Talk:Jesus/Sockpuppets

= Sockpuppet issue, IP addresses, etc. =

I'm sure many of us are tired of the sockpuppet discussion, but it's continuing here, at WP:RFCU and on user talk pages. I've decided to be bold and move a whole thread here from WP:RFCU (just leaving the first few posts there). That page has a huge backlog, and it's hard enough for admins with checkuser privileges to wade there way through all the outstanding requests, without having the page clogged up with discussion as well. I think it's better to have this page clogged up, and if people don't comment after a day or two, it can be archived. So, here goes. AnnH  ♫  20:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

From WP:RFCU

There is some question that this user may be related to Robsteadman. Please run a check. Thanks.Gator (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I resent the above - I have no idea whjo robeaston99 is and I do not operate a sockpuppet. Now kindly retract your accusations and insinuations. After deskana's vandalism and the quorum/cabal calls and strangers turning up to supprt the unebncyclopedic version on the vote this is outrageous. And all a bit familiar from the way you all tried to get rid of SOPHIA. Robsteadman 22:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, at least we know he denies it, that evidence in his favor as far as I am concerned. And I had nothing to do with SOPHIA....you're copying your edit over and over again adn it doesn't make sense here.Gator (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser confirms that User:Robsteadman was using the sockpuppets User:Robeaston99 and User:Vhjh. I've blocked Robsteadman for 24 hours for using sockpuppets to stack votes, and I've blocked both sockpuppets indefinitely. Jayjg(talk) 22:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate. Same IPs or what? We need to make sure the evidence is there. If I'm being overly cautious, then I apologize.Gator (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, CheckUser confirms it; my statement alone is evidence enough of that. I'm certainly willing to show the evidence to anyone else with CheckUser rights, if they wish to see it. Jayjg(talk) 22:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please just let us know what you found. I'm not asking for details. Just let u know if the same IP address was used or what ever else you found that caused you to determien that he was usign sockpuppets. No details, just what was it? I am one of Rob;s most hated enemies, so I think I'm the perfect person to ask this. Vandalism from an IP address used by Deskana was revealed using checkuser adn he was able to defend himself knowing that info. Rob deserves the same. Was it the same IP or location. Please.Gator (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer to give as little detail as possible for a number of reasons, but in part to ensure that we don't teach them how to get better at sockpuppeting. As I said, if any other editor with CheckUser access has any concerns or questions about my assessment, I'm more than willing to provide them with the evidence. Jayjg(talk) 23:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I guess that's the best we can get out of this. I do thank you for your help and hard work.Gator (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2006

(UTC)


 * I find this reticence interesting as just last month my name was thrown out as "bonus" info to a check user. SOPHIA 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not every admin is the same. --Oscillate 23:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the two kinds of information cannot be compared. Admins doing checkuser searches do not give out IP information, but they do link names of editors to names of other editors. It was suspected that User:Robeaston99 might be a sockpuppet for User:Robsteadman, so that request was made. No request was made that User:Vhjh be checked, but that information came up as part of the check, and it was entirely proper that Jayjg should give that as part of the results. Similarly, if Jayjg had discovered, while running a check, that the suspected sockpuppet Robeaston99 was actually linked through IP address to User:Alienus (no offence intended to Alienus: the name was selected randomly), he would presumably have given that as the result. So if a user being investigated as a possible sockpuppet of User:X turns out to have a link with User:Y, that will usually (probably even always) be made public in the results. Information about IP addresses will never be made public. AnnH  ♫  01:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't presume that the name of just any linked account would necessarily be given; certainly for any that would have been grounds for a checkuser request in the first instance -- i.e., use of socks in contravention of policy -- it would be only logical. OTOH, one might argue that if someone has been found to be using one set of socks improperly, disclosure of any further ones is the proverbial ounce of prevention... Alai 04:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Since one IP can cover a whole organisation, giving out all names associated with would be a severe breach of privacy. What seems to have happened on the jesus/Christianity pages is that as soon as a new contoversial editor comes along they are quickly "checked out" - that was the only reason my husband's account was checked - he was new and supported a controversial editor. This business with Rob is very fishy. I'm not accusing User:Jayjg of anything but I think this judgement is suspect. Also at the same time as these accounts become active again User:Crusading composer again becomes active who has an almost identical gap in his edit history as one of the "sockpuppets". Crudasing Composer is vehemently anti Rob - has tried to get his article deleted as a "vanity article". Either Rob is a paranoid schizophrenic or something really weird is happening. I can see why Jayjg has come to the conclusion he has (look at the voting patterns on one of the socks) but I don't think this is all of the picture. User:Crusading composer needs checking out as there definitely seems to be a link with at least one of the socks just by edit history alone. As for User:John1838 Rob has never given any indication that he knows the bible well enough to be able to see the significance of that quote. The last point is psychology - Rob has never shirked a fight and said he would ignore the outcome of this vote anyway as he claimed it was invalid - not the actions of someone who doesn't want to be looked at too closely.SOPHIA 14:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I just think that Rob should be given the same opportunity to defend himself as Deskana. If Deskana was never told that the reason he was suspected of vandalism was because the vnadalism came from the same address, he would have never had a chance. Rob just may ahve a good faith reasons why the checkuser result showed whatever it showed. I just want to be fair here. We don't need IP addresses, just basic info so Rob can offer an explanation. He seems very emphatic.Gator (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

