Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/LuisGomez111

User:LuisGomez111

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppet


 * Report submission by

Peter jackson (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence


 * 1) Luis adds a comment; the words "I said", in context, appear to refer to
 * 2) which was added by Thin Man
 * 3) a few minutes later, TM replaces Luis' signature on the above by his own
 * 4) a few minutes later, TM deletes the comment altogether
 * 5) now Luis appears to criticize TM
 * 6) & then rewrites the criticism

Luis & TM appear to be the same person. He accidentally made a comment from the wrong account, & then tried to cover up. This in itself is not sockpuppetry, tho' it might reasonably be considered suspicious. However, when one account appears to criticize the other, this looks like what the policy page calls strawpuppetry.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments

First of all, LuisGomez has information on his User page and the pages of the other users stating they are not sockpuppets, merely alternate accounts.

As for the evidence: 1 and 2 both appear as if the user is merely replying from his alternate account, or at least the account that started the conversation.

3 is probably being done so as to not confuse the other editors who probably don't understand that the two users are the same.

4 is possible because he re-thought the comment and decided it wasn't a good idea to post it.

However, you do appear to have a point about strawpuppetry with 5 and 6. However, I would like the accused to leave a comment to see what his POV is. TheChrisD Rants • Edits 08:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The notices identifying the alternative accounts were posted 2 hrs after my report here:


 * 
 * 


 * Thanks to Chris for reorganizing my report. I agree with Luis that the instructions are very unclear. Peter jackson (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to respond these accusations at length but I'm a bit busy with work right now. I will post a message here within 48 hours. However, regarding the strawpuppetry: I lent my laptop to a young cousin and he left a message on the Buddhism talk page along with making one edit all while pretending to be me while visiting my home. He did this as a joke. While I have no way of proving this, I do apologize for it on his behalf. I have since removed the comment from the talk page.
 * My preliminary response

I must say, however, Peter seems very cavalier about WP policy. I noticed he once deleted all of the text for the article on Pre-sectarian Buddhism (see it below):


 * Peter's vandalism

His only excuse for this was the following comment: "This article has been deleted as no citation is given to show that the term actually exists." He received nothing more than a warning for this obvious case of vandalism. LuisGomez111 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My primary response

Strange as it may sound, I welcome the termination of all three of my Wikipedia accounts because I seem to have developed a mild addiction to it. I have a small business, a fiancé and two elderly parents I occasionally provide care to. The last thing I need is a form of computer addiction eating up my precious time. Having said that, I still want to defend myself against Peter's accusation.

While it's true that User:The Thin Man Who Never Leaves was an alternate account not associated with User:LuisGomez111 I did it primarily for reason number four of the Wikipedia list of Legitimate Uses of Alternate Accounts:

A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account in order to avoid real-world consequences from their involvement in that area.

Shortly after I started editing the Buddhism article with my main account, which bears my real-world name and formerly indicated that I'm a Buddhist, I learned that several of my close family members were Wikipedia editors as well. My entire family is Roman Catholic and strongly disapproves of eastern religions. I was hoping to escape criticism from them by using my Thin Man account. However, Peter's report and my cousin's antics (the family member who used my account for straw puppetry) have forced me to be honest to my family about my conversion to Buddhism. I have since linked Thin Man to my main account.

I had yet another good reason for using an alternate account. It's reason number two of the same list:

Since public computers can have password-stealing trojans or keyloggers installed, users may register an alternative account to prevent the hijacking of their main accounts.

Once again, my account bears my real-world name. I recently tried to change the user name of my account yet the administrator responsible for this has yet to change it. I was also afraid of identity theft.

And finally, I feel the reason preceding one through five also applies to me: ...prominent users might create a new account to experience how the community functions for new users.

I could stop here because I feel I have fully proven that I did not engage in sock puppetry. However, I feel I must continue in order to complain about Peter's behavior.

I have been an editor with WP for about a year and a half now and I've run into all kinds of fellow editors: some rude, some pleasant, some dumb, some smart. However, Peter is, without question the most arrogant and callous I have ever come across.

Peter seems to have appointed himself editor-in-chief of the Buddhism article but unlike a true editor, he has trouble tolerating information he doesn't agree with and demonstrates this through reverts and deletions. He has gone so far as to tell me that I should only use his approved list of sources for the Buddhism article.

As I said before, I've run in to many types of editors on WP. Some are quite pleasant and thank one another for their contributions. I've done this myself. Peter however never seems to have a kind word for anybody. At times he is downright rude for no apparent reason. Here's are two comments Peter left on User:Langdell's talk page after Langdell did nothing more than rewrite the introductory paragraph for the Buddhism article:

''Rubbish. That intro is just someone's opinion. No sources are cited for it. We're trying to improve the text, & you're welcome to contribute constructively on the talk page, but please follow Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. There are numerous opinions about what, if anything, Buddhism is, & Wikipedia must not take sides.'' Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

''Please familiarize yourself with the fundamental principles of Wikipedia as stated in WP:NPOV, WP:NOR & WP:V. Then either abide by them or go elsewhere on the internet. If you persist in violating them the authorities are liable to ban you...” Peter jackson (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)''

