Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)), the page will be delisted from WP:RFC. It may not be currently be deleted due to its having been added as evidence to a case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. The current date and time is: 01:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC).

Melissadolbeer (talk • contribs)

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Dubious conduct by Melissadolbeer, using sockpuppets to preserve a version of a page that was justifiably merged. Several of the sock puppets use behaviour that could be viewed as harassment.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Melissadolbeer seems to refuse to allow the article Authentic Matthew to be edited in any way whatsoever.

Background

Some background to the article surrounding this behaviour - it contained

A very large source text. This was moved to WikiSource.
A badly formatted list of what Eusebius thought was and wasn't canon. This was dispersed to articles such as Biblical Canon and Eusebius.
Original research based on Jerome's discussion of the text in question. Most scholars apparantly view Jerome as having made an error and mixing up 3 texts thinking they were one - i.e. that they are different. The original research treated them as one item and did not note that this was a minority position, or that it is generally viewed as an error of Jerome.
Small snippets of salvagable content. This was merged to Gospel of the Hebrews, which was what it was discussing.

After transwiki of the source text, removal of original research, and salvaging of remaining material to appropriate articles, there was nothing left. Since the bulk of the content was merged with Gospel of the Hebrews this was where it was redirected.

Sockpuppets

There followed a series of reverts

Neither "watcher 1" nor "Goodboy" have previous edits other than to their very odd user & talk pages.

Meanwhile a redirect was created [5] by 202.176.97.230 (talk • contribs). Note this user currently only has 6 edits - all to similar articles.

This was followed by an edit to that redirect to turn it into an article [6] from 202.176.184.118 (talk • contribs). Note this is essentially a copy+paste of the text, and that this user has currently only 1 edit.

Then there was a change of Authentic Matthew to redirect to the duplicate article [7] by Poorman (talk • contribs).

This user subsequently makes a series of paper thin edits to the article [8]. The user's total edits consist only of edits to this article - [9].

More recently, there has been removal of NPOV notices [10] on the article by -Watcher1- (talk • contribs)

Even more recently, 202.176.97.116 (talk • contribs) attacked VfD (0 prior edits) in a non-voting manner and was reverted (by someone other than me). This IP also created -Angel77-.

From this, it is obvious that the following are all sockpuppets of each other

Where Melissadolbeer fits in

From the history of the article - [11] it is clear that Melissadolbeer was the main creator of its content - [12].

It should be noted that the source text was added [13] by 203.144.210.225 (talk • contribs) almost all of whose other edits were to Gospel of the Hebrews. Note that their edits to Gospel of the Hebrews rendered it an almost exact copy of the article at Authentic Matthew - [14], and earlier - [15].

From this it is obvious to me that the following users are identical to each other

203.144.210.225 (talk • contribs)
Melissadolbeer (talk • contribs)

Melissadolbeer has subsequently engaged in extremely peculiar edits bordering on harassment, duplicating negative comments from my talk page in their own talk page - [16]

Previous behaviour

It struck me that prior editing may also be relevant. Having investigated the prior editors of the page, there is one more editor behaving in the same manner.

Angel77 (talk • contribs)

In particular, the similarity is in the bizarre insertion of large quantities from other pages into talk pages - [17], [18], [19], [20], [21].

Summary

It is my opinion that the following are all sockpuppets, whose purpose is to preserve original research by Melissadolbeer, thus causing disruption to wikipedia (in particular, Angel77's postings to talk pages, including their own).

Additional Summary

To the above list should be added

Teenangel (talk • contribs)
Mikefar (talk • contribs)

whose edits speak for themselves. ~~~~ 19:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Mikefar has admitted to being one of many sockpuppets at WP:RFAR. ~~~~ 18:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

~~~~ 21:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

I am not a sockpuppet, I am a man. Capitalistroadster 09:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

Issues

Ril's VfD accuses Melissa Dolbeer of:

a) sock-puppet abuse and lying;

b) original research.

I, --Melissadolbeer 05:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC) state, and the fact is that:[reply]

a) I have never used a sock-puppet, and Poorman is my lawfully wedded husband. I am willing to provide Wiki administrators with full documentation to prove my innocence via snail mail. (Also, Poorman has agreed to joint web cam interviews or a conference telephone call.)

b) the sources I have used are all published works which are still in print -- Jerome, etc., etc. (See my talk page.)--Melissadolbeer 06:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One month cooling off period

As my mother-in-law has been in a life-threatening car accident, I request an adjournment of the arbitration proceedings for one month, as neither Poorman nor myself will be available for the next couple of weeks. --Melissadolbeer 05:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Second Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

a) I admit to having used sockpuppets, but deny having done anything illegal.

b) I have been monitoring

and believe one or more of them to be guilty of sockpuppet, verbal, editing, and voting abuse.

c) Here is an example of a conversation between Doc glasgow and Ril (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 ....)

d) If one reads the edit and vote for deletion history of Authentic Matthew carefully, one will see the abuses.

e) Several of the votes for deletion "because of original research" are suspect, for although this article has many weaknesses, Melissa Dolbeer has cited an excessive number of published works that she used in writing this article. (Note-Ril deletes all views that show him to be in the wrong)

f) It is my request that Wikipedia fully investigate the situation and take the appropriate action.

Please see Evidence at --Mikefar 07:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

This is an improper RfC. First, it concerns a dispute over a single article, on which, secondly, no other action has been taken to reach resolution. It should be deleted (as I expect it to be, when no-one else signs in its support), and the matter dealt with in the normal manner.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Forgive me if this isn't the right place for this; I have no experience of this process. I have no wish to be involved in this dispute; I only wish to point out, that contrary to the suggestion above, I am certainly NOT a sockpuppet; I'm an individual Wikipedian living in Derby, England. I have a website at jamesgibbon.com. I can be contacted by telephone by an admin if necessary. I've added a similar comment to WP:RFAR. jamesgibbon 13:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One other point: my name is included in a list of users who are alleged by Melissadolbeer to "have deleted some good articles, been rude on occasion and some have even been blocked". I have never deleted an article, never been rude to anyone here, and have never been blocked. jamesgibbon 13:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.