checkuser and thanks to Peter James for noticing the second sock. Given the edits of Echigo mole as the second bragging sock, I would suggest that the four accounts that created the hoax articles are now blocked as socks of Echigo mole, in particular . Echigo mole is wasting far too much time on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

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

I've added User:Collared Joists? as a suspected sockpuppet - an account used for a small number of minor edits in September 2009, and nothing until a few edits to List of hoaxes on Wikipedia today to add the recently deleted articles. Peter&#160;E.&#160;James (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * -  and  make this plenty ducky for Bogulus.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  12:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Collared Joists? is possible as well, linkage to previous socks, building a shrine.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  12:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ that and  are socks of Echigo mole. No more sleepers found for now. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Checked, blocked and tagged Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  16:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

04 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Single edit account created solely to troll on Nyttend's talk page about a report I made concerning Echigo mole on WP:AN (there was no need to post a notification since Nyttend had already been notified). A first edit like that could only be made by a sockpuppet. In this context, given Echigo mole's previous edit to Nyttend's talk page as the sockpuppet, Echigo mole is the most likely puppetmaster per WP:DUCK and his recent burst of socking activity, which has become tiresome and disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 09:02, 4 June 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

 * - No reason to waste CU time on this. Next passing admin please indef the account as a VOA.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. T. Canens (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

04 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Per previous blocks in the 94.197 range. Same trolling. Hipocrite (talk) 11:58, 4 June 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

 * Blocked. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

07 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This seems to be the same editor as who was blocked by a checkuser yesterday. The edits on Jean Daret continue seamlessly from one to the other. Both accounts were created on 6 June 2012 just before they started editing the article. Echigo mole is at the moment attempting to edit articles related to Aix-en-Provence as part of his latest bout of mischief-making, which also involves generating new socks. A checkuser does not seem necessary in this case. Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: The first account Static web page was already blocked by checkuser Alison as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole. He has admitted to running the second account Flexural strength in his unblock request . JamesBWatson probably did not notice the sockpuppet identification when he granted the unblock request. From Alison's identification, this is Echigo mole who has been starting to edit on articles related to Aix-en-Provence with a view to disruption and mischief-making.  I will send an email to Alison about this. Mathsci (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite true: I did not notice the sockpuppet identification when I granted the unblock request. I have now reinstated the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: These stubs & edit summaries (Echigo mole via the sock Flexural strength) and   appear to be by the same person. Mathsci (talk) 16:20, 8 June 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

 * - CU Alison has already connected Static, here. Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  14:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ that and  are socks of Echigo mole. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

10 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I am adding this report simply for the record. No action is required as the sockpuppet has already been CU blocked by Courcelles who also removed access to his user talk page. This time Echigo mole attempted to file an RfAr, which was immediately removed by Courcelles. Roger Davies already has stated that the obvious conclusion is that this was a sockpuppet of Echigo mole in asking this question, now unanswerable except through yet another sock. That it is Echigo mole is evident because no other user would list a community-banned editor in a case title. The argumentation and list of diffs in the attempted RfAr request is also identical to previous trolling posts of Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 06:04, 10 June 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
A clear DUCK case on behvioural grounds, further confirmed by checkuser. Blocked and tagged, ready to close. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

16 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

It has been established a long time back that the wikistalker A.K.Nole later edited as Quotient group and than a large variety of sockpuppets listed in the archives here. Echigo mole is a disruptive mischief-making troll who has as created bogus SPI reports about his own sockpuppets. He has a long record of discussing at length his own socks, including some that have not been detected. The second account is evidently Echigo mole because of these edits, which were the usual stalking edits or trolling on arbcom pages. (the account was initially blocked for that edit by Amalthea, but, although Amalthea detected a trolling sock, the indentification was not quite right - there was similar misleading unblock request  to that of another subsequently blocked sockpuppet )   The bogus SPI report with a checkuser request (including two accounts created in 2005  and —in private CU Nishkid64 had identified  as a likely alternative account of  Quotient group on 26 March 2010 [WP email to me]) is the sort of time-wasting trolling which seems to be Echigo mole's speciality these days. The notifications by the first sock account on various user talk pages are connected with the second account's bogus SPI reports. They copy material I have written myself, another way in which Echigo mole trolls. Apart from the indelible fingerprints of Echigo mole (endless recounting of details from his own socking/hounding history), Echigo mole's socking often takes place at weekends, as is the case here. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This latest disruptive editing by Sansodor is classical Echigo mole trolling. He's not even particularly good at socking. Mathsci (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @ AGK: Anthony, many thanks for doing such a thorough job! Elementary mathematics/logic that appears in Computer Science is what Quotient group, Ansatz and Julian Birdbath did. I had already noticed the edits of C.D. Tondela (a Portugese football team) to the article on Oscillator representation, which I created: they looked a bit suspicious. It's an article on graduate mathematics. (Echigo mole has edited related articles on geometric function theory/operator theory before as Ansatz.) I've look at the other "possible' sock accounts to see if there are suspicious edits: as A.K.Nole, Echigo mole tried to edit Butcher group, which is related to operads, the topic chosen by South Jutland County. He removed a reference by G.W. Zinbiel (Leibniz in reverse), complaining about arxiv.org as the socks Julian Birdbath and Southend sofa have done in the past. He then invented an account of exactly the same name a week later, pretending to be French, and created this trolling redirect which should be deleted. His edits/edit summaries are the usual superficial attempts to pass himself off as having a knowledge of either mathematics or French. Recapitulation theory is a trolling only account. (I had already noticed The Ringer because like other socks he reverted Echigo mole's own previous edits to French articles related to Aix-en-Provence.) All the possible socks seem likely, based on an analysis of their edits (I am not quite sure what Recapitulation theory is up to). Hard to know why Echigo mole is creating so many socks. But thanks again for all your help. Mathsci (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also that has pointed out that Guillaume W. Zinbiel is a pseudonym of Jean-Louis Loday, in the tradition of Nicolas Bourbaki and Arthur Besse. Echigo mole, as  (evidently not Loday), has meanwhile translated the French article on dual Leibniz algebras (Zinbiel algebra) into English. It is evidently a sockpuppet account and should be blocked. Mathsci (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that South Jutland County and G.W.Zinbiel, both operated by the smae user, are starting to interact as if they were different users. More trolling disruption by someone intent on lying and making mischief. These edits ("some doubt has been cast over the validity of this redirect Zinbiel algebra") seem to be references to a statement made in this checkuser report. Mathsci (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Recapitulation theory: This account, listed by AGK below, has now trolled in Echigo mole style on the ANI thread concerning Echigo mole socking. More. As they copy-pasted mathematical content from one article to another and then in the edit above, as Recapitulation theory, made a claim that this showed competence in mathematics. Please block all four of the related accounts listed below. Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Future Perfect at Sunrise has now indefinitely blocked South Jutland County, G.W.Zinbiel and Recapitulation theory. Many thanks to FPAS. Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 20 June 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

 * - These are clearly him, lets get a sleeper check please. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  17:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * , though I'm not sure if such subjects as algebra are pet areas of EM's:
 * AGK [•] 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 09:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * All accounts except C.D. Tondela are blocked and tagged. Closing. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  12:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

21 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The first editor is a recently created account whose first and only edit at the time of this report was trolling/stalking on WP:ANI with diffs from way back indicating a back history known only to Echigo mole: the two diffs added there refer to edits in the range 212.183.1.1/16, the iprange used by Echigo mole prior to December 2011 and blocked for three months by Shell Kinney in March 2011. The second account was blocked as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole by Cireland, but their status was left open in the previous check by CU AGK. In a subsequent unblock request today they claim that their edits were an accident, but again extensive knowledge of the back history and disruptive SPI requests confirm that this was a sock of Echigo mole. More disruptive mischief-making. Mathsci (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: jpgordon already ran a checkuser on I'm sorry about your trousers when reviewing the unblock request and found yet another sock, now blocked, created momentarily after the request. Mathsci (talk) 14:07, 21 June 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

 * ✅ that the three accounts belong to the same person. - Mailer Diablo 03:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged; marking for close. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 04:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

25 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The timing of the creation of this account and their detailed back knowledge of my own edits, discussed on WP:ANI with trolling comments, indicates that this is a sock of Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 21:30, 25 June 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

 * I don't think CU is needed here, I've already indef blocked. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  01:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think CU is needed here, I've already indef blocked. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  01:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

27 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Evident trolling wikistalking at Uniformly bounded representation which I created recently and which is hidden away. It is a subject in graduate level mathematics (operator theory) where Echigo mole has no expertise of any kind. Usual IP range (94.196.1.1/16 or 94.197.1/16). Mathsci (talk) 10:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * "Evident trolling" is a harsh, possibly even disingenuous, way of describing the correction of an incorrect date and the addition of some authorlinks. Apparently Mathsci would rather have mistakes in his private articles than admit to them and accept help from other editors.  Sad.  94.196.132.3 (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, what does "hidden away" mean here? If the article is so un-notable that no-one other than the author could possibly want to read it, perhaps this discussion should be being held at AFD?  94.196.132.3 (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The third edition of the book in question was published in 1983, and is easy to find on Amazon . Google Books search for Arbres amalgames SL2 troisieme gives multiplel books referring specifically to this 1983 edition.  The citations in the text are to "Serre (1983)" and the reference list specifically references the third edition.  Perhaps JBW would like to rethink his response?  Axolotl mirror (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
This is not "the correction of an incorrect date", but on the contrary, replacing a correct date with an incorrect one. I have blocked the IP address, and also 188.29.72.15, which is clearly the same person, continuing the same campaign. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * IP's block extended to 3 months, static IP, for being a sock. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  23:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

27 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Vintage sleeper troll sock account (old A.K.Nole pedigree from 2009, editing articles with Zsa Zsa in the title), following in the wake of two ipsocks both operated by Echigo mole to troll on uniformly bounded representation ( and, both blocked). They are evidently Echigo mole from their trolling comments in the previous case. As always their intent is to make mischief and wikistalk in a creepy way (the senseless trolling tag). Please could the article be semiprotected if Echigo mole is going to play games there? Perhaps this page should also be semiprotected, if Echigo mole is going to troll here as well. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Elockid. Mathsci (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The troll sock account has now been blocked after having trolled here twice. Please could this page now be semi-protected? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as a matter of record, this troll-sock is now also using the IP range 188.29.1.1/16. Mathsci (talk) 23:14, 27 June 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
Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  13:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Highly /bordering on ✅ match to.  Elockid   ( Talk ) 19:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC) This section bagged and tagged by Elockid. Closing. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  23:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

28 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Account created today, minutes after the last report was archived. Their first edit was on the same page as an edit by a previous ipsock of Echigo mole,. (Echigo mole has been using this IP range recently, amongst others.) Echigo mole has been stalking the articles uniformly bounded representation and amenable group. The other edits relating to algebra-related articles are superficial and resemble the faked mathematical edits (copying within wikipedia or between different wikipedias) he made as. The second edit shows no mathematical WP:COMPETENCE, since simple Artinian ring is discussed in artinian ring, the natural place for any redirect. The subject is disjoint from that of amenable groups, part of analysis/geometric group theory. Mathsci (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Echigo mole edited as, and was blocked as a sock by JamesBWatson. They edited uniformly bounded representation and tagged it as orphaned. They have edited that article with two ipsocks and one named account Axolotl mirror, blocked after the last CU). After being blocked, they used another ip in the same range to follow me to amenable group after I had added a "see also" linking to uniformly bounded representation. Amenable group is an article which I have extensively enlarged recently (as well as in 2010). Echigo mole wikistalks mathematical articles that I am editing, even though he has zero expertise on these topics. His purpose is as always to make mischief. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The language used in the response below suggests that this is indeed Echigo mole. The reasoning for the wrong redirect shows a lack of clue. Since I have only mentioned individual edits above, the choice of adjectives from someone claiming to be a new user is hard to understand. On the other hand the phrases are very similar to what, an Echigo mole sock posing as a mathematician, wrote a while back on this page.


