Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rob.HUN/Archive

06 June 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Inactive for 6 months. Suddenly pops up to continue edit-warring of the above blocked IPs within minutes of the target pages being semi-protected. Previously 'appeared' after extended hiatus to support edit-warring IPs here RashersTierney (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added Factuallee because of their fairly obvious use of the same User Page message as Rob.HUN viz "Only the whole truth can be true." RashersTierney (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WRT the above, please also note User talk:Boing! said Zebedee, an apparent attempt to frustrate this SPI. RashersTierney (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' I agree with User:RashersTierney, the block evasion is obvious. He switched several IPs and afterwards he edit logged on an older account in order to to permeate the semi-protection that was instituted on an article:

 Raysdiet (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 46.139.158.32 was blocked for vandalism on 15:25, 5 June 2013
 * 94.27.129.89 was blocked for abusing multiple accounts on 15:25, 5 June 2013
 * 79.122.72.83 was blocked for block evasion on 15:40, 5 June 2013 * 94.27.129.89 was blocked for edit-warring on 18:27, 5 June 2013
 * RashersTierney is right, Factuallee is also a probable sock. They made simimilar edits. For example here they had consecutive contributions. Also, this user used the account Factuallee to modify a comment posted from the account Rob.HUN:  Raysdiet (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh boy! Don't you just love those proud and uptight Romanians always concerned with other people's business. Just like in Transylvania. :)--Rob.HUN (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * People don't usually take SPIs so flippantly. Is this some sort of game for you? RashersTierney (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Should I feel upset about some snitchers? It's just like the good ol' Securitate. :) --Rob.HUN (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If anyone with mop is watching this, can we have some input please? RashersTierney (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to add and ; them and Factuallee have all edited Articles for deletion/Natalie Holt, editing Rob's comments. Suspicious stuff indeed!--  Laun  chba  ller  12:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are probably right on, which is a T-Mobile Hungary Co. Ltd. address, as the others above, but geolocates to Ireland and is probably unrelated. The inappropriate signing by Rob could legitimately have been removed by any editor as an obvious error. RashersTierney (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen an SPI report opened for so long without any conclusion.Adrian (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have. Somewhere there's some chronological list that shows that some of them a month old. Atrocious, really.-- Laun  chba  ller  21:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 24.209.139.161 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . The connection between the two named accounts seems obvious, and CheckUsers will not publicly associate accounts with IP addresses. WilliamH (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Factuallee blocked per WP:DUCK, otherwise everything else is stale. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 15:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

05 September 2015

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

(copy pasting from admin Swarm's talk page:)

Hi there, Swarm. Happenstance we meet again so soon. I strongly suspect user Rob.HUN to be engaged in sockpuppetry in the European migrant crisis article, identical to IPs 37.76.11.111 and 37.76.42.195. Their edit summaries are similar, all three are opposed to the term "European refugee crisis" in the opening statement (and all removed the term and the first two removed the supporting citation without even an explanation for removing a citation), all do not like the use of the New York Times as citations, the autoconfirmed identity and the latter IP have specifically removed New York Times refs and substituted them with different ones as well as removing a statement identifying the Times as the analyst of UN and World Bank data. I have used the Times as citations in instances that I have found them to be pertinent, and I have a found a Russian-diaspora-based citation to support the European refugee crisis label (which was not my original contribution, by the way). Is it justifiable for me to use a rollback in this instance? I obviously wouldn't be adjudicating the suspected sockpuppet issue. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Castncoot didn't try to explain his "refugee crisis" edit on the talk page after multiple undo's. Only later came up with a source that substantiates nothing. The IP 37.76.11.111 was me (I did not care to log in for a mere undo) but not 37.76.42.195. It's not only me in Hungary interested in AND AFFECTED DIRECTLY by this crisis who think in the same way about it. Furthermore i would like to COMPLAIN about the CLEAR BIAS of Castncoot toward The New York Times, bordering on BRAND BUILDING: Castncoot not only cites The NYT almost EXCLUSIVELY, but insists on MENTIONING IT BY NAME in the lead section of the article. Rob.HUN (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A responsible editor should strive to cite sources that are reasonbly assumed to have first hand knowledge and unbiased reportage of a situation and strive to cite not only one source. Castncoot seems more like having an agenda of pushing The NYT and the idea of "refugee crisis" into forefront. Rob.HUN (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No, rollback is strictly for acts of clear vandalism. It should not be used against merely disruptive edits, edits that might be vandalism, and it should never be used to edit war. Thanks for consulting me before you chanced it. I've temporarily blocked Rob for the edit warring and the blatant personal attacks. The suspicion of sockpuppetry is something you should take to WP:SPI as soon as possible. Regards, S warm   ♠  00:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Swarm, will do. Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

 Castncoot (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

User:Rob.HUN admitted that a very similar IP, 37.76.11.111, is his ("The IP 37.76.11.111 was me (I did not care to log in for a mere undo)").

According to https://www.iplocation.net/, the suspect IP 37.76.7.78 is from God, Pest, Hungary. User:Rob.HUN is also (as his username and his edit history prove), from Hungary.

The IP commented on Talk:European_migrant_crisis, where User:Rob.HUN was active before his 72h block. I don't think it is a coincidence that the first IP that edits that talk page section is also from Hungary and includes bolded text in his message, just as Rob.HUN a few lines above. 86.127.24.14 (talk) 07:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * IP 37.76.7.78 is continuing to edit war on the European migrant crisis article, doing the same changes User:Rob.HUN was doing yesterday: he questions the use of the term "refugee" in the lead, adds "mass immigration" in bold, etc. Nykterinos (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Rob.HUN is now editing as IP 37.76.110.22 (also from Budapest): he is adding to the European migrant crisis article the same "mass immigration" label that IP 37.76.7.78 added yesterday. Nykterinos (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If the previous evidence are not clear for some, I hope these identical edits: edit no. 1 and edit no. 2, where the first one was made by 37.76.120.31 (during User:Rob.HUN's block) and the second one by User:Rob.HUN after the expiration of his block are probative enough. 79.117.145.128 (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is it taking them so long to review this? This is relatively urgent. Castncoot (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Another similar IP, 37.76.31.32, broke yesterday the three-revert rule (3RR) at the same article (European migrant crisis). 79.117.141.26 (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing as inconclusive. Since the article is currently semi-protected, we can let this go for now. If there is future trouble with IPs there, please file at WP:RFPP.