Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshua Jonathan/Archive

24 January 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Evidence:

1.Yoga Article edit history show 2 HathaYogin (HY) reverts specifically back to Joshua Jonathan (JJ) to circumvent editwarring/eventual 3RR and game the system within 1-2 days. JJ had already very recently reverted another editor

2.Both HathaYogin and JJ advance Geoffrey Samuel (minor scholar who advances questionable assertion of “no Hinduism” before buddhism) here and JJ overuses extensively across multiple articles: Hinduism, dharmachakra, Yoga

3.I requested admin on private talk to ask user JJ to stop stealth editing during dharmachakra DRN dispute and was within mere hours dragged to ANI by HathaYogin. Seems like tit for tat via sock/meatpuppet.

4.After I only reverted hathayogin once (after reverting JJ once), HathaYogin immediately reported me to ANI (and HY was reprimanded by the admin for this). In what universe is 1 revert of a new user grounds for ANI—with no attempt to talk to me at that? A newbie who is experienced enough for ANI but not experienced enough to know that 1 revert is not grounds for ANI…odd

5. HathaYogin reported me to ANI exactly two days after account creation And only edited on the Yoga page in 2 day timeframe (first edit was a disruptive revert in support of JJ)

6. I had 2 main disputes with user JJ, the Yoga and especially Dharmachakra articles We have an ongoing DRN for dharmachakra, hence my suspicion that the egregiously premature ANI and fortuitous Yoga reverts/ANI report by HathaYogin were JJ’s attempt to undercut me at DRN, or worse.

7.HathaYogin referred to JJ as a “well-respected and senior editor” despite HY only contributing/creating account within 2 days—-how would HY know?

Worse, HathaYogin subsequently deleted "senior editor" from HY's original comment--presumably to avoid drawing suspicion.

I actually had my suspicions when HY’s first edit was a revert. More so when the HY account was created and my edit via MaterialScientist reverted mere minutes after MatSci reverted an IP. Furthermore when I was reported to ANI for 1 revert of HY, and hours after I mentioned JJ to an admin. But by HY referring to JJ as a “respected and senior editor” despite having no prior edit history (only reverts) or passable talk discussion, it became too much of a coincidence for me to go against my preference to assume good faith and avoid SP/I & ANI.

I don’t believe I’ve reported people to ANI before and absolutely never to SP/I (since I prefer discussion and collegiality), but the timing of everything was just waay too suspicious (particularly ANI for 1 revert—even admin thaddeusB found this ridiculous).

As such, I have substantial reason to believe HathaYogin is a sock or a meatpuppet of Joshua Jonathan—both of which are serious violations of WP:SOCK.

Thank you for your time. Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(Updated for subsequent actions and discoveries):

8.User Joshua Jonathan has just barged into HathaYogin’s ANI against me, confirming my suspicions of sock/meat-puppetry. Reverts on his behalf already have taken place on Dharmachakra article since mutual block.


 * Devanampriya (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

9. Deeper dive and subsequent research due to comments unearthed additional sockpuppet candidates (EtatLeal & SamuelChicken--possibly IP 176). Evidence as follows:

Team Samuel -all have pushed minor scholar Geoffrey Samuel to bypass hinduism and dilute Patanjali and/or specifically seek to remove Patanjali/Yoga Sutras references.

Single-serving Socks or Meats: EtatLEal, SamuelChicken, HathaYogin.


 * (EtatLEal)-See his ref to JJ on edit summary specifically inserting Joshua Jonathan’s Samuel quote from talk.


 * (SamuelChick)-Specifically asserting that Patanjali's Yoga Sutras need not be mentioned twice. HathaYogin also speaks out against Patanjali.


 * (HathaYogin)-Specifically reverts back to the Samuel quote that JJ first introduced on talk page. HY also against Patanjali. Relevant because this is an odd, almost fringe view. HY filed ANI within hours of me asking admin to request JJ to stop stealth editing during ongoing DRN. JJ later barged into HY's ANI. No subsequent comments/actions by HY despite extended discussion on HY's ANI. HY also made edit summary reference to Joshua Jonathan's advocacy of Samuel on talk.


