Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thigle/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thigle

Thigle (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
06 October 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

At this discussion on Talk:Śūnyatā, a disagreement between LhunGrub and another editor resulted in the other editor asking for an opinion of someone other than LhunGrub. Out of nowhere convientently comes a new account that has no contributions other than to support LhunGrub on this talk page, to create an illegitimate illusion of support. SudoGhost 22:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding User:Thigle to the report, because they have edited quite a few of the same articles, having similar interests and views on these topics. This, and the fact that both User:Thigle and User:LhunGrub both inserted the WikiBreak enforcer into their account when their information was disputed, although the Thigle/LhunGrub connection is not as obvious as the LhunGrub/BuddhasBiographer connection, there are enough similarities there to warrant investigation. Per Clean start, a clean start is not a means to resume similar conduct while concealing a past track record. - SudoGhost 01:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per the request below, I thought I'd give more of an explanation of why I added User:Thigle to the report. It is mostly behavorial things, such as a habit that both Thigle and the suspected socks share (namely BB), where the editor would make a talk page comment, and if someone doesn't answer within a few minutes, it is followed by numerous subsequent edits to make tweaks to the comment such as adding italics[1] or boldfacing words[2][3][4] I know that it is extremely common to go back and edit your comments a few times, but the number of subsequent edits that occured on Talk:Śūnyatā was odd enough to make me remember the last time I encountered an editor that adjusted edits of that frequency, which was User:Thigle (such as here).
That these numerous subsequent edits by both users occurred when discussing (and according to other users of those talk page discussions, misinterpreting) what was written by Paul Williams, and that these discussions both ended with the self-imposed addition of a WikiBreak Enforcer (something I've never seen outside of these two editors) when what they were saying was seriously challeneged, was enough of a coincidence that I felt it warranted adding User:Thigle here. LhunGrub's first edits were to Dzogchen, then to Rigpa, which is similar to User:Thigle's first edits. Other than these, there is nothing concrete I can show, because it is mostly something in the back of my head that would click and remind me of Thigle's behaviours whenever I would see LhunGrub's contribs on my watchlist.
I only added Thigle's name as I saw a similarity in the behavior, and I thought it important to provide as much information as usefully possible in an SPI report, even if it turned out to not be related. - SudoGhost 13:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • I've moved this case to show Thigle as the master, as it's the oldest. It's possible the two socks are connected, so I'm endorsing to find out. The master is almost stale but not quite as far as I can tell. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Moreinfo}} I can see the basis for a check on the two suspected socks, which behaviourally seem linked, but I do not see how the named master is related. Could the connection please be spelled out more clearly, with relation to Thigle? Thank you. AGK [•] 11:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Named socks are very  Likely to have the same operator. Awaiting response to above comment before checking Thigle. AGK [•] 11:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for providing an additional explanation. I've ran the check on Thigle, and he is technically  Likely to also own the two named socks. AGK [•] 13:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14 October 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Same editing pattern on the same articles, same practice of placing a Wikibreak Enforcer on the account after editing for a bit. I'm not sure if the reason for these additional accounts is because the editor isn't able to remove the Wikibreak Enforcer from User:Thigle, but that doesn't explain why they would place the Wikibreak Enforcer on User:Thigle2 after only a few edits. SudoGhost 04:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Confirmed, I'm not sure why the master was not already indef blocked but it is now. I blocked the two socks as well. Tiptoety talk 04:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tags updated. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
02 November 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Editing the same pages and continuing the same discussions as User:Thigle. Here, the user mentions Dharma Wheel, a forum that Thigle was involved with, being blocked in the past for copy-pasting content from that forum into Wikipedia into the Dzogchen article. - SudoGhost 22:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC) SudoGhost 22:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
22 December 2011[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


In addition to the nature of the content being discussed, such as a person being a "bundle of aggregates" which was being promoted by Thigle (Example: ProMPEP, Thigle), and the editor's insistance on Madhyamaka being non-nihilistic (Example: ProMPEP, Thigle) similar behavioral evidence as those discussed in previous SPIs match those of this user. Looking at this talk page's editing history, the sockpuppets of Thigle stick out based on the numerous subsequent "tweaking" edits to the initial comment (often 10+ edits), many of which are just to go back and boldface specific words. Also, the user's first edit mentioned "a forum" that I believe may be the same forum that Thigle frequently alluded to (and copied content from). Also there is the insistence on using the word "bundle" (Examples: ProMPEP Thigle sock another Thigle sock)

That, and the assertion by ProMPEP and Thigle that users don't have the "right" to revert any edits, and accusing editors with them they disagree with accusations that they "know very little about this subject."[5] which is something Thigle also retorted with in discussions to attempt to discredit individuals [6] (note: that diff is not from Thigle, but summarizes his behavior on that talk page. The full discussion for that section can be found here), with a similarly specific wording of "this subject", and that the sources must be "over their head" (Example:ProMPEP, Thigle).

The final similarity is occasionally (seemingly randomly) changing the timestamp when tweaking an edit (Examples: ProMPEP Thigle example1 Thigle example2). I am aware that, to my knowledge, there is nothing wrong with this by any means, but the behavior is uncommon enough that I felt it should be mentioned as well.

