Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rinpoche/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Rinpoche

09 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This report relates mainly to RobvanderWaal. A few months ago, Skirtopodes started raising the issue that a painting was unsuitable for use in the Major depressive disorder article, and flooded the talkpage of the medicine WikiProject with huge tl;dr arguments. He was blocked on 11 Feb as a block-evading sock of User:Rinpoche. 10 days later, User:RobvanderWaal was created, and began editing the same range of Vincent van Gogh-related articles as Skirtopodes. A few days ago, he began a very similar campaign against the same painting on the talk page for the major depression article. The arguments were very similar to Skirtopodes'. See this diff from Skirtopodes and this diff from RabvanderWaal as an example. Also note how RobvanderWaal asks for sources to back up the assertion that the painting is a good illustration of despair at the start of the latter diff, and Skirtopodes same request at the end of this comment.

A quick look at the contribution summary for both accounts will also show the similarity in the range of articles edited, and that, allied to the similarities I have highlighted and the fact that the RobvanderWaal account was created just days after Skirtopodes was blocked, has led me to request a CU. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I saw the user's application in my Talk page and have replied there. The user's application is a response to my post Van Gogh's painting "At Eternity's Gate" not a depiction of sorrow, in which I merely set out facts of the matter i.e. to say that a painting represented by Wikipedia as a representation of sorrow or despair is in fact, on van Gogh's own testimony, a representation of mortal frailty and the divine.

The user Skirtopedes mentioned, a Swiss philanthropist I bid for, remarked in one of his posts: "Do I really have to petition the art world on behalf of Vincent in this matter? The Kröller-Müller museum for a start might express an interest."

I think the community can safely conclude that this a development of that remark.

I am new editor to Wikipedia. I am entirely disinterested in its internal politics. I was able to edit quite a lot in March because I had no pressing work. I rather enjoy Wikipedia. I am in the process of developing a long article about van Gogh's Hague studio in my sandbox when time permits and I will upload it in due course. I will then continue with accounts of his other periods.

Thank you. Incidentally I opened my account at the beginning of March. RobvanderWaal (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked up the meaning of Basilisk's "tl;dr" remark above:"[Skirtopodes] flooded the talkpage of the medicine WikiProject with huge tl;dr arguments". It means apparently "too long, didn't read". Can I just say on behalf of Skirtopodes, one of the kindest and best of men I know, that this is really offensive. He is noted for his concise and decisive manner in all that he does. He made an initial post on the Talk page calling into question the suitability of this painting as an icon for major depressive disorder. It was a courteous and cogently argued post. In return he was first patronised and then agressively attacked. All he subsequently did was to defend his position. His IP address was examined, an invasion of his privacy with scant justification, and he was banned because of a claimed association with another banned user who has also in the past expressed reservations about the manner in which Vincent van Gogh is treated by a clique of editors in the Visual Arts. But of course there is a whole group of us concerned about the issues here and it is scarcely surprising that links are found amongst us. Many of us, professionally involved in the art trade, of necessity need to remain anonymous while those of us in academia simply aren't prepared to get involved, for reason I'm sure I don't need to spell out. RobvanderWaal (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  •  Likely from a technical perspective. I will defer to the closing administrator with respect to RobvanderWaal's submission to this investigation. However, to me Skirtopodes and RobvanderWaal are behaviourally identical, and Robv's submission does not account for the significant overlap in areas and pages of interest nor the similarities in editing and typographical technique. AGK [•] 14:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I made clear above my edits are in response to a direct request from user Skirtopodes. Nevertheless my primary purpose here, as it turns out and what I have invested many hours on, is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of van Gogh. RobvanderWaal (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My editor advises me to enquire why all your contributions from 2006 to early 2007 have been wiped by an administrator. She says she has never seen anything even remotely like it before. Would you care to comment, given that you too are expressing an interest in my contribution history? Thank you. RobvanderWaal (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the editing patterns and behaviors, this is very clearly Rinpoche. Blocked and tagged. --MuZemike 02:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Subsequent to RobvanderWaal's block yesterday per the previous investigation, this account shows up. User:RUCloseYet? showed up to the Major depressive disorder article and immediately implemented the change Rinpoche was trying to argue (under various accounts). His only previous activity occurred during the period between Skirtopodes' block and the beginning of RvdW's activity.

