User talk:Vanished user 2345

If you edit on article such as Christ myth theory, Historicity of Jesus, and the like, please watchlist this page. From time to time I have some bit of information that you might be interested in. Also, feel free to ask questions, though be aware that I might not respond for a day or two and I'll probably refractor your post in minor ways when I do. Article issues and discussion threads will generally remain on this page for about a week.

Issues with Articles

Christ Myth Theory

Alvar Ellegård

At some point in the recent past, Alvar Ellegård was added to the info template on Christ myth theory and latter came in for more commentary in the article body. His inclusion in this article is highly problematic as he affirms the historical existence of single founder of Christianity: he identifies Jesus with the Essene "Teacher of Righteousness".

'My own hypothesis about Jesus differs in certain important respects from those of [Aruthur] Drews and [Paul-Louis] Couchoud. They consider the Jesus figure as wholly a product of the religious imagination. [G. A.] Wells and I think that Paul's letters show that he and his audiences took it for granted that Jesus was a real person, though he might have lived a long time ago. My own contribution is to identify this figure of the remote past with the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, revealed to us in the Dead Sea Scrolls. ... Further, I suggest that Paul's congregations were in fact already existing Essene (or para-Essene) ones. Thus Jesus was their revered founder and teacher, who had probably lived in the second or early first century BCE. Accordingly, though the Gospels are entirely fictional in their portrayal of Jesus as an itinerant preacher and wonderworker, accompanied by twelve disciples, Paul's Jesus was indeed a historical figure, namely, the Essene Teacher of Righteousness."
Alvar Ellegård, "Theologians as Historians", Scandia Vol 59, No. 2 (1993), pp. 171-172

Since the Christ myth theory pertains to the view that Jesus never existed, Ellegård's inclusion in the article is a violation of WP:OR (the material connected with him in the article still isn't cited with any secondary sources... despite recent efforts to hide this; other material was recently removed on the grounds that a citation didn't include a page number and the editors didn't know exactly what the source said--some consistency here would be nice, SV) and further, given how disreputable the CMT is seen to be by modern academics, a possible BLP violation as well. Eugene (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas L. Thompson

The same problems that pertain to Ellegård's inclusion as an advocate of the Christ myth theory also apply to Thompson. Thompson's book on Jesus, The Messiah Myth, is not actually about historical reconstructions at all. Rather, it's an extreme form of narrative criticism as applied to the Bible. Thompson draws a very sharp distinction between what happened in the past and how people have chosen to describe those events. His fundamental thesis in The Messiah Myth is that the gospel writers adapted their biographies of a real Jesus to hagiographical precents (literary cultural archetype of a sort) to such an extent that the gospels narratives themselves (not Jesus) are little more than a rehashing of traditional themes. Apart from these considerations of the gospel narratives per se, Thompson concedes that a historical Jesus is neccesary to explain the advent of the primitive Christian faith community: "Even though a historical Jesus might be essential to the origins of Christianity, such a need is not obviously shared by the gospels." (Thompson, Thomas L., The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, New York: Basic Books, 2005, p. 8). Further, as with Ellegård, the section on Thompson is not connected to any citations from secondary sources and is thus, again, a violation of WP:OR and a possible BLP violation. Eugene (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Discussions

My Short-Comings

TLDR, and I don't like you as an editor, but you shouldn't have been blocked. Please come back. I'll add this page to my watchlist to see what happens, because it was a bit of a travesty what happened to you (I'm assuming you can't respond on my talk page. If you can, feel free to). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I love you too. But it's nice to know that at least some people, even those who aren't fans (or perhaps especially those who aren't fans), think that I should be unblocked. Out of curiosity, what was it about my editing that you didn't like? Knowing might help me avoid problems in the future--assuming I'm every released back into the general population. Eugene (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were just too certain of your positions on how the article should be, and didn't entertain doubters enough (in my opinion). Just theorizing, but maybe some people without good faith hardened you, and later when people who were editing in good faith came along, you were dismissive of them. It's a common problem on controversial topics, where people defend so long they almost take the offensive by accident. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. The Christ myth page seemed to be receiving a never-ending stream of editors with obvious fringy agendas. (I've since learned that at least one semi-notable internet based mythicists was noisily complaining on his blog about the coverage Wikipedia was giving his hobby horse.) Everytime I and the other good faith editors finally wore one of these guys down with policy based objections and good sourcing, some new hyper-skeptic showed up and the burden of breaking through the bubble of clique-think began all over again. I guess that I just became jaded and short-tempered.

Looking back on it I realize I was being stupid at times. My dealings with SlimVirgin are a good example. Now that I've had a chance to "cool down", I see that I was being intractable about stupid stuff that shouldn't really have bothered me. I mean, I don't really like her prose (it seems overly wooden and stenographic to me) but I could have let that sort of stuff slide so as not to give her the impression that I was opposing her just for the hell of it. I lost the ability to rationally pick my battles and that led to the trouble I'm in: every hill seemed good enough to die on. Eugene (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's mildly well said, but not perfect. Your emotions are coming through in what you write, and not in a good way. Regardless of how you really feel, you apparently need to parse you comments in your mind more before you post them. Just saying because I don't like involved admins blocking an enemy, so maybe you can show the error in that.

