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]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Echigo mole (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

good behavioral 77.28.212.254 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=good behavioral [[Special:Contributions/77.28.212.254|77.28.212.254]] ([[User talk:77.28.212.254|talk]]) 22:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=good behavioral [[Special:Contributions/77.28.212.254|77.28.212.254]] ([[User talk:77.28.212.254|talk]]) 22:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=good behavioral [[Special:Contributions/77.28.212.254|77.28.212.254]] ([[User talk:77.28.212.254|talk]]) 22:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}