I know it's not exactly flawless scientific method, but I'm also always suspicious of accounts whose first edit is to create their own userpage. Could someone take a look please? Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 08:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Updated on 13/4/2012. I'm adding User:LHirsig to the investigation based on behavioural evidence. As one example, see this diff in the same discussion. The writing style and arguments are identical to Skirtopodes. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 23:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • *Could've fooled me - in my experience with all 3 editors - Rinpoche, Skirtopedes and RobvanderWaal; I found Rob to be far more polite and reasonable; I'm surprised that he also went to complain about major depressive disorder - I was attacked by them as well for describing the painting as despair in the van Gogh article...Modernist (talk) 12:02, 10 April 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]

Thought this had been hanging around for long enough.

LHirsig is  Confirmed as User:Skirtopodes, which makes him a sock of Rinpoche.

And I have two more  Confirmed socks of Skirtopodes,

JemimaWales (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (already blocked by Risker back in Feb)
LornaDooneBlackmore (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

RUCloseYet? is  Likely on checkuser and  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me, so I think time can be called on this account.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

15 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


user pages of one sock, [1] and their own [2]. Plus comments on my talk page. [3]. There really is no effort to hide the fact that they are sockpuppets going on. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:58, 15 April 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]

 Confirmed. Editing pattern is interesting. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24 April 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

See User talk:81.178.38.169#Welcome to Rinpoche's IP address (even if we are no more), admitted to being the IP account/address of the indefinitely BLOCKED disruptive/incivil user - User:Rinpoche, a CU would be useful to flush out sleepers too. Thank you~! Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 17:08, 24 April 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]

The IP is blocked, so I'll mark for close. I found, blocked, and tagged another sock. TNXMan 17:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

04 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


It's clear by now that Rinpoche has a particular chip on his shoulder about me. Charles04 came to my attention when he showed up at an AfD I initiated and made a fairly needless criticism of my nomination here. When I looked into his contribs, I found that he started editing on 21 February, and has edited in the same kind of area as Rinpoche's other socks (such as here). To my eyes, this comment pretty much confirms his identity; Rinpoche has used very similar wording to describe editors he's at loggerheads with in the past. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:53, 4 May 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]

 Inconclusive. I've blocked a hosting range though -if they edit again, please let me know. TNXMan 18:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Inconclusive again, but certainly a  Possible enough match (for our purposes) to the most recent Rinpoche sock. Newest  IP blocked. AGK [•] 15:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


([4]), and ([5]) I think that there is plenty of behavioural evidence from both of these IPs. One of the IP's have been blocked as a block evasion from Rinpoche, apparently tracing to Russia, but the other one traces to Bucharest, Romania, where Rinpoche is currently. It appears that the continued harassment from Rinpoche to me will not seem to ever stop. Mr. Wikipediania Talk 04:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Access to some form of VPN system (or something similar) perhaps? —MistyMorn (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proxies probably. Most of the IP addresses he's used in the past are based in southern England. He's annoying but not stupid; I'm not surprised he's gotten his head around IP addresses. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 10:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Superfluous to the SPI discussion
Yeah me neither. I've started a Long-Term Abuse case upon him to track more socks. But whatever he's doing, it's him and I guess we shouldn't be playing the role of detectives here. Mr. Wikipediania Talk 10:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-written that LTA report for you; I think it reads better now. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 11:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Thank you for the re-write. Please note that I am only 17 years old. Inciting personal attacks to get a reaction - Well that is another definition of trolling. Mr. Wikipediania Talk 11:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no worries, I figured you could use some help! Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 11:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]

I'm sorry, but checkusers generally do not disclose connections between IPs and named accounts. Any action taken will need to be based on behavior. TNXMan 14:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


24 May 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


([6]) Another WP:DUCK of Rinpoche, which appears to be traced to Bucharest in Romania, where Rinpoche is staying currently. At times, I have got to wonder how many people living in his area have been unable to edit Wikipedia because of the disruption this person causes. I support a rangeblock. Mr. Wikipediania Talk 05:31, 24 May 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]
10 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This user adds an image to an article that DaftOldBat89 (talk · contribs) (blocked as a Rinpoche sock) was advancing while blocked. HiNatasha has also seen the need to seek help in unblocking DaftOldBat89. Also, see the typical attacking talk page post. Tiderolls 21:36, 10 June 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 due to the quacking and to look for sleepers.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

