Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WillBildUnion/Archive

Evidence submitted by Arthur Rubin
Added more-or-less the same OR as the sockmaster (who is topic-banned) to Talk:Caesarion, including changing the section header I created from "Son of (a) god" to "Son of God" and/or "Son of G-d". I'm not sure WP:DUCK is sufficient to block the IP, merely because the sockmaster is community [topic-banned]. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And two more: .  I've now warned for 3RR, so this may be moot if he does it again.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And about 6 more, now reported to WP:AN3, as well. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

I do not know "wildbillunion" nor have I ever had any contact with him/her. How do I respond to this other than saying I am my own man -- since you have access to my ip address, can you also use your resources to determine the city and state I am typing from. Like I said I don't know wildbillunion;but I live in a small town in Northern FLorida, and it would be very very very odd if the wild bill union person was from this city. Further, I have an additional post on the same page under the subsection "Did Caesar(ion) avoid execution" dated 11/23/2008. Also there is another post I authored in the discussion section for the "Donations of Alexandria" also 11/23/2008. I have been posting for years, several of the posts written prior to the 11/23/2008 date have been removed. The posts wildbillunion wrote were more than a documented year after I posted; (and the older ones were deleted). But if that is not sufficeint to determine that we are different individuals -- the tone and tenor of what is written should, my writing style is characteristic me (not arrogant, but certainly 'recognizable'). Now let us examine the substance of what is written. 'Wildbillunion' did not translate Caesar's name correctly. He wrote "Living image of Amun" (1) I typically don't write the ntr's name as such (because I give deference to Neb er tcher). Second, the word "Sekhem" (skhm) means power not "image"(stut) an error I would not have made. Third -- I re-typed the translation I intially typed in the first place (that had been there for years until it was recently removed) -- if you have access to the archives, you can see that what I wrote on 7/22/10 is the exact same. In fact, I had a personal issue with Wildbillunion's post because it excluded "Ir Maat Ra". I think I have demonstrated my individualness.

Now for the larger issue. Why would you tolerate Arthur Rubin (1) censoring your other contributers, (2) using your reporting system falsley and malicously, and (3) outright lying about it. On the one hand, Arthur asserts in his complaint that I altered a post he started -- an outright falsehood. NOw, for the record, I asked Wikipedia to retreive the initial post before altering anything on that page! Again let us examine the text. He starts with (" Even the sources provided by...") an argumentative preposition. But if he initiated the post who is he arguing with/ correcting? Please pull the archive that the situation may be brought to resolution. So does Wikipedia not allow any discussion of Caesarion (as Christ)? My aim was to provide information to the one who sought it. I do not proseltyze, and personally beleive matters of faith are personal choices. Unfortunately, people are not permitted access to information to make decisions for themselves. My goal was simple, in the Donations of Alexandria discussion I provided references that would explain the religious signifigance of the coronation. Look at the last sentence of my post in the Donations of Alexandria, 'I will confront the conclusion Tarn and Miklejohn avoided..' -- I authored a post in the Discussion section of the Caesarion article called Son of God(I think back in 06 or 07). In it I provided the historical basis for the thought. "Son of (a) god" changes the connotation of what was being expressed in the initial post. In the "Relevence" section, I responded, just this past weekend, and explained why Caesar(ion)'s coronation as King of Kings is relevent to the modern day. It too has been removed. I thought the purpose of the discussion section was to facilitate an exchange of ideas and research. That one may find a fact here, and put it with a fact they've already had and thereby develop a more complete picture(study) of the topic. Why is it not permitted for Caesarion? Now that I've written this article needless to say Arthur will search out the other posts and remove them too -- (He didn't notice the "Relevence" section until after reporting me) why is his behavior permissable? If he had a question about any "fact" he could have asked a question about it -- as is done on all other posts in the discussion sections -- he never requested a reference just deleted them. I know the subject matter is sensitive -- but I've never asked wikipedia to assert Caesar(ion)s divinity on the main page -- it is discussion. Further, the only people exposed to this discussion are the people who seek it out. Why should arthur be allowed to prevent the seeker from acquiring knowledge? Honestly, it takes a lot of effort to sit write, and simmer down 2-3,000 years worth of history into a few paragraphs; too much effort for one antagoinst to delete in seconds. Arthur has a differing opinion, but that is what it is an opinion. I Should at least be able to discuss a position and support it.

OK I just read one of Wildbills posts, and I think the record reflects Alexander being betrothed to Iotape, and Selene marrying Juba II, and having a son named Ptolemy. Just saying not the same person.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - There is definitely something going on here, but not enough to duck by. ( X! ·  talk )  · @701  · 15:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically ❌. Different continents, no other relationship. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)