End of thread moved from WP:RFCU

I can't see why such a mystery is being made of the perfectly normal fact that an admin with checkuser privileges ran a check and then refused to open up the details to the public. With regard to what kind of evidence was found, the IP address is the only thing that a usercheck looks for. Other evidence such as similarity in writing style, or slip-ups made by a user can be detected without special checkuser privileges. Jayjg would certainly not have blocked voters and invalidated votes if it had just been something like the same city. So I think we can take it that it was the same IP address, but that information is not made public. Nor was it made public in the case of Deskana. In that case, Robsteadman's user page was vandalized, either by a registered user or by a user who was not logged on. The IP address was therefore visible; it was not divulged by an admin. All edits made by people who are not logged on show the IP address. In this case it came from 212.219.123.32. That could be traced here (nothing to do with Wikipedia) to Aquinas College. Deskana has on his user page that he studies there. Gator says that Deskana was given the opportunity to defend himself, but we should note that after Deskana denied it, Robsteadman continued to accuse him, and to call for him to be blocked or banned, and SOPHIA, who supports Rob, posted a message to Deskana, telling him not to be "lulled into a false sense of security by the way this incident was dealt with here" — hardly the kind of language you'd use if you were prepared to accept that he was innocent, or if you were prepared to accept that he might be innocent and you didn't want to cause him further distress.

What Jayjg says sounds completely reasonable to me. This kind of information is never made available to ordinary users, both because IP addresses can reveal details about locations, and because such information can help potential sockpuppets to know what to avoid in order not to be caught. It seems very unfair that an admin who spends time carrying out userchecks (probably a tedious task), respects the rules concerning confidentiality, blocks people who voted for the version that he himself wanted, and strikes out two of those votes as being invalid, is now having to read words and phrases like "fishy", "funny business", and "unfair", not only here, but on user talk pages, and at WP:RFCU.

Of course it's possible that other people from Robsteadman's school could be editing Wikipedia. It's possible that people in my workplace edit Wikipedia. People in Robsteadman's school could even have been involved in writing the article Robert Steadman. But the likelihood that they'd turn up and vote for things that he votes for is, as Admin Theresa Knott pointed out, very low. That has happened not only on this page, but also here.