16 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


([7]). ([8]). There is plenty of behavioral evidence - The similar trolling attitude Rinpoche has. Quack, Quack, Quack, another WP:DUCK is in the corner. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 04:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

But still, the guy is repeatedly evading his ban, and we are not going to let him waste more of Wikipedia's time by egregiously trolling and vandalizing the project. We risk putting an entire nation from editing Wikipedia if he continues the way he is. Oh gosh, why does he remind me of another Nangparbat who nearly put millions of people at risk from editing Wikipedia in the United Kingdom? Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 15:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Didn't realise you'd started clerking over here Dennis. It's good to see, you're a good guy to have at SPI Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]



18 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


([9]) Another behavioral evidence; Using the edit summary WTFRU, indicating the same attitude Rinpoche's been at logger heads with in the past. I believe we are dealing with a case where he's using multiple IP addresses wherever he is at one place. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 00:37, 18 June 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]
19 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


([10]), ([11]), ([12]) Another quack, quack, quack WP:DUCK. Mentions my real name, which I believe to be a breach of personal information and tells that I'm a member of Amensty International, which I'm clearly not. I'm a student in real life. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 01:17, 19 June 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]
23 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


See contribs - messing with quote templates similar to his socks at Poor Susan, specifically these diffs: [13], [14]. Compare with DaftOldBat89's edits at Poor Susan (see revision history. Also from the type of articles edited. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 09:40, 23 June 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]


30 June 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Well, there's the discussion here, which summarizes last night's e-mail and response, and then there's the edits by the second IP follow the pattern of the socks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:23, 30 June 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]
  • I have blocked the latest two IPs. I feel that the beavhoir is similiar to the above case. IIRC, we have some editing being done from airports, which is why it's making it so hard to nail him, and he's jumping addresses like nuts. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


02 July 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


The IP came out of nowhere and edited the same three pages I just reverted just the other day. Unless they flew across the ocean just to edit these pages, I suspect this IP is a meatpuppet, based on their edit summary. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:00, 2 July 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]


02 July 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


([15]) and ([16]) It appears the same idiot is using different IP addresses, and these appear to be yet another pair of duckies displaying the same attitude on my talk page. These IP addresses apparently trace to Leeds in the United Kingdom, where Rinpoche has been using a large majority of his socks from. Note that I have tried to avoid Rinpoche at all costs. From now on, I shall leave him alone and walk away to do better things. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 11:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure you do know better things to do than edit Wikipedia, but as one of Rinpoche's friends I do wish you would indeed walk away from his affairs. In the end one does begin to worry what's at the other end of these obsessions. For the record here, "Rinpoche" is a fairly harmless old cove who stopped editing on Wikipedia a long time ago. He was blocked for a perhaps unwisely passionate defence of an article on Buddhist sex abuse he had taken some trouble to contribute and which had been speedily deleted without consulting him. Recently he was "banned" after what can only be described an a sustained and entirely unprovoked attack by a group of adoloscent thugs, of which you would appear to be the somewhat inept ringleader. Currently he is travelling around the world and is most certainly not editing Wikipedia. Will you please now leave him alone and get on with your own affairs, whatever they can possibly be. 31.6.61.204 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I recently had stalker-ish problems with an IP who I strongly suspected to be him. Those IPs were also geolocated to Leeds. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not buying the "friend" excuse here. The timings of the IPs are not coincidental, and is yet another attempt at his "fantasy lives" game playing again. Whatever it may be, his attempt to create a friend is not working whatsoever. 171.96.13.170 (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
10 July 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Mr._Wikipediania&diff=prev&oldid=501500938 Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 05:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any behavioral evidence being suggested here, so please add some. Otherwise, I don't see anything different other than your normal troll. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please [See this]. This is the similar behavior Rinpoche often displays when anytime his sock edits are reverted. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 17:33, 25 August 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]
17 September 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

