Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:30, 12 December 2012 view sourceReaper Eternal (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Administrators62,578 edits Comment, marking case as closed← Previous edit Revision as of 18:20, 12 December 2012 view source Deskana (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,062 edits Closing.Next edit →
Line 36: Line 36:
*{{clerknote}} Quick run-down for the reviewing administrator, the check above seems to confirm that Coroner's jury is indeed a sock. Besides that, I would suggest that Port Sunlight is the only other account worth considering for a block, given their immediate knowledge of PROD procedure and their edit in a maths-related area. Benjamin Bathurst seems unrelated, edits biographies about nobility. Lichfielder looks likely to be a sock, but is rather inactive at this point. Cheers, ]<sup>]</sup> 17:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC) *{{clerknote}} Quick run-down for the reviewing administrator, the check above seems to confirm that Coroner's jury is indeed a sock. Besides that, I would suggest that Port Sunlight is the only other account worth considering for a block, given their immediate knowledge of PROD procedure and their edit in a maths-related area. Benjamin Bathurst seems unrelated, edits biographies about nobility. Lichfielder looks likely to be a sock, but is rather inactive at this point. Cheers, ]<sup>]</sup> 17:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
*{{clerknote}} I agree with Spitfire's conclusions here. I've only blocked Coroner's jury based on a combination of behavioral and technical evidence. I'm iffy on blocking Port Sunlight, given a lack of evidence that he is indeed Echigo Mole. ] (]) 17:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC) *{{clerknote}} I agree with Spitfire's conclusions here. I've only blocked Coroner's jury based on a combination of behavioral and technical evidence. I'm iffy on blocking Port Sunlight, given a lack of evidence that he is indeed Echigo Mole. ] (]) 17:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
*Seems reasonable. At the first sign of trouble from these accounts, Mathsci can ping me or any other clerk to immediately block them. Closing case. --] ] 18:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. --> ----<!--- All comments go ABOVE this line, please. -->

Revision as of 18:20, 12 December 2012

Echigo mole

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

Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below:

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive.



12 December 2012

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets


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

The further responses on his talk page (the UK spelling of "disc", the agitated tone and use of the UK expression "complete bollocks") and WikiProject Mathematics (familiarity with this page, previously used for similar postings by Echigo mole, and with wikilinks) confirm that this is an Echigo mole sock, per WP:DUCK. Mathsci (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Deskana. I agree with Spitfire's analysis. Lichfielder edited topics close to mine (eg amenable group, positive-definite functions on groups). The important thing is that the accounts have been identified by checkuser, so cannot be used for future disruption. Mathsci (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
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
  •  Clerk endorsed the evidence seems compelling, especially w/r/t Coroner's jury's familiarity with wikiprojects/syntax etc. The fact that Deskana has already suggested an on-wiki check also inclines me to endorse this. Please bear in mind when checking that this user has a history of using proxies. A scan for confirmation/sleepers would be appreciated. Many thanks, Spitfire 12:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Based strictly on technical evidence only, it is  Likely that the following accounts are related to each other:

However, there are a handful of other users on this IP (including an administrator) who are clearly unrelated. To whoever handles this case, please bear this in mind when deciding who to block. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

  •  Clerk note: Quick run-down for the reviewing administrator, the check above seems to confirm that Coroner's jury is indeed a sock. Besides that, I would suggest that Port Sunlight is the only other account worth considering for a block, given their immediate knowledge of PROD procedure and their edit in a maths-related area. Benjamin Bathurst seems unrelated, edits biographies about nobility. Lichfielder looks likely to be a sock, but is rather inactive at this point. Cheers, Spitfire 17:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  •  Clerk note: I agree with Spitfire's conclusions here. I've only blocked Coroner's jury based on a combination of behavioral and technical evidence. I'm iffy on blocking Port Sunlight, given a lack of evidence that he is indeed Echigo Mole. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems reasonable. At the first sign of trouble from these accounts, Mathsci can ping me or any other clerk to immediately block them. Closing case. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Categories: