Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unbuttered Parsnip

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vanjagenije (talk | contribs) at 20:22, 27 December 2015 (Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Unbuttered Parsnip

Unbuttered Parsnip (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki)

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unbuttered Parsnip/Archive.


27 December 2015

– An administrator or SPI clerk requires more information to determine what action to take.

Suspected sockpuppets

Last week Unbuttered Parsnip was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring at Naga, Cebu, upon the block's expirey, the edit warring kicked back up again, this time by various IPs that geolocate to the Philippines. After I semiprotected Naga, Cebu, the IPs were editing the fair use rationale at multiple Philippine-related government seals. Generally removing |image has rationale=yes|cat=Seals of Philippine cities. See this IP edit. Yesterday I reblocked Unbuttered Parsnip for a week for vandalism/edit warring while logged out (per WP:DUCK). Now today we have the new user 帅哥英, who is performing the same actions on the fair use images, see this edit. My thought is that there is enough behavioral evidence to link UP-IPs-帅哥英, but would like something more conclusive before extending the block of UP. kelapstick(bainuu) 20:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

  •  Additional information needed - @Kelapstick: In order to facilitate and expedite your request, please provide diffs to support your case. Please give two or more diffs meeting the following format:
  1. At least one diff is from the sockmaster (or an account already blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of the sockmaster), showing the behaviour characteristic of the sockmaster.
  2. At least one diff per suspected sockpuppet, showing the suspected sockpuppet emulating the behaviour of the sockmaster given in the first diff.
  3. In situations where it is not immediately obvious from the diffs what the characteristic behaviour is, a short explanation must be provided. Around one sentence is enough for this. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]