User talk:Echigo mole

Sockpuppetry

This case has now been referred to ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole in which no evidence was found to support your accusations, attacks and msrepresentations? Don't forget to tell them about the creepy attempt to find out where I live. Echigo mole (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been disclosed to checkusers on ArbCom why beyond the technical evidence the other two accounts are with high probability sockpuppet accounts of A.K.Nole. If you wish to contact members of ArbCom about this, the main person I have contacted there is Elen of the Roads. I am not sure that any further attempted defense or counteraccustions from you would be helpful at this stage. If necessary I am quite ready to start an ArbCom case, since the wikihounding has gone on for so long. Certainly no administrator has yet commented and you have failed to understand that there the editing of the two new accounts points in one case, in a fairly glaring way, to A.K.Nole. Mathsci (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not sure why you think I have anything to do with all this but refer you the the statement on my user page. Echigo mole (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An identical goodbye to that of Julian Birdbath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). [1] He was subsequently indefinitely blocked by ArbCom. In both cases there was an attack on me in the "goodbye" message abanoning the account. The same was true for Zarboublian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in his "goodbye" edit summary.[2] Mathsci (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked for sock puppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that this block was in error, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Rs chen 7754 01:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]