 * The edit on amenable group shortly after my reversion of an edit by an ipsock is also unexplained. He is a user from the UK, because of his English spelling of "scrutinised". As, he made similar claims to be an expert in mathematics on behalf of another sock on the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics.
 * In addition Echigo mole is now using the ip range 94.194.1.1/16. They made these trolling edits on Japanese work environment at 12:00 and 12:01 on 21 June 2012 and then at 12:02 the sock puppet User:Japanese work environment was created. Similarly an ipsock in the ip range used prior to December 2011 edited Echigo Mole on 20 July 2011  at 10:55, 10:56 and then created the sockpuppet account  at 11.00. Gangs of Wasseypur is also a wikipedia article; as I can explain in private to administrators, its use points to Echigo mole.  Mathsci (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In short: The summary below and the similarity with previous tiresome attempts by Echigo mole to pass himself off as a mathematician justify a checkuser report. Editing Goldie's theorem was not a great idea, because the theory of D-modules and representations of finite-dimensional algebras has left that theory behind. He seems not to know about Cohn's embedding theorem. How did he find amenable group? It's operator theory not algebra and a rarely edited article (except by me). Yet, funnily enough, Echigo mole and his ipsocks had been editing in that area and on the article immediately prior to the creation of User:Gangs of Wasseypur. His second statement below, including the wikilawyering about an obvious redirect and particularly the last sentences, from a supposedly "new user" ===> Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The statements, "This is bullying arrogant nonsense. An editor who behaves like this has no place in a collaborative project. Is that clear enough?" are not the kind of remarks a new user would make. How would a new user happen to edit "amenable group" out of the blue as his first edit shortly after edits of an ipsock of Echigo mole and me?  He says he's interested in algebra and yet his first edit is to a specialist analysis article. There are too many similarities with Ansatz and too many inconsistencies in his mathematical statements (Cohn's embedding theorem is one of the more surprising and well-known applications of Goldie's theorems–to the universal enveloping algebra of a finite dimensional Lie algebra). The statements seem too defensive, some  kind of smokescreen as with Ansatz. WP:DUCK. Mathsci (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the ultimate error in deluded trolling: forgetting to log in while using a known IP range 94.197.1.1/16 of Echigo mole. My only comment otherwise is: obvious sock is obvious, just as obvious non-mathematician is obvious; wikipedia cannot change that. Mathsci (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "This incessant series of attacks"? Er, you mean, this one "attack", right? Dricherby (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Response
OK, I do not fully understand all this but find a blaring notice on my user page which brings me here to find comments on my editing which I take very strong exception to.
 * The most significant fact about simple Artinian rings is that they are matrix rings over division rings. This is a consequence of the Artin-Wedderburn Theorem, and it is stated in the third paragraph of the article Artinian ring and the second paragraph of the article Artin–Wedderburn theorem.  A reader searching for simple Artinian ring probably knows already that it is Artinian and might well want to know the rather less obvious fact that there is a significant theorem about them, hence the original redirect.  There is certainly scope for a sensible discussion on the subject.  To suggest that choosing to redirect to the article on an object to the article on the structure theorem for such objects is basic incompetence is unfair, untrue and displays a level of arrogance unusual even among mathematicians (and I have met some pretty arrogant ones in my time).
 * I have added material to the article Goldie's theorem which I assert is correct, non-trivial, relevant and proportionate. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to discuss the material in a sensible manner in the appropriate place (i.e. not here).  To describe those edits as "fake", "zero expertise" and "superficial" is not even criticism, it is simple vulgar abuse.
 * I stand by my edits as being a positive contribution to Wikipedia and am willing to have them scrutinised by any impartial expert editors. Unless and until there is a consensus that they are in any way detrimental to the project, I in turn characterise the comments made above as unfounded, unprofessional and unacceptable.  Gangs of Wasseypur (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I explained my reasoning for the redirect. If Mathsci does not like it, that does not make it "wrong", and "lack of clue" is an insult. Most of the rest of this I fail to understand.  What does Japanese work environment have to do with algebra?  What is wrong with having an editor name which is a Wikipedia article (after all Mathsci does the same)?   It is false to say that my trivial edit to Amenable group is "unexplained": I explained in in the edit summary, it was a redundant use of the word "a".  My choice of adjectives is not "hard to understand", but let me be quite explicit.  This is bullying arrogant nonsense.  An editor who behaves like this has no place in a collaborative project.  Is that clear enough?  Gangs of Wasseypur (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, this incessant denigration of my editing really has to stop. Now I'm being told that "Editing Goldie's theorem was not a great idea"  Why on earth not?  Who gets to make that judgement? The article could do with expansion, as some of the ideas in the proof are of independent interest.  Editing an article on this theorem has no bearing on whether or not I "know about Cohn's embedding theorem" and that in turn has no bearing on anything else.  As for the assertion that "the theory of D-modules and representations of finite-dimensional algebras has left that theory behind" -- this is simply laughable.  It isn't even wrong, it just makes no sense at all.  (A Theorem is not a Theory, for one thing)  Gangs of Wasseypur (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "too many inconsistencies in his mathematical statements" -- OK, point to one inconsistency or withdraw that as a mere slur.
 * "(Cohen's embedding theorem is one of the more surprising and well-known applications of Goldie's theorems–to the universal enveloping algebra of a finite dimensional Lie algebra)" -- Cohn (not Cohen) used Goldie's work to prove a theorem about embedding rings in skew fields. So what?  Why would editing an article on Goldie's theorem prove that I was ignorant of this theorem?  And what would that prove anyway?  If there is a further application to Lie algebras, I look forward to reading the article about it.
 * "The statements seem too defensive" -- I think most people when attacked in this astonishing way would get rather defensive. What would you expect?
 * Now, please just stop this. This incessant series of attacks is obviously designed to drive me off the project.  Why is that?  In any event I'm just not going to bother to answer any more of this nonsense.  Gangs of Wasseypur (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've checked for intersects from the last 25+ socks and find none, decision to CU will have to be primarily on the actual edits themselves. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  14:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * - Based on the evidence presented, including the last comment given without being logged in and the geolocation, I would endorse for CU. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  16:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ and  are socks of Echigo mole. - Mailer Diablo 22:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * had posted here earlier, and Echigo resigned it, which geolocates to his known location and has already been blocked. Noting for future references. Will close.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  23:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

30 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Quack, quack. See contribs. → ROUX  ₪  07:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Who else? Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case their subsequent editing has been directed towards a subject they know nothing about, namely singular integral operators. That is because this user has noticed that I have been creating the new article Singular integral operators of convolution type. Otherwise they are completely clueless like the last blocked sockpuppet. Their editing is purely disruptive and assinine. Mathsci (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - *yawn* T. Canens (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously. WilliamH (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  21:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

30 June 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Please check the account above per this trolling request and the previous edits of this user on oscillator representation (an article almost entirely created by me). This is yet another brainless and tireome (yawn) troll sock of Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * The account that Echigo mole added himself does appear to be a sock troll account that followed my edits in mathematics (and comments to R.e.b) creating cluelesss alternative articles of no use to wikipedia as an exercise in trolling (e.g. I mentioned a while back to R.e.b. that I would be creating an article on conformal welding connected with Grunsky matrix and EM then sock-trolled a useless stub on conformal welding which I have temporarily redirected as part of his brainless exercise in wikistalking). I have systematically looked at the edits of that account and removed nonsense edits. A large amount of clean-up was necessary, particularly undue forks of Weyl–von Neumann theorem, Contraction (operator theory) and Littlewood subordination theorem. Mathsci (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks William. Echigo mole's stalking of my edits to four articles (oscillator representation, Contraction (operator theory), Littlewood subordination theorem and Weyl–von Neumann theorem) seem conclusive. He created forks of the second and fourth articles, in the latter case only hours after the original article (a stub, which I might expand) had been created on 13 June. That confirms that this is Echigo mole, because of the stalking and because a normal mathematical editor would have just created a redirect and not a trolling fork. I have left a message asking the second account to comment here, although the evidence is overwhelming. I checked the other accounts listed by Echigo mole and none of them seem problematic. Mathsci (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. Mathsci (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Superficial edits to mathematical topics, pretending to a high level of expertise. Algebra is one of EM's recent topics and other edits are clearly aimed at Mathsci-related subjects. C.D. Tondela (talk) 19:45, 30 June 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

 * Seems rather obvious this time. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  21:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. Also found and . WilliamH (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: Ultra snozbarg - CU is not particularly helpful, behaviour will have to be the deciding factor. WilliamH (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Behavior is a perfect WP:DUCK, so indef blocks all around. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  00:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

