Bdub2018
- Bdub2018 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
03 July 2018
Suspected sockpuppets
- Bdub2018 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- B.robertrit ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
The self-proclaimed newbie
Bdub2018 has performed copious amounts of
WP:OR (see
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Gospel of John) which have been undone at
[1]. And then from nowhere comes another "newbie"
WP:SPA
B.robertrit who has undone my revert of
WP:OR at
[2]; his/her partial self-revert at
[3] did not address the
WP:OR problem. See
WP:DUCK. The checkuser has to check for more socks, I have the impression these are not the only socks. user Tgeorgescu appears to have an animus against Bdub2018 and has hounded him across multiple Wikipedia entries and performed multiple peremptory reversions without time for discussion.
—that's certainly not what a newbie would say, see
[4].
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 03:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Bdub2018: The accusation that you have performed copious amounts of WP:OR is not a figment of my imagination. You definitely don't agree with our policy, although several established editors have explained you that performing WP:OR on Ancient/Medieval sources is banned from Wikipedia. Yes, you claim to be new, yet our articles are plagued by users who have been banned and come back having other usernames. Knowledge of arcane essays like Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions does not plead for you being a newbie. Anyway, I have explained you the rules several times, in the end I got the impression that you were simply unwilling to take the word of several experienced users that you broke our rules. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 04:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
@ Boing! said Zebedee: Ret.Prof pushed a conservative evangelical POV and defended large amounts WP:OR based upon the Bible and other Ancient writings, there were some WP:ANI threads about that, also similar behavior had Davidbena. The two defended each other and the indefinite block of Davidbena for indulging in too much WP:OR simply wasn't enacted (thread expired without action, although the consensus was clear). The difference is that Davidbena is not a Christian, so obviously does not push a Christian POV (he still indulges in WP:OR about Judaism if you ask me). Also indeffed sock Tatelyle had similar behavior, the difference being that he did not push a conservative evangelical POV. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting observations, thanks. I'm probably conflating a few different editors in my recollections.
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk) 10:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- By the sheer amount of policies cited at [5], this user cannot be a newbie. E.g. WP:POVRAILROAD, which was the subject at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Response to the POV Railroad. Bdub2018 also mentioned "publicly shamed" at [6]—how can that be: there can be no libel against an anonymous nickname. Conclusion: either way, he is an editor which has returned expressly in order to stir trouble. Oh, yes, Til Eulenspiegel also pushed a biblical inerrantist POV. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu I vividly remember those discussions on that Talk-Page in which you wrongly accused me of infringing WP:OR. How can I have infringed WP:OR when I made close to "o" edits on the page itself, but suggested ideas only within the Talk-Page? That, my friend, and that alone, was the reason no action was taken against me. Had I added "original research" to that article itself, it would have been a different story altogether. We were simply discussing issues about the early Hebrew writers in the 1st century CE, and whether or not certain Aramaic works can be attributed to the same Jewish author, or to several Jewish authors. Be well. Davidbena ( talk) 13:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't remember if that was the case (seen the rejection of some of your
WP:AFCs for
WP:OR), anyway I think that it is a good idea to permanently desist from
WP:OR. That means
WP:VERifying claims to any pre-1900 source (time of original writing). If I were to examine your edits for the past six months, would I find less than 20 such violations?
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 14:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- How can you compare? I was less than two months into editing (a newbie) at the time when you accused me of infringing
WP:OR on a Talk-Page?! What happened with me many years later actually involved an article about "Jewish etiquette" and where I was asked to remove non-sourced material. Sometimes editors can be just downright cruel to other editors. Instead of suggesting improvements, they seek to undermine any good endeavor with minor flaws.
Davidbena (
talk) 14:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Six months ago you were no longer a newbie.
WP:PAGs don't seem to imply that overindulging in
WP:OR, after you got almost banned for it, would be a minor violation. But since I don't read Hebrew I cannot do the honor of checking your sources, somebody else would have to review them. And, yes, translations and republications don't change the time of original writing.
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 14:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- My friend, your attitude is not right here. You were very hostile to me back then when I was a newbie, just as you've mentioned my name here in connection with the "Retired Professor" and where you alleged in this thread that the two of us "defended each other." Again, that was a Talk-Page and where we are permitted to interject personal bias. I had made nearly "o" edits on the main page itself. I have no more to say to you, except this one thing: Do Wikipedia a favor and try to be more congenial in your dealings with your fellow Wikipedians.
Davidbena (
talk) 15:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am civil, I just take
WP:RULES seriously. My gut feeling from your edits at
Intelligent design is that you have not repented.
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Your "gut feeling" is perhaps misleading you. In the
Intelligent design article, my edits were submitted with valid and reliable sources. It's just that there, in that article, the editors are bent on presenting a view that God was not involved in the creation of our universe. Sigh. They can have their way. I am not here to present arguments in favor of "Intelligent design," as nothing that they can do or say will change the fact one way or the other.
Davidbena (
talk) 15:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Folks, this is not productive and is really not relevant to this SPI. Both of you, knock it off. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 15:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Your "gut feeling" is perhaps misleading you. In the
Intelligent design article, my edits were submitted with valid and reliable sources. It's just that there, in that article, the editors are bent on presenting a view that God was not involved in the creation of our universe. Sigh. They can have their way. I am not here to present arguments in favor of "Intelligent design," as nothing that they can do or say will change the fact one way or the other.
Davidbena (
talk) 15:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am civil, I just take
WP:RULES seriously. My gut feeling from your edits at
Intelligent design is that you have not repented.
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 15:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- My friend, your attitude is not right here. You were very hostile to me back then when I was a newbie, just as you've mentioned my name here in connection with the "Retired Professor" and where you alleged in this thread that the two of us "defended each other." Again, that was a Talk-Page and where we are permitted to interject personal bias. I had made nearly "o" edits on the main page itself. I have no more to say to you, except this one thing: Do Wikipedia a favor and try to be more congenial in your dealings with your fellow Wikipedians.
Davidbena (
talk) 15:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Six months ago you were no longer a newbie.
WP:PAGs don't seem to imply that overindulging in
WP:OR, after you got almost banned for it, would be a minor violation. But since I don't read Hebrew I cannot do the honor of checking your sources, somebody else would have to review them. And, yes, translations and republications don't change the time of original writing.
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 14:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- How can you compare? I was less than two months into editing (a newbie) at the time when you accused me of infringing
WP:OR on a Talk-Page?! What happened with me many years later actually involved an article about "Jewish etiquette" and where I was asked to remove non-sourced material. Sometimes editors can be just downright cruel to other editors. Instead of suggesting improvements, they seek to undermine any good endeavor with minor flaws.
Davidbena (
talk) 14:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See
Defending yourself against claims.
Accuser will not stop hounding me. I am a "newbie", not a "self-proclaimed newbie". Has summarily undone almost every contribution I have performed since the beginning (over a hundred, I believe), without any period of notification to make corrections. If even my name is on an edit page, he undoes it without allowing corrections to be made. Was notified by him policy not being followed. Remained in talk trying to understand without making edits. Has demonstrated nothing but bad faith towards me for the last several days. Will not allow any constructive talk, keeps mentioning bans. Has threatened "de facto ban" on me, threatens to "knee-jerk" revert my edits. Has made false accusations against me. Has attempted to pile on with other users. Using bullying tactics. Keeps citing policies, but policies do not match what he says, and when actual policy is stated, he raises the bar. Has taken me to RSN notice board, et al. for asking questions trying to understand correct policy. Very territorial. It is currently impossible for me to feel I can make an edit without it being undone, no matter how valid (for evidence, CF. article, "Gospel of John": Talk page; article, "John 1:1", article "Papias of Hierapolis", "John the Apostle", also, my talk page, also RSN notification board). I am convinced that if he finds my name in another place for another revision before controversy, he will do that as well. Feel like I'm being stalked. Bdub2018 ( talk) 03:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The entire time in talk I made no edits to any pages. The problem is, I know that there is no way I can continue to edit on Wikipedia without being hounded by you and your "de facto ban." If I knew how to report your behavior to the proper administrators, I would. So much for collaborative effort, as you treat every page as though you are the be all and end all of editing. I would have made appropriate corrections with the right guidance in those places had I been given enough chance to do so. My aim was to improve the articles; I did not understand at first that proper Historic Methodology, examining sources nearest to the event, cannot be used on Wikipedia because of policies. Bdub2018 ( talk) 04:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I was never "banned" and I have not returned from being "banned." I am, actually, new, as I have told you many times. Bdub2018 ( talk) 04:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- I've just declined an unblock request from the B.robertrit account, after having had a look over this case and over their contributions. It brings to mind another account that was earlier blocked for severe WP:OR violations, which I think were in relation to the Gospel of John. I can't think who it was and I can't see any obvious candidates in the recent history of the articles Bdub2018 has been editing, so my memory might be faulty - but I thought it better to mention it in case it rings any bells with anyone else. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Accounts tagged. If it later turns out there is an older master, we can always merge the case/re-tag. Closing. Sro23 ( talk) 20:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)