I see too many behavioral and linguistic similarities for it all to be coincidental. - SudoGhost 19:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  • I went ahead and blocked. On a side note, thanks for the thorough presentation of evidence above. Tiptoety talk 07:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
02 March 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

After this comment at ANI, looking at the contribs shows a similar editing pattern as Thigle, and looking through the contribs shows a pattern with CO2Northeast as well. Thigle has a history of using multiple sockpuppets at a time, and has shown no intention of ceasing this behavior. If it is determined that a checkuser is needed, I would recommend checking for sleepers and/or other accounts as well, as Thigle's behavior in the past and searching for sleepers before have demonstrated that there are likely more accounts if this is Thigle.

The similar focus on Dzogchen related articles, the near exclusive use of Paul Williams references (as shown in previous SPIs). Within the same day, CO2Northeast edited Hindu astrology, and Bhagavad Gita. These are similar in that they are Hindu in nature, but they are very specific and unrelated topics. AssociateLong then later edited the same articles Bhagavad Gita and Hindu astrology within the same day, making identical edits to Hindu astrology. On the Bhagavad Gita article, the removal of ISKCON references by CO2Northeast and AssociateLong add to the coincidence that they both made the same edits on the same articles with a 24 hour period.

In the past few months, most of the activity on Madhyamaka and its talk page have been between a dispute of some kind between User:20040302 and User:Sunray disagreeing with a sockpuppet of Thigle, and CO2Northeast's first edits were to continue this. On the Ground of Being (Dzogchen) article. Thigle seemed to display some ownership issues with the article, which AssociateLong has PROD'd (this article is well-sourced, and has no chance of actually being deleted by PROD). SudoGhost 02:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed. In addition to Sudo's findings above, I've added Amandamese onto the list for their edits on Lhündrub Tögal, namely these two edits. Thigle and another of their socks also edited that article. Amandamese also edited Mahamudra, as did AssociateLong, one of the other accounts here. Anyway, endorsing for confirmation and sleepers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following are  Confirmed as being the same as ProvisionalMPEP (talk · contribs):
  •  Blocked but awaiting tags
  •  IP blocked
  • Additionally, thanks for the thorough presentation of evidence. Tiptoety talk 06:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: Damn. Tags updated. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
08 March 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


On 3 March, 16 sockpuppets of Thigle were found and blocked. On 4 March, this editor appeared and began to edit the same articles as sockpuppets of Thigle (the editing history of Tathāgatagarbha Sutras for example looks like a Thigle sock party, and Śūnyatā is also no stranger to Thigle's sockpuppetry). - SudoGhost 22:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
01 August 2012[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Thigle is an indefinitely blocked user who has used many other sock puppets before. (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thigle) Thigle, through his sockpuppets CO2Northeast, AssociateLong and SaibAbaVenkatesh, has been pushing his POV in the articles Bhagavad Gita (example of activity in article, on the talk page), Advaita Vedanta (article example, talk page) and Hinduism (article, talk page). It is curious that BrahmanAdvaita started editing wikipedia a month or two after these socks had been blocked and found his way to all the three pages, pushing similar POV, in <200 edits. (A few examples: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12])

You will notice his conversations on a few of the talk pages start right where conversations involving AssociateLong or SaibAbaVenkatesh end. But most telling similarities between him and AssociateLong are:

  • Objection to ISKCON content in the articles. (AssociateLong's objection, Brahman Advaita's objection) and
  • Both thought Steve Rosen was a "dubious reference". ([13], [14]) To me this confirms he is a sockpuppet of Thigle (AssociateLong). BrahmanAdvaita was not even a registered user when AssociateLong questioned Steve Rosen. To mention this in his edit summary looks like a freudian slip to me. I leave the rest to your best judgement. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence:

Please also check for sleepers, Thigle has been known for using them in the past. Other editors like Atiyogafan could also be his sockpuppets. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I have also noticed a connection between the users: Atiyogafan, Borakai and Wrothscaptcha and I have tagged their user pages. BrahmanAdvaita was participating in the same edit war. Freelion (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - There appears to be enough overlap that defies coincidence to justify a closer look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following accounts are all  Confirmed with each other:

 IP blocked. WilliamH (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clear pattern of abuse with existing accounts, tagged and blocked socks and all sleepers. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16 January 2013[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Thigle is an indefinitely blocked sockmaster who has been editing articles on Buddhism with a very specific POV using his sockpuppets. Merigar joined Wikipedia one month after the last round of socks had been blocked and in <225 edits found his way to the same group of almost unrelated articles. A few examples: Dzogchen (Merigar[20], LhunGrub[21], Thigle[22]); Rainbow body (Merigar[23], Tawnsrack[24], Thigle[25]); Rigpa (Merigar[26], JesonRae[27], LhunGrub[28], Thigle[29]); Kadag Trekchö[30] (Merigar, Wrothscaptcha, AssociateLong, Amandamese); Mahasiddha[31] (Merigar, CO2Northeast); Shaivism[32] (Merigar, CO2Northeast, LhunGrub); Vajrayana[33] (Merigar, CO2Northeast, LhunGrub, Thigle) ; Tibetan Buddhism[34] (Merigar, AssociateLong) and others.

There are many behavioral similarities as well:

  • Removing non–English, particularly Chinese, sources — Merigar[35][36], Tawnsrack[37], Madokk[38]
  • Restoring the same content on theologians Sadyojoti, Bhatta Nārāyanakantha etc. in Shaivism — Merigar[39], CO2Northeast[40]
  • Removing awareness from content related to Dzogchen — Merigar[41], Thigle[42]
  • Replacing Prana or Qi with Vayu — Merigar[43][44], Atiyogafan[45] (scroll down)
  • Removing content on mindstream/consciousness/awareness linked to Dzogchen from Kadag Trekchö — Merigar[46], Wrothscaptcha[47]
  • Many of Thigle's sockpuppets including Merigar have removed cited content on pretext of removing uncited material or without edit summaries.

In all previous instances sleepers were found. This time around this appears less likely. I have found open proxies (66.85.128.186[48], 109.123.115.222[49], 37.157.246.90[50]), other IPs (24.172.238.230[51]) and unconfirmed accounts (JonSamaya[52]) restoring Thigle's edits or pushing similar material across pages. My guess is, this time Thigle is using open proxies rather than multiple accounts on the same IP. However, given the history, a CU check could still be helpful. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 20:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merigar recently added a quote by Ronald Inden to Buddhism and Hinduism.[53] The exact same quote was added by CO2Northeast[54] and SaibAbaVenkatesh[55] to other articles. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]
  •  Clerk endorsed - Worth a check for sleepers. (X! · talk)  · @250  ·  05:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed Merigar and PizzaOven
  •  Confirmed JonSamaya and BikshuRob
  • The connection between the two is  Inconclusive. Everything else is  Stale. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking. IMO, all four belong to the same sockmaster. Merigar appeared minutes after JonSamaya on Buddhism and Hinduism, an article either of them had not edited before, and restored his edits. The single mainspace edit BikshuRob has made is in Theravada[56]. The edit shows the same anti–Theravada POV as Merigar[57] and indeed other sockpuppets of Thigle. PizzaOven is obviously a sock. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 12:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
09 March 2015[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Seeing these discussions[58]-[59]-[60] you can see the want of changing the whole pages. Now you would think that how could Thigle give up? And where he is for over 2 years? Probably he never gave up and he is still around with us.

Account was created during the same time when Thigle was socking a lot. And this account seemed hardly active then,[61] While he informed on the talk page that he has "revised" entry[62], he also informed that he has revised order[63] on the same page.

Still talking about "Royal circles" [64], like he did 2 years ago: [65] His point of view is just like every other sock puppet(of Thigle) had. I will provide some edit summaries match here.

-We say talk page, but he calls them "discussion page", and told others to "See discussion page"[66]-[67]-[68]
-"I suggest you read"[69]-[70]
-"in conjunction with"[71]-[72]
-"to satisfy"[73]-[74]
- "has nothing to do with" [75]-[76]
-".. to appropriate sections"[77]-[78]
-"removed double"[79]-[80]-[81]
-"removed/removing dubious"[82]-[83]
-"modified sentence"[84]-[85]
-"oops" [86]-[87]-[88]-[89]
-"more neutral" [90]-[91]-[92] "more accurate" [93] - [94]
-"removed unsourced info"[95]-[96]-[97]
-"added info"[98]-[99]
-"know very little about"[100]-[101]-[102] (also pointed in previous SPI)
-"Why not ...?"[103]-[104]
-(explanation)"'. See talk page" [105]-[106]-[107]-[108]
-:added a link to [109]-[110]
-"Thanks (username)" [111]-[112]
-"please see talk page"[113]-[114]
-"added link to main article"[115]-[116]

Specifically mentions that he "undid vandalism" [117] - [118]-[119]

Same opinion that Buddha was not born in Royal Hindu family because the term Hinduism "did not even exist at that point / did not exist at that time" [120]-[121] (both times, notified on talk page too)

Same style of opening talk page sections, he quotes a couple of words in the heading.[122]-[123]-[124]-[125] Often opens new sections with the title NPOV[126]-[127]

Much to tell. Even his style of discussion is similar to JJ. Apart from the usual extraordinary claim that he is making here[128](italic),[129] you can also see that he is making long quotes of other website/book, JJ always do that.[130](italic)-[131](italic)-[[132]

-Typically bolds a number of words of the quotes that he has copied.[133]-[134]
- Praises many scholars, points to Ronald Davidson and his book: Indian Esoteric Buddhism[135]-[136]-[137], there are many but I would point the praise about Paul Williams[138]-[139], as it was also pointed in the previous SPI.

His major contributions are limited to the main Hinduism, Yoga,[140]-[141] Bhagavad Gita, Advaita Vedanta[142] and Buddhism ones like Rigpa, Zen,[143] Dzogchen [144], Buddha-nature, Śūnyatā etc. That speaks too. It is also notable that none of his contributions have reached to any pages of Christianity, Islam with just any account.

