User:81.156.177.21

"Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of melissadolbeer" does not exist.
Please use this link to create the category page
(The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please sign your comments with your name.

The Facts on -Ril-

~~~~ or User:-Ril- and their army of Sockpuppets have:

• Engaged in personal attacks through stalking and revenge reverts and edits against other users

• Engaged in RfC certification fraud

• Engaged in article vandalism by deleting (multiple times) an editor's statements

• Engaged in disruption of Wiki

• Used misleading and deceptive edit summaries

• Attacked other users, particularly admins, who have corrected his actions

• Attacked users who questioned his claims

• Vandalism

• Sockpuppetry

A large number of his edits are for the purpose of harassing/attacking other users or otherwise disrupting Wikipedia.

-Ril- (talk · contribs · block log)

• See [1] for clear evidence.

• See also User talk:-Ril-/ban. The Uninvited Co., Inc. for full details

• See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril-/Evidence

• I have reviewed your edits [2] [3]

[4] where you have added inlined, sexually charged images to the "WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency. I find these edits to be in bad faith, and consider them to be vandalism indistinguishable from a type we see all too often. While the images may be relevant to the subject, the captions you used, the fact that they were inlined rather than linked, the fact that you pursued a sterile edit war to be sure that they remained on the page, and your lack of other participation in the page all speak to the fact that this was a mere act of vandalism rather than an attempt at reasoned discussion.

Based on this vandalism, and your substantial prior history of problems with the community 1, 2, [3], I am making your block indefinite pending the outcome of the arbitration proceeding now underway and pending any further discussion by the community, who may ban users at its discretion.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Excerpts

• It is long overdue...but be careful as all procedures need to be followed...--MONGO 04:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I support this. I feel that -Ril- was trolling. Note how he added a reference to Ouze Merham in this edit. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• No problems from me over the ban. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Please note that -Ril- is still subject to the indefinite block imposed by UninvitedCompany. -Ril- has resorted to a number of sockpuppets and IP addresses to evade the block. There has been a notable lack of enthusiasm for lifting this block (this is what -Ril- characterizes as a "lynch mob"). Given the concerns expressed by two arbitrators and alluded to by -Ril-, I offered to lift it if the Arbitration Committee devised an appropriate temporary injunction against -Ril-, but no such injunction has been forthcoming. Additionally, a number of users suspect -Ril- to be a reincarnation of banned user Lir. Actually, I personally do not believe this, but have instead come to the conclusion that -Ril- is a different banned user. Based on language and IP evidence, -Ril- is clearly British, whereas Lir as I recall was in the US. Additionally, -Ril- has a couple notable characteristics, a tendency to latch onto particular biblical topics, and a habit of naming sockpuppet accounts along a particular theme. This combination leads me to believe that -Ril- is another notoriously disruptive user of sockpuppets, specifically CheeseDreams. --Michael Snow 16:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• When you get to a point where you can't possibly understand a user's actions except in the context of trolling and disruption, I think it's safe to assume that's what they are. Ask yourself, "Why would someone be doing this?" And if the only answer that satisfies your question is "Trolling" or "Vandalism", it's time to ban them. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• It is quite obvious that -Ril- (Lir?) does not have the civility that is so important for Wikipedia to work. I have seen nothing but disruption. Even if he has made valuable contributions, his behaviour is liable to alienate other valuable and more civil contributors.--Wiglaf 07:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• all I've ever seen from -Ril- is trolling and tounge-in-cheek wikilawyering. The decision to block may have been bold, but I agree with it. People should not be expected to put up with this sort of behaviour, and the arbcom still gets to have the last word. dab (ᛏ) 13:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, he is a troll. For instance, he has wasted a lot of people's time on nominating articles for deletion only to make people upset. As soon as you remark that the vfd was unnecessary, he accuses you of personal attacks. A serious problem user, and I strongly support a ban.--Wiglaf 13:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Well done, Uninvited. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Well done, UninvitedCompany, any other user would have been blocked for at least 24-48hours for that, Ril has a long history of disruption on a number of levels, and the Arbitration case should not accidentally provide him with some kind of immunity. -Splash 21:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• -Ril- has started sockpuppeting. His latest appears to be as RonaldTaril (contribs).--Wiglaf 21:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• My only interaction with him was to nominate one of his nonsense categories for deletion (Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Jesus). In general, his actions were very disruptive and made it extremely difficult to assume good faith. I support this block. Carbonite | Talk 11:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speaking objectively, the vandalism of Ril's user page was an effective method of achieving discord. Erwin Walsh

I just noticed

this RFC

lodged by -Ril- against the admin who blocked -Ril-. This brings into question the validity of a ban due to a conflict of interest. It is hard to imagine how UC has remained impartial when there have been prior incidents. Erwin Walsh

Actually, the community response to the RFC -Ril- lodged against me was so positive and heartwarming that, if anything, I think I should like to thank him for it. I now have another of these from User:Wikinerd, leading me to believe that someday I may have a collection of them. Kind of like barnstars, but different. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• I urge the Arbitration Committee to take on the views of the community. -Ril- made the point himself that no-one had unblocked him. If anyone seriously thought he should be unblocked, he would have been. No admin has seen fit to unblock him. Many have supported the block on the relevant page. The Wikipedia community does not want -Ril- around. It would be foolish to unban -Ril- simply because there was no reason in policy for the block. Sometimes what is needed goes beyond policy, hence we have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If any editor is really unhappy that -Ril- has gone, I urge them to come and say their piece. But, in my opinion, UC has done a great service. [[smoddy]] 18:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• The mere fact that nobody has unblocked -Ril-, but instead congratulated TUC on the block speaks volumes.Bmicomp

• Ril is a disruptive user, if there is any controversy about TUC's actions they should she be merged into the Ril Case, and delt with in that context. Given the general issue with slowness of ArbCom, TUC was being predictive of what that outcome would be. Klonimus 23:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• -Ril-'s personality is sort of known by now, and he admitted to having several socks. Here are ones believed to be -Ril-:

• 81.77.0.25

• 81.156.176.160

• The Wife of -Ril- (talk

 • contribs).

