Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rovosaman/Archive

26 June 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Edit histories. Note that the suspected sock registered at 3 other Wikis at the same time as here (June 18). Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Defamation*: There are ways to check sock puppet accusations. As it turned out to be false unfair and unacceptable behavior - including defamation, vandalism, deleting and blocking started by a small group of interest. This have to have consequences. In advance: I am not Rovasscript nor Rovosaman. --Rovasinfo (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * For what it is worth, there are two pages at Hungarian Wikipedia User:Rovosaman and Hungarian Wikipedia User:Rovasscript. -- Evertype·✆ 10:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a case in Hungarian Wikipedia, where I am an admin. Some people force a decision that was not popular among editors, and they began to recruit supporters on an outer website. Several new editors appeared with similar names and behaviour, but were not found identical, including Rovosaman and two other, but not including Rovasscript. Now they seem to continue their holy war in enwiki. Therefore duck test is definitely inappropriate here, and I strongly recommend a CU. Bináris (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are an admin, you should be more objective: 1. The vote is on - you can not state its result (popular or not popular). 2. The case is negatively and discriminatively influencing a wide and growing user community - it is obvious to inform the stakeholders about the issue. 3. Holy war expression is for your private correspondence, not for here. 4. Note: there is a user need emerging. For whatever reason, if a small group raises "holy war" against it, the destruction can not win in Wiki. 5. Until recently, the Rovas user community silently tolerated the discriminative actions. Time is changing. The community will use the Wiki according to its rules. Get used to it. --Rovasinfo (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't come here to argue against you or continue your war here or export huwiki's problems to an SPI page of enwiki where they are quite inadequate. I came here only to tell that a CU should be run instead of a duck test, and this was accepted by a local admin. That's all and that's for the sake of objectivity that you miss so much. Thank you for your understanding and bye. Bináris (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion about their favorite topic is linked from their Facebook page which is liked by 500 people. Looks like they're canvassing for votes. It's quite likely that more than one person are involved. I'd recommend a CU too, since a CU at huwiki found all the checked ones to be different. – Alensha   talk  21:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are Hungarian speaker, so you can verify that eventhough the issue is discussed, there is no solicitation for new editors and despite of the serious critics - already stated in the discussion page, all the time the respectation of the rules is stated. Is it true, or not? --Rovasinfo (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We call this meatpuppetry. Imho, no sock investigation is even necessary, these accounts can be blocked already on grounds of general misbehaviour. --dab (𒁳) 10:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiki advices to be careful with accusations, like meatpuppetry. Check the accusations and prove it. Objectivity is recommended. "Investigation is not even necessary" is a term used probably in North Korea or Cuba. Not here. --Rovasinfo (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * you are mistaken. Just like North Korea and Cuba, Wikipedia is not a democracy. The difference is that you can quit anytime you like. You are not the community. If the actual community feels that your contributions are valuable, you get to stay around, but chances for that are very slim unless you change your approach drastically. Statements like "The [Rovas] community will use the Wiki according to its rules. Get used to it" directed at a Wikipedia admin are basically threats to commit vandalism, and are a very good way to get you banned without further ado. You are welcome to "use the Wiki according to its rules", but clearly you do not have an idea what these are, and are more interested in creating political noise than quietly learning about these rules first.  --dab (𒁳) 12:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Oops, just like NK and Cuba? Is this in accordance with the official Wiki policy or mission statements?. 2. Although I am not native English speaker, I hope my statement above was grammatially clear enough: "The community will use the Wiki according to its rules". In the sentence the "user community" is the subject, and "Wiki" follows it as object to which the pronoun "its" is closer, obviously referring to that (Wiki) - means: according to Wiki'a rules, (as stated in all the comments). The emphasis is on the word "use" pointing out that the behaviour of the (Rovas) community will change from passive endurement of deleting and threats to creation, restoration and fighting vandalism. 3. However, you criticized a sentence between the marks "" (should be exact citation) that you altered from its original version and accused me of threat of vandalism. 4. Politics were never mentioned - except by you - as all this is about a script, a cultural and scientific issue to share, that has been systematically destructed by a small group of interest. 5. The above points are criticism addressed to you, dab, as an admin. Waiting for explanations and apology for the false accusations, instead of threats of banning. --Rovasinfo (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The linked article at Rovas.info on Facebook is quite clearly canvassing for votes on Hungarian Wikipedia. So far they don't seem to have publicly canvassed for votes on English Wikipedia re the articles currently at AfD. But there are other ways to canvass. The following article makes very interesting reading:
 * "Contemporary Hungarian Rune-Writing: Ideological Linguistic Nationalism within a Homogenous Nation"
 * Alexander Maxwell, Anthropos, 99: 2004
 * Abstract: "This article analyzes Hungarian rune enthusiasts as a nationalist subculture. It gives a brief explanation of the Hungarian runes as a writing system, explaining different degrees of competency with which the script can be written. Rune-writing enthusiasts typically have a high level of education, and have organized a semi-scholarly journal, a bookstore, and a dense correspondence network. Interest in the runes is strongly associated with a revisionist cosmology. The ideological nature of this script community shows that nationalism emerges spontaneously, but the limited social basis of the movement suggests that ideology is insufficient for a mass national movement."
 * Voceditenore (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - I'm inclined to decline the request for checkuser, as I feel behavioural evidence is strong enough alone to merit action. Is there any particular reason you think a checkuser is needed in this situation, given the fact behavioural evidence is strong? Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  10:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess not, it was just the existence of accounts on other Wikipedias, but if you agree with me that this is WP:DUCK, don't bother. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Pls, read the Duck. Just for reference: 1. "The Duck Test does not apply in non-obvious cases. Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others. 2. The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump or even stand aside policies such as WP:NOR, WP:VER, WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH. --Rovasinfo (talk) 11:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll call it on behavioral evidence. Blocked and tagged the sock; blocked the master 3 days. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Binaris' advice above, I'll put this to a CU. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems more likely these are acquaintances, rather than the same person. I did not see any other accounts. TN X Man  19:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, well. I've changed the block on the sock to 3 days. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The blocked IP 81.17.183.89 is now editing as  which is surely block evasion? Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisting this one for a further check, given the fact there is another potential sock hat popped up so quickly. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  07:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you check the IP-s and identities? Hopefully, it will be clear that the sock puppet accusations (intentional defamation) are false. Waiting for apology! --Rovasinfo (talk) 09:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You could always identify yourselves by your names, you know. Aye-Aye (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Edits are signed. There were few cases yesterday of no signature due to tech problems. Apologies. --Rovasinfo (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Much like last time, I can't conclusively nail anything down. Either this is one person hopping ISPs/computers or several acquaintances. With this new account showing up here, I'm more inclined to believe the former. TN X Man  13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Abuse should be proven first. For the rec: mobile connections change IP-s. --Rovasinfo (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise some of us are in the wrong place, but to be chronological and respond to you, we now also have . Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I submit that this is really just a game of "whack the socks" at this point, no more red tape is required. --dab (𒁳) 06:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Having taken a check myself, I'm afraid I have to concur with Tnxman307's findings; in fact, I would say that it is rather that they're both the same person from the CU information that I have. They're going to have to be handled as two separate people. Marking as closed with no action taken. –MuZemike 22:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)