[17] Quack quack quack, big fat WP:DUCK in the corner. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 09:35, 17 September 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]
04 October 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please look at contributions. Another WP:DUCK used by this mad child. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 10:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On one fine day, this IP came and apparently started to harass me out of nowhere. Can any admins check if this is Rinpoche? It appears that his edits were revdel'd. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 10:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
  • Those are webhost IPs, range blocked.
    And I would advise against calling any editor 'mad', I don't think that can ever be productive no matter the circumstances.
    Amalthea 11:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13 October 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

[18] Quack, quack, quack, a big ducky in the corner. IP address geolocates to Leeds, where Rinpoche has used the vast majority of his IP addresses to cause disruption and further harass users such as myself. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 11:28, 13 October 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]
08 December 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please see the recent reversions of my talk page. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 14:15, 8 December 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 declined - CheckUsers don't comment in IPs. Even if they did, there's nothing to suggest this one is a sock of Rinpoche other than the fact he's harassing you. The IP is blocked for a month and the single contribution has been revdel'd. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18 December 2012
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please look here: ([19]), this guy is still at his own antics along with the fantasy lives. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 13:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

  • Oh well, since I haven't got any more than just one anonymous edit, I will re-report if I see he continues editing through this IP. Thanks anyways Reaper Eternal.
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
22 April 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Please feel free to just close this and archive. I'm filing only because all the socks are currently stale and this is as ducky as they come, and may give CU something to compare against if he comes back. No other action requested. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

A checkuser says my wondering was wrong. Good enough for me. Peridon (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
12 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


This case was originally filed under Mattisse and was later moved to Rinpoche following further discussion and evidence. Legoktm (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Jane Mason (AMJ)'s first edit was to create a user page with a committed identity template and four user boxes (in one edit, with no errors). This hardly seems like a newbie [20]. AMJ's second edit had the edit summary Some minor edits for styles. I didn't try linking anything yet, which I don't know how to do. and User:MathewTownsend (one of Mattisse's sockpuppets) characteristically used such proclamations of newbie-ness.

AMJ's sixth edit was to The Magdalen Reading, adding a fully formatted reference (using the cite web template), as well as a citation needed template. Mattisse is known for tagging for reference verification, and is known to attack User:Truthkeeper88 (now User:Victoriaearle), who often has a photo of the painting "The Madgalen Reading" on her user page, File:The Magdalen Reading Rogier.jpg. Amanda Jane Mason's user page has a similar photo, though of a different work File:The Magdalen Reading - Ambrosius Benson (NG655).jpg. Victoriaearle was one of three editors who successfully nominated "The Magdalene Reading" for FA.

AMJ has also made a series of edits at Talk:Portrait of a Lady (van der Weyden), specifically referencing the closing of the ArbCom case on Infoboxes (which Victoriaearle played a prominent role in) and adding an infobox to the article Portrait of a Lady (van der Weyden) (which was last done in 2010 and reverted by the then Truthkeeper88). She made a series of edits to the talk page specifically attacking Truthkeeper88 / Victoriaearle's position on infoboxes. AMJ's first edit [21] included the sentence For my own part I would say that the aesthetic scruples expressed by Truthkeep88 are entirely spurious and overridden by functional concerns i.e the proper documentation and collocation of information with a view to Wikipedia's future development (for example as a neural network). As well as AMJ's next new post (after some edits to the previous one) [22] again saying That's why I say Truthkeeper's objections objections above are essentially spurious. AMJ's next post to the talk page also references Truthkeeper [23] :I've been looking at TruthKeeper88's position on infoboxes in more detail. I see she now contributes as Victoriaearle. I have to say I couldn't immediately fathom what her issues are...

Note I am 100% certain this person has edited Wikipedia extensively before. If it is not Mattisse, then User:Rinpoche has also attacked Truthkeeper88 in the past and is the next most likely candidate. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that I have received an email from a user I trust that thinks this is User:Jack Merridew. I am not very familiar with him, but add this here (the references to the ArbCom infobox case make sense for Merridew, as Br'er Rabbit is still listed as a Contributer at WikiProject:Quality Article Imrpovement). The reason I asked for Check User is that this is pretty clearly a sock, but I am not sure which sockmaster. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things: Should this whole thing be listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rinpoche? Also User:Indiscreet54 commented on my user talk page saying in part "there is indeed a technical issue with "Rinpoche", but that's just that - "technical" and the Wikimedia foundation have long known the details of that" (diff) and was blocked by another admin for being a Rinpoche sock. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes
Comments by other users
[edit]

