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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

23 August 2012

– This SPI case is open.

Suspected sockpuppets

• Teddywithfangs (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 editing profile exactly fits that of a sleeping sock account, recently reactivated. Echigo mole previously made trolling edits to the article amenable group both as an ipsock 188.29.188.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (making edits to articles like Delusions of grandeur is one of Echigo mole's ideas of a joke, something he's done more than once) and shortly afterwards as Gangs of Wasseypur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now indefinitely blocked. The other edits have been in a short burst to popular articles. The editing of amenable group is completely inexplicable.

I also believe that some recent vandalistic edits in the range 94.197.0.0/16 are by Echigo mole. Up until now, almost all disruptive edits from that ip range can be traced back to Echigo mole. In this case the IP involved was 94.197.127.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He has been hounding Chipmunkdavis, making identical edits to those made by 92.40.254.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to Chipmunkdavis's user talk page. The first IP belongs to the same UK ISP (three) as that of the IP sock mentioned above who edited amenable group. Mathsci (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Whether made in good faith or not, the addition of the {{morefootnotes}} tag to amenable group is entirely appropriate: there are whole sections of the article that have no citations. I have restored the tag. Dricherby (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia there is no magic pixie dust to turn wikipedians-on-the-street into experts in mathematics. Dricherby's editing history indicates that he has no expertise in mathematics at a graduate level, including especially operator theory and the theory of unitary representations. Why then is he editing this article if he has insufficient WP:COMPETENCE to understand any of the references about which he is apparently complaining. The inline harvtxt links cover all the material in the article. If wikipedians know nothing about specialist subjects, it is undoubtedly best not to comment. That is how it is in real life in universities and it is no different here. Mathsci (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Amalthea. It probably was a coincidence, but you're perfectly right that the Echigo mole/A.K.Nole sock accounts have never predated 2009. Mathsci (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Declined with respect to the named account. Those are not sufficient grounds to run a check. AGK [•] 22:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sure you're right about 188.29.188.51 back in June. The 94.197.* would fit the old range, but the motivation here seems very different. I will look deeper into that, but seems absolutely unrelated to Echigo mole.
  The named account I'd write off as a coincidence. If he pops up on 'your' articles again we can have another look, but until then I'd write it off as a coincidence. This would also be by far the oldest Echigo mole sock ever found, years older than any other.
  (And while I'm not a statistician I'd say that while it's unlikely that a specific inactive editor shows such behavior at a certain time, it's to be expected a unusual account pops up on your watchlist like this over the years, with all the accounts being created and abandoned and resurrected all the time).
  Amalthea 08:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am going to go further than Amalthea. Mathsci, you ought to have recognised this account is several years old, and known that this was not Echigo. You have noticed an account on your watchlist and listed it here without thought. I observed there was almost no evidence that this was a EM sock, yet you dismissed these concerns and said "The likelihood... is almost zero". I recognise that this socker's treatment of you is nothing shy of harassment, but please be more careful in future. If you are not, and I see more baseless reports about EM by you, then I will move to exclude you from editing this investigation page. AGK [•] 19:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]