 * User:176.67.169.207 - (Scroll all the way down), Specifically demands removal of Patanjali content. Reverted to Samuel quote too. Also has outstanding SP/I filed by another editor--potential link to editor VictoriaGrayson (also potential single serving sock since account created this month). Also complained about antagonists opposing experienced and "senior editors" like HY did on ANI against me.

Summation: These all appear to be single-serving socks or meatpuppets that are used and thrown away to ensure Joshua Jonathan can POV-Push Samuel theories over all opposition: Meatpuppetry, WP:GHBH and Strawman Socking... All this plays only into JJ’s hands (the originator of the Samuel ajivika/jain/Sramana/Buddhist/anything-but-hindu theory of Yoga/Dharmachakra to dilute Hinduism’s mention in the articles and very antiquity). Strategy of multiple single-serving socks/meatpuppets (all usually around a month--max a few) mixed with bad faith negotiating tactics to POV-Push and manufacture pre-ordained consensus. Serious community problem leading to issues with multiple editors (as seen on Yoga, Hinduism, Dharmacakra talk.

To improve readability for reviewing admins, I have bulletized the evidence above. Full explanation and responses to comments found below (admin Bbb23 admits to not reading most of claim. I relocated new content below here to ensure future admins do). Thank you. Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Updated in response to admin comments)

I just wanted to add that the charges that I put forth were sock and MEAT puppetry--both of which are violations of WP: SOCK. I have also provided evidence for the existence of additional single-serving Meatpuppet editors (i.e. EtatLEal et al), that have POV-pushed the same agenda of Samuel theories introduced by the prime suspect. As to who the sock/meat master is, I believe the question that needs to be asked is Cui Bono--who benefits (particularly in the light of the recent administrative wrangling). Where there is a meat puppet there is a master, and checkuser or not, I urge that the question at least be addressed. In the interest of an impartial hearing, I hope current and any new admins take all this into consideration and comment on the charge of Meat puppetry, the agenda of Samuel theories across at least 3 articles, and the existence of other single-serving users to push this agenda, before pushing to wrap up this SP/I. Thank you, Devanampriya (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(Updated Jan 29) --If this is the decision of two of the three admins, and the decision is final, then it is what it is (though I would prefer fresh admin eyes, all things considered). Let the record show that my charge of meatpuppetry was not answered by the patrolling admins, and in my opinion, was prematurely closed over my protest due to inadequate review of the evidence. Good day. Devanampriya (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Responses to Comments & Full Text of Arguments (Main points now filtered and bulletized above)

(Updated): "What a nerve". More like, struck a nerve. Calling me "stupid" even in comments is not WP:CIVIL nor does it assist in making your case for "innocence". Neither do your diffs, since you showed up to an ANI that "allegedly" didn't concern you and well before I created this SP/I.

