Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Parkchiqmu/Archive

29 May 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Persistent disruptive editing even after been given warnings. Block evading using another multiple IPs which is considered has breach the SP. The proof is on his contribution, targeting similar articles. ~ Muffin Wizard;) 02:26, 29 May 2015 (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

 * CheckUser as we very rarely connect an account and IP address(es). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The account and the most recent IP have been blocked by others. I've semi-protected the article to help stem off any further issues. Mike V • Talk 00:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

19 October 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Similar behaviour based on his contribution on Malaysian football articles who like to making disruptive editing and reverting other user edits who warned him, which has breach Block evasion rule. ~ Muffin Wizard;) 08:12, 19 October 2015 (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

 * Checkusers only directly link IPs to accounts in exceptional circumstances. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This IP was blocked, and haven't edited since the block expired, so I'm closing the case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

All IPs listed here have been used on the purpose of block evasion by Parkchiqmu, a user that have been blocked due to making disruptive editing with the addition of huge red links and unverified information. Similar behaviour can be detected with the frequent removal of dmy date format, although have been frequently told to stop and following the guidelines. I am requesting for a checkuser to be done to see if there is another associated accounts been involved on this. Molecule Extraction (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2016 (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
I've declined the CU request. We don't publicly disclose the IPs of named accounts. The vast majority of the IPs are stale and should not have been listed.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Only teo IPs have been active in the last week, and I blocked those two. Case closed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)