This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Inconclusive, due to various allegations of sockpuppetry. Therefore, Keep, but permitted to be relisted under hopefully more controlled and less messy conditions. khaosworks 01:37, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Note: to whichever admin closes this VfD — -Ril- (talk · contribs) has taken control of the VfD, deleting and moving to the Talk page comments opposed to his position, while leaving in comments supporting him, including many of his own (including personal attacks and unsubstantiated guesses at sockpuppetry presented as dogmatic claims. I've tried to reinstate his deletions, but he's made a real mess, and I'm sure that I've missed many. My own feeling is that the VfD has been compromised, and should be restarted. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authentic Matthew[edit]

This VFD concerns the above AND its copy+paste duplicate, if recreated, at Authentic Gospel of Matthew.

Article is

This was merged by me, as a result of someone else requesting a merge, as follows

This was then changed into a redirect to Gospel of the Hebrews.

There followed an edit war between editors restoring the article and me returning the redirect. The editors restoring the article (not including the recent addition of Mel Etitis, who was requested to do so by one of the aforementioned editors, and appears to have a vendetta against me for no known reason) are in my opinion sockpuppets of Melissadolbeer - the original creator of the article. For further discussion of this alleged sockpuppetry see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer.

Reply to VFD[edit]

As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations.

Matthew, also called Levi, who used to be a tax collector and later an apostle, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. This Gospel was afterwards translated into Greek (and the Greek has been lost) though by what author uncertain. The Hebrew original has been preserved to this present day in the library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having this volume transcribed for me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria, who use it. (On Illustrious Men 3)

and

In the Gospel which the Nazarenes and the Ebionites use which we have recently translated from Hebrew to Greek, and which most people call The Authentic Gospel of Matthew

(Commentary on Matthew 2)

Votes[edit]

I chose the redirect merely based on the fact that most of the content that was merged rather than deleted was merged to Gospel of the Hebrews. I have no particular preference over where it gets redirected to, and have no quarrel if it is preferred that it goes to Gospel of Matthew or other such article. ~~~~ 23:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has 32 prior edits. ~~~~ 17:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. the item of the apocrypha in question is alleged by the article to be the Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Ebionites, and Gospel of the Nazarenes. These 3 already have articles. ~~~~ 07:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any mention of Matthew in Apocrypha, even in older versions, much less any mention of "Authentic Matthew". There are links to Hebrews etc. in New Testament apocrypha but no months-old link to Authentic Matthew, in fact none at all. Could you say more specifically which links you were verifying? My search has yielded two candidates for most (possibly all) links, or one if 202.176.97.230 and Melissadolbeer are the same. This is not at all indemnifying, of course, but I would be very interested to know if there was at least one pre-existing link. The page was created Feb. 8 of this year. Davilla 06:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Melissadolbeer's behaviour with sockpuppets as described in the RFC is beyond acceptable. The article was edited. Melissadolbeer + sockpuppets reverted it back. ~~~~ 17:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record 1) I am not Melissa's sockpuppet but rather her husband. 2) Melissa has never used a sockpuppet! 3) I do know sockpuppets are legal at Wikipedia but not to vote more than once or to lie and abuse people like my wife. Over the years you have hurt many people including my wife and that is what I object to! People are more important than articles or your ego. --Poorman 08:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In wikipedia, articles are more important, this isn't about creating an collection of popular opinion, but one of noteworthy facts. ~~~~ 19:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An additional note. If Poorman is not melissa, then why make this edit [1] where Poorman signs as Melissa? ~~~~ 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hardly a sockpuppet abuse! Indeed this when taken in context affirms they are husband and wife.--Mikefar 00:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. It is clearly Poorman signing as Melissadolbeer, there is no signed "Melissa's husband" its signed "melissa". ~~~~ 07:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but I don't think it's wise to vote based on the conflict between these two. That can be resolved in mediation, as you say, unless you were to pass judgement yourself. If that's the case then it's your choice to risk making a decision that isn't fully informed. One would say of the other that Ril has a vendetta and that Melissa is taking it personally. I don't know who's right, if anyone is, but who's right shouldn't really be the point. We know we want to vote objectively. I say, vote on the objective aspects. Davilla 05:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~~~~ 16:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A note. If Poorman is not melissa, then why make this edit [2] where Poorman signs as Melissa? ~~~~ 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hardly a sockpuppet abuse! Indeed this when taken in context affirms they are husband and wife.--Mikefar 00:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. It is clearly Poorman signing as Melissadolbeer, there is no signed "Melissa's husband" its signed "melissa". ~~~~ 07:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned before, this was already done. Melissadolbeer's sockpuppets reverted it back to its original state. ~~~~ 19:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And go in Gospel of Matthew, or Biblical Canon, or Gospel of the Hebrews. This article solely pushes original research. ~~~~ 16:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked for a review of my vote, to determine whether I feel that the article as it stands deserves existance. I do feel that the article does deserve existance as it stands, although I also feel it may be better suited for one of Wikipedia's sister projects, as I'm not entirely convinced it is strictly encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above has already voted as a sockpuppet.~~~~ 07:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. ~~~~ 16:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
THE ABOVE USER IS A SOCKPUPPET OF A USER WHO HAS ALREADY VOTED. SOCKPUPPETRY ADMITTED AT WP:RFAR ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(A) Please avoid personal attacks under any circumstance. There is no excuse for personal attacks ever - see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
(B) I have no sockpuppets, all the people you accuse of being my sockpuppets are substantial contributers of over 6 months standing, exhibiting a very diverse range of views quite different to mine in many cases.
(C) People are quite capable of viewing my contribution history and deciding if I am bad or not. Likewise they can view yours and see that you are an obvious (and self-admitted) sockpuppet.
(D) Truth is not capitalised. ~~~~ 08:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has 8 prior edits (and uses Melissadolbeer's fairly distinct terminology - "published work", which is all over her & her sockpuppet's edits) ~~~~ 18:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jerome's opinion on the matter is universally regarded as a (probably innocent) mistake on his part amongst academics. AND it is still mentioned in the relevant articles. The article at Authentic Matthew is an original research POV pushing issue based on assuming (against the vast consensus amongst academics) that Jerome was correct.~~~~ 18:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments not directly linked to a vote[edit]

a) I have never used a sock-puppet, and Poorman is my 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.)
N.b. Poorman signed as melissa, and only appeared when Authentic Matthew was threatened, and has no other edits. The other socks are even more obvious, e.g. User:Mikefar. ~~~~ 06:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
b) the sources I have used are all published works which are still in print -- Jerome, etc., etc.
N.b. academics almost universally consider Jerome to have made an error. He never pushed his opinion as a rival theory, and indeed seems quite unaware his opinion was unusual. Academics universally consider that this was most likely an innocent error due to lack of information on his part, and not a deliberate "they were definitely one book" theory. The article being VFD'd presents this as a deliberate theory, which is original research. ~~~~ 06:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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. I further request that Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) not be one of the administrators involved with this, due to her special relationship with Ril. --Melissadolbeer 05:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

::No. That's most likely just a lie to avoid the VFD's result. ~~~~ 06:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC) (struck out personal attack)[reply]

N.b. only the arbitration committee can "adjourn", suspend, or postpone VFDs, and only then by an injunction. There is none, so this VFD must close at the normally allocated moment. ~~~~ 06:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the above sockpuppets are mine. However, I do not believe that melissadolbeer has had anything to do with the above sockpuppets.--Mikefar 01:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A proper informed debate on the article does need to happen and reach a resolution -'freezing' it for long, whilst it might (??) cool individuals, does Wikipedia content no favours! I'd suggest that this current nomination be terminated (quickly) and another begun (soon), in which -Ril- on one hand and Mellisodobeer (and associates) on the other are each invited to make a statement then withdraw (on that basis I'd chip in my bit too) - and then some disinterested party (not -Ril-) monitor the debate. --Doc (?) 08:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sanest and sagest suggestion rendered to date (including my own several "contributions" even). The POV-warriors who have brought this finally to VfD should be permitted to say their piece and then SIT DOWN AND LET EVERYONE ELSE SPEAK. Tomer TALK 09:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Above user is a sockpuppet (ZERO PRIOR EDITS) ~~~~ 16:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
N.b. VFD procedure does not contain procedure for a "rebuttal section", but it does specify that extensive discussion goes in talk.
N.b. In the same edit, Melissadolbeer's sockpuppets are also deleting all the comments marking users as sockpuppets (e.g. user has n prior edits). It is standard procedure in VFD to mark suspected sockpuppets, due to lack of prior edits, as such. Removal (by Melissadolbeer's socks) of such comments can only possibly serve to attempt to hide that the users are sockpuppets, which is pretty much conclusive evidence that they are. ~~~~ 17:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: to whichever admin closes this VfD — -Ril- (talk · contribs) has taken control of the VfD, deleting and moving to the Talk page comments opposed to his position, while leaving in comments supporting him, including many of his own (including personal attacks and unsubstantiated guesses at sockpuppetry presented as dogmatic claims. I've tried to reinstate his deletions, but he's made a real mess, and I'm sure that I've missed many. My own feeling is that the VfD has been compromised, and should be restarted. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
More