We both also know you've been tracking my contribs since at least the 20th, which is how you made it to HY's ANI and here (so much for that complaint). You've also been in an edit war/extended talk debate with me and now ongoing DRN--further undercutting your "defense". Getting a sock/meatpuppet to report me to ANI, ties me up in red tape, maligns me during DRN discussion, and restores your beloved Samuel citation/theories on the Yoga article--all while keeping your hands neat and tidy. Good Hand/Bad Hand WP:GHBH. Res Ipsa Loquitur (The thing speaks for itself). Devanampriya (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(Updated): "So you must accuse User:176.67.169.207 of being Joshua Jonathan." No I don't--that's a strawman. I had no apparent dealings with 176 (perhaps you would know better than I would), but I did very recently and simultaneously with both HY and JJ, hence my restraint in accusation. The timing of ANI by a 2 day old newbie for 1 revert of "well respected and senior editor" is the smoking gun--and JJ's comments on that ANI even before my SP/I, the fingerprints. Samuel is merely ancillary. Actions speak louder than words, and facts speak louder than "mischaracterizations". The dharmachakra article (where JJ edited despite DRN) and talk page show exactly who is pushing an agenda. Even then I never dragged JJ to ANI. It's only because the above evidence effectively speaks for itself that I finally decided to come here. What matters is not how many collaborators does JJ have to speak for him or create strawmen, but whether JJ broke WP:SOCK through HY as a sock or meatpuppet.Devanampriya (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(Updated): "It is User:176.67.169.207 who originally created the edits". Again, distractionary strawman, primary basis is ANI report by newbie HathaYogin and conveniently timed reverts specifically to JJ's edits, not 176's edits (diffs in my report up top). Samuel is tangential--only demonstrates JJ's obvious enthusiasm for this source and theories across multiple articles. Also please respect the process and refrain from personal attacks below and posting disruptive speculation on my talk page. Just the facts, ma'am. Devanampriya (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(Updated): DRN link has already been provided (admins can see my rebuttal to second JJ comment about so-called "mainstream view" there). Participants are asked to focus on complaint, not distract with personal attacks or issues not pertaining to actual sock and meat-puppetry charges. Thank you. Devanampriya (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(Updated): "1, 2 and 4 at the top of this page." All of which show me emphasizing that HY reverted to JJ who likes Samuel, not that JJ created the edit. Here's further proof of the connection between HY and the "respected and senior editor"...


 * a. 23:31, 22 January 2014‎ HathaYogin (talk | contribs)‎ . . (103,275 bytes) (-438)‎ . . (reverted to last edit by Joshua Jonathan. See talk page.)
 * b. 04:08, 24 January 2014‎ HathaYogin (talk | contribs)‎ . . (103,275 bytes) (-438)‎ . . (This is VERY clearly discussed on the Talk page, as pointed out previously by Joshua Jonathan.)
 * See revert and specific reference not to 176 but JJ. Res Ipsa Loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. Devanampriya (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (Updated) "Devanampriya, your 1, 2 and 4 at the top of the page is clearly trying to mislead people into thinking JJ created these edits. "--Nope, evidence is obvious. But please keep insisting otherwise. It will only show who here is actually credible and speaking the truth. Devanampriya (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

(The Strawman Goeth Before The Fall) The evidence is there for people to see. Nothing but WP:KITCHENSINK. But since I'm in a generous mood, even VictoriaGrayson's never-ending strawman has now burned down. As I stated above, pts 1,2,4 assert that HY reverted to JJ--they say nothing about creation, only reversion to & use of 'Samuel'. However, Victoria insinuated that 176 created the original Samuel references. But look, what's this, 176's sole Yoga Samuel edit was in January 2014. In contrast, here is Joshua Jonathan unilaterally inserting/updating Samuel on October 19, 2013. Most damningly, On October 18, 2013 we have another user (EtatLeal) (see his ref to JJ on edit summary) specifically inserting  Joshua Jonathan’s Samuel quote from talk. Checkmate. The strawman goeth before the fall.

All of this business about JJ's trademark tell-tale overuse of Samuel is secondary anyway. The fact remains JJ & Friends have no defense for HY account creation timing within minutes of Matsci's revert to my version, HY's edit war reverts back to JJ (provided multiple times with edit summary proof), timely ANI by HY after my admin mention of JJ and said "respected and senior editor"'s incriminating involvement on HY's ANI against me, and before my SP/I. And so in their desperation, we have this distractionary sideshow (which is now taking a curtain call)...In sum, the counterarguments of JJ & Friends have been overturned, and my above points still left standing. Sock/meat puppetry for Illusion of Support & WP:GHBH by JJ is now effectively beyond a reasonable doubt. Devanampriya (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Closing Arguments:


 * It appears Mr. Jonathan is confused. This is an SP/I investigating his sock and meat puppetry, not the edit war he mischaracterizes in his third comment or the ANI initiated by him (oh, wait, that's right, by HathaYogin). He is on trial, not me. And the Chewbacca defense has no efficacy here. The Burden of Proof was on him to rebut the presumption of sock/meat puppetry I have proven (through detailed diffs at the top)--he failed to do this. Given irrelevant diffs, aka another tragic Hail Mary diversionary effort on his part, and inability to put together a cogent defense (directly or via proxies) against the WP:SOCK charges, perhaps it's time to make closing arguments.


