Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HoboLow/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I came across the above group via the kerfuffle surrounding an unauthorized biography concerning Seasick Steve. There might be others related to this, it looks like there was a small rush of people trying to add this book to the article and use it to back up major biographical chances to the article. General coverage for the book has been fairly small overall, to the point where it's mildly questionable that there would be so much effort to add this book in some form or fashion to Wikipedia. If there is a connection then I think that it's likely that there are more, but I'm kind of hesitant to link anything here at this point in time.

Long story short, HoboLow signed up and quickly set about trying to add content about a biography by Matthew Wright to Wikipedia and also made an article for Wright at Matthew Wright (critic), which is currently up for AfD. This content was reverted and there were attempts by 109.155.33.106 to re-add the information to the article here, which reverted to a version created by HoboLow. Around the same time 109.155.33.91 showed up to make this edit.

Normally I'd just assume that this is a case of someone editing while logged out and just sort of shrug it off, since it tends to happen and especially with new users. Editing under an IP is discouraged when you have an account, but not entirely against the rules as long as you state your identify if people ask who you are - which is what brought me come to SPI. In this particular case it's the comments on the user talk of, where 109.155.33.91 claimed that they were a separate editor entirely, that caused me some concern. The second IP is within the same range, so it's reasonable enough to suspect that they might also be the same person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also of note is that the IP also argued to keep the Wright article at the AfD. It's somewhat possible that they could be separate people, but these edits all came about in the same general time period when HoboLow was edit warring on Seasick Steve and that, paired with the low amount of coverage for the book and the fact that 109.155.33.106 has claimed to be someone else. In one case the IP tried to re-add/revert only about an hour after HoboLow's version was reverted by . It's just slightly too much to ignore. They haven't started voting on the same AfDs, but the edits seem a little too coincidental. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment - This could be meat rather than sock puppetry but there is unquestionably some connection between these users. Deb (talk) 10:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ping to see if he has anything to add. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said on BLPN I don't see the editing as blatant abuse of multiple accounts, considering it's a new user who isn't familiar with the policies here. But based on behavioural evidence there's no doubt about HoboLow and the IPs being the same person, and HoboLow has in this edit on their talk page in effect admitted being the writer of the book, and the subject of the article they created. Making their edits blatant promotion for a new own book and the article they created a promotional autobiography. They have also repeatedly added an external link to an online vendor selling the book, for which they were given a level-4 warning for advertising and promotion yesterday. If HoboLow continues to add the link to the online vendor or continues to promote the book and its author in other ways they should be blocked for using Wikipedia for promotion (and a very long block is deserved since they've done nothing else...), and if they then continue editing as an IP that IP should be blocked for block evasion (and HoboLow's block increased to indef if they had been given a shorter block). But until then I see nothing that merits action here at SPI, and I fully agree with Bbb23's decline of the CU request, and would have declined it myself if I had clerked here. Thomas.W talk 11:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * My basic concern is that at one point one of the IPs specifically states that they are not HoboLow, which would be seen as sockpuppetry as a sort, even if it's under an IP, if it is HoboLow. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've declined the CU reqeust. We rarely publicly disclose the IP(s) of named accounts, and I see no other justification for a CU. If you want someone to look for other accounts based on one named account, that's generally a fishing expedition.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not clear cut enough, and the activity is roughly a month old by now. Closing without further action.  If the COI activity at the Seasick Steve article resumes, then action can be taken as appropriate, but not now.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)