Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hobojaks/Archive

Report date March 20 2009, 11:51 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by MacGyverMagic

Hamiltons wrath claims these are his accounts in this deletion debate and based the similarity in username and article interests, I tend to believe it about the first two suspected sockpuppets. Hobojaks could be an unrelated user and needs checking. Seeing how this directly affects a deletion debate and an ongoing article dispute, checks for other accounts on the same IP might be warranted.

Should we allow him to continue on the single account or block on sight? - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

we can well do without people playing silly games like this. It looks like none of teh accounts listed are the real master, so hopefully CU will root them out. Mayalld (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Hobojaks appears to be the sockmaster. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ the following:
 * Blocked. -- Kanonkas : Talk  17:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Report date April 16 2009, 06:20 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Edited Hamiltons wrath talk page adding User:Bitter grapes of wrath. Has an unblock request on his own user page though does not appear to be blocked. Dan D. Ric (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Dan D. Ric (talk)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Blocked. Tiptoety talk 06:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date April 16 2009, 03:37 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by C S (talk)

Unfortunately, Hobojaks doesn't seem to have learned from his/her indef block for abusing multiple accounts. Primarily on Talk:Classical_Hamiltonian_quaternions, we see several editors,, , and , all engaging in remarkably similar behavior and style of comments as Hobojaks.

The main account used so far is "Homebum", which was apparently created to avoid the indef block. Checking the ip 76.191.171.210, from this edit, pretty clearly it is Hobojaks. Then later a sequence of edits of an ip edit followed by Homebum's amending of ip comment demonstrates these are the same.

The excessively long comments on the discussion pages and inclusion of material by all three accounts are similar to Hobojak's contributions. Even though the Homebum account was being used to evade the block, I was fine with the "fresh start" and all, until these other accounts started appearing in support of Homebum. This is just repetition of the same behavior that led to the block in the first place.

The Quaternionist and Robotics lab accounts were created very soon after the block, but lay largely inactive until Homebum faced resistance to his/her edits. --C S (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Note In  truth this investigation is in retaliation for me requesting that one of User:C S cohorts stop their vandalism and wiki-hounding.

evidence: This message was posted on my talk page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Homebum&oldid=283945131

Posting a vandalism template on a user talk page, like you did on Gandalf61's talk page, can itself be seen as disruptive behavior, and persisting can get you blocked. In this case, there is nothing about Gandalf61's behavior that looks remotely like vandalism, so your action seems just like a response to your editing dispute with him. I'd suggest cutting it out. Everyone is well aware who you are. Making a new start is one thing, but a new account is a not a shield for you to use in continuing the same old disputes and behavior that got you in trouble to begin with. --C S (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Homebum (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * note According to this proposal any body who contributes cited material on the subject quaternions, is automatically considered a sockpupet, this appears to be the only evidence of any crime for the alleged the thought criminals listed.  I looked at the block being discussed, of a humble beginner user hobojaks, who did nothing wrong, except to renounce their old user name in the middle of a particularly heated deletion discussion, who was unfairly blocked in the first place.  The evidence used were statements of the accused, who stated their intention to change their user name.Homebum (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

According to user, his account was specifically created to request unblocking of 's account, which was blocked as a Hobojaks sock. Dan D. Ric (talk) 07:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * Yes, can you make sure you look at the block and talk page of, the user has requested help regarding this matter, and I've told the user their block will be dealt with as part of this investigation. Hiding T 10:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Some defense I am a legitimate user. From what I understand the purpose for blocking is to control behavior. The behavior that this block was seeking to control was logging in with multiple accounts to a deletion discussion. That behavior has not continued, so there is really no reason to block anybody. I have a new aim, and that is to monitor these deletion battles, as a champion of the oppressed underdogs of the math world who work really hard to create good articles.

So as far as concern over editing articles on quaternions that will not be a problem from my standpoint. According to wiki-guidelines a legitimate use multiple accounts is to segregate different activities into different accounts to keep track of them.

As to the contention that a single person did all that work, creating almost 100 reference links into vital historical texts on the subject of quaternions I am deeply honored, but really not that tallented. Doesn't it seem a little far fetched that a single person could have done all that?

How about this, unblock my room mate, or rather, as he would say unleash him! user talk:hamiltons wrath? Or not, it is all the same to me, maybe you should have a look at what he is proposing to do.

As far as this check user thing goes, that just confirms that people live in the same place, not that they are the same person.

Not really sure how you got that conclusion about Robotics lab? Are you really contending that he uses my home IP address? Not that I recall? I request that you check that one again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homebum (talk • contribs) 23:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested by C S (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

is. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ✅ the following as Hobojaks:


 * Blocked & tagged. Tiptoety  talk 23:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)