Jehonathan

Jehonathan (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
14 August 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by BlackCab
[edit]

Within a short period of time User:Matrix356 edited his own page, and then User:Jehonathan's user page[1], then Jehonathon's talk page[2] (where he deleted his outburst, marking it as a minor edit) before continuing 12 minutes later with an edit to his own user page[3]. Both accounts were created within three hours of each other and both are active on remarkably similar articles. Both write with a similarly mangled English. Matrix356 declared a dispute involving Jehonathan is over, evidently reading Jehonathan's mind[4]. BlackCab (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

This is a case of meatpuppetry rather than a sock. User:Matrix356 essentially acknowledged as much at his User Talk page. He created his account today and immediately engaged in the same debate as User:Jehonathan, who he says he knows personally.[5] His first ever edit was a Third Opinion request, which is not typical of a new user.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

They both edit exactly the same, their motives are both the same (though that's obvious), and they're both marking all their edits as minor. The only conclusion I can come to is that they're the same person. Both accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 22:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


29 August 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by BlackCab
[edit]

User:Matrix356 and User:Jehonathan, both of whom come from Kerala, India,[6][7][8] (Jehonathan) [9][10] (Matrix356) were blocked for sockpuppetry on August 19. Flowerman75 account was opened four days later. There are strong similarities between the edits of these users, both in subject matter (predominantly related to Jehovah's Witnesses), writing style[11][12] and user page content[13][14] and a common interest in Kerala, India.[15] BlackCab (talk) 11:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious privacy issue with the above user who accused me. He is searching inside my user page and may be following me . So I want to delete or block this user account. I am convinced that most of my interested article are currently neutral and hence I not intend any serious edits in near future. As admins know this funny LTSally(male or female or ?-:)) is simply wasting time and resource of check users because its a known fact that their is no proper solution yet discovered for user blocking in the history of Internet. But I assure you I have no intention of becoming a dangerous editor, because I had always contributed only for better articles which may had upset user:BlackCab in this case . Thank you...Flowerman75 (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]

I would like to note that popups has told me that Matrix was created on August 13 with Flowerman on the 20th and the other one on the 27th. This should be archived under Matrix356? DeoxysPrime (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, Jehonathan was created on July 27th and the other two created in August. Should be archived under Jehonathan. DeoxysPrime (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
19 November 2010
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by BlackCab
[edit]

User:Logicalthinker33, who says on his user page he comes from Kerala, India and is a Jehovah's Witness, appeared two weeks after the banning of sockpuppet Jehonathan aka Flowerman75, who was also a Jehovah's Witness from Kerala, India.[16]. There is a remarkable similarity in articles edited by User:Flowerman75 (aka Jehonathan) and Logicalthinker33: both have focused on JW articles and the HDI ranks of Indian states.[17][18] LogicalThinker denied allegations of socking shortly after he opened his account.[19]

User:Damoser appeared on 21 October, claimed he was a Jehovah's Witness from Iowa, posted only on the Jehovah's Witness talk page and argued in support of User:Tim2k against "biased" editors who present negative information about his religion.[20].

User:Tim2k appeared on November 3 and in his very brief editing history accused editors of anti-JW bias before requesting page protection for the JW page.[21]. Today User:Logicalthinker33 also requested page protection for the same page, using identical language and grammatical errors to those of Tim2k.[22]

In the space of five days both Logical Thinker and Tim2k quoted Bible scriptures as a form of reprimand to other Wikipedia editors.[23][24].

The sudden and brief appearance of Tim2k as an expert on Jehovah's Witnesses, and the urge by Damoser to join in discussions without making anything more than two minor edits is highly suspect, particularly when all three claim to be JWs and editing at a time of heightened activity by Logicalthinker to defend the article against what all three claimed was anti-JW bias. BlackCab (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-generated every six hours.

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

I don't have any relation with the alleged user accounts User:Tim2k and User:Damoser. I am working for the past two months in Wikipedia and I have never misused any accounts so far. Regarding similarity in sentence with User:Tim2k, I noted that he requested a page protection before, and I copied some of his words (which I found was appropriate) and posted the request again.--Logical Thinker:talk 04:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To all interested parties... I have entered "evidence" of my individuality on the article in question's talk page history.Tim2k (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

Looks pretty WP:DUCK, Lets get this over with. At the conclusion can we see if it is possible to block the underlying IP? Apparently i stumbled in on this page in the middle of a wider pattern of issues --ResidentAnthropologist (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Logicalthinker33 is a sock of Tim2k; the wording in the Page Protection request seems more like a copy-and-paste followed by some selective editing. However, I suspect Logicalthinker33 to be a sock of User:Jehonathan aka User:Matrix356 aka User:Flowerman75, and would request a CheckUser.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jehonathan/Archive.

On technical grounds, User:Tim2k and User:Damoser appear Red X Unrelated to accounts above and to each other, remembering, of course, that checkuser is not pixie dust.  Frank  |  talk  13:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typical, I always earn the most dubious allies in debats. I thank the clerks and check users for their time The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More