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

Suspected sockpuppets

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

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

Ronggy is an indefinitely blocked account from Singapore [1]. Linrx appears to be an obvious sock: [2], [3], [4]. Linrx recycles a comment/+picture from JJ at his Ronggy talk page [5] here [6]. JimRenge (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• I think checkuser may not be needed, considering this [7]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Do without checkuser please, do the blocking properly as well, both user accounts Ronggy and Linrx are involved in more than the English Wikipedia project, if you are blocking the English accounts, check carefully other accounts such as the Chinese accounts. Thank you. Linrx (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked per that comment. SQL^{Query me!} 12:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged. Closing, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 138.75.168.90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

This user is recreating a hoax he initially attempted a year ago about Lee Kwan Yu being a divine being in Buddhism Ogress 17:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Ronggy tends to use dynamic IP´s from the 138.75.1* and 175.156.* range for block evasion. Todays edit summary by 175.156.228.8: "Thank you Britain! Lin Rongxiang from Republic of Singapore!" ([8], compare with [9]) However, these IP ranges appear to be too broad for a range block. I see no need to protect specific articles now, propose closure. JimRenge (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Check declined by a checkuser - We will not publicly connect named accounts to their IP addresses. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Closed. The last edit from the IP was over a month ago, so no point in blocking now. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]