• RonaldTaril (contribs)

• User:-RonTaril-

--Noitall 05:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I would add Doc as their writing style and spelling are the same! --Mikefar 06:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew

Here is a little documentation of the early history of the dispute involving the guy who goes by 4 tildes as his name. --AI 12:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 2 May 2005 11:53 [5] DISPUTE/BLANK/REDIRECT User:81.156.177.21 summarizes: "inaccurate -> replace with redirect to accurate detail"

• • 7 May 2005 13:02 [6] DISPUTE/BLANK/REDIRECT User:81.156.177.21 summarizes: "Again. (a) this is mostly irrelevant to the topic, (b) it is a nickname and as such the content goes in the article with the proper name not the nickname"

• • 28 May 2005 13:13 [7] DISPUTE/DISCUSSION User:-Ril-'s first appearance in discussion, summarizes: "M" then disputes article with totallydisputed tag.[8]

• • 9 July 2005 22:14 [9] MERGETAGGED User:Dpr's first appearance, places merge tag, summarizes: "add merge tag" No discussion or explanation of why the tag.[10]

• • 10 July 2005 00:31 [11] BLANK/MERGE/REDIRECT User:-Ril- merges, blanks and redirects, summary "please stay on-topic. Provide large chunks of background ONLY by providing suitable links", "please stay on-topic. Discussing jesus' death and how christianity was born is not appropriate within this article", "->Wikisource", "->external links", "->merge", "merge", "-original research pov assumption", "gospel of mark discussed at Gospel of Mark", "-> Merge", "merge finished". Other than those summaries, -Ril- left no explanation for his major decision.

• • 10 July 2005 22:20 [12] DISPUTE/DISCUSSION User:-Ril- reverts blanking/personalcomments and summarizes: "-vandalism & slander"

• • 10 July 2005 22:23 [13] REVERT/REDIRECT User:-Ril- reverts to redirection and summarizes: "-vandalism & slander" No discussion by -Ril-.

• • 11 July 2005 REVERT WAR ensues.

81.156.177.176 (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

-Ril- uses to avoid block.

81.156.177.21 (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

-Ril- uses this sock to attack Authentic Matthew and defend other socks.

• • • More -Ril- facts:

Of course, it would be nice to know what these political or religious bias or bigotry is suppose to be. -Acjelen 13:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It is irrelevant. They should not prevail in wikipedia.

I would also ask that you stop insulting my intelligence and/or character. -Acjelen 21:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

That requires you have one.

• • • Still more:

• Given the BT IP address, it's hard not to suspect that this is CheeseDreams. Rhobite 21:14, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, but in any event Fish Supper (talk · contribs) and 81.156.92.196 (talk · contribs) are likely The Rev of Bru (talk · contribs), which would push the revert count much higher. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm in east ham (london), and Im guessing the Rev of Bru is in glasgow, as thats the only place the Church of Bru (Irn Bru) really operates. Fish Supper 22:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyone I know is on BT, but we are going over to bulldog soon - its much cheaper. Fish Supper 21:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It is actually Fish Supper who has violated the 3RR (see below). Fish Supper accuses me of violating the 3RR. The first revert according to Fish Supper was actually when I reverted a one sentence change by Rev of Bru at 20:10). Fish Supper's first revert, on the other hand, changed the entire introduction, and I reverted this change only three times. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No, The first revert was 18:53 as I mention above. Slrubenstein had made 6 by the time I reported this. Which is a clear violation of 3RR.

• I believe it is relevant that I explained all my edits on the article's talk page, and Fish Supper provided no explanations for his/her revert. S/he characterizes my reverts as "unwarrented" when I provided detailed explanation for my changes. Needless to say, Fish Supper never responded to my explonation, or provided his or her own. Moreover, Fish Supper's edit summaries ("Naughty" and "Mouse Error") suggest vandalism. Clearly, Fish Supper is not concerned with the article contents, but only with reverting my work. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned with the acts of bullies. Maybe I should concern myself with you more. Fish Supper 21:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are the bully. All you have ever done is delete what I have written, and you have never explained your actions, nor responded to my explanations. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are the bully. You started it. You reverted what 2 other people wrote, and ignored their arguments. Don't try to turn this into a slagging match. Fish Supper 22:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alert Slrubenstein has started making personal insults against me in the edit summaries.

