Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jojhutton/Archive

Report date January 27 2009, 03:17 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

I wanted to bring this here after talking with a CheckUser clerk who referred me to this forum. If I haven't done everything correctly according to the new format, I apologize and will be glad to fix or clarify anything that is brought to my attention. I recently was involved in a "dispute" with User:Jojhutton. I type it like that because I'm not too sure what the big deal was. I responded on a comment of his at Talk:Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration the same way several other editors at that page did. Joj made a comment that I had a personal vendetta against him, though I don't recall ever being in a serious or lengthy dispute with him before. I questioned him about it on his talk page, which he reverted using rollback. I left two more comments, the last one warning him about improper use of rollback, all of which he used the feature to remove. In the debate in the article talk he commented to " not let [my] worship of Obama dictate the policies of wikipedia". He also commented that " Any removal means that those removing [the additions he proposed] are not interested in improving wikipedia, but are only here to protect Obama's image." It is clear that Joj thought that I was biased against his additions as they apparantly reflect poorly on the subject. When I returned, I came across edits by, an account created just minutes before it edited, on my talk page stating "BARACK OBAMA SUCKS BUT NOT AS MUCH AS YOU DO YOU ARE FUCKING BIASED YOU MOTHERFUCKER". The edit was made four times before the account was blocked. It's obvious that that account was created solely for the purpose of attacking me, and considering that it was done shortly after Jojhutton made his opinion of me clear, I believe the accounts were used by the same individual.  Grsz  11  03:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by
 * Thanks for the attention Mayalld, and like you said, Jojhutton's reaction certainly is telling. He comments that "I'm not the only one who you have ticked off" while this may or may not be true, the fact that this abuse happened immediately after a dispute with him, I think it speaks for itself.  Grsz  11  13:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if I'm following right, shouldn't this be listed in a different section on WP:SPI then it currently is?  Grsz  11  02:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the vandalism code B is for the edits by the alleged puppet account.  Grsz  11  13:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re, I don't think it absolutely has to be a dozen edits, as the account was blocked before that. It's just the category that deals with vandalism. One of the Clerk's could clarify probably.  Grsz  11  17:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a technical question. Is there a chance this could go stale because of how long it sat still as a result of the page move?  Grsz  11  03:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Guess what buddy, you are wasting everyones time. Must you play games. If you get attacked by multiple accounts, maybe that says something about how you treat others. You need some serious sole searching if you think that I am that guy. Grsz11 mentioned earlier that he had no idea who I was. All that tells me is that he has so many run ins with so many other editors that he can't even keep them straight, but I remember him all too well.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * An identical discussion in which I posted two or three times? Maybe I'm too busy to keep track of everyone who does me wrong.  Grsz  11  03:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You better keep up because it seems that I'm not the only one who you have ticked off. It seems that you have many editors who don't like you. I looked at the edit summery on your talk page, and I can see why you would think that the vandalsim on your page might be me. It wasn't, so I think that is more telling than anything. By the way, My beef with you goes back for months, not days.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I found it. But if that's what you call "beef" then it's easy to get on your bad side. People have debates like that all the time, and closing disruptive discussions at Talk:Barack Obama is incredibly commonplace and accepted.  Grsz  11  04:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You must not have found the right one.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I see that the letter B below means that I am being accused of dozens of vandalized edits. Could someone please explain where the dozens of edits might be? Otherwise, the criteria does not fit.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The vandal only made four edits. How is that dozens?--Jojhutton (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users

Mayalld (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Self-endorsed by clerk adding request. There is a fair bit of behaviour that points to this being a possible sock. The reaction of the alleged master account in coming here to attack the reporter doesn't sit well with me, and a CU would clear it up once and for all Mayalld (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

mysteriously dropped out of the CU queue. Mayalld (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

-- Kanonkas : Talk  21:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * ❌. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)