 * The evidence adduced at the very top demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that Joshua Jonathan egregiously violated WP Standards for Behavior by engaging in Sock/Meat Puppetry via HathaYogin's disruptive edits and behavior and JJ's incriminating entry into ANI. What the reporting editor's investigation further determined however was that since at least October 2013, there has been a coordinated effort across various handles (and according to VictoriaGrayson intimations, even an IP) to POV-push on behalf of Buddhist-maximizing/Hindu-minimizing theories on the Yoga page in particular--and to a lesser degree on the Hinduism article. Dharmachakra was such a minor page with such low stakes--Team Samuel probably figured that JJ would wear me down through bad faith talk negotiation and general attrition rather than risk detection via a "neutral" user like HathaYogin, already deployed on the Yoga article. Of course, all that changed when I applied for DRN and reported JJ's bad faith stealth edits to an admin--then it was HathaYogin to the rescue (dragging me to ANI for merely 1 revert of HY). In any event, the modus operandi is as follows:


 * As I show in my last update (SGBTF), we see JJ feeding the Samuel quote via talk page on Oct 18,2013 and single serving users like EtatLeal, (the suitably named) SamuelChicken, HathaYogin(HY), and, as per VictoriaGrayson 176 all magically appearing to do the dirty work of  first inserts, reverts, or illusion of support. They all conveniently come and go within a month—sometimes a few (only to disappear when opposition subsides or is demoralized). Ms. Grayson herself appears to be on very recent--and if the trend holds, likely temporary--assignment as well. I'm not one for conspiracy theories--but this strikes even me as one too many coincidences.


 * We already know 176(scroll all the way down), SamuelChicken and HY all recycled the same tripe about Patanjali’s yoga sutras being overused...conveniently undercutting the hindu origin claims of yoga in this case.


 * And yet, all this plays only into JJ’s hands (the originator of the Samuel ajivika/jain/Sramana/Buddhist/anything-but-hindu theory of Yoga to dilute Hinduism’s mention in the article and very antiquity). Master thespian that he is, JJ played gracious recipient of all these requests for help from damsels in distress and offers of support from "neutral" single serving observers--virtually all of whom just happened to have the same convenient love of Samuel and/or gripe against the Yoga Sutras. Damn that lovable rascal, Patanjali—who knew he could have so much concentrated hate in 6 short months!


 * Oh sure, the single serving Bad Hands may come and go as useful meats or socks to POV Push, but for the better part of 6 months our Good Hand, the inimitable and irreplaceable Joshua Jonathan is the one constant factor through it all and, coincidentally, the beneficiary of this—the ringleader if you will. This was no innocent wiki debutante who was learning the ropes and lost patience and created a sock or two in the heat of the moment. Rather, this was a coordinated effort by an experienced and allegedy "well respected and senior editor" to bypass Wikipedia protocol and and manipulate editors, admins, and the process itself to POV-PUSH one author & view on Wikipedia. WP:RICO anyone?  As the RICO laws show that even for Ring leaders crime doesn't pay--so should this SP/I show that neither does MeatPuppetry.  I imagine the filibuster party down below will continue to run out the clock (facts being in short supply for them), but barring admin comments or egregious errors below, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case. I trust the facts should be as obvious to you as they are to me. It is now clear as day: Joshua Jonathan is guilty of meat & sock-puppetry beyond a reasonable doubt. Devanampriya (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

(Updated): "Admins should note that Devanampriya is deliberately trying to mislead". Given Ms.Grayson's total deconstruction and exposure in (SGBTF) and general track record, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive... "User:176.67.169.207 is a fundamentalist" And yet 176 very conveniently made exactly 1 edit in favor of JJ--has no love for Patanjali, and has an outstanding SP/I. You have no leg to stand on Ms. Grayson...Looks like I'm not the only one that suspects foul play. The matter speaks for itself.