User:Fish Supper

Three revert rule violation on Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Fish Supper (talk · contribs) alias 81.156.92.196 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert at 20:22: [14]
• 2nd revert at 20:24: [15]
• 3rd revert at 20:28: [16]
• 4th revert at 20:38: [17]

Reported by: Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Comments: This user came to Wikipedia only today, [18], [19] and may be a sock-puppet or a friend of another user. At 20:22 Fish Supper reverted a number of changes I made, back to an earlier version by JimWae. Fish Supper accuses me of violating the 3RR. I have made more than three reversions total, today, but concerning different passages (I reverted a one sentence change by Rev of Bru at 20:10). Fish Supper's first revert changed the entire introduction, and I reverted this change only three times.

• The 3RR rule clearly applies to reversions of a PAGE, not a portion therof. It is EXPLICIT about this. Fish Supper 21:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is relevant that I explained all my edits on the article's talk page, and Fish Supper provided no explanations for his/her revert. Moreover, Fish Supper's edit summaries ("Naughty" and "Mouse Error" suggest vandalism. Clearly, Fish Supper is not concerned with the article contents, but only with reverting my work. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note also the connection with User:The Rev of Bru [20], which would indicate even more reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note also that the Rev of Bru appears to be logged on at the same time as me, so its not really posible for us to be each other. Fish Supper 22:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is; all it requires is two browser sessions. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How do you do that? Fish Supper 22:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't do it. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How do you do that AND get two different IP addresses at the same time? Fish Supper 22:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fish Supper continues to revert any edit I make to the article. If this goes on, the effect is the same as if I were blocked from the article. Since I have always provided reasons for my edits, and sources when necessary or requested, and Fish Supper never does, this amounts to harassment. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) It would be a striaght forward 3RR by Slrubenstein however you are allowed to revert banned users. CheeseDreams is currently under an abcom ban. If Fish Supper is indeed a sock then Slrubenstein's actions are legit. I will open the question on WP:AN/IGeni 22:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Slrubenstein made 4 reverts BEFORE I got involved. - at 20:10, 19:11, 18:53, 18:15 He should then be penalised for this alone, let alone the 4+ after I got involved. Fish Supper 22:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :You are denying being that IP adress? I will leave this on to be decided on AN/IGeni 22:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) I swear absolutely that I am not the Rev of Bru. I have no wish to live in glasgow. Fish Supper 22:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem; there's no evidence that the Rev of Bru lives there either. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Barr the fact of his being in the Church of Bru (going by his username). Fish Supper 22:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, it has been definitively proven that he is a member of the Church of Bru, therefore he must be from Glasgow. By the way, I'd never heard of the Church of Bru before, but you seem awfully familiar with it. Oh, and since it appears you know how to comment on Talk: pages, instead of arguing here why don't you mosey on over to the Talk:Historicity of Jesus page and start commenting there, rather than continually reverting that page while studiously avoiding the conversation regarding the article contents? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was a thing in the press about it a while back when there was a big story about Irn Bru in Russia, but if your not from the UK then I guess you won't get the same press. I haven't touched "Historicity of Jesus", so I have no idea why I should comment there?

81.156.177.21 23:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rather than taking my good advice, I see you have reverted yet again. I've blocked you for 24 hours so you can think about ways of interacting on this article that involve more discussion and less reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(a)I haven't touched "historicity of Jesus", why do you think I have

(b)Why did you just block only me? When Slrubenstein made 4 more reverts - this makes you look corrupt.

Wrong article name, but the reversions keep rolling in. Slrubenstein was at least involved in discussing things on the Talk: page; you refused to. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What about (b)?

What about (b)? As I said, at least Slrubenstein was discussing his edits on the Talk: page. You, on the other hand, refused to discuss your edits, and in any event are a sockpuppet who was created for the purpose of violating Wikipedia policy (in this case, the 3RR). I could have banned you permanently on those grounds alone. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So? That is irrelevant. The 3RR policy is not "do not revert 3 times, unless you mention it in the talk page in which case you can revert as much as you like". It is DO NOT revert 3 times in one day, ever. So what about (b). Stop trying to come up with flimsy excuses and sidestepping of the issue and actually answer the question.

CheeseDreams (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For 81.156.177.21 (talk · contribs · block log) (-Ril-)

19:28, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (→Statement by James F.)

19:24, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (→CheeseDreams)

02:09, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dr Zen

02:08, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) User:Dr Zen

02:06, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Now

02:05, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) 4

02:04, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Bye

02:03, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Saying

02:02, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Dream

02:02, 10 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Cheese

I have further concerns with the amount of accounts she has created. She has the accounts User:CheeseDreams, User:Cheesedreams, User:Cheese Dreams, User:Cheese dreams, User:Cheese-Dreams, User:Cheese-dreams and User:Cheese -dreams. She has the possible accounts User:CheeseyDreams, User:CheezDreams and User:CHEESEdreams though I can't be sure. User:Jayjg says that there are many more sockpuppets than that, including User:Acidmonkey, User:Neutra¦ity, User:Fish lizard, and User:To register select a username, though without a developer checking we can't be sure. My point here: I would like all verified sock-puppets blocked indefinitely. A good-fath editor should not normally need more than one account!

