Hosta

by | Mar 16, 2018 | Hosta

How Can We Help?
You are here:
< Back

User:Roy Ward

Roy Ward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Roy Ward

Roy Ward (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by *Siru108 (talk)

In general: All are involved on both Diamond Way Buddhism and Ole Nydahl, and do not participate in discussion (or very little).


3RR

In at least one case 3RR rule has been avoided by next user continuing reversions. I included this since one of the user involved was already banned indefinitely.

Roy Ward reverting to former version on Diamond Way Buddhism:

1st revert:[1]

2nd revert: [2]

R.tina14 reverting to same former version:

3rd revert? [3]

4rd revert?:[4]

Roy Ward reverting to former version on Ole Nydahl:

1st revert: [5]

2nd revert: [6]

R.tina14 reverting to same former version:

3rd revert? [7]

4rd revert?:[8]


Similar writing/editing styles

They continuously delete the same viewpoints / reinsert similar viewpoints that are not based on reliable sources. (I bring only examples from Ole Nydahl pages, but this applies to Diamond Way Buddhism as well). This is a little tricky, but look at the reasons for reverting. Terms like “Stop vandalism” “Reverted Vandalism” “stop deleting anything critical” etc. There is also a tendency that unsourced or poorly sources claims are referred to as “well sourced”, claiming that others do not stick to NPOV, but not interested in further discussion.

See overview of contributions:

Roy Ward [9]

R.tina14[10]

Peter Robinson Scott[11]

Bandizzle[12]

User:82.13.154.98 This is tricky. The other suspected sock poppets often use the word "cult" about Diamond Way Buddhism, despite no evidence whatsoever. This user wants to label is as a "New Religious Movement" [13]


Templates

Several of the accounts has been used for adding or removing templates. This is a few examples, I can add more if the evidence is not sufficient.

Removing Buddhism Template: (Since there seems to be no reason to do this is an article about a Buddhist subject)

User:195.244.5.16[14][15]

Peter Robinson Scott[16]

Removing NON-ENG template (despite a NON-ENG source are used):

R.tina14 [17][18]

Roy Ward [19][20]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: Imported from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Roy Ward. -- lucasbfr talk 21:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.

CheckUser request: That one might need a CU attention. -- lucasbfr talk 09:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Sock Puppets? I went throug the history on Diamond Way Buddhism, You might also want to take a look at these:
  • Dusepo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·  · block user · block log · CheckUser)
  • Tinel Laventus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·  · block user · block log · CheckUser).
They both did contribute on the same pages with the same accusation (Cult, Lama is against the WP rules etc.). They have the same style and critical, unverified edits as the rest.
Dusepo [21][22][23]
Tinel Laventus [24][25][26]
The suspected users (including the ones on the list) are also active on the Shamota Tala Rinpoche page, nominated for deletion [27]. Said that it is very odd that all these have the same knowlegde of a person, but none can provide any evidence... --Siru108 (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More Sock Puppets?
  • Emma J Stacey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·  · block user · block log · CheckUser)
  • Sexy spicy hannah bw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·  · block user · block log · CheckUser) (Already Blocked for vandalism)
And possibly also this "vadalism only" account:
  • Olenydahlisafraud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs ·  · block user · block log · CheckUser)
Same kind of edits, same style, same pages;
Emma J Stacey: [28][29][30]
Sexy Spice Hannah bw: [31][32][33]
The users has been noticed about the suspection Siru108 (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Confirmed that the following are related:

All tagged and blocked.

 IP blocked.

[[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 10:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Palado Toko (talk ·  · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). IP now hard-blocked. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 02:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions

All sockpuppets confirmed and blocked.

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.