(Updated): "The targeting of Joshua Jonathan and the Yoga page has its origin...". Yet another last ditch, desperate distraction. I'm a far more senior editor than you, HY or JJ, and he and I didn't clash until this past week on the Dharmachakra page (despite a 6mo/1year long Peloponnesian edit war on Yoga), and I engaged in extended good faith discussion and the official recommended measure of going to DRN of my own volition. So rather than pushing conspiracy theories about JJ's trials and tribulations, you both would have been far better off actually trying to rebut the charges and diffs--but you can't. The evidence I've based JJ's charges on is far too damning (hence your latest attempt to pull a rabbit out of your hat). Wikipedia is a global online effort to create an accurate, NPOV encyclopedia for humanity, through honest and civil collaboration. Yet Team Samuel (aka JJ&Friends) have shown time an again a desire to POV-Push a particular source and narrative and paint a false "mainstream" through distinctly non-collaborative efforts, aka by hook or by crook. For them, there is only one POV (Samuel), and JJ would be damned if he'd let a little thing like WP:SOCK getting in the way of meatpuppeting or strawman socking. Unfortunately, as the evidence establishes, this little jig is up. Devanampriya (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(Updated): "On January 5th-9th there was a specific discussion". More desperate straw-grasping. As admins can see rather than address the specific charges, Ms. Grayson (whose comments, I might add, were invaluable in demonstrating the greater extent of "Team Samuel's" efforts than previously thought, so thank you for that), would much rather attempt to dabble in outside-wikipedia conspiracy theories, claiming "targeting" of JJ, when his systematic conduct and abuse of wikipedia liberties and the wiki community speaks for itself. Our driving clash wasn't even on the Yoga article but Dharmachakra--so, so much for that conspiracy. Most damning, is HathaYogin's deafening silence throughout these proceedings. HY was somehow able to, in a timely fashion, create a wiki account within minutes of MatSci's revert to my version, then revert MatSci (an admin) within minutes to JJ's version, file an ANI against me mere hours after I asked an admin to request JJ to cease stealth editing during DRN, refer to JJ as a "respected and senior editor" (IP 176 uses the same phrase on the SP/I against him), and yet somehow, doesn't appear for an SP/I involving HY in the same timely fashion--all too convenient. All these figures have one thing in common, their love of Samuel citations, a fawning regard for JJ (freq using the same phrase for praise), and a dislike of Patanjali. 'The truly innocent would, as wiki instructions here advise, calmly and rationally attempt to rebut charges against them--confident in being vindicated. Instead, the accused (and his defense attorney) engage in counter-recriminations, hysterical hyperbole, harassment outside of this SP/I, and now--in a last ditch effort--conspiracy theory.' As I said at the beginning of this proceeding, Actions speak Louder than words...this is a clear case of sock/meatpuppeting. Devanampriya (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Comment by JJ Devanampriya's main problem is "my suspicion that the egregiously premature ANI and fortuitous Yoga reverts/ANI report by HathaYogin were JJ’s attempt to undercut me at DRN, or worse." How could the use of a sockpuppet help at a DRN?!? I can only paraphrase: "Action and words speak loudly here." What a nerve. For those interested:
 * Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard
 * Talk:Dharmacakra
 * Administrators' noticeboard

Also, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   10:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are the diffs for HathaYogin: 00:31, 23 January 2014 and 05:08, 24 January 2014.
 * My latest edtit at Yoga was at 12:14, 19 January 2014.
 * HathaYogin participated in a thread on Talk:Yoga, after a request by User:176.67.169.207 to me.
 * Self-revert diff; demanding tone. I'm sorry, this whole issue is upsetting me.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by Nishadhi