01 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

This article has been identified as clueless brainless trolling. That confirms that this is Echigo mole, because of the stalking and because a normal mathematical editor would have just created a redirect and not a trolling fork. The article has been blanked accordlingly. Since there are several contributors not previously identified as socks of Echigo mole, they need to be checked out. The Phrontistery (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * How unusual. An account that makes a single edit a few years ago, then comes back today to make just enough edits to auto-confirm before this. Dricherby (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn — it seems that User:Mathsci made a mistake and blanked the wrong article: I understand he has now restored it . That means that there is no consequent imputation against the contributors to the article.  No doubt he will be more careful in future.  The Phrontistery (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The request is now about, not any of the accounts he listed. The account was created as a sleeping sock in 2009 like many of the other A.K.Nole/Echigo mole sock accounts. This is also the same editor as , another autoconfirmed, sleeping sock who sock trolled in a similar way on the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics. The second sock "The Phrontistery" added comments to the first socks comments just recently. Mirror symmetry has already been blocked by checkuser WilliamH. While posting this WilliamH has also blocked The Phrontistery. Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to WilliamH for noticing and checking the first sock. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

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

This report is just trolling by Echigo mole because of confusion created by 6 months of edits by his sock account. It was Defect operator that was the trolling fork article of Contraction (operator theory), not Dilation (operator theory). He has listed all the editors who have edited the latter article, all of whom, apart from his own sock Ansatz, are good faith editors. There seems to be no doubt that this is Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I think we need to take a look at the filer, looks like a sock himself. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * blocked. WilliamH (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Checked the other sock, nothing else to report. WilliamH (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Everything blocked and taken care of by WilliamH. Marking for close. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 04:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

26 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Trolling notifications similar to those. Seems to be Echigo mole, finding a reason to post on TrevelyanL85A2's page in a deliberately provocative way. Has been blocked by FPaS, but in these particular circumstances (an arbcom request for amendment that references this kind of editing by Echigo mole) it is worth double checking that the blocked account is his. The name refers to previous trolling edits he has made related to Aix-en-Provence. Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Mathsci (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * reopened.

Same submission as above. Dennis Brown replied too quickly before I has a chance to modify the checkuser flag, which I had omitted to change to yes (this has happened before but responses are usually not so rapid). Trolling notifications similar to those of. Seems to be Echigo mole, finding a reason to post on TrevelyanL85A2's page in a deliberately provocative way. Has been blocked by FPaS, but in these particular circumstances (an arbcom request for amendment that references this kind of editing by Echigo mole) it is worth double checking that the blocked account is his. The name refers to previous trolling edits he has made related to Aix-en-Provence. Mathsci (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its our new service initiative. We match your socks in 1 minute or less, or the next sock is free ;-)  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought it was quite funny. Mathsci (talk) 21:34, 26 July 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

 * I had already caught this one just after Fut Perf. blocked him and was about to do the same. Since you aren't asking for CU, we can call this a contribs confirm. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * reopened
 * I've endorsed, but that doesn't mean a CU will, they may just say no need, it is up to them. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing to report. Still no rangeblocks because of proxies. Can someone make sure this archives as one investigation though, for sake of less confusion? -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  20:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

27 July 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Clear sock trolling on the user talk pages of 2 editors whom this editor has long sought to influence. Usual IP range as with previous IP socks and problematic edits, presumably hoping that he will be reverted. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, not quite sure how that happened. Mathsci (talk) 06:20, 28 July 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
Just a note that I reflexively blocked this IP, mis-reading the month of the edits; unblocked now. It is clearly Echigo mole, however. CIreland (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is harder for me to tell with my more limited experience, although it does seem quite plausible. Regardless, the IP and edits are quite stale, so there isn't anything to do.  Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

6 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets



I blocked this user indefinitely per WP:DUCK and I would be grateful for a block review here. If it is felt that I was mistaken I will be happy to unblock and apologise. --John (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

23 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

The editing profile exactly fits that of a sleeping sock account, recently reactivated. Echigo mole previously made trolling edits to the article amenable group both as an ipsock (making edits to articles like Delusions of grandeur is one of Echigo mole's ideas of a joke, something he's done more than once) and shortly afterwards as, now indefinitely blocked. The other edits have been in a short burst to popular articles. The editing of amenable group is completely inexplicable.

I also believe that some recent vandalistic edits in the range 94.197.0.0/16 are by Echigo mole. Up until now, almost all disruptive edits from that ip range can be traced back to Echigo mole. In this case the IP involved was. He has been hounding Chipmunkdavis, making identical edits to those made by to Chipmunkdavis's user talk page. The first IP belongs to the same UK ISP (three) as that of the IP sock mentioned above who edited amenable group. Mathsci (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The likelihood that somebody returns to editing after one year, makes a fews edits in a brief spell to trashy popular articles and then suddenly finds a specialist higher level mathematics article which I have edited extensively, is almost zero. On the other hand Echigo mole has done so with this article twice before and quite recently. There has been a lull in Echigo mole's socking during the British summer months, so we'll have to see what happens. Mathsci (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether made in good faith or not, the addition of the tag to amenable group is entirely appropriate: there are whole sections of the article that have no citations.  I have restored the tag. Dricherby (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * On wikipedia there is no magic pixie dust to turn wikipedians-on-the-street into experts in mathematics. Dricherby's editing history indicates that he has no expertise in mathematics at a graduate level, including especially operator theory and the theory of unitary representations. Why then is he editing this article if he has insufficient WP:COMPETENCE to understand any of the references about which he is apparently complaining. The inline harvtxt links cover all the material in the article. If wikipedians know nothing about specialist subjects, it is undoubtedly best not to comment. That is how it is in real life in universities and it is no different here.  Mathsci (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Amalthea. It probably was a coincidence, but you're perfectly right that the Echigo mole/A.K.Nole sock accounts have never predated 2009. Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what this account is up to, considering the very odd editing history. That's what I wrote to Amalthea. On wikipedia all sorts of things can happen with accounts, which are impossible to guess. was one example, still not fully understood. Zarboublian took a few months to identify. Often with socking it's pure guesswork. I initially thought that the account, because of their first edits, might be a sock of Ludwigs2 (that was communicated privately to arbcom); later while on wikibreak I worked out that it was almost certainly John254 and again provided evidence to arbcom privately. Spotting socks is not a science: it can often be hit and miss, serendipity. Why should it be otherwise, considering the deceptive and disruptive nature of socking?  Echigo mole/A.K.Nole (Alex) has created this confusion and disruption. I am not responsible for that in any way at all.  Mathsci (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens might have some kind of point if Echigo mole had not previously stalked me on mathematical articles, almost all on quite high level mathematics (all stemming from geometric function theory recently). But Echigo mole has done so on multiple occasions and each time has been blocked by checkusers for doing so. He has also played games with my real life identity. Jclemens' remarks here completely contradict what other very experienced arbitrators have written about Echigo mole's disruption. I am surprised he is commenting here in this tone and would suggest that he refactors his statement. His remarks about building an encyclopedia are inappropriate, considering my editing history at the moment. Please stop commenting like this, Jclemens. Thanks,  Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK, the review contained a specific finding about the sockpuppet reports I had initiated. You did not vote. I have no idea why you are suggesting otherwise. As far as reporting socks away from SPI, that was mostly what happened a year ago. Shell Kinney investigated various accounts and IP ranges. At the moment there has been a lull in socking as I've already written, which partly created the confusion. But from January-June there was a much more intense degree of socking (look at the lists). It would be unreasonable to expect me to make the reports in private where socks like  or  can only be discovered by edits they make here. It's a function of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole, not me. Mathsci (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Jclemens participated and voted in the fairly recent R&I review and the subsequent amendment that I requested. One of the findings in the review was that I had at no stage misused SPI processes. A statistic was appended by the drafter indicating a fairly high rate of success in identifying sockpuppets. Arbitrators had asked a specific question in the review concerning harassment by sockpuppets, to which I responded in great detail. The finding about me did not concern how I have responded to harassment by community banned users operating socks, like Mikemikev or Echigo mole: it concerned the DeviantArt team of editors, some of whom Jclemens has befriended on wiki. Those matters seem to have become muddled in Jclemens' mind. Concerning my contributions to building an encyclopedia, they are easy enough to find for the month of August, where there are over 500 content edits.  Not for the first time at WP:SPI, Jclemens is misrepresenting the arbitration committee by making personalized comments that are off-track and confuse his roles. Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Re Mathsci's comments about my competence to edit the article. Please note that I have not edited the article text; I merely restored a maintenance tag. I do indeed know nothing about this particular area of mathematics; for the record, I have plenty of graduate-level knowledge of other areas of mathematics, though that can't be discerned from my editing here. However, no knowledge of the subject is required to see that, to paraphrase the wording of the template, the sourcing of each individual part of the article is unclear because, although it has an extensive "References" section, very few statements in the article have a specific citation. This makes it hard to maintain WP:INTEGRITY. Having made my point here, I'll post more detailed comments on the article's talk page, as Mathsci has suggested. (It will probably be a couple of days before I have the time to do that.) Dricherby (talk) 08:56, 26 August 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