Lastly, I am extremely unimpressed by the fact that CheeseDreams tried to do editing by proxy via her friend User:Tigermoon. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive5#Tigermoon_and_CheeseDreams - many admins feel that this was done to bypass her block. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note, it is not clear to me whether User:Acidmonkey, User:Neutra¦ity, User:Fish lizard, and User:To register select a username are direct sockpuppets of User:CheeseDreams, or of User:Tigermoon acting on her behalf. It has also been speculated that User:Tigermoon may, in fact, be a sockpuppet of CheeseDreams, and not just a friend acting on her behalf. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if I misrepresented your comments, Jayjg. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fish Supper (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For 81.156.177.21 (talk · contribs · block log) (-Ril-)

00:12, 20 April 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Fish Supper)

00:10, 20 April 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Fish Supper)

00:07, 20 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dante Alighieri (→HELP)

00:07, 20 April 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Fish Supper)

23:22, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Fish Supper)

23:18, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mirv/Archive 11 (→HELP)

23:17, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Fish Supper)

23:16, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (→User:Fish Supper)

23:15, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Mirv/Archive 11 (HELP)

23:15, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Lord Emsworth (HELP)

23:15, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dante Alighieri (HELP)

23:15, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Angela (HELP)

23:11, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Brian0918 (HELP)

23:11, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:ClockworkSoul (HELP)

23:10, 19 April 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Fennec (HELP)

(Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

Fish Supper (talk · contribs) and 81.156.92.196 (talk · contribs) are likely The Rev of Bru (talk · contribs), which would push the revert count much higher. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note also the connection with User:The Rev of Bru [21], which would indicate even more reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note also that the Rev of Bru appears to be logged on at the same time as me, so its not really posible for us to be each other. Fish Supper 22:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is; all it requires is two browser sessions. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Rev of Bru (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

Fish Supper (talk · contribs) and 81.156.92.196 (talk · contribs) are likely The Rev of Bru (talk · contribs), which would push the revert count much higher. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note also the connection with User:The Rev of Bru [22], which would indicate even more reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note also that the Rev of Bru appears to be logged on at the same time as me, so its not really posible for us to be each other. Fish Supper 22:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is; all it requires is two browser sessions. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

81.156.92.196 (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

Fish Supper (talk · contribs) and 81.156.92.196 (talk · contribs) are likely The Rev of Bru (talk · contribs), which would push the revert count much higher. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note also the connection with User:The Rev of Bru [23], which would indicate even more reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note also that the Rev of Bru appears to be logged on at the same time as me, so its not really posible for us to be each other. Fish Supper 22:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is; all it requires is two browser sessions. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

81.156.93.48 (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

Warning - this IP adress is known to have been used by User:-Ril- whilst banned from editing. --Doc (?) 11:45, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

81.156.95.91 (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

11:12, 20 August 2005 (hist) (diff) Authentic Matthew (r.v. to version by RussBot)

81.156.176.160 (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence

You have been named as one of the alledged "group" at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ril Group-New Violation-Authentic Matthew --Ron. 14:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

-RonTaril- (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence.

-Ronny- (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence.

-Ronny-Taril- (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence.

-Taril- (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-. Please refer to user contributions for evidence.

Lir (talk · contribs · block log)

• The Bible and history - Mel Etitis got involved purely because of a long term grudge against me (due to erroneously believing me to be a sockpuppet of User:Lir, which David Gerard has stated is unlikely, particularly as Lir's grammar isn't so good, and she lives in Ohio), as Mel Etitis has on other edit wars against POV pushers I have been involved

1. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The Wife of -Ril- (talk · contribs · block log)

It is believed that this user may be a sockpuppet of User:-Ril-.

Please refer to user contributions for evidence

RIL GROUP - Authentic Matthew

• THE RIL GROUP consists of

-Ril- (talk • contribs)

Doc glasgow (talk • contribs)

DreamGuy (talk • contribs)

• THE RIL GROUP placed 3 Vfd against Authentic Matthew all of which failed.

• Merge received the least votes.

• THE MERGE PLOT

Since the content seems to have all been merged I think the best way to get rid of this issue is to merge it again, possibly even protecting the page to force those wanting unredirection to give their rationale for doing so. What are your thoughts on this? I'm tempted to be bold, but I might as well get some sort of agreement first.