I'm perfectly satisfied that Jayjg carried out the check properly, and that he is right to refuse to divulge information except to others with checkuser privileges (who could presumably carry out a check themselves). I do know that a shared IP address does not always mean a sockpuppet, especially when the IP address is that of a school or a library. But if Robsteadman wishes to contest the verdict, I think he should first acknowledge that there is no proof the Deskana carried out any vandalism, and that he (Robsteadman) was wrong to (repeatedly) make that accusation and to call for Deskana to be blocked. Robsteadman, do you accept that if you're innocent, Deskana might be? AnnH  ♫  20:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you'll check on Rob's page, Gator offered to be Rob's advocate, and Rob decided not to pursue the matter further. If Rob is willing to let the matter drop, then so am I. Arch O. La 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this really that big a deal now anyway? The votes are over. Homestarmy 03:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I find the whole thing fishy. I suppose it's possible that Rob used sockpuppets, but the evidence presented thus far has been underwhelming. I'm going to reserve judgement until Rob has had a chance to hear the case against him and to defend himself. Alienus 06:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There were several of us who felt this way, but check his talk page: he's on a wikibreak. Again, if Robsteadman chooses not to pursue the matter then I guess the matter is over with. Arch O. La &#124; TCF member 07:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It may well be that he was convicted en absentia, as it were, and isn't even around to defend himself. If so, more power to him. If he values the real world above Wikipedia, this is merely a sign of sanity.

Frankly, the more I look into this, the less sense it makes for him to use sockpuppets. I mean, what kind of person would make a puppet with the same first name? Moreover, from what I've seen, Rob can get frustrated with some of the idiocy that occurs here, but he has a strong sense of justice that is not at all compatible with running puppets. The puppets I've dealt with here have all been incorrigible zealots who vandalize on every account they have. Disagree with him all you want, but that just doesn't sound like Rob. Alienus 08:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Alienus, actually, a sock-puppet and an alias used by a criminal (no, I'm not equating Rob with a criminal) are essentially the same thing. Most folks when setting up such an alias tend to either use the same first name, or their own initials. If I had my Criminal Justice textbooks, I could give you a good cite, but I sold them years ago. Jim62sch 22:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I suggested the check because it looked a bit weird, the user contribs on the easton section. As far as Rob is concerned, the Robsteadman acct has only been active since 1/2/06. The Robeaston has been around since last fall. It could be that Rob first created the Easton acct for the purpose of editing his WP article and once the issues with it were over with, left Wikipedia. Upon returning, he may have created a new account to get a new username (I usually put my name like this when I create usernames) or for some other reason, not knowing about the WP:SOCK policy. It may have just been a lapse in judgement or a reaction to opposition that drove him to sockpuppetry. Of course, this is all speculation. I personally would like to see Rob get some form of inquiry into the mess (if only because I'm suffering under conviction right now and I'd rather not apologize about anything unless I have a direct segway). I do agree that Rob, as much as I am not his biggest fan, does not seem like the type of editor to make that type of mistake, whether unintentionally or intentionally. Granted, little of this matters until he is back from his break. --Avery W. Krouse 09:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A direct personal transport (segway)? I think you meant a direct segue. Arch O. La &#124; TCF member 18:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And, if he did it like this, he wasn't violating the "sock policy" until he used the Easton account to caste another vote. Str1977 (smile back) 10:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

= Dealing with the "Christian Scholars" issue =

There is an attempt to add to the 2nd Paragraph without prior discussion. It has been reverted twice this half hour. If offer to talk is accepted by the editor, it will take place at: talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate.


 * Actually, the prior discussion is here: Talk:Jesus/Archive 39. Arch O. La 23:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I just tried to edit a category, but most of them seem to link to other categories, I can't respond to the one I want, it's like somehow they've all gotten confused or something. Is anyone else having problems? I was trying to answer Archola, but none of the edit buttons seem to correspond properly to the section that Archola proposed a new paragraph in :/. Homestarmy 23:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * When you edit, the sections are referred to by number. Someone was archiving, which changed the numbering of the sections. It should be okay now. Arch O. La 23:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Kdbuffalo (and his suspected sockpuppet, User:Raisinman) are both getting quite insistent on including KD's pet sentence (quoted below), because he says there's no consensus to not include it. While I don't want to get into a metaphysical debate on what constitutes consensus and what doesn't, can we take a moment away from the more orderly debate and restructuring to consider the following sentence.


