| Revision as of 22:15, 18 February 2012 view sourceAmalthea (talk | contribs)31,926 edits regarding LTA page← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:34, 18 February 2012 view source 94.197.105.48 (talk) someone who didn't understand the rhetorical nature of Mathsci's comments when deleting comments he doesn't like might come to the mistaken conclusion that referring to a user as banned when they are not in fact banned was in some sense dishonestNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| ** I have no opinion on whether an LTA page would be helpful for anybody. Seeing that the Echigo mole {{diff2|477437348|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 ].<br>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.<br>] 21:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC) | ** I have no opinion on whether an LTA page would be helpful for anybody. Seeing that the Echigo mole {{diff2|477437348|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 ].<br>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.<br>] 21:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| *** 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. ] 22:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC) | *** 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. ] 22:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ****A good idea. At present, someone who didn't understand the rhetorical nature of Mathsci's comments when deleting comments he doesn't like might come to the mistaken conclusion that referring to a user as banned when they are not in fact banned was in some sense dishonest. ] (]) 22:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 22:34, 18 February 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.
– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.
17 February 2012
- 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)
- 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. Mathsci (talk) 22:12, 17 February 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
- 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)
- 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)
- You must be confusing me with someone? Amalthea 12:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I see now. I was confused about which user talk page you were referring to. Mathsci (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment. There's been another example since Amalthea posted above. Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
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)- 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)
- A good idea. At present, someone who didn't understand the rhetorical nature of Mathsci's comments when deleting comments he doesn't like might come to the mistaken conclusion that referring to a user as banned when they are not in fact banned was in some sense dishonest. 94.197.105.48 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.
Categories: