Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ansatz (talk | contribs) at 07:46, 24 December 2011 (→‎Comments by other users: I think that's enough to nail Mathsci's lie for what it is). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

– A checkuser has completed a check on relevant users in this case, and it is now awaiting administration and close.

20 December 2011
Suspected sockpuppets


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]
It is evident from his editing since I made this report that Ansatz has no competence in mathematics beyond a first or second year undergraduate course in a provincial UK university. In a fairly naive way, typical of Zarboublian, A.K.Nole and Julian Birdbath, he has attempted to add xontent making serious undergraduate errors, which show that he has no hope of mastering the material, which is at an advanced graduate level and some of it beyond. Asatz seems to have problems grasping even the most elementary aspects of the subject. His explanatations of why he should suddenly choose this very difficult and highly specialized area are not credible, in view of his inability even to grasp the basics of the subject. The other sockpuppets of Echigo /A.K.Nole have been no different. Like them, his spelling is British and his wikilawyering below and elsewhere, where has tried to explain away his serious mathematical errors is not credible. It is exactly what all the other sockpuppets did: Quotient group had to be questioned in private by Shell Kinney before he admitted that he was the same person as A.K.Nole. At that stage he promised to cease his wikistalking but that was an empty promise. As the reports here show and his numerous attempts trolling comments on ArbCom pages show, at no stage has his wikistalking stopped.
Ansatz's attempt at writing an article was a failure. Mathematical abitlity cannot be faked with a google search and it was his inability to show any grasp of the material which gave him away. Following me to this area was also not such a great idea. The flimsy error-ridden stub that he created at quasicircle was exactly what I would expect from someone with barely an undergrauate knowledge of mathematics trying to write a summary of highly advanced mathematics, way beyond their expertise. The article, initially created by Ansatz as a fork of an article that will take me several weeks to write, contained statements which were false. It was so badly written that I stopped my work on Loewner differential equation and the companion articles to produce a properly written article, with proper sources, correct history and a readable summary of what is known.[2]
I assume that Ansatz is displaced in the UK for Xmas and this is one of his recreations over the holiday period. Wikipedia, however, is not a magic wand that can suddenly transform someone with hardly any mathematical training into an expert post Ph.D. level mathematician: Ansatz claims that he is being insulted when his error-ridden content has been removed. His indignation below and failure to admit to having made errors is exactly how all the drawerfuls of socks of A.K.Nole / Echigo mole have behaved. They have all been blocked, even when they arrive on ArbCom pages to make self-righteous condemnations. At the moment Ansatz, while making clueless errors, is still trying to fake being a post Ph.D. mathematician. This is evidently not the case. His wikistalking, trolling and puffed-up denials are just a continuation of past disruptive and dishonest conduct. Mathsci (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Ansatz could clarify at this stage whether his account bears any relation to the edits in the previous SPI reports on Echigo mole/A.K.Nole. His account started editing Grunsky matrix almost as soon as it was semiprotected by HelloAnyong. How does he explain that "coincidence" or the similarity between his own mode of expression and that of Echigo mole / A.K.Nole and their various reincarnations? Certainly it's not a particular bright idea to start editing an article clearly tagged with an "underconstruction" template. A cursory glance at Ansatz's recent edits shows that he has been buzzing around articles connected with my recent edits. No different from the editing patterns of the socks of Echigo mole/ A.K.Nole, now indefinitely blocked. I know it's Xmas time, but there really is far too much WP:DUCK around here. Mathsci (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This user to me seems indistinguishable form A.K.Nole / Zarboublian / Quotient group / Julian Birdbath per his most recent comments. His mathematical editing is uniformly poor and a net negative to the encyclopedia. That was already the case with A.K.Nole / Quotient group / Zarboublian / Julian Birdbath in the past, who were eventually identified as wikistalking sockpuppets and blocked indefinitely. Ansatz, on the basis of all his contributions and the checkuser evidence, seems to be exactly the same person. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUCK and checkuser prevail here. Ansatz's mathematical incompetence is a matter of record, no matter how much he protests (like his previous incarnations). Mathsci (talk) 22:55, 23 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]