If no-one replies to this comment in a couple of days or so, I'm going to go ahead. So speak now or forever hold your peace. :) Garrett^Talk 01:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd find that acceptable. But where would we point the re-direct? I'd suggest to Gospel of Matthew - certainly not to Gospel of the Hebrews as the identification of that with something called 'Authentic Matthew' is POV --Doc (?) 01:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 08:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
2. DreamGuy 19:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
3. Garrett^Talk 23:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
4. I would redirect to Aramaic primacy in order to give the reader an understanding of the controversy. --goethean ॐ 15:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest a modified approach here. The Gospel of Matthew article (which is the most important one) currently is filled with a very disproportionate section '#Lost Aramaic ("Hebrew") versions of Matthew' - which is of very minor interest, and may well have been caused by earlier merges from here. I'd like to split that section off into an Origins of the cannonical Gospel of Matthew - we can then redirect 'Authentic Matthew there' and at least keep all the idiotic theories in one place, and away from the mainstream article. I'm willing to do this (and rewrite) if other agree, and defend me against any 'sock attacks' --Doc (?) 17:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Just be sure to spell canonical correctly. :D --goethean ॐ 17:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed (feeling foolish} :-o --Doc (?) 17:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to re-merge Origins of the cannonical Gospel of Matthew back to Gospel of Matthew ? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Could do, but you'd end up with a lot of fairly specialist and complicated stuff in what should be a fairly general overview of the gospel, its contents, origins, socio-historical backgound and significance. I think you'd also end up with a POV war in a fairly important article. I'd like to do some work on Matthew - but I don't want bogged down with all that - especially if our POV warriors return. --Doc (?) 21:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

MERGE & REDIRECT (cur) (last) 23:10, 4 August 2005 Doc glasgow m (redirecting Being bold - enough is enough)

This would seem to be a VfD Violation.

-Ril- (talk · contribs · block log)

See above

DreamGuy (talk · contribs · block log)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy/Statement

• In my view, DreamGuy has an ongoing interest to push a defamatory point of view into the articles on therianthropy and otherkin. This seems to consist mainly of emphasizing similarities between these subjects and clinical lycanthropy, a mental illness; see [24] and [25]. He has additionally made statements which demonstrate a clear bias against these cultures ([26], [27]); in light of these, it is difficult to believe he edits in good faith. I feel he should be forbidden from editing Therianthropy, Otherkin, and Clinical lycanthropy.

--Eequor

• I have found Dreamguy to be needlessly rude and combative. He also frequently removes comments from his talk page, often with uncivil edit summaries, as here and here. He seems to have problems with many, many editors. Friday (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Having tried to work with DreamGuy for several months now, I agree that there is a serious problem here that needs to be sorted out, and goes far beyond the feud with User:Gabrielsimon/User:Gavin the Chosen which has recently come to the attention of ArbCom. DreamGuy is extremely aggressive in discussion and quick to take offence. He constantly violates WP:NPA and makes little attempt to assume good faith, while at the same time using these policies as a club to beat people who have been provoked by his extreme behaviour. It is likely that he has done at least some productive work here, but he appears to spend large amounts of his time on a variety of edit wars that end up disrupting many pages. Vashti 10:49, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Here are some diffs from a current discussion on Talk:Otherkin where DreamGuy repeatedly assumes bad faith and accuses me of dishonesty, even after I tell him that he is mistaken. [28] [29] [30]

Here is another diff from the same discussion, where DreamGuy tells me I'm "not even trying to make sense". [31]

Here is an earlier diff from the same discussion, where DreamGuy tells me that my position is "unproven, unsupported, highly POV and I would go so far as to say highly illogical." [32]

Here is a diff from a recent discussion on Talk:Otherkin, where DreamGuy accuses me of pretending to follow policy and "excising information out of spite". [33]

Here is a later diff from another discussion, where Hipocrite has been working with Gavin to make excellent headway on a controversial point of the article. DreamGuy leaves his first comment for a while, inflaming the situation with Gavin, where leaving the situation to other editors would have achieved his aim. [34]

DreamGuy's frequent assertions of POV on the part of other editors are remarkable, considering the prejudice against the subject matter at Otherkin that he has himself expressed. [35] [36]

Here are some of DreamGuy's recent edit comments, where he accuses editors of bias. [37] [38]

Here are further examples of uncivil edit comments from DreamGuy's user space: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]

I have no doubt that, given more time, I could come up with more evidence. Vashti 07:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

August 26 2005: DreamGuy leaves an initial comment in a discussion on Talk:Otherkin, which he had as yet not been participating in (Talk:Otherkin#poll results), calling a comparison I had made "ridiculous", that it shows "extreme levels of bias", and that it is "one of the most unfair debating tricks in the book". I believe it is also worth noting that User:Gavin the Chosen had not been involved in this particular discussion for some days, which would appear to contradict DreamGuy's suggestion that his uncivil behaviour is entirely down to provocation by Gavin. [45] He then leaves a later comment accusing me of "making outrageous inflammatory false analogies to try and support [my] side". I believe it's worth noting that none of the editors who were participating in the discussion prior to DreamGuy (User:Friday and User:Nickptar) appear to have considered my analogy outrageous, inflammatory, etc, and I believe that if they had thought so they would have brought it up in a matter that was not likely to derail the constructive discussion that was going on. [46]. He then leaves a comment that is purely personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. [47]

