Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole

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:

Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive/1

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

– An SPI clerk has endorsed a request for CheckUser. A checkuser will shortly review the case.

20 December 2011

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

Comments by other users

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

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

"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]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

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]