So, when challenged Mathsci refuses to bring forward any actual evidence. Presumably that is because there is none, and he knows that. Mathsci repeats the claims as "undergraduate errors", but again without evidence. An "attempt at writing an articile was a failure" -- what does that mean? That he didn't like it? That quasicircle was "created as a fork of an article that will take me several weeks to write" is a plain lie. It was created as a stub to define and give a couple of keys facts about a concept referred to in another article, where is went completely undefined, and not otherwise referred to on Wikipedia. Mathsci may think we owns the articles he has written, but can hardly claim to own articles he hasn't even started yet! Continued repetition of the claim "contained statements which were false" does not make it any more accurate -- it contained a simplified version of a theorem which was fully cited with a url to a public version of the exact statement. Putting simplified versions of mathematics is what we do when writing articles. Mathsci does this too: for example, he furiously reverted to the claim that "Grunsky matrix" and "Grunsky operator" were synonymous, when that is of course literally false. It stands as a simplificiation, but I suppose that if I had written it he would have called it an "undergraduate howler".
All of this has nothing to do with the merits of the accusation he repeats but cannot substantiate.
Let's be clear about what is going on here. Mathsci cannot bear to have his articles edited, or even discussed, by anyone else at all, and he is especially angry when those comments have merit, or the suggested changes dare to be improvements. The editor who dares to venture onto his turf must be met with a barrage of insults, vilification, personal denigration, intellectually dishonest misrepresentations of their comments, wikihounding onto other articles, speculation and insinuations as to their profession and location bordering on outing, and completely unsupported assertions that they must be guilty of sockpuppetry, block evasion, ban evasion, and any other wiki-crimes that come to mind. The true crime is venturing onto Mathsci's private turf, and that he cannot forgive or forget. Ansatz (talk) 11:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci says It's not a particular bright idea to start editing an article clearly tagged with an 'underconstruction" template. Since that template says You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. I would have said that it was reasonable to assume that in fact that was exactly what he did want.
"Buzzing round articles connected with my recent edits" is a miseading way of Mathsci expressing him following me to quasicircle, which he edited within two hours of my creating it, or contraction (operator theory) where he reverted my edits within seven hours of my making them, in spite of not having shown any interest in in its four-year history. I think that he has been doing most of the buzzing -- I confidently expect to find him finding fault at Lethargy theorem (new article by me) or FRACTRAN (added reference) or nice name (added reference) or infinite descending chain (added reference) soon. Does he believe he owns all the mathematics articles, or that we all need his permission to edit them, or that we have to submit our qualifications to him for assessment before he will allow us to edit? He certainly behaves like it.
Now let's get back to some of the assertions that I challenged Mathsci to substantiate. He has had several opportunities to justify his negative remarks about my editing but has failed to do so (not surprising as they are completely false.) I can only assume that he made the remarks deliberately knowing that he could not substantiate them or at the very least not caring whether or they were true. From where I sit, there's no other word for that -- it makes him a liar. Ansatz (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"His mathematical editing is uniformly poor and a net negative to the encyclopedia" Just saying it again doesn't make it true. This ceaseless repetition of mendacious insult and invective demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of Mathsci's position. It makes it crystal clear that he simply wants to get everyone else off his turf and he does not care what he says, or what conection it has to reality, or how often he says it, to achieve those ends. Ansatz (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Ansatz's mathematical incompetence is a matter of record" -- where? Oh that's right - nowhere, because Mathsci just made it up. So let's get some actual evidence here of that allegedly "illiterate" "unsourced" "uniformly poor" "incompetence":
  • [3], [4] correct sloppy minor error by Mathsci
  • [5] improvement accepted by Mathsci
  • [6] improvement, with source, subsequently accepted by Mathsci
  • [7], [8], [9], [10] add reference
  • [11], [12], [13] clarification
  • [14] remove obviously incorrect material

I think that's enough to nail Mathsci's lie for what it is. Ansatz (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Echigo_mole&oldid=467461652"