Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Angkorangel/Archive

27 September 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Ankgorangel was indef blocked for promotional edit warring, inserting their material into the Maitreya article multiple times. After they were blocked, the two IPs listed above (36 and 110) began inserting the same material into the article. After the page was semi-protected, Vajra Monk was created and began inserting the same promotional material into a related non-semi-protected page, List of Buddha claimants. I'm not requesting any kind of action on the IPs, since that would be linking the accounts with the IPs, I just included them here for thoroughness. - SudoGhost 05:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC) SudoGhost 05:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Extreme bias is preventing any mention of Tulku Buddha Maitreya Rinpoche on the claimants on the Maitreya and Buddha pages. We are talking about claimants and each time a mention of this individual is made it is removed despite references (that are not from Tibetan Foundation or Buddha Maitreya's website). I have written various times, with a number of different facts. I am suggesting we leave mention of Tulku Buddha Maitreya Rinpoche on both sites as there are many monasteries that he supports here in Asia - I am sorry you have not seen them or care to - but it is clear that many people around the world would at least benefit from knowing of these facts. I have had no contact with Buddha Maitreya or his monastery in USA for many years and benefit nothing from mentioning this or fighting to get His Holiness mentioned. So really why is this happening? Advertising is the claim that I am doing - advertising what? The truth? I thought Wikipedia was above bias - it is clear that is in the instructions. Yet, the editors appear to have their own agendas and knowledge, obviously not based on experience - maybe just on reading and talking about things and not the actual facts. I do hope this changes soon - again we are talking about people who claim to be Buddha and Maitreya. You are wrong to delete edits as He claims these things as do numerous tulkus (Tibetan buddhist saints) 100's of Rinpoches and 1000's of monks and nuns (and that's just the Tibetan Buddhist system). If you do not know them how are you going to know? If you do not go to Dharmasala how do you know there is a Stupa there built by Buddha Maiteya for the Tibetan people and the Dalia Lama? If you do not go to the monasteries Buddha Maitreya is the head of, how are you going to know what he is doing? Most are very remote - so it is understandable. Again we are talking about claimants - people who claim to be - there are listed individuals who wrote a poem, or who's brother said, or who's followers say. In Tulku Buddha Maitreya Rinpoche's case, his claim is based on far more evidence (but mostly in Asia - so is that the problem? American bais? Western bias?). Far more evidence than any of those claims and yet no mention is permitted - that I have to again suggest is bias and extreme bias. This kind of closed mindedness should not be permitted on Wikipedia, or any encyclopaedic site of book, that is a fact - right? Why do prejudicial people have final say of the editing Wikidpedia? Hope to hear that some objectivity is injected into this matter soon. I look forward to any response. Vajra Monk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vajra Monk (talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Bias is not preventing the content, lack of reliable sources is. The sources you used were either from the individual himself, or not actually about the individual, or self-published sources in other ways.  However, this page is about discussing possible sockpuppetry, I've asked both accounts and the IP editor multiple times  on the account talk pages and numerous times on the article itself to use the talk page to discuss the material instead of just restoring the content; those requests were ignored. - SudoGhost 04:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The account Angkor Angel was opened, then the IP address was blocked. So I opened another account. I am a monk and live in Asia, the numerous people mentioned and helped by Tulku Buddha Maitreya Rinpoche do not have access to a computer or the internet. This is being somewhat elitist and not taking a world view of things. How do monasteries that exist far away from cities high in the mountains of the Himalaya verify these issues? One has to go there oneself - or check videos, or speak with the monks and nuns when they travel. The evidence is clear, but one has to search and discover, if that is of interest. There are numerous claimants for both Buddha and Maitreya who are self claiming and references their own work or books written by their followers.So I wonder what do you actually need for any mention of the American born Buddha Maitreya to get a mention as a possible claimant? He has built a huge monastery in California - can someone go there and check it out? (I am not sure if it is open to the public) but would that then be verifiable to mention that he actually exists and is justifiably at the very least a "claimant"? As a monk I have little time to discuss issues, but I appreciate that I am not being ignored and deleted as before. Other than SudoGhost, does anyone else get to read this? As it is clearly not an edit that SudoGhost wants to include. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vajra Monk (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no integrity here? I expected a lot more. Chit chat and discussions are not something I am interested in. Just a simple honest, truthful presentation of facts. Great shame that is not at the top of the list of priorities in editorial changes. If the monks and nuns that are being supported by Tulku Buddha Maitreya Rinpoche were known about and had enough funding (by people knowing about them) maybe they could get enough $ to get computers and normal things. You justifications for not including this individual bear no relationship to honesty, kindness or any sense of doing the right thing. I find it astonishing and will have to pursue this further in another arena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vajra Monk (talk • contribs) 04:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you believe that this individual needs to be mentioned. However if you do not have reliable sources that can verify this, it does not belong on Wikipedia.  Appeals to some perceived "bias" do not change this, your edits have multiple issues and were reverted by multiple editors who asked you to discuss the edit first, and you refused to discuss the material until long after you were indefinitely blocked and the page was protected.  Wikipedia is a collaborative editing environment, discussions are an integral part of Wikipedia.  More importantly, you were blocked from editing indefinitely in order to stop your promotional edit warring.  That does not mean you can create another account and continue your promotional editing on the same or other articles. - SudoGhost 05:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * No check ran.  indicates that a check will show overlapping IPs based on the location, and this is a reasonable expectation considering the WHOIS for the IPs listed.  Based on the behavioral evidence, I do not think a CheckUser will uncover anything new or enlightening.  I advise administrators to use discretion of our policies with the Vajra Monk account.  Keegan (talk) 05:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The role of SPI isn't to settle content disputes, nor grant exceptions to WP:V or other policies. The motivations of the sock isn't relative, only the behavior.  Because the editor is clearly the same as the puppetmaster, who was blocked for disruptive behavior, an indef block is clearly the only possible solution.  Closing. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)