Echigo mole (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• A.K.Nole (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Taciki Wym (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Quotient group (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Holding Ray (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Julian Birdbath (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Zarboublian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Junior Wrangler (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

it could be that this account, obviously a sockpuppet, is controlled by Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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)[reply]

Of the two accounts discovered by Hersfold, the first A.B.C.Hawkes (talk · contribs) made enough edits for the account to be auto-confirmed and then followed my edits first to User talk:Moonriddengirl [5] (trolling typical of A.K.Nole and his sockfarm) and then to The Blank Slate and its talk page. The second account Old Crobuzon (talk · contribs) 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 Taciki Wym (talk · contribs) as one of the most recently blocked sockpuppets (trolling in an ArbCom case [6] in typical A.K.Nole style). Mathsci (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This "goodbye" diff of Julian Birdbath (talk · contribs) [7] two weeks before his indef checkuser block seems to be written by the person who wrote the goodbye" diff.[8] of Echigo mole. Julian Birdbath created the account Taciki Wym (talk · contribs), who trolled an ArbCom case about Quotient group (talk · contribs).[9] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

•  Clerk endorsed - 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. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ya know, it really helps for you lot to check if accounts are  Stale 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...
    • A.B.C.Hawkes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Possible
    • Old Crobuzon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Possible
  • Beyond this I have nothing because I have nothing else to compare to. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah damn. Sorry about that - I dropped the ball. :/ — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: 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. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• A.B.C.Hawkes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 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)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

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, 212.183.140.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), in the vodafone range used by Mikemikev and previously blocked for 3 months by Shell Kinney, made this edit to the article Echigo Mole. [10][11] I looked through all the IPs in that range and found ony one other editor, Op47 (talk · contribs), 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 Julian Birdbath (talk · contribs). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• I'm with Sandstein on this. I'm closing this whole case for now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• A.B.C.Hawkes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 212.183.140.23 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

•  Administrator note Merged the cases - ABC Hawkes was tagged as a sock of Echigo mole. And the IP's been blocked for a week. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 212.183.140.12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

•  Administrator note I've blocked 212.183.140.0/27 for a month. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Old Crobuzon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 212.183.140.12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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 A.B.C.Hawkes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were related to Echigo mole. The IP left a message on my talk page about Gringo Madre [12]. The account Old Crobuzon then filed an SPI report about Gringo Madre (talk · contribs). [13] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [14] (that is, before he became equally convinced that I was A.K.Nole [15]) 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: 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)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• A.B.C.Hawkes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Old Crobuzon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 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. [16][17][18] 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 Julian Birdbath (talk · contribs), 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)[reply]

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 [19], [20] or the MfD request [21]. 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)[reply]

• Yes, rather  Likely. Kindly continue reporting these socks, because RBs weren't feasible. AGK [•] 09:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note The socks were blocked and tagged, but I blocked the master for three days (if it matters). — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Glenbow Goat (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 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)[reply]

User has been indefinitely blocked by MastCell for sockpuppetry. Mathsci (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

•  Likely, same ISP as the ones in the archive. No sleepers. Courcelles 05:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 212.183.140.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

More trolling from A.K.Nole / Echigo mole [22] 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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

•  Administrator note IP blocked 2 weeks per WP:DUCK. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Tryphaena (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Junior Wrangler (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 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.[23][24] Mathsci (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Clerk note: 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)[reply]

•  Clerk endorsed - 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. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All accounts appear to be  Unrelated. –MuZemike 18:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unrelated accounts - closing investigation AGK [•] 20:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 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  Confirmed by checkuser to be the same. AGK [•] 22:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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  Confirmed as the same. WilliamH (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.196.4.81 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.90.75 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.84.193 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.197.0.150 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

•  Administrator note I've protected Grunsky matrix for 3 days. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Ansatz (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 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)[reply]

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.[25] More WP:DUCK but this time through a megaphone. Mathsci (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.[26]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by accused User:Ansatz

I suppose that Mathsci is entitled to his opinion of my editing. But.

• "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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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":

• [27], [28] correct sloppy minor error by Mathsci
• [29] improvement accepted by Mathsci
• [30] improvement, with source, subsequently accepted by Mathsci
• [31], [32], [33], [34] add reference
• [35], [36], [37] clarification
• [38] remove obviously incorrect material

I think that's enough to nail Mathsci's lie for what it is. Ansatz (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

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.