 * with respect to the named account. Those are not sufficient grounds to run a check. AGK  [•] 22:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're right about 188.29.188.51 back in June. The 94.197.* would fit the old range, but the motivation here seems very different. I will look deeper into that, but seems absolutely unrelated to Echigo mole. The named account I'd write off as a coincidence. If he pops up on 'your' articles again we can have another look, but until then I'd write it off as a coincidence. This would also be by far the oldest Echigo mole sock ever found, years older than any other. (And while I'm not a statistician I'd say that while it's unlikely that a specific inactive editor shows such behavior at a certain time, it's to be expected a unusual account pops up on your watchlist like this over the years, with all the accounts being created and abandoned and resurrected all the time). Amalthea  08:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to go further than Amalthea. Mathsci, you ought to have recognised this account is several years old, and known that this was not Echigo. You have noticed an account on your watchlist and listed it here without thought. I observed there was almost no evidence that this was a EM sock, yet you dismissed these concerns and said "The likelihood... is almost zero". I recognise that this socker's treatment of you is nothing shy of harassment, but please be more careful in future. If you are not, and I see more baseless reports about EM by you, then I will move to exclude you from editing this investigation page. AGK  [•] 19:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This would not be the first time Mathsci has been overzealous with respect to Echigo Mole. I would counsel Mathsci to stop this Javertesque pursuit of Echigo Mole, let others take over, and actually get on with the business of building an encyclopedia.  The "battlefield conduct" finding about Mathsci in recent arbitration proceedings stem from just this sort of excessive pursuit. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a difficult situation. I considered this, but as shown in the case at hand, Mathsci does still accept if an edit was only a coincidence, while supposedly are proving a constant reminder that he is still being stalked. I myself would encourage Mathsci to continue reporting suspicions behavior and seeking second opinions; the only other opinion would be to have Mathsci retire/cleanstart or endure the harassment. I do not intend to let a legit editor be bullied from this project.  Amalthea  21:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, you conflate the committee's opinion on Echigo mole's harassment with its opinion on your sockpuppet reports. I do not believe the committee has ever ruled on the latter, which means individual checkusers much form their own view. For my part, I believe EM persistently pursues you because you are persistently seen to report his socks, and I therefore understand why Jonathan counsels you to leave the business of reporting EM socks to other editors. Whether or not you take Jonathan's advice affects only you, so it is not my concern. However, your erroneous sockpuppet reports (borne or not of an excessive focus on EM's activity) are prima facie problematic, and thus are my concern. How to deny recognition to a long-term troll is a difficult question, and not one to which I have an easy answer. However, we obviously all wish for Mathsci to not be obliged to report an EM sock every few days. We also wish for Mathsci to deny recognition, publicly, to EM. Conversely, Mathsci has been harassed by this socker for some years, and therefore knows his modus well (with the exception of the current report). I wonder if Mathsci would like to be able to report these socks privately in future, rather than on-site where EM can see that he has obtained a reaction. Then Mathsci might be a less prominent figure to EM. AGK  [•] 22:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

16 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

These trolling edits seem to be in the standard style of Echigo mole designed to create havoc through mischief making on project pages (in this case WP:AE). The IPs seem to be some form of proxy or tor nodes. Initially I mistook the second IP for an IP sock of Mikemikev, since he has also been active recently, but further checks and examination of the style of editing suggest Echigo mole. It is also typical of the editing described in the recent motion of the arbitration committee. In this case the advice was addressed to an editor whose first edit on this named account was undoubtedly not his first edit to wikipedia. This definitely looks like Echigo mole playing his usual games, once the accounts of Echigo mole and Mikemikev were disentangled (that has been a constant problem). Mathsci (talk) 19:11, 16 October 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

 * Blocked the IPs for a month. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 22:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

20 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * [tor node]
 * [tor node]
 * [open proxy]
 * [open proxy]


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I suspect that banned user Echigo mole has used the (now blocked) tor nodes and open proxy listed above. A CU can establish if the WP:SPA InigmaMan has done the same or not. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

The first and third IPs were already reported by me and blocked in the SPI report of 16 October. The second IP is almost certainly Echigo mole since the users contacted are the same as those mentioned in the trolling post on User talk:Zeromus1 of the third IP. As for the named account, it does not seem like Echigo mole's style. It appears to be written in American English. Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I agree with Mathsci, I just don't see the connected between Echigo Mole and InigmaMan, and certainly not enough to endorse a checkuser. Matchsci knows him better than I do, so I would also defer to his wisdom as to style.  The proxies are already blocked as two TORs and a proxy, so there really isn't anything to do there.  Closing this portion of the report.