 * Variation 1: "There are many Christian scholars who affirm the historicity of the gospel accounts and the resurrection of Jesus (see: Christian apologetics)."
 * Variation 2: "In addition, there are many scholars who affirm the resurrection of Jesus and the historicity of the gospel accounts such as Gary Habermas, F.F. Bruce, William Lane Craig, and Norman Geisler."
 * Variation 3: "There are many Christian scholars who affirm the historicity of the gospel accounts and the resurrection of Jesus such as Gary Habermas, F.F. Bruce, William Lane Craig, and Norman Geisler (see: Christian apologetics)."

So any of these versions contribute to the article? In my opinion, they do not, for the following reasons.


 * 1) While the cited names are, indeed, scholars, they are scholarly theologians. As such, while I am sure they have studied history, they have done so from a different (and less ctitical) context than secular studies of history. By attempting to
 * 2) These scholars are all profession Christian apologists--as such, it is their profession to claim that Christ is a historical figure, and that the resurrection was a historical event. This becomes especially important as the Resurrection is the one thing on which Christianity hinges--if there is no resurrection, then--according to Paul (cf. I Cor 15:19), Christians are "of all men most miserable." Therefore, they must accept the historicity of the resurrection as beyond question, or reject their faith.

Can we get a brief discussion on Kdbuffalo's proposal? Justin Eiler 01:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your conclusions. At best, the sentence is redundant, because it's not news that Christians believe in a resurrection. At worst, it's simply Ken's POV. I lean towards the latter interpretation. Alienus 02:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you both. I affirm the Resurrection in my capacity as a disciple/theologian, but there's no way to affirm it using historical methodology. The only way to prove or disprove it is to find the body of Christ, which would, of course, end the debate as well as Christianity. FF Bruce was one of the finest NT scholars/theologians of the 20th century, and I respect him tremendously, but wasn't an historian proper. So, the claims of Kdbuffalo/Raisinman are without merit and inaccurate. More than that, given the heated debate on this article, no one should really add contested material such as this without first bringing it here. Surely, we have a consensus on that. KHM03 02:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * To affirm is simply to state as fact. That Christian apologists state Christ's historicity to be fact is hardly meaningful. PiCo 02:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is theology rather than history and belongs in the Christian views section? Arch O. LaTalk TCF  03:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Christian Views section makes it redundant, to my best understanding. Heck, even as a Christian, my only reaction to the sentence was "Don't waste my time with what I already know." Though I have to admit that I'm ... not very sympathetic of KD/Raisin at all, and I'm gaving grave difficulties assuming good faith. Pending the results of the WP:RFCU, their actions smack of "playing" the policies to push POV--if the Checkuser comes back positive, then I'm going to be very peeved for the time wasted arguing with yet another sockpuppet. Justin Eiler 04:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Check out my TCF link. Arch O. LaTalk TCF  04:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about Jesus' historicity...the fact that he existed is affirmed by the vast majority of historians...plenty of evidence for that. What I'm disputing is whether historians can affirm his Resurrection. While I affirm it strongly, that's a faith decision; historians can say little about it other than, "It is claimed...". KHM03 03:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As things stand now, consensus is to remove the passage, which I've done. If anyone feels that it should be re-added, please discuss the issue here on the talk page first. Justin Eiler 04:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to add my voice to the choir...I have to agree wholeheartedly with the conclusions mentioned above... The fact that the proposed addition is worded quite poorly notwithstanding, there is simply no good reason to include it in the article. It's not "redundant", it's like stating "some people who are colorblind see the sun in shades of gray" in a discussion about the wavelengths of visible light that make it through Earth's atmosphere in Sun. Not only is it a "duh statement", it's a lot of words stating the obvious. The only thing I see in the statement is an attempt to use the article as a venue for giving legitimacy to a POV. (Wikipedia should be proud. :-p) Tom e rtalk 05:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hallelujah! Arch O. LaTalk TCF  05:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It does seem to state the obvious and therefore be redundant. SOPHIA 19:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Great that we solved the issue with little rancor. Incidentally, Raisinman was a sock of Kdbuffalo (as was a user named BECPL). Both Raisinman and BECPL have been blocked indefinitely. KHM03 22:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)