The claim that I had not as yet been participating in this discussion is completely and entirely false, as I have been involved in the discussion of that article for weeks, and specifically that conversation. I don't know if he's trying to fool people or if he's fooled himself here. The point being is that this editor tried to support his POV by making an unfair comparison to what was being to discussed to pedophiles. No matter how you cut it, that is quite beyond the pale in debating tactics, and if he feels offended by my pointing it out that should be a clue that what he did was wrong and not that I shouldn't have pointed it out. Vashti's complaints here are simply piling on to someone else's conflict to try to strike back at someone who disagrees with his POV edits. His comments to me have been the same if not worse than what he accuses me of. DreamGuy 18:48, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

The link I provided will demonstrate that you had left no comments in that section of the talk page at all, and that User:Friday, User:Nickptar and I had been holding a discussion for two days before you left the comment I linked to. Vashti 19:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Vashti that the problems with DreamGuy go beyond DG's feud with Gavin the Chosen. I had an encounter with DreamGuy after posting (what I saw as) a friendly warning about 3RR on his talk page on August 2, which led to him making several personal attacks against me, revert warring over them on my talk page with El C, and sending similar comments by e-mail. I'll try to find the time soon to provide diffs. Arbitration would definitely be helpful, as he seems to fall out with just about everyone he encounters, and takes a proprietorial attitude toward articles he's editing, leading to revert wars, page protection, and 3RR violation reports against others (while carefully avoiding violating 3RR himself). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

He's now accusing me of following him around, starting conflicts, breaking policy, being a rogue admin, [48] and being biased, [49] apparently because I've submitted this statement. [50]SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:16, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry I had to use a anon IP addy to write this as DreamGuy would have been attacking me for my statements, anyways this user is impossible to work with on any article, if it's not his way he reverts it. DreamGuy constantly follows editors around and then picks thru their edits so that he can revert their work no matter what, he thinks he knows everything about every subject. He targets new users ive seen him do it to a few new people here in the last month or so. He preaches NPOV and many other policys, yet he violates them same policys himself, just take a good close look at his contributions page and you will cleary see a pattern of his abusive behavior. He watches hundreds of articles just so if anything changes he can go and revert it, no matter what the edit may be, I have seen him go as far as VFD's and COPVIO's on pages so he can have revenge on anyone who has a spine to stand up against him. Cleary he is a problem, im not saying he has not made some good edits, but do the pro's really outweigh the con's? Wikipedia is supposed to be a project were anyone can edit, with users like DreamGuy it makes the goal of building a good source of information impossible. How is it that someone can get away with this kind of behavior and go unchecked? Maybe Wikipedia should have policys against things like stalking, savatage, intimidation and hypocrisy, it seems to me that DreamGuy fits theses statements easily.

Signed Anon User 18:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

From one sock to another

(cur) (last) 19:37, 14 July 2005 -Ril- (→From one sock to another)

(cur) (last) 19:08, 14 July 2005 Doc glasgow (→From one sock to another - OK, but ....)

(cur) (last) 18:52, 14 July 2005 -Ril- (→From one sock to another)

(cur) (last) 18:49, 14 July 2005 -Ril- (→From one sock to another)

(cur) (last) 18:45, 14 July 2005 -Ril- (→From one sock to another)

(cur) (last) 18:29, 14 July 2005 Doc glasgow (→From one sock to another - BTW)

(cur) (last) 17:40, 14 July 2005 -Ril- (→My username)

(cur) (last) 17:39, 14 July 2005 -Ril- (→My username)

(cur) (last) 17:36, 14 July 2005 Doc glasgow (From one sock to another)

Question for Ril

One of your comments on the main page is:

Doc glasgow (above) has a PhD in New Testament (i.e. one of the Peers that Peer Review would involve), and says it is original research, and is a collection of scraps from other articles put together solely to push one POV.

I don't have a Ph. D. and I've never even read the complete Book of Matthew. Can you explain, to someone at my level of knowledge, how an article could be both "original research" and "a collection of scraps from other articles"? If it uses information from other articles, it seems that there's (at a minimum) some material that's not original research. That's why my current vote is to keep the article and weed out the original research.

Incidentally, the first person from either side who uses the word "sockpuppet" in this section of the talk page will be required to go edit Encarta for a month. Let's have at least one little corner of this mess that sticks to the issues. JamesMLane 08:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Old look of User:-Ril-

Please note, I am not User:Ril

nomen or birth name
me in hieroglyphs
Era: Old Kingdom (2686–2181 BC)

If you wish to hail abuse at me, please go here

Extremely important useful link

• Egyptian dictionary
• Hieroglyph markup in Wikipedia

• I have had nothing to do with the article Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116, but it is worth reading.

User:-Ril-/NeatListOfSpecialPages

Although I lecture in comparative linguistics (also known as historical lingustics and comparative philology), I have a strong background in comparative mythology (which, unfortunately, like comparative linguistics, is currently an obscure field with few contributers), which also encompasses historical astronomy (in particular, babylonian and egyptian astronomy - babylonian star charts are still accurate enough to be useful in modern astronomy). I am also slightly dyslexic, and so have occasional trouble spelling words.