[[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 10:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date January 24 2009, 16:33 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Siru108 (talk) 16
33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


Same wrong info:

Like former Sockpuppets, claims that Diamond Way was founded in 1972, and using the name Diamond Way, despite the name of the organization is Diamond Way Buddhism. Despite, Diamond Way Buddhism wasn't founded as an organization until after the Karmapa Controversy 1992.: [37][38][39] Siru108 (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discrediting Ole Nydahl and Diamond Way Buddhism

There is a similar wanting to discredit Ole Nydahl. Among these:

Claiming Ole Nydahl claims he is a Buddha, despite he doesn't: [40]

Refuse the title Lama, using “Guru” instead: [41]

The sentence “called Lama Ole Nydahl in the group”[42] reminds me of the former Sock Puppets, claiming he is saying “called “Lama Ole” by his follower”. Siru108 (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

… And Diamond Way Buddhism:

Same kind of criticism (despite not in same exact words); Calling Diamond Way “religious based” and “commercial”: [43] Calling it a New Religious Movement or Cult (like the others), despite no evidence whatsoever:[44][45][46][47][48] Siru108 (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other similarities

Seems to have been in London taking a picture [49], while several of the other Sock Puppets say they are from London as well, or they are native english speakers: [50][51][52][53] Siru108 (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

What on earth is all this about? I only signed up here a few days ago. Is this all because I called your beloved organisation a new religious movement? Kareesa Tofa (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date January 26 2009, 13:59 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Siru108 (talk) 13
59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


Same sladerous gossip, uses Wiki-cross links as a reference like User:Peter Robinson Scott:

[54][55][56]

Do not accept Lama title: [57]

... And appears to start the edits just after the others where blocked... Coincidence?

(This is not much evidence, but 4 out of a total of 8 edits, already reminds of the former Sock Puppets)

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

So anyone who says anything critical about Ole nydahl or Diamond Way is a sock puppet? Sounds to me like you are trying to censor. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored, and both those article do need sorting out, because at the moment, both read like press releases, and you couldn't be more biased if you tried. There are a lot of former members of Ole Nydahl's cult who have been abused by it and that's why they left!! You can't keep the lid on it all forever you know. Sooner or later the truth will come out. Stop attempting to censor Wikipedia, and allow the two articles in question to go back to their former, more neutral versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocky pete 1907 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC) most people do not accept ole nydahl's claim to be a lama, because he 'has not done the 3 year retreat and is therefore not qualified to hold that title. it's like me claiming to be a doctor after not doing a phd!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocky pete 1907 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 Clerk note: reformatted to remove L2 heading. Adding extra headings makes a horrible mess of WP:SPI Mayalld (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)  Clerk note: two additional socks blocked Mayalld (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
Mayalld (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date February 1 2009, 10:29 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Siru108 (talk) 10
29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


Former Evidence (Added January 26 2009): Same sladerous gossip, uses Wiki-cross links as a reference like User:Peter Robinson Scott:

[58][59][60]

Do not accept Lama title: [61]

... And appears to start the edits just after the others where blocked... Coincidence?

(This is not much evidence, but 4 out of a total of 8 edits, already reminds of the former Sock Puppets)

It was found that it was "Possible" this was another Sock Puppet

New evidence:

Reverts to version created by User:Showtime At The Gallow and User: Jofakēt [62]

Has the same idea, that unverified claims should be considered as useful arguments [63][64][65] just like User:Roy Ward [66]

Another unsoursed attempt to discredit the Diamond Way Buddhism and the choice of the 17th Karmapa: [67]

This was also apparent with User:Showtime At The Gallow [68]

Apparently know about a source removed before the user became active, added by the former Sock Puppets:[69] And also uses this source. It meet no criteria whatsoever to be a useful source, really odd that separate persons would find it useful![70] Former Socks using it:[71]

Using an IP-tracer, it seems this person is located just Dartford, Kent, not very far from London [72], whereas several of the others declared they lived in London or UK.

Evidence submitted by Siru108 (talk)


81.98.176.218: Look at the contributions, same agenda, same reason to delete, claiming everything is vandalism.[73][74] Located same place as former suspected IP-user:82.13.154.98

Location A [75] Location B [76]


  • I requested semi-protecting on the two pages, but it was declined, as there was not enough disruptive edits. So you guys will see much more to the "Roy Ward"s it seems...

More:Siru108 (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

82.13.152.17

Jumps in, make one edit [77], which is incerting the exact same poor source including gossip, which the former did.Despite consenssus not to ise it by the non-Sockpuppets:[[78]]

User:Introspective Perspective Register yo go straigjt in and report me on the Ole Nydahl and Diamond Way Buddhism pages [79]. Claims not to have been very active before (and not being identical with the IP-user I reverted, which is on this page too) [80], but do for some reason hide the former indetity [81]

81.98.178.122 Restores same link against WP:COPYLINKS as the former IP did [82]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


1. the same "slanderous" gossip? - here i have merely referred to what others are saying - it is true that some have voiced their concerns - i do not believe that this is in question [83]

- i have put my reasons for referring to the lioncity buddhist e-sangha site - i have not quoted anything from those pages, but instead simply reported their content and referred the reader to such pages

- i have elsewhere added the idea that Lama Ole Nydahl rejects the foundational Vajrayana Upasaka vows [84] - i do not believe that this is something contentious - does Situ108 also dispue this?

2. i have cross referenced wiki links as i took them to be a neutral source and was unaware that this was improper

- nevertheless, Situ108 has written on one page that there is no-heirarchy and then on another that there is a meitocratic heirarchy - this is contradictory and needs to be addressed [85] [86]

3. i have not in fact questioned the Lama title, but have simply re-worked the existing material into more complete and coherent sentences. [87]

4. i have made no claim that DWB is not Vajrayana [88] i was simply pointing out to Situ108 what the issues were, and provide the reasoning behind Martin Baumann's claim that DWB was "buddhism lite."

On the Karma Kagyu page on wikipedia [89] it lays down certain criteria which Lama Ole's teachings do not meet - i have drawn no conclusions from this and have simply attempted to discuss it with Situ108 on the talk page. in response to this, Situ108 has repeatedly failed to grasp this point - so here it is again - some people (not me) have questioned Lama Ole's style and methods - i have provided you with some of the reasoning behind their claims - you (Situ108) seem not to grasp this point and have repeatedly tried to make out that this whole issue is beyond question - this therefore means that it has become very difficult to put a balanced and neutral viewpoint because half of the argument - voiced by some highly respected members of the buddhist community - is continually being censored by you (Situ108).

5. it is true that you say - all sources are biased - if that is the case then a balanced article will include both sides of the argument

6. i also agree that it is not appropriate for roy ward to publish his personal story here. nevertheless he has a story and so do several others - i take it that is not in dispute - the fact that some people are offended by some of Lama Ole's comments is not simply "my idea of things" as you put it (Siru108) [90] - that comment by me was an attempt at discussion with you - my point is that it is an undeniable fact that certain groups and individuals have taken issuue with some of Lama Ole's remarks about them and that this should be mentioned in some form on the page about him.

7. [91] for me, this says it all. you have repalced my neutral reporting of the facts with a slanderous and value-laden remark about the other claimant to the title of Karmapa.

Elsewhere you cite just a single reference from Tomek Lehnert, who you say yourself is a student of Lama Ole's, yet you make no attempt to put the other side of the case.

you claim that i am attempting to discredit DWB and 17th Karmapa - by putting a balanced and neutral viewpoint!!! - the truth is that you are the one using words like "corrupt" to try to discredit the opposition to your view

it is no secret, and neither is it contentious to claim that Shamar Rinpoche was the one who made Ole a Lama, and that Ole and DWB are supporters of Shamar Rinpoche's counter claim concerning the Karmapa title. Tai Situ has the support of the majority of lineage holders, the majority of Karma Kagyu Lamas, and the Dalai Lama - so how does this look to the outside observer? i have no preference for either side, but i do not think that Wikipedia is the appropriate environment for you to champion your support for one of the sides.

(if i wished to discredit the 17th Karmapa, then i would have tried to remove the quotes from the Curran book, but i am happy to keep them provided there is some counterbalance to this partisan view)


8. i knew about the source before i became active [92] - firstly because i read the talk page, and secondly because i have been familiar with it for some time because i take a keen interest in this matter.

9. [93] strange that you lump these together - i am not using that quote from the article, but simply referring the reader to this article, published in the daily telegraph and by the canada tibet committee - which i take to be a reliable source, and which adds important balance by putting formward a different opinion to Erik D. Curran's.

the fact that you (Siru108) simply dismiss the article as not useful, simply because it argues a different viewpoint than your own - shows just how one sided you are being here.

10. did you ever stop to consider that more than one person could possiblly have such a viewpoint?

the fact that such views can be found in the Daily Telegraph, the Canada Tibet Committee, Oliver Frieberger, Martin Baumann, Tai Situ, the Dalai Lama etc. would seem to suggest that this is not simply the work of one person!