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

Mattisse is a known american. Is there anyway we can check where they are editing from?--User:Salix alba (talk): 23:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Computer cryptography, and mathematical edits are outside of Mattisse's areas. This edit [24] requires some quite specific understanding of the subject. I also doubtful Mattisse would have a a SHA-512 hash.--User:Salix alba (talk): 23:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MY understanding is the CheckUser is able to return geographic location of an editors IP (though there may be ways to game that). Rinpoche is more focused on art and computing and is the probable sock puppeteer (see below). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just seen this (I was just about to go to bed) and needless to say I'm somewhat taken aback by it all. Not sure how to respond, but (you will think this strange) I'm not really troubled by it. I was refelecting today that Wikipedia is actually a very addictive thing amnd I had more or less decided to close down my account, though I have discovered the joy of curating which I should rather like to coninue every now and then.
  • None of the above applies to me. The little spat I am presently having with the editor Johnbod originates from a chance edit I made at Roger van der Weyden's The Magdalen Reading, a favourite painting of mine. I asked for a citation of a statement to the effect her image is Gothic (it's not, it's Renaissance), and I also made some minor changes to the information in the image caption and provided a link to the catalogue page at the National Gallery. Within minutes all of these edits were reverted by Johnbod and a citation provided that I knew at once was spurious (because i know the work, but didn't have it to hand at the time). This was my first substantial edit at Wikipedia and I was not a little piqued. I thanked the ediotr (that was irony),uploaded a very high resolution version of the image that fell off the back of a passing Google van (I mean Google Art Project standard though in fact it comes from the National Gallery) and also uploaded a similarly high resolution image of Ambrosius Benson's treatment of the same subject to my user page, and I arranged for Johnbod's cited source to be forwarded to me (currently I'm away from home). That duly arrived, confirming my suspicions, and I reported it in neutral terms on the Talk page.
  • As for the stuff about infoboxes, that arises because I was also editing at Rogier vand der Weyden's Portrait of a Lady and I had been *very* struck by thge rather cavalier way an infobox had been reverted by users Truthkeeper and Modernist (documented on the talk page there) and I simply got interested in the subject. Modernist made some sort of edit yesterday he subsequently reverted in which I think in retrospect he was accusing me of edit warring on infoboxes in the past, but that's not so. I don't know any of these, though I have looked at Victoriearle's page (ex truthkeeper) trying to understand her issues (and indeed she carries an image of The Magdalen Reading). Well I sympathise with her situation. I get the impression she's been made ill through personal attacks and that's terrible.
  • When I began this account I expected to be editing pretty well exclusively in mathematics, possibly some music! But formatting maths is hard work anmd really on reflection I'm not sure I can offer the time. It's already clear to me that fundamental misconceptions are not easy to correct on Wikipedia.
  • I work in acommunity where I suppose it's fair to say almost all of the younger members edit Wikipedia and absolutely none of the elder members do. I would be the subject of quite a bit of derision if it was know that I had taken to editing Wikipedia. Oh well.
    • Just to clarify, Victoria's health problems have nothing to do with attacks here. Could you please explain how you went from not being sure how to add links to adding fully formatted web cite references in just a few edits? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well of course I didn't mean to confuse Victoria's health problems with the issue. My understanding was that she had been viciously attacked over her dislike of infoboxes and it had affected her health, and I was merely expressing solidarity. I don't see why you have to jump down my throat over that, and incidentally I myself am not attacking her. I haven't made a single disparaging remark about her. We just happen to disagree about them, and all I wanted to do was engage a proper discussion about them in that single article. It's not as if I've been cavorting around Wikipedia creating and restoring infoboxes, and incidentally the Rogier van der Weyden The Magdalen Reading article is as I found it, i.e. without an infobox though I added a link to the National Gallery's catalogue page which would normally have been the URL field in an infoxbox. This was one of my original edits that Johnbod deleted and which he left undisturbed after I had uploaded my very high resolution image, which incidentally I went to considerable trouble to locate. I was able to do so because I am extremely familar with the internet, I mean from a professional point of view.
      • I forgot to give links to the two discussins I refer above. For The Magdalen Reading it is "... pale skin, high cheek bones and oval eyelids typical of the idealised portraits of noble women of the period." and for the infoboxes it is Infobox: WP:BOLD restore and request for views and consensus.
