Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jobieh/Archive

21 October 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Here's the situation: at some point I began editing the article At Dawn (novel), noticing that it lacked reliable sources and was overall promotional, being slanted to be biased in favor of Hughes. Soon after I also noticed that the author's page had similar issues, which also involved some copyvio taken from the author's site. The article was also out of date and eliminated certain things that had been well documented in various news articles, namely that Hughes had signed a contract with James Frey that stated he had to keep quiet about his author status on the Pittacus Lore books or be penalized for it. I edited the article accordingly, only to then enter into a reversion war with Ohioana over the status of the article. I got accused of putting in incorrect information without Ohioana ever actually stating WHY the information was wrong and backing it up with reliable sources or explanations. I was also continually accused of having something against the author and of vandalizing his page. I eventually outright asked if they had any ties to Hughes, as this is typically the sort of thing we see when we have someone who is directly involved with (or is) the author in some format. It was about this same time that my talk page was vandalized to the point where an admin deleted that portion of my user page to where nobody can actually see what was written. I didn't discover what happened until afterwards. This is what lead to several blocks, one of which ended up being given to Ohioana. The IP that had edited my user page had also predominantly edited the Hughes pages. A lot of the edit warring over the articles by the above accounts and IPs was to re-add certain phrases and remove anything that the user(s) found "derogatory", one of which was strangely the term "ghostwriter", which is what Hughes ultimately was when it came to the Pittacus Lore books. Long story short, the Jobie Hughes article was put on temporary full protection from any editing because Ohioana kept reverting edits without any explanation or discussion on the talk pages. (Which I had to beg for, as I'd been trying to get an admin to step in for a while.) None of the editors above tried to take part in a discussion on the talk page, not even Ohioana before they were blocked. Shortly after the protection was lifted, an IP editor came in to edit the page back to a version that resembled the version that Ohioana kept trying to revert to. 

I believe that the above IPs and accounts are either the same person or are a series of meatpuppets. The edits are all so similar that I kind of find it hard to believe that they'd be completely separate people that weren't working in tandem or weren't the same person. I tried to see if Hughes had been sending out any messages to edit the page in his favor (which happens), but couldn't find anything out there to suggest this. The reason I specify that is because sometimes you can have editors who aren't really working together but have a common goal because they want to help the author. The overall edits here by these users are pretty biased and I'd like to find out if this is the same person trying to evade a ban. I'd requested a semi-protection for the page, but had it denied and was directed here to find out if any of the editors are the same person. There's just too much promotional editing to the same version for it to be coincidence, in my opinion. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know there was a previous one and I see where there's been some blocking, but I'd like for this to be somewhat re-opened to check the other accounts listed just in case.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I've been watching this situation for a while now. I've added a couple of blocked accounts to the list of probable socks above--Thewhiteelephant44275 and Sorayanwayne.  However, based on WP:DUCK, I suspect that there are many, many more accounts and IPs that are socks of this user, and I suspect that he is Jobie Hughes himself.  Frankly, there is no one else alive who would know so much about all of the various editions of the books he has ghost-written. Qworty (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - Possibility of sleepers is singificant enough to justify a check.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * All confirmed as socks except Thewhiteelephant442275, which is
 * The actual master is, so the case wants moving to that name. If this is Jobie Hughes, you are going about it all the wrong way. Please try discussing the problem on the talkpage of the article.
 * No sleepers. Two of the IPs are already checkuserblocked, the other is a mobile phone IP, so probably not worth it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved case page to new master, per CU request, then tagged everyone. Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

05 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

I might be a little premature, but I'm checking to see if this person is a sock of User:Jobieh. In October of last year there were a series of edits done to the article for Jobie Hughes and an article for one of his books. The book has since been deleted, but what resulted ended up being a revert war to very specific versions of the articles that presented Hughes in the best light possible. A user check was done, which showed that the user that was doing the editing was actually Jobieh under some sockpuppets. Just today we had the article for Jobie Hughes get reverted to this rendition, which is the exact version that the sockpuppets were trying to keep. Because they're trying to revert to such a specific version rather than to the last version done by either myself or User:Qworty, as well as how nasty some of the editing and remarks became (one left edits on my user page that had to be deleted), I'm submitting a sockpuppet investigation. I've left a remark on the user page for Gladstone apologizing if they're not the same person but explaining the situation. Here is the previous sockpuppet investigation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   15:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - - I am requesting checkuser to confirm or deny sockpuppetry. See the comparison between the revision by the last sock and the revision by this new account. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Named user is a ✅ match to two non-stale socks in the archive. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked and closed then. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)