Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rovosaman

– An SPI clerk has relisted this case for a checkuser to make another check.

Rovosaman

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

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rovosaman/Archive.

26 June 2011

Suspected sockpuppets

• Rovasscript (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.

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)
• 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)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

•  Additional information needed - 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)

•  Administrator note Yeah, I'll call it on behavioral evidence. Blocked and tagged the sock; blocked the master 3 days. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Binaris' advice above, I'll put this to a CU. — HelloAnnyong ^{(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. TNXMan 19:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
•  Administrator note Alright, well. I've changed the block on the sock to 3 days. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The blocked IP 81.17.183.89 is now editing as Rovasinfo (talk · contribs) [1] which is surely block evasion? Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  •  Relisted 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)

---