Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Razack Zamarul/Archive

Razack Zamarul

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

14 July 2010

Suspected sockpuppets

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

Evidence submitted by Aleenf1

Both user seems to have identical editing skills, e.g. copy and paste article, move without discussion, etc. Zackyusoff blocked for repeated abuse of editing privileges, while Razack Zamarul was created soon with identical editing skills, talk page comments in Razack Zamarul account can be a probe. --Aleen f1 18:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk endorsed – I can see the similarities in the two, but I don't think it's convincing enough for me to block on behavioral patterns alone, hence my endorsement for CU. –MuZemike 18:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zackyusoff (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since early April. And there is nothing immediately suspicious about Razack Zamarul (talk · contribs) that CU reveals. KnightLago (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, including Zamyusoff (talk · contribs) and comparing the 3 accounts results in [1]. If someone wants to look into it, there may be enough there for a DUCK block. KnightLago (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm not seeing anything that gives me enough confidence to block. Lack of CU + lack of behavioral evidence leads me to believe that these accounts are Unrelated. (X! · talk) · @244 · 04:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]