Echigo mole
- Echigo mole (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:
For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive.
13 May 2012
- Suspected sockpuppets
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
More disruptive trolling on the arbcom review pages on the same tired old theme that Echigo mole is not banned. However, that is not the view of administrators at WP:SPI or of the arbitration committee. The last ipsock was blocked for trolling by Elen of the Roads and I suspect that something similar will happen this time. Mathsci (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Plus more trolling edits related to the first edits on the talk page of an arbitrator by a third and fourth ipsock in the same range. Mathsci (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)\
- It is possible to examine all edits in the ranges 94.196.1.1/16 and 94.197.1.1/16. All those with a vague relation to me (arbcom pages, articles, etc) have without exception conformed to the trolling edits of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole and the sockpuppets listed on the archive page. Amalthea has already suggested a LTA page which will give details of how he edits. The existence of the archive and listed socks, some blocked by arbitrators, means, as Amalthea has said, that Echigo mole and his Ipsocks are effectively banned from editing wikipedia. Roger Davies has said the same thing on his talk page: Echigo mole is de facto banned. Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
- Interestingly, Mathsci has admitted he does not bother to read comments that he labels "trolling", so his comments above seem to have little weight. Since EM is not in fact banned, as Mathsci now admits [1], 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)