20 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Sleeping sock. Trolls in absurd way with brainless suggestions of sockpuppetry to muddy the waters on WP:AE. Edits Grunsky matrix, an article almost solely edited by me, as previous socks of Echigo mole have done a year or so ago. Typical disruption of Echigo mole, although who knows which IP ranges or ISPs he's using at the moment because of the lull in editing since July 2012 (as ). Mathsci (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Further edits only confirm this is Echigo mole. There was a hoax article involving Spirella and the Spirella Building in Letchworth. That article was edited by a previous sock  and then by an IP in the usual range 94.196.0.0/16. Mathsci (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Tijfo098's comments don't seem partiularly helpful. Echigo mole socks have edited articles concerning Marseille, Aix-en-Provence, etc. The same is true of some of the first few edits of this account from November 2011. They look like a way of autoconfirming the account, which was then left as a sleeping sock. As, Echigo mole participated in Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Dunning-Davies, related to the work of Ruggero Santilli. As , Echigo mole participated in Articles_for_deletion/Franco Selleri, also related to Santilli. One of the main articles I created, Grunsky matrix, was edited/trolled nine times by , another Echigo mole sock. That article is not one anybody would find easily. But this trolling edit on an arbcom page  is so typical of Echigo mole, in his  persona, that . Mathsci (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added a second sleeping sock that has just been borught back to life. His edits seem to have 100% correlation with Spar-stangled. He also edited Grunsky matrix just now. Previously active in 2009 around Spirella-related articles; suddenly active again now. He has decided that he will act as if in opposition to Spar-stangled, but he played the same kind of game before with, starting Echigo mole SPI reports. Mathsci (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If Spar-stangled was using 94.196 or 94.197 (which are not that much used and where Echigo mole posts (i.e. those related to me are easy to pick out), then the edits to WP:AE (with its back knowledge of Ferahgo and Occam) and the edits to Grunsky matrix only points to Echigo mole. Within the last 1000 edits in the 94.196 range, I can see Echigo mole on June 29 trolling about SPI reports on Echigo mole and general SPI issues; doing the same on June 27; trolling on uniformly bounded representation (an article I created) on June 27; leaving a message on TrevelyanL85A2's talk page on May 28; commenting on an Echigo mole SPI report on May 17; commenting on the arbcom review of ARBR&I on May 13; commenting on an Echigo mole SPI report on May 13; commenting on Roger Davies talk page on May 13; commenting on Ferahgo talk page on May 10; commenting in the ARBR&I review on May 10. Within that window of May-October, all the edits related in some way to me were by Echigo mole, so I don't quite understand Elen's comments about grannies. It seem to be the case that any edit in these ranges that has some relation to me is almost without exception an ipsock of Echigo mole. Just saying. The other range can be checked for different time periods (Echigo mole started using these ranges just before Xmas in 2011). Mathsci (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment There has now been repeated trolling by Spar-stangled at WP:AE. He writes, "Perhaps an appeal to ArbComm is permissible in the face of the ban.  But this edit, which was made in response to notification of the ban, comments on Mathsci's behaviour (and indeed suggests that it has been deceptive) in direct, clear and conscious violation of the ban and with no possible excuses.  Cla68 should be sanctioned for this edit alone." This is typical ""-style trolling, since the edit of Cla68 there is innocuous and does not mention my conduct. Checkuser determined that Spar-stangled's postings were from usual range 94.196.0.0/16. Given the repeated trolling on arbcom pages, it appears this account is indeed Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Spar-stangled looks more likely to be a sock of User:LouisPhilippeCharles based on their common interest in an obscure royalty: . Tijfo098 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's possible that Spar-stangled's long-term insistence in keeping the Anna of Neuburg stub is just a diversionary tactic. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My reading is that the first edits on a single day in 2011 were geared to obtaining autoconfirmed status. They were mostly superficial edits and random except possibly for the Aix-Marseille ones. With a sleeping sock, they usually pick up on one or two of the articles they have touched before. However the later edit to Grunsky matrix was not random and is Echigo mole showing that he can make a superficially valid edit to a mathematical article (he was unsuccessfulas Ansatz). Echigo mole has a long history of trolling on arbcom pages, so it's unclear why you suggested somebody else who has no history at all there. Clearly the trolling edit on the arbcom page shows a considerable back-knowledge of WP:ARBR&I (Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin, DeviantArt, etc) which is shared only by a handful of users. Mathsci (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Fancy Smith extended his good-hand/bad-hand games to AE now. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and blocked as "troll sock" . Tijfo098 (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When he filed SPI reports on himself it was never particularly convincing. Mathsci (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I was invited to comment here by Tijfo098 because of my previous dealings with User:LouisPhilippeCharles (LPC). I agree with Mathsci this looks like a sock-puppet sleeper. I do not think that this sock can yet be associated with LPC because as yet there is not enough activity in areas where LPC edits. The hypocrisy of the two edits (revert a redirect with an editorial comment that such things should be via AfD, then to redirect an article with no AfD ) suggests that one or the other is a diversion or both are toll edits. -- PBS (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pretty weird stuff going on there. Also both Spar-stangled and Fancy Smith have edited Spirella Building as well. Also Special:Contributions/Julian_Birdbath edited there, and he is blocked as a sock of A.K.Nole (= Echigo Mole, I presume). Perhaps this person is also the owner of the Jspearmint farm, also involved in that article. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: Why aren't the sock categories of A.K. Nole and Echigo Mole merged? At least that was done for Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Davenbelle (unrelated to Nole/Mole) and it helps those who don't wish to memorize relations between sock sets. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone having two mobile phones (or a mobile phone and say a laptop with a broadband wireless modem), one on Hutchison 3G UK and one on Vodafone's UK network doesn't seem so outlandish in this case. I have both of those (a smartphone and a USB wireless broadband modem) in addition to a wired residential net. Do the IPs used by the two accounts geolocate further away from each other than 2hrs and 20mins of travel? I'm asking because Spar-stangled last edited at 06:46 and Fancy Smith picked up at 09:04, and because I see that UK-based mobile IPs still have good city-level geolocation info (unlike those in another country which shall remain unnamed here.) Tijfo098 (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I see that User:212.183.140.12 and a nearby IP are already listed as socks Echigo Mole, so that Vodafone range (also used by Hackneyhound) does appear not really new to EM. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That range 212.183.0.0/16 was used prior to December 2011. Around Dacember 23, he switched to 94.196.0.0/16 and 94.197.0.0/16. At the moment he is playing various games with tor nodes and open proxies. I am too busy to create an LTA file, but a lot of this discussion has appeared before. I have a file which details all the sockpuppets and IPsocks of A.K.Nole (later Echigo mole), User:Altmathsci/vodafone up to August 2011, but it's not up to date. Mathsci (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads, I do't think I have ever said that the vodafone IPs (212.183) were proxies. Prior to this month, Echigo mole had no history of using proxies or tor nodes. (The vodafone IPs were discussed in User:Altmathsci/vodafone.) At the beginning of 2011 there was some confusion whether that range was being used by Mikemikev or by Echigo mole and arbcom (I think it was you) clarified that. I believe that these IPs might correspond to connections by USB vodafone dongles in the UK. During the current AE request we had a flurry of IP editing with edits by Mikemikev muddled with edits by Echigo mole. The real life entity behind Mikemikev does occasionally teach English in the Far East, so the Far East edits from Seoul might be explained by that. (He formerly edited from ICL and UCL, but I have probably edited more frequently than him from UCL IPs in the last month.) Echigo mole seems to have found open proxies and tor nodes to use recently, as reported in the previous two SPI reports. That is a new departure. They also come from the Far East, and that has led to some confusion, presumably his intention. However editing from 94.196 IPs in matters related to me has without exception been Echigo mole. He appears to have stopped using the vodafone IPs 212.183.0.0/16 around 23 December 2011. His auntie might have given him a Xmas present. the editing related to Spirella is linked to Articles for deletion/Letchworth Corset Riot, already mentioned on the SPI archive by the Echigo mole sock . Mathsci (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of this is incomprehensible -- what has my (non-existent) aunt got to do with anything? It seems that the evidence does not support the complaint. One thing I do understand is that Mathsci asserts that this edit  does not refer to him and that I was wrong ("trolling" appears to be his way of describing edits he does not approve of) to say so. This is incorrect and blatantly so. The edit by Cla68 that I referred to says '' I otherwise have not followed Mathsci around WP nor have I edited topics that he edits. Is it because I argued in my evidence section that you and the other administrators had been had by his effective use of the bear poking tactic that you are reacting so angrily and defensively?'' (my emphasis) and unambiguously refers to Mathsci. I do not know why he says the opposite. But if this is the sort of basis that he has for his accusations (one of which has already been found incorrect by the evidence) then perhaps it would be better to drop them now. Surely we all have better things to do? Spar-stangled (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Quacking more loudly now  Compare with. The other recently blocked sock was also playing both sides. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again I do not understand what this is supposed to be evidence of. Could Tijfo098 explain please?  Spar-stangled (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The rant above by Spar-stangled is confirms that this is Echigo mole. As with his mathematical edits, where he has zero competence and no particular gift, here Echigo mole's attempts at analysis are up the wall. I agree with Tijfo098 that his AfD's are similar to those of other socks of Echigo mole. Someone who wasn't a blatant sock would not launch into me in the way Spar-stangled has done above. But perhaps now that Spar-stalngled has found his way here, he can tell us why exactly he has been leaving trolling comments related to me on project pages. (Some of Echigo mole's characteristics are: he's not particularly bright, but thinks he is; he is delusional; and he has consistently lied to administrators in unblock requests.) Mathsci (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why denigrating another editor is relevant to the case. I have not made, and do not wish to make, any comments here about Mathsci, and have merely quoted other users edits carefully to point up a, no doubt accidental, mis-statement.  I do not see why I should be called on to explain comments I have never made.  Spar-stangled (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Would Mathsci and Tijfo098 make it clear why they think their remarks constitute evidence relevant to this case, please? Spar-stangled (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because Echigo mole, you edited Grunsky matrix with . Before you did so with the account, who was mathematically illiterate. Explain why you picked Grunsky matrix. The only non-mathematicians to edit that page have been creepy Echigo mole socks pretending to know something about mathematics. Then you trolled twice on arbcom pages related to me: that is standard conduct for dispruptive sock trolls of Echigo mole. I assume you will be indefinitely blocked fairly soon per (the IP range is the standard range used by Echigo mole).  Mathsci (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to be begging the question. The "evidence" is just repeating the original allegations at greater length.  If you assume a priori that only one other person edits your articles, then of course you end up concluding that everyone who edits your article is that person.  But in the real world, many people edit articles, and for many reasons.  If you assume that only one person uses a particular ISP then of course you end up concluding that everyone who uses that ISP is that person.  But in the real world, many people use any given ISP.  If you assume that only one person edits pages referring to you at ArbComm pages, then of course you end up concluding that everyone who edits pages which mention you is that person.  But in the real world, many people edit any given ArbComm page.  The executive summary of all this "evidence" is "It's true because I say it's true".  Sadly that isn't right.  Now, do you have any evidence to bring forward, or can we all just get on with more useful things?  Spar-stangled (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Further trolling on Rfar will almost certainly result in an indef block fairly soon. Mathsci (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems irrelevant to this discussion? Spar-stangled (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