86.157.28.172 (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Siru108 (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk declined not needed per WP:DUCK Mayalld (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Note I've merged two cases togather, as we can't have two active cases at one time on one user. The bot will treat both cases as a single case. —— nixeagleemail me 15:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can conclusively say that User:86.157.28.172 is an alternate account used by Roy Ward due to comments on this page. Doing a block on that IP however is useless unless we do a range block on all of BT Public Internet Service. The range User:86.157.28.172 was on is 86.128.0.0/10.
User:81.98.176.218, User:82.13.152.17, User:81.98.178.122 are all virgin media IPs. These are all originating from the UK, so if the edits are similar, we can probably say its the same user. Our options for completly blocking this user however are slim unless we apply a range block on virgin media and BT. Both seem to be using dynamic IPs, so blocking the individual IPs won't do much good. —— nixeagleemail me 15:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh speaking of that, we really don't need checkuser in this instance, we just need to figure out the best options with regards to these IP ranges. Stopping up the ranges for a few weeks will likely prevent future issues. —— nixeagleemail me 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically. 
--- Does anything need done? (blocking socks or anything?)
*They seem to have stopped completely... The threat of getting an IP-range block, seems to have been enough (or are they blocked already?). I'll file another report if it starts again. Siru108 (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date April 13 2009, 19:52 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Siru108 (talk)


Same stuff, it is really obvious if looking at the contributions list: Some rigid accusation against Ole Nydahl and Diamond Way Buddhism, and then pretending having no idea why edit are deleted.

False and unsourced info about DW: [94]

Same empty accusations against Ole Nydahl: [95] - and more, including the use of the term "cult", which is typical for the former sockpuppets [96]

Not to mention IP location is UK again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siru108 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Other utilized evidence besides the archive: [97]Valley2city‽ 00:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Blocked User:82.13.153.8 for 72 hours, Blocked User:Roy Ward indefinitely. please tag and archive Valley2city‽ 00:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Synergy 03:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Report date June 2 2009, 15:12 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Siru108


The same unsources accusations that DW is a cult once again: [98][99] and that Nydahl is a criminal religious leader [100] despite the list is intended for those committing crime after becoming religious leaders.

A few examples: contributions on the "cult" thing from earlier confirmed sockpuppets: [101][102][103]

Also see this list of edits by the accused [104]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users

Couldn't a long-term semi-protection be applied to the Ole Nydahl and Diamond Way Buddhism? The disruptive edits has been lasting ONE YEAR (!!!) now, and the accusations are rather harsh (as I filed in former cases, even accusations of sexual abuse and being a cult, brainwashing etc.: All really serious (and unsourced) accusations especially since we are talking about a small minority religion in the west). Range block has earlier showed some effect, but it will effect more people than just preventing unregitered users from editing the two pages (lets face it, there are very few serious edits from unregistered user on both pages). There was some period of semi-protection that showed to be very effective, but the disruptive edits started again after the protection ended. Siru108 (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Appears to be a static IP, so I've given it an anon-only block for 6 months. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Report date June 2 2009, 15:47 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Siru108


There is one more:

Same “cult thing” (see evidence in the last Roy Ward case to compare) [105][106]

And the former sockpuppets seemed quite obsessed with Rick Ross (consultant) (actually a bot has been set up to removed Rick Ross links [107] on the pages because of this). The interest also seems to be shared: [108]

Former sockpuppets and Rick Ross: [109][110][111]Siru108 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users
CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Declined, the reason can be found below.    Requested by Siru108 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]


 Clerk declined The editing patterns are quite different. Mayalld (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


Conclusions

 Delisted This editor has a considerable overlap with the original account in timeframe of edit history, and a much wider interest, as evidenced by the effort put into building his sandbox. He has indeed edited the Diamond Way article, to categorise it as a new religion, and edited an article on on Ross to create a redirect. However, these are a small part of his edits, and do not appear to be overly critical of DWB. Identifying this editor as a potential sock on such flimsy evidence is verging on WP:OWNership of the affected articles. Mayalld (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.

Mayalld (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Categories
Table of Contents