Rubbish? The authorities are liable to ban you? Go elsewhere on the Internet? You would have thought Langdell had written a manual on how to rape children judging by Peter’s reaction. Below is Langdell’s rewrite of the intro:

''Buddhism (known in the East as Buddhadharma) is the teaching and practice of the Indian sage Siddhartha Gautama whom posterity knows as Gautama Buddha or more commonly simply ‘the Buddha’. Though it can justifiably be viewed as philosophy, psychology or religion, Buddhism is above all a practical method whose aim is the progressive dissolution of the causes of suffering (dukkha) in oneself. Buddhism is, therefore, like the teachings of the early Upanishads and the Jains, a liberation teaching whose practice leads a person to a state of wholeness, sanity and inner peace. The Buddha himself called his teaching Dhamma-vinaya (the ‘dharma discipline’) and anupubbasikkha (Pali; ‘the gradual training’). The discipline here referred to is self-discipline with respect to actions of body, speech and mind. It is called a gradual training because the mind-body transformation with which the discipline is concerned requires sustained effort over a period of time.''

As you can see, this in no way, shape, or form warranted Peter’s reaction.

Below is Langdell's reaction to Peter's comment:

''Hello Peter Jackson. Your parents probably never taught you about manners and other such elementary features of human interaction but assuming you attended school i'm sure someone must have told you there never to introduce yourself to someone with the phrase 'Rubbish' as you did on my user page.''

Langdell obviously felt insulted and Peter made no attempt to apologize.

When Peter's not rude, he's critical. I more than once found myself on the receiving end of Peter’s criticisms. The first time was after I rewrote the same introductory paragraph (apparently this really sets Peter off). Here’s Peter’s entry on the talk page:


 * ...five major religions: what does this mean? What are the other 4? What does major mean?
 * saying it's a religion & many people call it a philosophy is both unclear & non-neutral: How many is many?
 * Who are these people anyway? Do they think it's a religion & a philosophy, or a philosophy instead of a religion? Are they disagreeing about the nature of Buddhism or just about the definition of religion?
 * To mention the view that it's a religion but not the view that it's more than 1 violates NPOV. It's no use saying 350,000,000 people believe it's a religion. That's not even true, because most of those people don't speak English.
 * three major branches: this too has all sorts of problems:
 * What does Vajrayana mean? Most scholars use it to cover both Tibetan Buddhism & Shingon. If so, in what sense can it be called a branch? Do Tibetan Buddhists identify themselves with Shingon? Does Shingon identify itself with Tibetan Buddhism rather than with the rest of East Asian Buddhism?If it means Tibetan Buddhism, that should be made clear.
 * How major is major? There are about 20-25 million Tibetan Buddhists & about 11 m Shingon. For comparison, there are at least 40 m Nichiren Buddhists if we include all the fringe groups, & 23 m Zen Buddhists in Japan & Korea alone.
 * 6th century BC is probably wrong: the majority of scholars now say 5th.
 * To say the Buddha's followers called him by that title in Sanskrit is not appropriate: the title is older than Buddhist use of Sanskrit. Peter jackson (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap! All I did was rewrite the intro. Notice there wasn't a single please, thank you or have a nice day in the entire message. I received an equally lengthy criticism from User:Ludwigs2, who also was eager to revert and delete but he was more polite about things. However, I checked his talk page and I see an administrator warned him about his behavior. But Peter has yet to receive such a warning.

I was justifiably upset at this tag team of criticism and I wrote a passionate reaction to it, which I then posted on the article’s talk page. The result? Ludwigs2 accused me of being uncivil. In my next talk page comment I apologized for my angry tone (something Peter would never do) but not for its content.

After these incidents, I made a few smaller edits where Peter and Ludwigs2 continued to criticize me. For obvious reasons I chose to stop editing the article. I left it alone for about a week. However, it bothered me that I allowed two overly critical and controlling people to chase me off the Buddhism article. I then began using my Thin Man account for the reasons I outlined above and in an effort avoid the criticism I had received previously from Peter and Ludwigs2.

By this point Peter and Ludwigs2 were running wild. Ludwigs2 had archived countless recent talk page entries that should never have been archived and Peter was maintaining a neutrality tag for the Buddhism article that, as far as I could tell, had no neutrality problem. User: Arkuat pointed these problems out to Ludwigs2 and Peter. Ludwigs2 apologized. However, Peter stubbornly insisted the article was written with a bias and needed the tag. Here was Peter’s reasoning.