Over the years, he learned that you cannot have your changes on Wikipedia when you have behavioral issues. He changed his profile, he used a new account, and even used proxies like someone reported in previous SPI, but still he couldn't change himself that much. He used to infringe copyrights just as he did with Joshua Jonathan,[145]-[146] and he used to make fake allegations about harassment,[147] just as he did with JJ.[148] Preferred bringing article disputes to ANI.[149]-[150]

-It was also reported in previous SPI that he removes non-English citations, and also the Chinese ones.[151]-[152] Yes he did that with Joshua Jonathan too. [153]-[154]-[155]

I have not even researched the contributions to the main pages, but I have found some diffs, where he is bringing sock's contributions to the main page.

See Hatha Yoga:

"against the palate for the purposes of controlling hunger or the mind, depending on the passage"........[156] (sock)
and [157] (JJ)

Bhagavad Gita:

Claimed that "Gita having been influenced by the soteriologies of Buddhism, Jainism, Samkhya and Yoga" [158](sock).
And then he repeated this change with JJ[159], this time "appeal of the soteriologies both of the "heterodox" traditions of Buddhism and Jainism and of the more "orthodox" ones of Samkhya and Yoga".

Hinduism:

[160] That time it was "Hinduism replaced Buddhism as the dominant religion of India,[12][13][14][15] absorbing many of its elements in the process"
Different words, but he made this point as a fact on the lead.[161] (still claiming that Buddhism influenced Hinduism), then [162] ("co-existed for several centuries with Buddhism,[19] to finally gain the upperhand at al levels in the 8th century CE")

See Advaita Vedanta:

He inserted the unknown "Buddhist influence",[163] again.[164]

These are clearly same. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that even the last suspected duck account on JJ's SPI[165], shared similarities, ". See talk page"[166]-[167]-[168] And running all the way to administrator noticeboards for article disputes[169]-[170]-[171] same as JJ and other blocked socks did. But they could not request unblock. Bbb23 had not declined that SPI and thought that the evidence was good.(I hadn't posted anything there) Bladesmulti (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
----
Amitrochates: This is not all, I have more evidence and thought of putting this enough for now. See this way, wherever JJ went, socks of Thigle would automatically leave. For an example, see Zen. Clearly Thigle was obsessed with Zen,[172] but once JJ started to contribute into this page, you wouldn't find any blocked socks there. Obviously because now Thigle's mission was accomplished. Since you have looked into the main page content, see these:
He slowly placed the blocked sock contributions pages. Take Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Compare below diffs with this[173](sock).
Removed: have become the most important text of yoga, the opinion of many scholars is that Patañjali was not the creator of yoga, which existed well before him, but merely a great expounder[174] (JJ)
Removed : which, according to the Yogatattva Upanishad, is divided into four forms - Mantrayoga, Layayoga, Hathayoga and Rājayoga.. it remained till his some of his new changes[175](at lead) and he removed it here [176](JJ)
CorrectKnowledge, you had seen[177], now compare that JJ[178] one with this [179], same : must have seen the appeal of the soteriologies both of the "heterodox" traditions of Buddhism and Jainism and of the more "orthodox" ones of Samkhya and Yoga.
[180](sock) there was no mention of yogic, jnana, moksha. Now see.[181](JJ)
See Chakra:
Breath channels (nāḍis) of yogic practices had already been discussed in the classical Upanishads, eighth-century Buddhist Hevajra Tantra and Caryāgiti hierarchies of chakras were introduced [182](sock)
It was not there until the very recent changes of JJ[183], here: [184] JJ recovered the sock.
Like I have written, JJ just continued to spread the changes of Thigle, one by one.
Now lets analyze another page here.. It is Madhyamaka, where Thigle protested for his 'Abhidharma' [185](sock) contributions. JJ started to insert about it,[186] and then created a whole section.[187] Pre-JJ version had no indication of Abhidharma.
It is easy to judge, but I can make it more easier. Here's the Pre-JJ version[188] for comparison.
Sock[189] introduced the extremes of eternalism/essentialism and "nihilism". JJ brought them back.[190] Pre-JJ version[191] had no 'extreme eternalism and annihilationism', 'Essentialism and nihilism', or just 'extreme' if it matters.
Thigle also edit warred and asked for[192](sock) separate section for "two truths", edit warring:[193]-[194](socks), and finally after a while, it happened.[195](JJ)
Thigle[196] removed :"As ignorance is identified within twelve nidanas as being the root of Samsara it is important within Buddhism to develop its antidote, wisdom, the way of knowing how things really are." And then JJ removed it too.[197]
The more I see these socks, the more similarities I would discover and it is easy. Shrikanthv just did it below. Same amount of typing errors[198]-[199] And same edit summaries:
"added sourced info"[200]-[201]-[202], "cleaned up"[203]-[204], added.. "info and sources" [205]-[206], LOL [207]-[208](title of new section) "the funny thing is"[209]-[210]-[211] and more. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23: JJ often said 'discussion page'.[212] Bladesmulti (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users[edit]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • As someone who has sniffed Thigle's sockpuppets twice (I went by User:CorrectKnowledge back then) I guess I am the resident Thigle expert or a dog. :) Either way, I am taking this SPI seriously because it appears Bladesmulti has provided two compelling diffs in his case: partial or complete restoration of Thigle's edits in Bhagavad Gita and Hatha Yoga. I find the rest of their evidence unconvincing. I have interacted substantially with both Thigle and Joshua Jonathan and based on those interactions alone I am pretty sure JJ is not Thigle.
But leaving my personal experiences aside, there are good technical reasons to believe JJ is not connected to Thigle. For starters, the last two CU checks took place on 2nd August 2012 and 17th January 2013. JJ was already an active editor by then. If he was a sockpuppet, one of those checks would have showed it. Besides this, unlike Thigle's sockpuppets, he never made an attempt to intervene in any of Thigle's edit wars. In fact, the second time I was reverting edits of one of Thigle's sockpuppet, he posted this on my talkpage. It's highly unlikely that Thigle would idly standby as his edits were being reverted across articles. I have other reasons to believe JJ is not Thigle but I don't want to spill WP:BEANS any more than I have to. I think the two somewhat compelling diffs in the evidence can be attributed to coincidence. Proving that JJ is indeed Thigle would required overwhelming evidence, something Blades has not provided. Regards. Amitrochates (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more than just the two articles that you have edited. In fact they are enough evidence because JJ has clearly restored the socks on and now he had decided not to discuss any of these edits because he knew that it would inflame debate,[213] instead he thought of making many edits so that no one else would bother to check. Furthermore, Thigle and JJ have 100% same interest, I find JJ on every article that was edited by Thigle. Thigle had used proxies, and IP hopped for edit warring, which is sufficient enough to escape from IP range. You have just said that Thigle could never give up edit warring, I would question that why he left two years ago and why JJ started to restore his edits only when you got inactive from May 2013? Your conversation also shows that JJ was aware of your actions re:Thigle, any sock master would decide to play safe. Other than the tall list of same edit summaries provided by Blades, I have found some more usual expressions of JJ like "really relevant" [214][215] "I am glad to" [216][217], "LOL"(new sections)[218][219] it just shows that there is a single person behind these accounts. Shrikanthv (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thigle was active before I became active. From what I've seen from him, he had, ehm, 'peculiair views', to put it friendly. Most telling: he advocated some sort of Perennialism, and some sort of everlasting Atman, called "mindstream". (No, that was B9Hummingbirdhoovering, if I remember correct; the two of them were active in the same period, as far as I know.) Anyone familair with my edits knows I'm not a perennialist; see, for example, my discussions, at Talk:Mysticism (another place where I made heartfelt friends).
But Thigle was not dumb; he read a lot. If I restored info from, it must have been because the info was correct. The fact that he and I have referred to the same books speaks for the quality of the books. But have a look at User:Joshua Jonathan/Sources for an impression of the amount of sources I've been using. Of course you'll find matches; you'll find the same matches with any user at Wikipedia who uses reliable sources.
Regarding "LOL" and "I am glad too": see Google "LOL" and Google "I am glad too" for the uniqueness of these phrases. The first time I read the term "LOL", here at Wikipedia, I had no clue what it meant. If you want to compare phrases, you should count "emphasises"; that's a term I use too often, inc;uding the second "s", which shoud actually be a "z", as far as I know. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
NB: "as far as I know" is another phrase I use often: it's a straight translation from the Dutch "voorzover ik weet". I guess (another one) there are more of such "Dutchianisms" that I use; I guess that Drmiess has recognised (again the "s") them too.
Looking at Thigle's edits and behaviours (I've just opened his Special:Contributions/Thigle), here are a few interesting points:
  • Thigle's English seems to be better than mine; mine is a second language; he seesm to be a native speaker, including slang and standard phrases that I don't know;
  • Thigle removed "Sanātana Dharma" from the Hinduism-article. I added it to the article (or defended the addition), since I felt it was a fair compromise to this view on Hinduism diff (the diff was kindly provided by Blades). Funny thing is, looking back I removed it with this edit, but because it already was in the lead; see also Talk:Hinduism/Archive_29#Sanatana_Dharma, Talk:Hinduism/Archive_29#Also_known_as and Talk:Hinduism/Archive_29#Sanatana_Dharma_again. I also added "way of life" to the lead ("Hinduism is the dominant religion, or way of life"), which was a very nice, and appreciated compromise.
  • Thigle displayed offensive and insulting behaviour frequently. Phrases like "Hindu fundamentalist idiots" Talk:Advaita_Vedanta/Archive_2#Changes made. and "By the way none of you know jack shit about Buddhism in India" diff are not the kind of phrases that I would use, as many editors around here can testify; see also User:Joshua Jonathan/Appreciation;
  • Thigle got blocked after only 937 edits. I wanted to see what his userpage looked like; nothing. Compare this with my userpage, even after only a couple of months [220], which also included then already subpages on sources and tools;
  • His talkpage, though, became a red mass of warnings. Quite a contrast to mine;
  • I noticed that Thigle also interacted with User:Aoidh; Aoidh (then called SudoGhost) gave me my very first warning, and my first two Barnstars; see (for both! I kept his warning too) User:Joshua Jonathan/Appreciation; I guess Aoidh can also give some opinions here;
  • Thigle's two top-edited pages were Dzogchen and Ground (Dzogchen). From both, I removed a lot of rubbish (not only from Thigle, but also from B9Hummingbirdhovering): Ground (Dzogchen) and Dzogchen (which was not appreciated by Robert Walker/Inventor, but that's another story; apparently (another term I use often) people can always find fault in what you're doing, no matter if you're going left or right, forward or backward);
  • Nevertheless, it is remarkable how Thigle and I defended the same positions on the influence of Buddhism on Hinduism, and the fact that "Hinduism" did not exist as such before the start of the common era. So, I can understand that Blades sees similarities. But... given the fact that these are mainstream scholarly views, it may also mean that Thigle, with all his insulting and abusive behavior, did have some correct understanding of the history of Hinduism and Buddhism. After all, that's what may happen when you read reliable sources.
NB (yet another phrase): I'm sorry for Bbb23 for all the extra work he's got to go through. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and two more:
  • Blades' gave a couple of links which included sources diff1 diff2. Diff1 mentions Kulke and Rothermund (without the year of publication, nor the publisher); I added this source to my source-list quite recently, from a Google-search. But I used the same info, but from David Anthony (2007), The Horse, the Wheel and Language. Diff2 starts with Olivelle; that's a top-scholar. No idea what the "Eliot Deutsch and Rohit Dalvi" source is. My point is: if I were Thigle, how many sources would one expect to be the same? 100%? 50%? What does it say when there are sources used by Thigle which have never been used by me?
  • Thigle seems to have had the nasty habit to write whole sentences, and even paragraphs, in bold at talkpages; see for example Talk:Hinduism/Archive_27#TheMandarin_mistaken_on_WP:SYNTH. Maybe there is an example of me doing the same somewhere, but I doubt it. The same archive-page is telling for the kind of discussions Thigle apparently had; several editors complained of his "shouting." I've been accused of a lot already, but not of "shouting". Best regards (did Thigle ever use that phrase?), Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, toch wel: diff, also provided by Blades. Unfortunately, he missed this part: "(emphasis by McRae)". And of course my comment above, where I state that I am not a perennialist. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Hey there Joshua J, It's great to see you on Madhyamaka - I do hope you understand that I've been sort of single-handedly defending the article from some really wild ideas, and it has made me a little defensive at times. However, I totally buy into the spirit of co-operation and hope that you will find the tolerance and forebearance necessary to put up with my rather lengthy rants. I like your ideas, and think that, if you have the time, a Western scholarship section would be very good. (20040302 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC))
Hi 20040302. It seems to me that you've been very polite and patient in the disoutes that have been going on at the Madhyamaka-page. I met the same opponent at the Sunyata page, so I understand eventually defensiveness. Recently I've been re-ordering the Yogacara and Eight Consciousnesses pages as well, jumping to those pages from the Zen page. Well, Madhyamaka seemed to be the next page. But indeed, with a preference for cooperation. And you seem to be more knowledgeable on the subject than I am, so I estimate your opinions and ideas. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)"
I just checked the Sunyata-page, february-march 2012: 12 edits by me, Goolog's revert (a sock-puppet) User:Gooolog), and here in toto diff, all my edits reverted by Gooolog].
Maybe, you never know, maybe Thigle was very clever and used various socks against each other, to hide his traces. Anyway: 20040302, do you think, or feel, that Tigle and I are the same? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell you are not Tigle, Joshua Jonathan. Tigle has particular characteristics which you do not seem to replicate. Moreover, I am under the impression that you generally listen to an argument and take it on it's merits! (20040302 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Let me be more assertive. Unless Thigle is some sort of master genius from a bond movie, there is no way that Joshua Jonathan and Thigle are the same person. I am sure of this. (20040302 (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Please focus the discussion here to evaluating the evidence in a constructive manner. Mike V • Talk 03:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stuff and nonsense. JJ is one of the more upright editors I know; this is simply Blades continuing his persecution of his one time mentor, the editor who prevented him from being site-banned (I'll dig up the diffs for this is people wish to see them). Most of that evidence is total crap, I have used most of those edit summaries at one point or another, and so have many editors who edit controversial areas and so have to carry out a lot of reverts. The rest are purely coincidence, if indeed there are any others. Blades, this is quite likely to boomerang on you as a case of wikihounding. Seriously, you took JJ to AE, and when that didn't achieve anything you bring him here on a totally different charge? Precisely what are you trying to achieve? Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence presented is worthy of comment by experienced SPI clerk in my view, I do not have much experience with SPI. About wikihounding, Vanamonde93 reported me 5 times in AN I think. Joshua, if you think that wikihounding thing has merit (do you think so?) then you also know what I face. Kindly respond (preferably on my talk page). --AmritasyaPutraT 17:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be ridiculous; my reports have nothing to do with this one. In any case, two of those resulted in blocks; so mine were clearly with merit, whereas there was no merit whatsoever to the AE post, and the admins on Blades' page have acknowledged as much. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The AE noticeboard took action and you say: there was no merit whatsoever. Three times it did not -- that is wikihounding. I was new, you were blocked before. --AmritasyaPutraT 02:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing clear evidence that suspected sockers caused harm ... even if the accuser makes a case for the same behavior. I doubt this SPI claim is valid. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: New evidence, the accuser is now hounding blocked [222]. The accusers underlying case for disruptive behavior here has been weakened. Seems like the content dispute should be conducted elsewhere with constructive compassionate advice given to the accuser's frustrations with other forums. Existing evidence here shows both agreement and disagreement in views and common perfunctory phrases between suspects. Proprietary analysis forecasting a true negative SPI technical result with considerable complications. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hatha Yoga analysis: I spot-checked a couple of pieces of evidence, and found that the content overlap between JJ and Thigle is likely to have an innocent explanation, at least in those instances. To spell-out one example: diffs show that both JJ and a Thigle sock added "against the palate for the purposes of controlling hunger or the mind, depending on the passage" etc to the Hatha Yoga article. However looking more deeply, the actual sequence of event is as follows:
    • On Sep 14, 2013, User:Samenewguy (a blocked sock account of User:Apalaria) deleted the relevant sentences from the article, which were presumably previously added by a Thigle sock.
    • On June 4, 2014 it was User:VictoriaGrayson who added back those sentences as part of a significant rewrite.
    • User:Yoonadue clearly did not like the rewrite the they and Victoria had a couple of back-and-forth reverts over the next month, with Yoonadue's version prevailing as of June 29, 2014.
    • On July 4, 2014, JJ restored information from Victoria's version (with edit summary even saying "re-inserted sourced info") and then proceeded to add/delete substantial other content to/from the article.
Given this sequence, it is IMO overwhelmingly more likely that JJ saw the then recent reverts between Yoonadue and Victoria, preferred the latter version, and built on that than the possibility that JJ is a secret sock of Thigle who let the concerned content remain deleted from Sep 2013 to Jun 2014, waited for Victoria to restore it, and then jumped in a month later (or that Victoria and JJ are both Thigle socks... ).
Others may want to review other parts of the evidence, but from what I have seen I doubt JJ is Thigle's sock. Disclosure: I have long interacted/collaborated with JJ and Bladesmulti; haven't (knowingly) come across Thigle or any of their socks. Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb23, I chime in on your question below. I see this SPI accusation symbolically as an immortality test at the risk of Blades self harm. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC) BTW if JJ were immortal, then he would paradoxically be capable of being that infamous James Bond villain that Thigle could be. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb23, I apologize if my comment was unclear. I am not saying that Blades is after JJ because JJ prevented Blades from being site-banned. I believe that Blades is after JJ because JJ, in his capacity as Blades' mentor, has applied far closer scrutiny to Blades editing and his modus operandi than virtually any other editor on the 'pedia. Without getting into a detailed critique of Blades, suffice to say that his content editing has its pros and cons. I believe that JJ's scrutiny was getting in the way of things that Blades' wished to do. And I am basing this belief on more than a year's worth of watching many of the interactions between the two of them, and participating in a couple. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from mere conviction, I have had experience with both JJ and Thigle. I was 'honoured' by Thigle creating new socks as a means of backing up his claims. I don't believe JJ does this. Secondly, Thigle never read my arguments thoroughly. He skim-read them, looking to see if I had responded to his current thoughts, something JJ does not do. JJ is good at reading responses. 3: Thigle didn't bother with reasoning. As an oppononent to his arguments I was merely 'wrong'. Something JJ does not do. 4: Thigle never, ever showed any willingness to compromise. Instead, he would choose an alternative, and consider the matter closed, editing the article with his new solution, not. JJ technique. 5. Thigle never used humility in his comments (and was barely civil), whereas JJ is often civil and humble. 6. thigle never admitted to being wrong, something JJ does with grace. Thigle's incoherent, uncompromising claims of tknowing truth was never going to work in Wikipedia, which was why he resorted to proliferous sock-puppetry. He didn't show genius. He was frustrated with Wikipedia, and made attempts to get me to reveal my identity in order to continue the debate outside of WP which, I am sure, was an invitation to intellectual stalking. I like JJ. I can work with him. We respect each other's domains of expertise, and we both listen to each other. We do not always agree, but we always come to a compromise. 20040302 (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! See, for example, diff, diff, diff. And also diff, diff. Best regards (sorry for the weekend, Bbb23; thanks for all your efforts!), Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments[edit]

 Clerk note: There are a lot of diffs to go through. Thus far, I've gone through only the list of phrases and words, but I want to jot down my comments lest I forget them later. First, the phrases are very common, so I don't find them generally compelling. Second, there are inconsistencies. In particular, In the diffs about discussion vs. talk page, Joshua always capitalized "Discussion Page", whereas the sock did not. Second, the "please see talk page" is obviously inconsistent if you want to say that Joshua and the socks say only "discussion page". Again, though, Joshua is consistent when he says talk page, he says "Talk Page". FWIW, I either say "talk page" or "Talk page"; I don't believe I've ever said "Talk Page".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone is aware - including other clerks - I will probably not be evaluating any more evidence here until, at the earliest, this weekend. It takes a fair amount of energy to go through as much evidence as Blades has presented (I'm not opining on the quality, just the amount), and at the end of my real-work day, I'm too tuckered out. However, I do have one question for Vanamonde93. You stated that Blades is persecuting JJ because at one time JJ was Blades's mentor and JJ prevented Blades from being site-banned. I don't know anything about that or in fact any of the back story on Blades and JJ, but facially that seems odd. Why would Blades want to punish his former mentor who helped him? You made your comments in the now-hatted section, so please respond to my question at the bottom of the Comments by others section. I wouldn't normally go into this sort of thing at an SPI - and naturally evidence trumps everything - but given all the accusations being made against Blades, I'd like to understand at least this one aspect. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find the diffs about Hinduism not existing at a certain time persuasive. Admittedly, I am ignorant on the subject, but it doesn't sound like a revolutionary concept and therefore one that could be shared by multiple editors. The placement of a quote in the section header is slightly more telling, but not by much. I also wonder based on the first diff whether the master and his confirmed puppets use English or American spelling. In that first diff, the puppet says "politicized", whereas JJ in the second diff (I think) says "civilised". This edit by the same puppet spells "civilization" with a z. And this edit by the master spells "realizing" with a z. Even that wouldn't be enough to hang your hat on, but it is curious. The italicized quotes don't interest me. Many editors put quotes in italics, even in articles where the italics are just plain wrong. With respect to the ANI issue, the Walker ANI seemed at least colorably justified, particularly based on the closure. The other ANI, at least facially, seemed like the wrong kind of dispute to bring to ANI (more content than conduct), but that sin is unfortunately shared by many editors, not just JJ. As for the removal of non-English sources, in the first diff there was another basis (undue). In the second diff, it looked like the non-Enlish source was unnecessary (the comment about cookies is a bit bizarre), and in the third it's the removal of external links, and non-English websites should be avoided in external links (unlike refs, where they are permitted). I'll come back to this later; there's more to review (sigh).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Hatha yoga diffs, at first blush, because some of the edits appear to be identical, one might conclude that such evidence is compelling. However, if you look back at the history preceding JJ's edits, you can see that the identical material was removed and restored multiple times, and not by socks. As for the Bhagavad Gita diffs, the quotes are identical in parts, but at least JJ had the correct idea when he quoted the material rather than adding it without quotes by the sock. Not only don't I see anything persuasive, based on these two articles, I will not review the other diffs regarding the "main page"s. Indeed, I'm done here. Perhaps someone mentioned it and I missed it, but based on one of the diffs I just found out that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshua Jonathan was opened in January 2014 alleging that JJ was puppeteer of User:HathaYogin. Although HathaYogin was blocked as a sock puppet without a named master, it was clearly found by two administrators, me and Callanecc, that JJ had not socked. I said "not related to Joshua", and Callan said "I haven't seen any compelling evidence that Joshua Jonathan is the puppeteer." I might endorse a CU if it were possible, but I'm declining to block JJ based on behavior on the quality of evidence presented. Finally, with respect to the CU, it's not even clear that there is enough persuasive evidence to justify a CU. When so much evidence is presented, it's hard not to think that something is amiss, but that's a component of human psychology, not logic. Final conclusion: JJ is unlikely to be a sock of Thigle. I will close this in a moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser comment: As there have been concerns about the block imposed in relation to this SPI (not on either of the accounts named as suspected sockpuppets), and a review of archival material provided sufficient indication that there was both editorial and technical information that suggested the possibility of a link to the two accounts, a check has been performed. Joshua Jonathan and Thigle appear to be Red X Unrelated technically, editing from different countries. Risker (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been asked to look into this SPI by Bladesmulti. After looking over the behavioral evidence, I concur with Bbb23's findings. Here's a brief synopsis of my thoughts:
The edit timeframes for Thigle and Joshua Jonathan suggest that both users are in different countries. (Which seems to have been confirmed now through checkuser data.) Thigle's editing timeframe has been consistent with the past socks as well. Some of the edit summary matches provided seem to be common Wikipedia shorthand that people tend to pick up. I know that I use similar phrases from time to time. Some evidence isn't very telling, like the capitalization of "See talk page" in link 109, 110, and 111. Links 64 & 65 seem to take a much different approach in making the same point. While there were copyright issues, link 88 and 89 show a different tone. I also see this in the ANI posts in 112, 113, 114. Bladesmulti made a genuine attempt to open an SPI case with a reasonable amount of diffs, so I don't think it should be assumed that this was in bad faith. That being said, while there are some similarities that raise a bit of suspicion at first, there are a number of differences in behavior that make me sure that Joshua Jonathan is not a sock. Mike V • Talk 21:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thigle/Archive&oldid=1136067981"