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)[reply]

•  Clerk endorsed - Maybe.. though I would think Ansatz would've come up in the last sweep. Anyway, Tryphaena (talk · contribs) should be usable for a check. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a  Possible relation between Ansatz and Tryphaena. I would almost say  Likely, but I would like another CU's input before going that far. TNXMan 15:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I see grounds enough to duck it without the CU result. -- DQ (t) (e) 15:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.197.223.143 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.11.185 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.105.204 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [39] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

•  Declined Duck. Keegan (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, no one ever requested a CheckUser be ran. Tiptoety ^talk 06:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: 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. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks again. Mathsci (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.196.63.228 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.197.2.224 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.214.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.197.106.100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.101.4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.197.232.73 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.197.43.15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.197.63.103 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.198.78 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.128.205 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.197.2.9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.6.141 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.72.148 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• More trolling in the mean time by A.K.Nole / Echigo mole, this time in connection with a different ArbCom request.[40] More WP:DUCK. Please block the IP ranges temporarily. Mathsci (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.[41] Mathsci (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trolling is continuing over wikipedia and again below. Please could something be done soon? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And more trolling below. Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
          • Last IP trolled about Echigo mole on AGK's talk page (now removed). Mathsci (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

94.196.72.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added a trolling statement on an arbitration page.[42] I have sent an email to the arbcom list about this. Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.  No comment on the link between the anonymous accounts and previous Echigo mole activity. Range block for the abuse by the above anonymous users is  Not possible 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

•  Administrator note Ugh, what a mess. I've blocked all the IPs for a week, and protected an article or two. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.196.169.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.127.81 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 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[43] and referred to the racist postings of Mikemikev.[44] 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)[reply]

Why did you include the snide comment about me? It was not necessary to this investigation. AGK [•] 00:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk page you mentioned that you had not realized that the postings might have been from this user [45]: that's all this means. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks both to AGK, who blocked these two IPs, and to HelloAnnyong. Mathsci (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• Given the level of disruption a rangeblock is becoming increasingly more likely, but I'll close this for now. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• The Wozbongulator (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Trolling on arbcom pages [46] 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, Julian Birdbath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), made edits about Hertfordshire.[47] Mathsci (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

The Wozbongulator is a  Likely match to Ansatz (talk · contribs). TNXMan 16:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note Blocked and tagged. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Reginald Fortune (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Account created back in 2009, never used until today. Trolling for the third time on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

•  Confirmed, matches edits that were previously associated with Echigo mole. Blocked and tagged. Amalthea 11:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Echigo mole (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Jenny Longlegs (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• W.M. O'Quinlan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• William Hickey (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 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.[48] So per WP:DUCK (nobody else follows edits to my talk page that closely [49]), 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 [50] and that is why this page is semiprotected. Mathsci (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• These latest trolling edits on WP:ANI are typical of Echigo mole's creepy style.[51][52] More WP:DUCK, as if it wasn't obvious beforehand. Mathsci (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And now this creepy edit to an arbcom page, his third or fourth attempt so far.[53] Mathsci (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And again.[54]Mathsci (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And this. [55] Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And this. [56] Uninterrupted disruptive trolling. A duck with a megaphone. Mathsci (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

•  Clerk endorsed - 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. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hickey is a  Confirmed match to Reginald Fortune (talk · contribs). TNXMan 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked and tagged Hickey. What about the other socks listed? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't seen evidence of wrongdoing. Are they doing something suspicious? TNXMan 03:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • O'Quinlan appears  Unrelated to Hickey, at least. I don't see any other suspicious activity there. TNXMan 03:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: 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. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.196.111.116 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

•  Administrator note 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. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.197.12.11 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• See the case below. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.197.100.236 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.92.63 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.172.181 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.244.164 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.125.185 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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)[reply]

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

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 RooK (talk · contribs), 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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• 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. :/ — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maybe. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Laura Timmins (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 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 William Hickey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his ipsocks. These are characteristic edits of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole.[57] The later edits are also typical. He seems very disruptive this weekend. Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

•  Clerk endorsed Confirmation, sleepers, IPs - anything that can be done. We've had this case far too many times recently. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed as being the same as William Hickey (talk · contribs), but that's about all I can tell you. TNXMan 16:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The account was already blocked. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.197.57.117 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.197.179.59 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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)[reply]

• 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.[58] Mathsci (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• You must be confusing me with someone? Amalthea 12:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now. I was confused about which user talk page you were referring to. Mathsci (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. There's been another example since Amalthea posted above. [59] Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk note: 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." ? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:20
  • I have no opinion on whether an LTA page would be helpful for anybody. Seeing that the Echigo mole feels legitimized 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.197.186.97 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• 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)[reply]
•  Clerk note: Per Amalthea's note, closing with no action taken. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Southend sofa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Usual trolling wikistalking about valid alternative accounts,[60] 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 Old Crobuzon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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)[reply]

Other diffs are here where Southend sofa comments in a thread concerning me started by Julian Birdbath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another sock of A.K.Nole/Echigo mole.[61][62] The first diff collapses a sockpuppet allegation and continues with mathematical trolling/delusional editing, typical of Echigo mole socks (e.g. as Ansatz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). Here he mentions my name at ANI[63] and here he follows me to an AfD,[64] 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.[65] The MfD he started was deleted by AGK I think. Mathsci (talk) 10:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing [66] 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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• Contribution history sure is odd. No direct connection though, technically  Possible. Amalthea 09:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.196.4.5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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 94.196.72.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [67]The Wozbongulator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [68] Reginald Fortune (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [69] and William Hickey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). [70][71][72] Mathsci (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.196.59.79 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.196.126.201 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.196.43.232 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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)[reply]