      • You're making rather a lot of this newbie meme. First of all I've sat with people (lots) doing Wikipedia and I was roughly familiar with the interface. As for web citations what I meant in that first edit was that I couldn't see how to do them with the Visual Editor I was trying. I didn't like that in the event and went directly to the standard interface thereafter, and of course it's easy to them from there. I just use the Cite roll=down box and choose the Cite Web template. The only problem I'v had with editing Wikipedia is with the various citaion models. Here's an edit] where I reformatted a citation on realising I hadn't done it correctly and as it happened my closing edits yesterday were to do with copying over a citation model to an article where I wanted to contribute, so yes there is a learning curve here.
      • Just to do concerning Johnbod's mhours remark (which incidentally I found disquietingly intrusive - that is a very real and significant issue for me), I happen not be at home presently and in any case I frequently work into the early hours of the morning, or alternatively get up in the early hours of the nmorning. I mean, really enough! Amanda Jane Mason (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This investigation really worries me. It looks like a case of WP:BITE, Amanda Jane Mason has not nothing wrong, apart from stumbling into continued infobox debate and FA's (both places I advise editors to keep clear of). Whilst there are some overlaps in area of interest between AJM and Rinpoche (Renaissance art, and some mathematics) thats not enough for me. If there was anything related to buddhism I'd be more convinced. The technical link with Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk · contribs) weakens the case for me as that user was into current events and sports people. I would like to see much stronger evidence or some breach of policy before we drive another editor away from wikipedia.--User:Salix alba (talk): 08:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Salix alba, BITE refers primarily to newcomers and this editor certainly does not appear to be a newcomer. I am not trying to attack AJM, but realize that accusing someone of sockpuppetry is going to be seen as an attack no matter what. For admins, you can see where User:FightingMac (a Rinpoche sock) saved a series of similar art threads at the deleted User:FightingMac/Van Gogh "dark" debate (a search there finds "Truthkeeper88" over 100 times). Rinpoche is also known for a wall of text - look at the last section on Talk:The Magdalen Reading. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks and sounds like Rinpoche and friends...Modernist (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, having checked his record - btw this Rinpoche sock claimed to be Swiss too. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the comments here [25], and find it a bit unlikely that this is a new user. Though I did learn a new term: 'mansplaining'. In the interest of gender sensitivity, how does this differ from 'womansplaining'? JNW (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is this. If Mattisse, and Jack Merridew, have any obligations to this community, it is to respect their sanctions. As is often spoken, though I do not know if believed , indefinite does not mean infinite, bans are subject to appeal. Accordingly, we have an obligation in return to respect their conduct in remaining away, as I imagine they are, since neither would be very good at remaining hidden. One way we can do so is not muddying the waters by dragging their name in on very little evidence other than the editor in question here may not be a new editor (so what?). Or to drag them in, in the case of Jack Merridew, on the word of someone who says it might be, but for some reason does not care to post that here personally, thus putting her name and reputation on the line. Someone else did it for them, saving them the bother. To drag their names through the mud and poison the well should they ask for reconsideration should not be lightly done except for very strong evidence of involvement that I do not see here. After all, should they ask for reconsideration, it is not like Wikipedians bother to go get the facts, it would be "oh, I saw her name socking AGAIN! Oppose." So let's have a little less of the gratuitous name dropping. Should this recur, I may rouse myself from my usual torpor and do something about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm disinterested in the editing histories of the various personalities, I've had no reason to speculate as to an identity. But it ought to be quite clear that there is relevance to this not being a new user if it involves purposeful socking, which is what several editors sussed out fairly quickly. JNW (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-new editors come back under new account names all the time. They've forgotten the old one, or the password, or got frustrated and went away, or were the victims of the usual tormenting that seems to be par for the course around here, and, in good standing, have chosen to abandon the old account and start a new day. I daresay that there are a thousand of those for every one of the returning blocked editor. If they aren't blocked, then it's so what? We'd like them to associate their old account on the user page, but it's not something that we're going to block people over.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, if we are naming names, then feel free to point out that I was the one who mentioned Merridew as a possible identity of this sock. While he was suggested to me, I take full responsibility for posting his name here. I also asked above that this case be moved to a "Rinpoche" case name, which would remove it from Mattisse's lengthy SPI archive when this closes. That said, while I wish I were perfect, I am not, and the evidence I posted above linking this sock to Mattisse and Merridew seemed to me to at least indicate a possible match. This is only the fourth time I have opened an SPI, and each time the user in question has been linked to sock puppetry. I do not cry wolf. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you did name Merridew, or Alarbus as I choose to think of him. I did not mention that as I saw no point in doing so. Nothing personal and your record on sock catching is laudable. I don't agree with naming specific editors without a lot more evidence that you put forth. In an email to a CU or arb, that would be quite another matter. If you were the first to name them, I would have said nothing. You were the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.
As for the individual who alleged to you that it might be Alarbus, well, I suggest that if you hear further from that individual on this subject, that you advise her that if she has something worth posting for the edification of the community, that she should by all means post it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, to open a SPI you have to name name(s), so the admin (and check user) have editor(s) to check the suspected sock against. I eventually named three editors to try and cover the most likely possibilities. If a similar case arose again, I would just say another editor (whose gender I have not said) has suggested another possibility, but would not post the name unless the evidence were stronger or the other possibilities did not match. There are many editors who have left the project that I miss, and I am sorry for your losses. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, editing as an ISP has continued today, all but openly admitted. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: From my previous dealings with Rinpoche this certainly looks like him. I'm recusing from making comments as a clerk. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 19:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys I realise this has little to do with Mattisse now, and is obviously Rinpoche, but another instance User:TestTubeFiasco. Ceoil (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • AJM is not Rinpoche. I am not AJM, nor am I Rinpoche. Directly the "technical" link to Rinpoche was found, AJM effectively closed her account by destroying her password, as I am about to do myself. Neither of ever edited Wikipedia before. We were simply doing what our community calls "Wikiduty". Believe me it's pretty fucking boring and this user Ceoil is able to comment on me simply because I just corrected a typo in his latest effort and made a pleasant remark about it. Someone else will be taking over in a few minutes, and incidentally a rather serious intrusion of the privacy of this user Rinpoche, who is genuinely retired and hasn't edited in years, has been sent on to the Wikimdia foundation for their attention. Wikipeida is only half an encyclopedia. The other half is effectively a police state and that has to be monitored and that's what my community does. TestTubeFiasco (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to draw attention to this account's short history, of bits and pieces, some innocous edits, an netherlandish art edit, then some alarming pages on rape, followed by a page by me. This is clearly designed to alarm a friend of mine, and typical Rinpoche, who although often adopts female personaes, at the same time consistently seeks to frighten and intimidate women on this project. Also given the time stamps, given that they were not notifed, yet figured out how to defend and, who Rinpoche and AJM are, in just minutes? Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is unacceptable conduct and independently worthy of an indefinite block.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Wehwalt. I hope you apprciate the position some are coming from here, were there are a lot of gun blazing and they are often inelegant and malign. I repeate my call for this to be moved from Mattisse's investigation. Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand, and sympathise. It is hurtful to me when someone unnecessarily maligns someone whom I have held in esteem, just like for the next guy.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that. None of this has served anybody well. Ceoil (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, can we move this to Rinpoche's inv page, clearly not Mattisse here. Ceoil (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys for moving this. Also 185.29.167.60 Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
14 September 2013
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets

Rinpoche habitually claims to be part of some group of individuals associated with him, and complaints that his adversaries are juveniles, schoolboys, etc. are also common. See comment. There's also a current report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattisse which should be incorporated here. Choess (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users
[edit]

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

I am pretty sure User:Augusto Edilberto Morales is actually a sock of User:Commissioner Gordon given his reference to the German Wikipedian Jamiri on my talk page. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Amanda Jane Mason and Elissa Rubria Honoria since they were found to be probable socks above and it had been quite a while since then with no action. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rinpoche/Archive&oldid=1143537491"