______________________________________________________________ ________________________________

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • One week later- Great PR

______________________________________________________________________________________________

NEW look of User:-Ril- and Doc

---

Please note, I am not User:Ril

nomen or birth name
me in hieroglyphs
Era: Old Kingdom (2686–2181 BC)

Download

Extremely important useful link

• Egyptian dictionary
• Hieroglyph markup in Wikipedia

User:-Ril-/NeatListOfSpecialPages

Although I lecture in comparative linguistics (also known as historical lingustics and comparative philology), I have a strong background in comparative mythology (which, unfortunately, like comparative linguistics, is currently an obscure field with few contributers), which also encompasses historical astronomy (in particular, babylonian and egyptian astronomy - babylonian star charts are still accurate enough to be useful in modern astronomy). I am also slightly dyslexic, and so have occasional trouble spelling words.So does Doc?!?!?!

• _____________

• Doc Ril

• _____________

Authentic Matthew

Authentic Matthew From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Revision history (Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500). Legend: (cur) = difference with current version, (last) = difference with preceding version, m = minor edit

(cur) (last) 23:10, 4 August 2005 Doc glasgow m (redirecting Being bold - enough is enough)

(cur) (last) 08:46, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (→Modern theory of the origin of the canonical Gospel of Matthew - rewrite for accuracy)

(cur) (last) 08:42, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (→Modern theory of the origin of the canonical Gospel of Matthew --irrelevance)

(cur) (last) 08:40, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (→The development of the canonical Gospel of Matthew - rename section)

(cur) (last) 08:39, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (merge two paragraphs)

(cur) (last) 08:38, 31 July 2005 -Ril-

(cur) (last) 08:38, 31 July 2005 -Ril- m (→Matthew and Aramaic)

(cur) (last) 08:37, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (+sections)

(cur) (last) 08:35, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (merge two paragraphs together)

(cur) (last) 08:32, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (-duplication)

(cur) (last) 08:31, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (more tidying)

(cur) (last) 08:28, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (re-arrange a bit)

(cur) (last) 08:23, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (-duplication)

(cur) (last) 08:23, 31 July 2005 -Ril-

(cur) (last) 08:22, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (re-arrange)

(cur) (last) 08:18, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (better wording & minus links actually discussing the content of the article Gospel of the Hebrews rather than a Hebrew Gospel)

(cur) (last) 08:14, 31 July 2005 -Ril- (tidy up that sentence)

(cur) (last) 23:01, 30 July 2005 Doc glasgow (I give up - this is beyond redemption)

(cur) (last) 22:54, 30 July 2005 Doc glasgow (remove total speculation)

(cur) (last) 22:52, 30 July 2005 Doc glasgow (correct facts and misleading impressions)

(cur) (last) 22:51, 30 July 2005 Doc glasgow (correct facts and misleading impressions)

(cur) (last) 22:41, 30 July 2005 Doc glasgow (Matthew was certainly written way before Jerome)

(cur) (last) 13:34, 30 July 2005 Ta bu shi da yu (This VfD was only just closed. I'm sorry that this hasn't been accepted, but it was conducted properly. Removing VfD tag - I have deleted the new VfD Ril started. That is disruption.)

(cur) (last) 10:52, 30 July 2005 -Ril-

(cur) (last) 10:50, 30 July 2005 81.156.176.160

(cur) (last) 10:50, 30 July 2005 81.156.176.160

(cur) (last) 10:48, 30 July 2005 81.156.176.160

(cur) (last) 10:46, 30 July 2005 -Ril-

(cur) (last) 10:45, 30 July 2005 -Ril-

(cur) (last) 07:09, 30 July 2005 Dmcdevit (survived vfd, see talk)

(cur) (last) 21:57, 29 July 2005 Doc glasgow (rv pornovandalism WARNING vandal is impersonating another user)

(cur) (last) 21:49, 29 July 2005 --Ril--

(Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500). Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authentic_Matthew"

• Well, there are so many things that make "Doc" look like -Ril-,

mostly based on interests,

location,

and User page,

without any of the bad characteristics. But on balance, at present, I think not, because:

1. no Wikilawyering
2. began before all -Ril-'s troubles, and made quite a few edits
3. no 3RRs
4. no real edit wars or stalking
5. no reverts with statement "POV" or misleading reasons

It is certainly possible that Ril had fun and sacrificed one of his socks and wants to carefully live on under the radar as a user, but I think it too difficult for him. He is so quick to do the above actions, that I do not think he can keep it out of his system. Also, the articles of interest and other Admin items do not totally match up. I may change my mind if the real Ril pops out, but right now on balance I have to say no. --Noitall 06:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Good points and some other thing don't add up, but did you check their user page histories. Could they play at good puppet/bad puppet? --Mikefar 06:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

69.246.66.25 (talk · contribs · block log)

Testing?

68.95.28.89 (talk · contribs · block log)

Testing?

64.24.42.190 (talk · contribs · block log)

testing

82.42.177.127 (talk · contribs · block log)

testing

82.36.134.11 (talk · contribs · block log)

testing

24.5.197.49 (talk · contribs · block log)

testing

84.67.28.137 (talk · contribs · block log)

testing

164.164.127.55 (talk · contribs · block log)

Testing

The above have worked together but there is no solid proof that they are sockpuppets. In the past few weeks they seem to have turned on Ril.