How much mindless trolling on arbcom pages is required before the penny drops? This kind of trolling is rarely random. I know that trolled  on the review for over a month before being found out. As, that puppeteer was slightly more convincing. Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm torn. I don't think it is User:LouisPhilippeCharles since there is only one crossover, and it just doesn't look like him, and he has never sent anything to AFD and only voted in one AFD, to keep, so it isn't really consistent.  As for Ecigo Mole, Mathsci has some interesting links but they are a bit ancillary in nature.  I'm not sure that crosses the threshold for a CU.  I will say this, the behavior is unusual, and it is very sock-like in many respects, but I'm not sure we have the right and left socks connected here. I'm neither endorsing nor declining for now, hopefully another clerk or CU will review.Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * - I'm going to endorse for Echigo Mole, as the last math related diffs you have above are more convincing, particularly when combined with the other coincidences. I don't think it a duck, or I would just block, but I do think it is worth investigating, and seeing if we can pick up Fancy in the mix as well.  I still don't see how it could be LouisPhilippeCharles. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Checkuser is . According to it, Fancy Smith is more likely to be Hackneyhound, and Spar-stangled is more likely to be someone's granny. I can't block him just for being on that range or I'd have to block granny too. If it quacks, block them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't duck block here myself, but will leave open. Maybe an admin or clerk who is smarter than I am will come along.  I can see a reasonable possibility, but I don't see a certainty, but again, maybe it is just me.  Based on Elen's Magic 8 ball reply, I'm guessing that means Star is on AOL or other dial up or some other indicator that would be inconsistent with previous socks, which makes me even more hesitant.  I won't be offended if another admin sees a stronger connection, so don't let me talk anyone out of anything, but I can't block myself. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Spar is on the 94 range, but so are a lot of other editors, no other socks (I checked the /16), and none of the most recent socks were using that range. Fancy Smith is on the same range as Hackneyhound, which as far as I can see is new for Echigo Mole. I honestly think Mathsci would be better served by ignoring them. Everyone pretty much seems to assume that all IPs with a dog in that hunt are socks of someone anyway. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

@Tj - it's possible. Neither of these users are on a mobile phone (as far as I can tell), but he could be using mobile broadband through a different device on the Vodaphone range. The geo isn't a problem. If other users are convinced it's a duck, I'm OK with blocking Spar on that basis. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, those vodaphone IPs aren't proxies. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Mathsci, I would also add that if I'm 51% sure someone is a duck, that isn't good enough to block. 70% isn't either.  Not blocking isn't a sign of innocence (you can't prove a negative) it just means it isn't conclusive enough to draw a definitive conclusion strong enough to block someone.  Blocking is a rather drastic thing to do, particularly if you are mistaken.  If I were strongly convinced that it wasn't possible, I would have closed by now, but I haven't, nor has anyone else.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just going to block here based on my analysis of the user's contributions. Apologies if I turn out to have been mistaken, but this seems clear to me.  NW  ( Talk ) 02:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

03 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Standard trolling/wikihounding edits on project/arbcom-related pages with an obsessive interest in Echigo mole's own sockpuppetry. The first trolling edit of the first IP was removed by another user (Johnuniq) (it refers to my vote on Articles for deletion/Palestinian incitement). The other edits removed tagging of the user pages of Mikemikev ipsocks in Korea. That tagging was already recommended by CU (Deskana); the use of "WP:HUSH" in the edit summaries is one of the trademarks of Echigo mole. The recent edit of the second IP is again standard Echigo mole trolling: the over-familiarity with the back history of SPI reports on Echigo mole.