Now blocked by Elen of the Roads as ban-evading ipsock. Mathsci (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.196.218.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.27.59 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.3.173 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.223.219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 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)[reply]

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)\[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [73], 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[reply]

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.197.143.170 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.196.46.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.197.164.116 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 94.197.250.212 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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?[74] Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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 [75]. Admins on this page, please take note. 94.196.46.131 (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC) WP:DENY[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Krod Mandoon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 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.[76] 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. [77] 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• Looks like Courcelles nailed his head to a coffee table --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking for close. TNXMan 14:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Leon Gonsalez (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 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 Krod Mandoon (talk · contribs), 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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

•  Administrator note  Looks like a duck to me Indeffed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Unnecessary per the above. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

Jello carotids (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 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 Alternative-mathsci (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

•  Administrator note  Looks like a duck to me Indeffed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Unnecessary per the above. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• 94.197.162.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 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)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

•  Administrator note Blocked 48 hours. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Caderousse (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 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)[reply]

My suspicions that this is Echigo mole are confirmed by these edits[78][79] to Beyond Vaudeville which just repeat edits and edit summaries ("hoax") that the community banned editor Echigo mole made as an ipsock [80] 94.197.232.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) having trolled about me on an arbitrator's page with this edit.[81] Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

A  Likely match to Krod Mandoon (talk · contribs). TNXMan 13:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked and tagged sock. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Silver starfish (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• One of the ruins (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Captain Abu Raed (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nellie Seamonster (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

---

• Rita Mordio (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Thrapostulator (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 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 Caderousse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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 Zarboublian and The Wozbongulator. That explains the plethera of connected hoax articles jointly listed for AfD: John Bargel, Gustave de Zarbouble, La Maison du Guozbongleur. Guozbongleur. Note that Groomtech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this edit to "John Bargel"[82] and was listed with A.K.Nole, a former incarnation of Echigo mole, on The Wiki House.[83] In addition as an ipsock he has commented in the AfD.[84] That IP, in the usual range, 94.197.237.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 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  Looks like a duck to me. The first two are the most recent. Silver starfish already followed me to a long article I created here.[85] Significantly the confirmed sock Caderousse also edited the hoax article "Gustave de Zarbouble," adding a link to a nonsensical and false claim.[86] Mathsci (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[87] This edit would tend to pin him down as from the UK.[88] This edit stalked a little known article created by me.[89] This article created less than a month ago is nonsense. [90] Mathsci (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Echigo mole used an ipsock to post on WP:BLPN and then reinstated the edit using a sleeping sock Rita Mordio, I have added that account above. The contribution below seems to be from another sockpuppet, arguing in the style of William Hickey. I have added that name to the list. Mathsci (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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[91] and then a sleeping sock Rita Mordio to troll on BLPN,[92] (identical edit to ipsock) then to troll here and on an arbitrator's talk page. [93]  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Mathsci (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the article Speculum Sophicum Rhodostauroticum, which the hoax articles cite and which in turn makes reference to them, was created by Groomtech who was part of The Wiki House, a shared account with Kenilworth Terrace and A.K.Nole, 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

• I think Nellie Seamonster (talk · contribs) may be a false positive, or at least, a different hoaxer. Her contributions appear to include a hoax entry [94] at List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles (see Talk:List_of_fictional_elements,_materials,_isotopes_and_atomic_particles#Strapontium.3F) 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 Beeveefan (talk · contribs) to the list to be checked. The entries in Wack Pack probably need review too. However, Nellie's vesrion [95] 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[reply]

• 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 [reply]

Thrapostulator is  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. Rita Mordio is a  Possible 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. TNXMan 13:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Vurrgh (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 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)[reply]

Obvious sock is obvious (see below). There is no content dispute, just the usual Echigo mole stalking, trolling and disruption.  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Caderousse, these articles were created by Silver starfish 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 Silver starfish? The account was last used on 27 April 2012 so hopefully is not stale. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

•  Clerk endorsed *yawn* and indeffed too *yawn*. T. Canens (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vurrgh (talk · contribs) is a  Likely match with Thrapostulator (talk · contribs). - Mailer Diablo 13:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated tag on already blocked sock and closing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Bogulus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Collared Joists? (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Given the previous edits[96][97] to articles on Aix-en-Provence of the recently blocked sock Vurrgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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[98] had been to any other article, things would be different. But per  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me, this looks like our tiresome puppetmaster and disruptive troll yet again. Mathsci (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Silver starfish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Echigo mole is wasting far too much time on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia today to add the recently deleted articles. Peter E. James (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk endorsed - [99] and [100] make this plenty ducky for Bogulus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:16, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Collared Joists? is possible as well, linkage to previous socks, building a shrine. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Confirmed that Collared Joists? (talk · contribs) and Bogulus (talk · contribs) are socks of Echigo mole. No more sleepers found for now. - Mailer Diablo 14:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Checked, blocked and tagged Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppets

• Sophie Germaine (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• 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 [101] to Nyttend's talk page as the sockpuppet Bogulus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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)[reply]