Is it possible that Ril is a teacher who uses his students and sockpuppets, to police Wikipedia to make sure that only his pov is allowed and everything else is removed? Does he think " Wikipedia is a game or an entertainment, played in moves, according to rules, towards a goal? "

His goal: Ril rules wikipedia? --Anon

• I believe the above shows fairly an important problem that faces Wikipedia TheFacts

Use Authentic Matthew discussion page in future please.

Please lets deal with issues before deleting or redirecting articles. You have some good points but I have difficulty not knowing who you are?

Every good wish and blessing,

Melissa

Eusebius

Please note that Eusebius is not regarded as a reliable source in this field. Eusebius is 4th century. Iranaeus (of Lyons) (possibly spelt wrongly) is a much more reliable source. He is mid 2nd century, and even though he is a church father (and thus extremely biased) he nethertheless reports on the views of his opponents, and thus gives us both sides of the case. He is also much closer to the period.-- ANON

Dear ANON,

Certainly the area of Authentic Matthew has been a controversial one. Your points are good, and I agree with the above. However, most scholars concur that the catalogue of Eusebius is an accurate reflection of the works surviving to his time. -- Melissa

Also, listing Eusebius' choice of what is and isnt heresy is not relevant to an article about the gospel of matthew/M/nazoreans/hebrews. It is only relevant to Eusebius. Other people (including Iranaeus, Origen, and Celsus) had different views on the matter. -- ANON

Dear ANON,

There are those who think that Eusebius is a great church scholar. Our point of view is not relevant. In controversial areas, even sources with which we have difficulty should be cited. That is why "the fragments" contained a variety of sources including Origen, Iranaeus, etc. -- Melissa

Likewise, your own view of the origin of the biblical canon has no place in an encylopedia. Your view, is by its very nature, a view, and therefore not factual, is original research, and also not reporting on the views of scholars/relevant persons on the matter. In addition, it is not relevant to the articles you have inserted it into, as it belongs inarticles such as Gospel of Matthew and History of Christianity and Historicity of Jesus to name but a few. -- ANON

Dear ANON,

You jump to the wrong conclusion. There is much in the article on Authentic Matthew with which I disagree. Indeed, my point of view is probably closer to yours than that of the article. That is why I was pleased when user By George merged the two articles. Also, the article on Authentic Matthew is merely a summary of the writings from the early church to now. -- Melissa

Furthermore, Jerome is widely regarded as being inaccurate in this area, not least because he can't tell the difference between the gospel of the hebrews, the gospel of the nazoreans, and the gospel of the ebionites, which are distinct. We know that he can't tell the difference because he quotes from each of these but names them all as the gospel of the hebrews. As such, it makes what he says about hebrews unreliable, as it very difficult to seperate how much of what he says should correspond to a particular one of the texts, and how much to another, and how much is a conclusion he has erroneously reached because he has conflated the three texts into one. -- ANON

Dear ANON,

There are those who agree with what you say about Jerome, but there are many who believe he is a reliable source. Therefore, his writings must be included in any authoritative article. -- Melissa

As you appear to be concentrating your contributions on the apocrypha, at the moment, I would recommend you first read "Apocryphal Gospels:An introduction" by "Hans-Josef Klauck". -- ANON

Dear ANON,

I have. -- Melissa

Authentic Matthew

Authentic Matthew remains one of the most controversial areas of biblical scholarship, and therefore makes it difficult to write a fully unbiased Wikipedia article. There are approximately twenty positions regarding this work that was called Authentic Matthew by the majority of writers in the Early Church. The following are the five major positions:

1. No such thing as Authentic Matthew

Many modern biblical scholars believe that the apostle Matthew never wrote a gospel. They include such scholars as Klauck, Streeter, and the two-source theory, which states that the Gospel of Matthew was written by an unknown editor who merged earlier sources and the oral tradition.

2. Authentic Matthew existed.

This position is supported by the fact that it is cited in the theological discussions of the Early Church fathers.

3. The Gospel of Matthew is Authentic Matthew.

This position states that Matthew wrote a gospel, that is the one that we have in the Bible today. This was the majority opinion until modern biblical scholarship pointed out that the Canonical Gospel was based on Greek sources and not an eye witness account.

4. My point of view.

Matthew wrote a Gospel in Aramaic. Because it was difficult to translate into Greek, sources such as Mark, Q, etc., were used in the translation. Thus, the heavy reliance on Q and Mark in the Canonical Gospel of Matthew.

5. Different Gospels.

This position states that the Gospel of Matthew, Authentic Matthew, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Hebrew Gospel, etc., are all different gospels.

Summary

The purpose of the article "Authentic Matthew" is to put forward the information that we know in an unbiased fashion, not emphasizing any one point of view. Therefore it is important to discuss and edit but not to merely delete or redirect. Where no consensus can be reached, both theories must be put forward so that the reader is fully informed.

By the way ANON, I have read the other material you have submitted to the Wikipedia and found it to be thought-provoking and interesting. Looking forward to your "scholarly" response on Authentic Matthew. I have undone the merge submitted by By George and at present both the Gospel of the Nazarenes and Authentic Matthew stand on their own to be debated and eventually revised. -- Melissa