The main point is that the article is unbalanced, being written mainly from the POV of Western(ized) Buddhists. ''Let me just mention again the grossest point:1/3 of the world's Buddhists believe that in these degenerate times few if any can follow the path, so they call on the Buddha Amitabha in the hope or belief that he will grant them rebirth in his Pure Land. Someone whose only previous knowledge of Buddhism derives from the way it's usually presented in the West would I think be very surprised to learn this & feel they'd been misled. The article needs to give much more prominence to this sort of thing. What to do, again has been archived. Basically:''


 * 1. Reorganize into coherent structure: this is currently being attempted in the sandbox linked above
 * 2. Add material on neglected topics; possibly also cut down other topics
 * 3. Check reliable sources to see whether the interpretations given represent their views

''There has been a vague suggestion that the tag be replaced with a work in progress tag. No definite proposal has yet appeared. If one does, I'll consider it.'' Peter jackson (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I had been editing this article for about a month and I NEVER once heard that argument from Peter. I then checked the article for info on Buddha Amitabha and found an entire section dedicated to it. I pointed this out on the talk page and Peter’s reaction was to admit that he had written it and yet, inexplicably, he insisted on maintaining the tag.

At this point I had become fed up with Peter. I explained on the talk page there was no longer a neutrality dispute and I said that I would remove the tag. I did so. Predictably, Peter reverted it without explanation. I removed the tag a second time and warned Peter that if he violated the 3RR, I would report him for doing so. Shortly thereafter Peter accused me of sock puppetry in apparent retaliation for removing his precious tag.

As I said before I welcome the termination of my accounts because of my apparent developing obsession with Wikipedia and because of my time constraints. (I must now start helping my fiance with our wedding plans so I will have even less time than usual). However, I feel that you should block Peter as well. Wikipedia is VERY important to Peter. His contribs show that he edits almost every day. Blocking him would teach him an important lesson in treating people more kindly.
 * My Recommendation

This is my last post regarding this matter. I will not be able to answer any further questions or defend any other accusations as my time is extremely limited. Please use the above information to make your decision. LuisGomez111 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My response to preliminary response

This is the 2nd time Luis has posted criticisms of me without informing me (or at least the 2nd time I've discovered it). Yes, I did as he said, quite some time after posting a citation request. I probably wouldn't do it that way now. I'm learning more about WP's workings as I go. There are over 40 policy pages, with more added quite recently. Peter jackson (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My response to primary response

As Luis insists on making these accusations here, I have no choice but to respond here, tho' I don't think this is the appropriate forum.

My tone may be somewhat harsh at times. Whether this counts as incivility I don't know. It's a rather vague term. The word "rubbish" referred in context to Daniel's eulogy of Langdell's contribution, not that contribution itself.

It seems I was mistaken about the authorities banning people for violating content criteria. I have to say that I've always found the enormous labyrinth of policies & guidelines very offputting. However, I recently came across a remark that there were (only) 40 policies, so I thought it wouldn't be too impractical to read thro' those. I've got thro' most now, despite the addition of a number of others while I was doing it. I discovered that WP has no procedure for enforcement of content policy. If consensus decides to ignore content policy, that's that.

"Peter seems to have appointed himself editor-in-chief of the Buddhism article but unlike a true editor, he has trouble tolerating information he doesn't agree with and demonstrates this through reverts and deletions. He has gone so far as to tell me that I should only use his approved list of sources for the Buddhism article."

This is almost the exact revese of the truth:


 * It's Luis who keeps deleting POVs he disagrees with. I've been trying to get the article to reflect different POvs fairly.
 * In the current dispute I've done very little reverting or deletion. Examination of the history will bear this out.
 * I didn't say that. I said we should follow the criteria given in WP:V & WP:RS, tried to explain my understanding thereof, & referred to the list on my user page as examples

I won't discuss the substance of the dispute here. Anyone interested can plough thro' a large amount of talk page material. Most of it's now been archived. Never by me. I don't even know how. At one point I actually copied something back out of the archive. I also expressed reservations about Ludwigs' archiving beforehand.

"I said that I would remove the tag. I did so. Predictably, Peter reverted it without explanation." Not true. I explained on the talk page.

"I removed the tag a second time and warned Peter that if he violated the 3RR, I would report him for doing so." Inaccurate. Luis didn't mention 3RR at that time. He simply threatened to bring in an administrator. If it hadn't been for the sockpuppetry matter, I would have pointed out that all an administrator would have done, if anything, was freeze the article with their own dispute tag on it.

"Shortly thereafter Peter accused me of sock puppetry in apparent retaliation for removing his precious tag." From what I just said above, there was no need to retaliate. I set aside the discussion to deal with the strawpuppetry. How can you have a sensible discussion when 2 of the participants expressing opposing views appear to be the same person?

I can't imagine what blockable offence I might have committed.

Do I need to mntion that, as I understand WP policy, an account is treated as a person, whoever is actually accessing it? If defences such as Luis gives above were allowed, nobody could ever be proved guilty of anything, & all these procedures would become a waste of time. Peter jackson (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I see now that I was mistaken about Peter restoring the neutrality tag on the Buddhism article without comment after I removed it the first time. I didn't notice his comment at first. I stand corrected. But, after reading it, I still don't understand his reason for restoring it.
 * Correction

Regarding my 3RR warning: My exact words on the talk page were, I'm afraid I'll have to involve an administrator if you restore it again. Filing a 3RR violation always involves contacting an administrator. That's what I meant by this. I stand by everything else I said. LuisGomez111 (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC) I'm satisfied with LuisGomez111's explanations of what occurred. Closing with no action taken. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions