Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Authentic Matthew (inconcluded)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

  • If the person who submitted the VfD would like to move this and resubmit it, I while administer the vote. But they will have to do it on Monday, as I won't be around on the weekend. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Authentic Matthew

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

  • The source text is already at WikiSource
  • Salvagable content about Eusebius and Biblical Canon was already moved to Eusebius and Biblical Canon.
  • Salvagable content about the Gospel of the Hebrews merged there.
  • Unsalvagable original research deleted.

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.

[edit] Reply to VFD

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

  • Jerome, a published scholar who did the original research on Authentic Matthew wrote,
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)

[edit] Votes

  • DELETE. ~~~~ 22:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote (for the moment) - I've a Phd in New Testament - and I'm going to need time to get my head round this - it is all quite technical. This article looks to me like original research - and very questionable at that. So I think I'm with User:-Ril-. However, I'm not sure that redirecting Authentic Matthew to Gospel of the Hebrews is valid either, I'm off to do a little thinking. --Doc (?) 22:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
  • OK, enough this is doing my head in,- this article (or rather essay) is making all sorts of assumptions. To cut a long and complicated story short - it is original research, POV-ridden, and very confusing. Delete - I see no need for any redirections. --Doc (?) 23:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Doc Glasgow as POV, original research etc. Capitalistroadster 01:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete jamesgibbon 01:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have no personal use for this article (there is already too much biblical trivia), but it is mentioned in Apocrypha. Those links to this article are months old(possibly years - I could not find when it was added), so it's obviously something that more than a single contributor knows about (ergo not completely original research). If we leave ANY apocrypha, I'm sad to say this must stay. Unsinkable 01:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
User has 32 prior edits. ~~~~ 17:02, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • Delete, orignial research. --nixie 01:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, as per Doc. Fernando Rizo 02:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. My vote is partly the result of having seen the way that -Ril (talk · contribs) has behaved over this article, but mainly that there's a genuine encyclopædia topic here. The content of the article isn't the issue (that can be edited; though, for the record, I don't think that it is wholly original research); if it were, the article should have been placed at RfC, not VfD (just as -Ril-'s RfC against Melissadolbeer should not have been leapt into before any other attempt at mediation of moderation). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Comment - Hardly a sockpuppet abuse! Indeed this when taken in context affirms they are husband and wife.--Mikefar 00:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
  • Keep and list on Peer Review so that original research can be weeded out. Interesting and encyclopaedic topic. I'm not sure the current title is the best though. David | Talk 11:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
  • Delete original research. JamesBurns 09:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments and discussion moved to talk page.
  • Delete, WP:NOR. Radiant_>|< 12:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. --TruthCrusader
  • Delete, pick one of the reasons listed above. --Scimitar parley 19:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOR Friday 05:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 1) Original research: Jerome, Parker and all the writers cited, did the original research! They have all been published. Melissa merely summed them up in an objective factual style into a good article. She does not have an original thought in her head. 2) My vote is mainly the result of having seen the way that -Ril (talk · contribs) has behaved over this article (see edit history of Ril and 81.156.177.21 --Poorman 08:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    The above user is a sockpuppet. ~~~~ 19:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    The user has stated clearly that he is Melissadolbeer's husband. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • (1) I am not Melissa's sockpuppet but rather her husband. (2) Melissa has never used a sockpuppet! (3) She has been guilty of forgetting to log in while editing and for that matter so have I. (4) Read her work with care and you will a kind polite person who always sees the good in people. (5) What you have done has really hurt her. But I will hand you this- you are clever to have gotten away with so very much Ril! (6) Mel Etitis, does NOT have a vendetta against you!--Poorman 09:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
A note. If Poorman is not melissa, then why make this edit [2] where Poorman signs as Melissa? ~~~~ 18:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Hardly a sockpuppet abuse! Indeed this when taken in context affirms they are husband and wife.--Mikefar 00:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
  • Keep - but the article needs serious amounts of editing, especially moving material to the appropriate articles and to WikiSource. -Acjelen 12:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
As mentioned before, this was already done. Melissadolbeer's sockpuppets reverted it back to its original state. ~~~~ 19:27, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - please see Special:Contributions/Mikefar, indicating the desperation with which the sockpuppets are trying to defend the article. Clearly indicating it is their original research. ~~~~ 19:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    'Non sequitur. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Large comment about what a user thinks is "original research" (as opposed to what Wikipedia policy - WP:NOR says is "original research") moved to talk page. ~~~~ 19:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - As it stands, current article is original research and very dodgy. More importantly, the name of the article is inherently POV-ridden. I cannot imagine a way for this article to be salvaged. IT is my understanding that the small usable parts have already been incorporated elsewhere, leaving nothing left to but to delete this one. DreamGuy 19:36, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. --Carnildo 19:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and {{cleanup}}. Disputes about the "additions to Matthew" etc. go back to the time of the canonization of the NT. Tomer TALK 19:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
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)
  • Delete. Josh Cherry 23:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • SEE BELOW - As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof. Melissadolbeer 07:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    further extensive comments by the above moved to talk page
    USER HAS ALREADY VOTED AS A SOCKPUPPET. ~~~~ 10:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    N.b. the user votes below, and the above should not be counted as a vote by them in addition. ~~~~ 07:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    The previous user has stated clearly that he is Melissadolbeer's husband. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    And I am definitely not -Ril- but his wife. Yeh right, like a sockpuppet's word is trustworthy. The Wife of -Ril- 16:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    Excuse me for jumping in here, but where is the concrete proof that said users are sock-puppets? You suspect they may be, yes, but from what I can see, there has been no point where this has been verified by admin. I've noted that every single "Keep" vote was followed up with an attempt to discount, either waving the sock-puppet flag, pointing out prior edits, or, in my case, by asking for a review of the vote on my user talk page. Might I suggest leaving the discounting of votes to those who are qualified to discount votes? That would help to cool down this debate. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    The article was restored by numerous extremely obvious sockpuppets after its having been merged. There has been a massive series of postings to User talk pages by sockpuppets to try to get the article preserved. This seems to have happened also a prior time that the article was merged by someone else. The sockpuppets have even opened up an RFAR (WP:RFAR) claiming that everyone who has voted delete here is a sockpuppet of me. The likelyhood that sockpuppets will be voting here is extremely high, and their contribution history makes it extremely obvious. ~~~~ 22:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to an appropriate sister project, or Keep. Article is noteworthy enough in my opinion. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
  • Keep but consider Merge, Transwiki and redirect as and where appropriate. Rich Farmbrough 00:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - As the original writer of this article, I specifically deny all the allegations made by Ril and put him to the strictest proof thereof. --Melissadolbeer 03:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The above has already voted as a sockpuppet.~~~~ 07:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE See talk. Davilla 05:35, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • extensive comments moved to talk page ~~~~ 07:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • extensive comments moved to talk page again. Please read talk page for discussion. ~~~~ 11:52, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I agree with David about listing on Peer Review and trying to find a better title. JamesMLane 09:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
  • Ril, stop deleting everything that shows you as being in the wrong. Both sides have right to be heard.--Mikefar 00:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • No Vote , as Ril has kept this vote from being a fair one! No one can be heard from but Ril.--Mikefar 22:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
    • THE ABOVE USER IS A SOCKPUPPET (AND HAS ADMITTED BEING SO AT WP:RFAR) ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep it short, or move it to the talk page. It is not being deleted, just moved to talk. The talk page is there explicitely for extensive discussion. This is not the place for a huge essay.~~~~ 16:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • extensive comments moved to talk page - available here ~~~~ 16:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it equal! Every time Melissa tries to reply to a Ril comment, you delete it!--Mikefar 00:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
THE ABOVE USER IS A SOCKPUPPET OF A USER WHO HAS ALREADY VOTED. SOCKPUPPETRY ADMITTED AT WP:RFAR ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • extensive comment moved to talk. It is available here ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Melissa + Sockpuppets please note: VFD procedure does not permit a "response to VFD" section preceeding the vote. If you wish to respond do it briefly, and against your vote, or if you have a more extensive comment, put it on the talk page, and link to it from here ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment a temporary history-only undelete may be later requested by the arbitration committee if they open the case Melissadolbeer requested. This does not affect the voting, which concerns the long-term status of the article. ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • CommentRil,you have a lot of comments on this page. Then you delete any and all replies. People who vote only read your side of the story without reading the other side. This has totally skewed the vote, for, as the record shows, virtually all the votes to delete have come after you have removed material that goes against you. I respect your right to put your comments on this page. Please respect other people's rights. You know as well as we do, if all your views are on this page and everything else is on the talk page, there is not a fair vote.--Mikefar 10:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • extensive comment moved to talk. It is available here ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Melissa + Sockpuppets please note: VFD procedure does not permit a "response to VFD" section preceeding the vote. If you wish to respond do it briefly, and against your vote, or if you have a more extensive comment, put it on the talk page, and link to it from here ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment a temporary history-only undelete may be later requested by the arbitration committee if they open the case Melissadolbeer requested. This does not affect the voting, which concerns the long-term status of the article. ~~~~ 07:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.  Grue  22:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment:Ril, I will bullied by you or your Sockpuppets. Most of the above vote will be gone when when the TRUTH comes out! (If it come out-you are good at being bad)--Mikefar 00:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
(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)
  • No vote If Jerome is considered a published work, then Keep. However if there is a wiki limitation period for old works then delete.--Ejhardy
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)
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)

[edit] Comments not directly linked to a vote

  • Final Comments 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
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)
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)
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)

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

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)
  • While I hope nothing but the best for your mother-in-law/mother, and fully support adjournment of any arbitration (none of which is presently extant) for such a reason, I would like to ask (i.e., demand) that any conflict of interest discussion of arbitrators be left to any relevant RfAr discussion. As yet, I have not seen any indication as to why Theresa should be excluded from voting in an RfAr between you/se and -Ril-, but should such evidence be presented in the proper forum, I would expect Theresa to recuse herself, without prejudice, from voting. In light of that, if you're attempting to cast Theresa in a negative light here, you'll receive no kudos (although the same cannot be said for your negative characterizations of -Ril-, who seems to have something of a vandetta against you, for whatever reason, which I expect to be explained COHERENTLY and WITH COMPLETE CITATIONS HERE as soon as he makes it back to this page. Tomer TALK 08:24, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
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)
    • The rate of appearance is roughly 1 sockpuppet per day. This is totally inappropriate behaviour. Also, creating so many sockpuppets just to preserve the article, which should be argued for on its own merits, convinces me beyond any doubt whatsoever, that not only is it original research, but that it is also pushing some POV that melissadolbeer wishes to push. ~~~~ 17:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I have absolutely no idea why Theresa Knott would be considered to have a "special relationship" with me? ~~~~ 16:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I was personally considering proposing to remove the VfD tag on this article, as well as proposing a one-month editing ban on both User:-Ril- and the various editors whom -Ril- claims are sockpuppets of whomever. This article is clearly at the core of a much bigger argument between at least two editors, and as such, their relationship needs to be worked out before anything constructive can EVER take place wrt this article. Meanwhile, I think going forward with a vote on whether to keep or discard this article will negatively/positively reflect on n/either party in what is clearly a conflict of much greater scope. I move to suspend this vote until such time as the relevant RfAr is resolved. (Without prejudice, I also vote to take both parties, but especially -Ril-, out behind the woodshed for a sound spanking. This entire mishegas is utterly unseemly, and does nothing but serve the best interests of those who hold the entire WP project in disdain.) Tomer TALK 08:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • N.b. You may NOT remove VFD tags until a VFD is closed.
      • Which is why I didn't. Tomer TALK 17:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • This move to "suspend" VFD is purely a callous one by Melissadolbeer because she doesn't like the way it is going, and I have nothing but contempt for such behaviour seeking to abuse VFD's process. It is my opinion, that a more likely truth is, that Melissadolbeer, a school teacher, has a holiday booked, it being end of term, and will be unable to sockpuppet during that period, consequently requiring suspension so that this does not detriment her position. Articles can always be put to Votes for Undeletion once the VFD is complete, there is no reason to suspend it.~~~~ 16:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Not exactly correct. VfU is only a move to put the article back on VfD if the article is determined on technicality to have been deleted improperly. That said, I still think you do yourself and your "side" a great disservice by arguing with the sockpuppets and by running around behind everyone who votes "keep" like a tattle-tale, asking them to change their vote. I note that you have not run around behind everyone who votes "delete" telling them all about your "problems" with the socks, etc., and thanking them for their vote. From where I'm sitting, it appears far more likely that the reason all the socks are showing up is to have additional names fighting against the vitriol you've unleashed. It looks to me like you've created a problem editor by the fierceness of your onslaught against hir. Tomer TALK 17:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment and suggestion to closing admin. This debate has resulted in more heat than light. However, it does actually matter, since references to 'Authentic Matthew' have been inserted into other, more important Biblical Studies articles, giving it an unmerited prominence (and IMHO distorting WP's presentation of the discipline). I have some knowledge in the field - and I had intended to set down my thoughts for others, but I withdrew rather than poke a stick in a hornet's nest of sockpuppetry, accusations, flaming, and trolling (by whom I leave for others to judge).
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)
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)
  • This article should not be deleted until we find out who is in the wrong. ALSO NOBODY HAS SAID ANYTHING BAD ABOUT Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) EXCEPT THAT SHE HAS HELPED RIL IN THE PAST. --Jlchan 11:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Above user is a sockpuppet (ZERO PRIOR EDITS) ~~~~ 16:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody says anything bad about Theresa because everyone's scared of her. She can reach you wereëver you try to hide. Run!!! Quick!!! Here she comes!!! Tomer TALK 17:51, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The relevance of the article is independent of "who is in the wrong" for edit wars of the article. However, I concede that for fairness, it may be necessary for a "disinterested party [to] monitor the debate" and avoid edit wars of the debate itself. (Am I correct that deletions objected to are primarily the same single chunk of material repeatedly moved from this page to talk?) Davilla 13:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
  • Comment to closing admin. This is a VFD. A set of votes. Once a user has cast their vote, their presence is unimportant. The purpose of VFD is to determine consensus. Neither Melissadolbeer, Me, or sockpuppets, need to be present for this to happen. Even if we both find ourselves in a warzone (I am currently somewhat trapped inside a police bomb cordon resulting from today's london explosions - the coffee is nice though), I see absolutely no reason why this should prevent other people from being able to vote, which is all that VFD is about. There is no reason to suspend or postpone this - it does not require me, or melissadolbeer, to be present. This is about determining the will of the community, and not that of me, or melissadolbeer. ~~~~ 16:47, 21 July 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)

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.