I have included a request for CU since this seems to involve another common feature: two anonymising open proxies in Chennai. I have assumed, perhaps wrongly, that other identifying data (computer type, operating system, browser, etc) is still visible. Mathsci (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The second IP has also undone the tagging like the first one, which confirms they are the same person per WP:DUCK. Fortunately they cannot comment here because this page has been protected to stop trolling. Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The second IP was blocked by FPaS. Echigo mole is playing the same games with another open proxy in Argentina. What an idiot. Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And another ipsock, this time from China. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And another from the US. All the edits are similar. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And another. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * All the accounts were editing from anonymising proxy IPs, so no privacy is involved here. All IPs except the first have been blocked for 1 year by Future Perfect at Sunrise. The behaviour of all was identical. Mathsci (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Reaper Eternal for blocking the last open proxy account. Mathsci (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Checkuser is normally when proxies are involved because the original IPs are hidden. However, the checkuser privacy policy largely forbids public linking of accounts to IP addresses, and as such checkuser results will not be publicly posted. Checkusers may still privately check the proxies to see if abusive accounts were operating from them, but we will never see the link. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for that info. Mathsci (talk) 14:10, 3 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

 * - Checkuser will not disclose the connection between an account and an IP per the privacy policy. This case will have to be decided based on behavior alone. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the last proxy. Closed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

12 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

The account Coroner's jury was created yesterday after I commented on an arbcom page that Echigo mole socking had gone into respite. Like the original account A.K.Nole, Ansatz, Julian Birdbath and several other socks, he targeted mathematics articles in geometric function theory created or significantly enlarged by me in the last year. Again these revolve around the article Grunsky matrix, to which articles redirect, Grunsky's theorem, the Koebe quarter theorem, Goluzin inequalities and de Branges's theorem. Like previous edits, Echigo mole shows a first-year undergraduate knowledge of mathematics, barely beyond understanding the syntax. That applies in particular to his misunderstanding of the words "schlicht" and "invariant". On previous occasions Echigo mole socks have mentioned and reverted some of his edits: Coroner's jury tracked R.e.b.'s most recent edits and made some addition there. His edits have continued today and they are little more than trolling, just like Ansatz, Julian Birdbath and A.K.Nole. The similarity to Ansatz's editing is striking. The talk page comments are the usual kind of low-level mathematical trolling that Echigo mole socks have done in the past. Before posting this report, I privately consulted the checkuser Deskana who suggested that the account should be checked on-wiki for future reference and that he was willing to run a checkuser. Mathsci (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The further responses on his talk page (the UK spelling of "disc", the agitated tone and use of the UK expression "complete bollocks") and WikiProject Mathematics  (familiarity with this page, previously used for similar postings by Echigo mole, and with wikilinks) confirm that this is an Echigo mole sock, per WP:DUCK. Mathsci (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Deskana. I agree with Spitfire's analysis. Lichfielder edited topics close to mine (eg amenable group, positive-definite functions on groups). The important thing is that the accounts have been identified by checkuser, so cannot be used for future disruption. Mathsci (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone. Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 12 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

 * the evidence seems compelling, especially w/r/t Coroner's jury's familiarity with wikiprojects/syntax etc. The fact that Deskana has already suggested an on-wiki check also inclines me to endorse this. Please bear in mind when checking that this user has a history of using proxies. A scan for confirmation/sleepers would be appreciated. Many thanks, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Based strictly on technical evidence only, it is that the following accounts are related to each other: However, there are a handful of other users on this IP (including an administrator) who are clearly unrelated. To whoever handles this case, please bear this in mind when deciding who to block. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (used for comparison)
 * Quick run-down for the reviewing administrator, the check above seems to confirm that Coroner's jury is indeed a sock. Besides that, I would suggest that Port Sunlight is the only other account worth considering for a block, given their immediate knowledge of PROD procedure and their edit in a maths-related area. Benjamin Bathurst seems unrelated, edits biographies about nobility. Lichfielder looks likely to be a sock, but is rather inactive at this point. Cheers, SpitfireTally-ho! 17:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Spitfire's conclusions here. I've only blocked Coroner's jury based on a combination of behavioral and technical evidence. I'm iffy on blocking Port Sunlight, given a lack of evidence that he is indeed Echigo Mole. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. At the first sign of trouble from these accounts, Mathsci can ping me or any other clerk to immediately block them. Closing case. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

26 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

IP range of ISP already used by this banned user. Has added trolling/disruptive comments to 2 user talk pages of users with whom I have recently interacted. Standard Echigo mole wikistalking. Mathsci (talk) 22:54, 26 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

 * Probably Echigo mole - correct ISP and similar MO. Can't be 100% certain and there's no point in blocking now because of the report below. CIreland (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

27 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Usual IP range 94.196.0.0/16 & 94.197.0.0/16 extensively used by Echigo mole. Trolling on User talk:Beyond My Ken wholly related to me, with back knowledge and diffs standard for Echigo mole. (I had posted there earlier in the day with a standard 3RR warning.) The only new feature is the spelling error "advise" instead of "advice". The same error was made by the IP in the preceding SPI report above for 26 December. The same idiotic trolling advice to change username, etc, was also given. That diff contains a reference to similar advice given previously by another Echigo mole ipsock in the same range who was blocked after an SPI report in January 2012. Mathsci (talk) 21:37, 27 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

 * This one is definitely Echigo mole. Blocked. CIreland (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocks made by patrolling admin, closing. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 23:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

30 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Although this account has already been blocked, it is certainly Echigo mole, so I am making this report for the record (and for continuity). The "advise" he offered here is identical in its wording and spelling errors to the four pieces of advice cited in the two previous SPI reports. The stalking is evident, because I temporarily asked Dougweller to place a copy of the deleted article Jeremy Dunning-Davies in my user space. Noone but a stalker (and Dougweller of course!) would have known about that temporary copy. Echigo mole creepily added that as a wikilink to List of Welsh mathematicians plus references to the deleted article Myron Evans copy-pasted from the stub ECE theory, which I created. That is just disruptive trolling. As in this case, he has previously trolled on User talk:Malleus Fatuorum as an ipsock and then as. He was spotted and blocked as "obvious sock is obvious" by Spartaz and this is the identification for future reference. Mathsci (talk) 17:51, 30 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

 * Concur that this is Echigo mole. CIreland (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Already blocked and tagged. Closing. ( X! ·  talk )  · @168  · 03:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

31 December 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

More of the same kind of trolling as the recent blatant sock and other IP socks in this range. That includes his obsessive wikistalking of my edits accompabied by his trademark mis-spelling of "advice" as "advise" along with the standard phrase "You're not going to win this one", etc. Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 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
Blocked; obvious. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)