Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fadulj/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Fadulj[edit]

Fadulj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Fadulj

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

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date January 31 2009, 02:13 (UTC)[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Grsz11

If the username doesn't suffice, just open the contributions page to 250 edits. Grsz11 02:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions for comparisons from Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fadulj:
It was evident when I opened this a month ago. Master account edited Jose Fadul - an article about himself. New account says "This is Prof. Jose A. Fadul". User:FadulJoseA edits mushroom articles [1], as does new account (Exs: [2], [3], [4], [5]). Both edited chess-related articles (blocked account edits here, new account here, 5 Feb to 9 Feb). WP:ANI section about this is here, where general opinion was that the username was obvious enough, but wait for checkuser. Grsz11 18:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see the previous invesigation here. Grsz11 18:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FadulJoseA edits to chess articles: [6], [7], [8]
  • FadulJoseArabe edits to chess articles: [9], [10], [11].
Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
  • I need relevant diffs here. Exactly what is the behavior the other socks had? I'm not seeing it by a quick look at the contribs... articles edited are very different. —— nixeagleemail me 19:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can a clerk please notify the reporter, regardless I plan to request close of this case in 3 days if no further evidence in the form of diffs is provided. As it is the two accounts don't seem to have any similar edits or even similar topic areas. —— nixeagleemail me 18:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: more info already requested of the reporter. Unfortunately, that only elicited a link to the previous case (and we already have that link!). I have left a further note for the reporter explaining that we expect reporters to take the time to provide evidence, and that their saving of 10 minutes would result in 2-3 hours of admin time being required to deal with the case. Unless additional evidence is provided, I would draw a line under this case in 24 hours. Mayalld (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, hello, I did post diffs. Grsz11 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: FadulJoseA is pretty much a WP:DUCK, and should probably be indef blocked, and the 3 month block on the master reset. All the other socks are already confirmed and blocked. Mayalld (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for telling us that, I'll just extend the 3 month block to 6 months though. As a clerk please don't worry about telling us this stuff. Let the reviewing admins come to their own conclusions. :) E.G. if you want to express an opinion on what the administrators should do, do so as a user and not as a clerk. —— nixeagleemail me 00:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Accounts blocked, I've extended the block on the main account to 6 months. —— nixeagleemail me 00:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
please tag/archive —— nixeagleemail me 00:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fadulj/Archive&oldid=1143402666"