Dear friends, I have known Joshua Jonathan for some time and worked with him in many articles involving improvements and even in some heated disputes. To me he is a good wikipedian who always put the integrity of the article first and an editor who tried to perfect his edits with thorough extensive research. This source page regarding ″roots of Hinduism″ is a testimony for his efforts. He is open to discussion and sometimes even humble enough to revert his own edits when pointed out their mistakes. However I have never seen him using cheap tactics to promote his opinion. So I sincerely hope that this is just a misunderstanding. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by VictoriaGrayson
 * Devanampriya omits the fact the original edits in question were done by User:176.67.169.207, including the Samuel reference. So you must accuse User:176.67.169.207 of being Joshua Jonathan.  However since both vehemently disagree with each other on the topic of Aryan migration, they are clearly not the same person.  By misrepresenting the facts, Devanampriya is trying to get Joshua Jonathan out of the way, so he can push his agendas.  VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Second Comment by VictoriaGrayson and response to Devanampriya
 * How is User:176.67.169.207 a strawman?? It is User:176.67.169.207 who originally created the edits, that we are discussing! See HERE. Devanampriya is living in his own delusional fantasy world. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Second comment by JJ Removed comment in reponse to Bbb23's comment about "wall of text" diff  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I don't need a sockpuppet to make my point. Logic and sound reasoning will do - at least with reasonable people.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Third Comment by VictoriaGrayson
 * It is User:176.67.169.207 who originally created the edits that Devanampriya insinuated were created by JJ in numbers 1, 2 and 4 at the top of this page. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fourth Comment by VictoriaGrayson and response to Devanampriya
 * Devanampriya, your 1, 2 and 4 at the top of the page is clearly trying to mislead people into thinking JJ created these edits. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Fifth Comment by VictoriaGrayson and response to Devanampriya
 * Don't talk about credibility and speaking truth until you specify that User:176.67.169.207 created these edits in your 1,2 and 4 at the top of the page. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Third comment by JJ - chronology of insertion and removal of Yan

''Removed comment in reponse to Bbb23's comment about "wall of text". diff  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)''


 * Sixth Comment by VictoriaGrayson

Admins should note that Devanampriya is deliberately trying to mislead. JJ never copied Samuel to the lead. User:176.67.169.207 is the one who created the edits in the lead that Devanampriya cites in 1,2 and 4. Joshua Jonathan never created those edits in the lead. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Seventh Comment by VictoriaGrayson

Buddhist maximizing? User:176.67.169.207 is a fundamentalist Hindu who hates the Aryan Migration Theory. See Aryan Migration Talk page. Please stop digging yourself into bigger and bigger holes. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 8th Comment by VictoriaGrayson

The targeting of Joshua Jonathan and the Yoga page has its origin in Rajiv Malhotra's Yahoo Discussion Group where both were targetted earlier this month by several people claiming to be Wikipedia editors, including one person claiming to be User:Manipadmehum.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 9th Comment by VictoriaGrayson

On January 5th-9th there was a specific discussion of Joshua Jonathan and the Yoga page by several people who identified themselves as Wikipedia editors.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Fourth comment by JJ

I've opened an edit warring case against Devanampriya at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And was blocked myself too. Only fair to say that here too.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Dougweller I think it would be helpful to have a CU check here or this might not go away. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha! I was just opening the editor, to ask for this myself. Please do; it will provide clear evidence that I'm not HathaYogin. Best regards, and thanks for responding Dougweller.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I blocked the blatant sockpuppet. Guy (Help!) 00:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Based on a report at WP:AN3, I blocked Devanampriya and Joshua Jonathan. I read some of the report here. Evidence is good, but walls of text are not. My initial reaction is that the alleged puppet is not a new user but not related to Joshua. I'm not even sure if there's enough hard evidence to justify a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , are you finding the user is a puppet of Joshua or just a puppet of someone?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion on the identity of the sockmaster, but is a very blatant sockpuppet; the comments above indicate that Joshua Jonathan is a prime suspect but that was not a consideration in my block. Guy (Help!) 12:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with your assessment Bbb23, it's pretty blatant that HathaYogin is not new but I haven't seen any compelling evidence that Joshua Jonathan is the puppeteer. In terms of archiving where do we go from here? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I commented when I closed this investigation, but for mysterious reasons, I don't see my comment. I said I was closing based on the comments by two SPI clerks (I being one) and one other administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)