So, remember to be unfailingly polite, and the worse someone else behaves, be even more polite. That really screws them up. ;-) Maybe someone will think I'm teaching you to WP:BAIT, but if you do what I say, no one will ever be able to prove anything, and it actually makes editing better. Anyways, what I'm saying is keep your feelings to yourself, and make comments that explain your position, not comments that show how you feel. Even though we're on different sides of the CMT sourcing issue, this technique helps to keep it all civil. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Header

I find your header offensive. It says, "My crime, you ask...sufficed to say I had an argument with a powerful woman." I don't think what you did is a "crime" and I don't think the gender of the person had anything to do with it. I suggest you remove or change this as it makes you look even sillier. If the editor in question was a man, would you have written, "I had an argument with a powerful man." Be honest. We both know you would not. Perhaps you need to ask yourself why it matters that this person is a woman. Is it because you treat women with less respect than men? You conclude with, "Ask me a question, perhaps I'll know the answer." I'll bite. Do you know yourself? Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, "offensive", that doesn't seem a bit over the top? In any event, yes, had I run afoul of a highly influential and prodigous (in terms of editing) male admin I probably would have said "powerful man" as well. As for whether my antagonist's gender had any bearing on my being blocked, I can only point to the comments of those who initially sought and continue to support the block: "Attracting and retaining female editors has been identified as an issue by the Foundation, and [a] wishy-washy response to this behaviour will just make that harder." [1] "Keep blocked. There's recently been some discussion on the Foundation-L mailing list about the challenges [involved] in attracting new editors, particularly women, to participate in Wikimedia projects." [2] Given comments like these (and the hearty "agree per X" they received) I suspect that, had I written my poorly motivated but neveretheless non-attack article ([3], [4], [5]) about a male admin, I probably would have been warned or temporarily blocked--not indefinitely blocked. But since SlimVirgin is a woman, my actions were treated differently. That's fine, though, jerky stuff hurled at women should be treated differently; in a perversely comforting way my experience demonstrates that chivalry isn't dead, even on Wikipedia. Still, I would have though that a month long period of exile would have been enough; much to my aggravation it seems the community disagrees. Eugene (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions were not treated differently. You treated the article as a battleground, and you stalked and harassed your opposition. This has nothing to do with the gender of any editor, and really, has nothing to do with SlimVirgin. It has to do with your inability to recognize and understand your faults, admit them, and promise not to do them again. It's really that simple. Your above response shows you are unwilling to see past your own nose in this matter. It was your reaction that got you in trouble; nothing and nobody else had anything to do with it. Stop blaming and start living. Nobody is perfect, and everyone makes mistakes. Accept this and start making amends. This means changing your behavior, not continuing to justify it as you are doing on this page. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we'd agree that once a person has made up his mind about an issue it is (generally speaking) very difficult to convince him of the rightness of another view. You'd likely apply this calculus to me in this matter; I'd apply it to you; let's not waste time bickering over it. In any event, I've taken responsibility for my poor motives and the poor timing of my proto-article's creation in both my requests for an unblock. I've likewise repeatedly stated that I will not repeat these mistakes--both in my unblock requests and even before the block was enacted. ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10]) Yet I remain blocked. The policy on blocking says that blocks are intended to be preventative and not punitive; in my particular case I don't see this understanding at work.

Lastly, while it's a minor issue, it's one that I think ought to be addressed: I don't at all accept the accusation that I "stalked" SlimVirgin. In the course of all this unpleasantness certain people have hurled various epithets my way with (it seems) the intention of prejudicing the discussion of my situation. When I was first blocked, a variety of editors who never actually read what I wrote called my article an "attack article"--and that with a great deal of confidence. But it seemed that the great bulk of people who actually had a chance to read the article conceded that it didn't qualify as an attack article per se (my motives, admittedly, are another matter). Similarly, in the course of my last appeal for an unblock, another editor with whom I had never before interacted labeled me an "unrepentant vandal". Now I grant that my past behavior at times suffered from a variety of short-comings (serial failures to assume good faith, border-line edit-warring, "grudgey" editing, etc,) but genuine vandalism was never one of them. I think that SlimVirgin would agree.

So I take issue with your comment that I stalked SlimVirgin. I merely Googled her name and culled through the search returns for reliable sources. If that constitutes stalking then the subject of every BLP article on Wikipedia is being stalked every day. Eugene (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you are still blocked is because you are trying to rationalize your bad behavior, which was irrational, emotion-based, motivated by anger and revenge. You raise an interesting point about stubborn views and the inability to see other points of view. This is why I think editors should go out of their way to argue the opposite side of the issue when they find themselves entrenched. Have you tried this? In other words, can you argue why you should remain blocked, not unblocked? This will force you to see with different eyes, and to understand why you are still blocked, and what to do about it. Try it. Viriditas (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were I to argue for the opposition I'd probably adopt a stance something like this: "Eugene is probably being genuine; his profession of repentance and promise of better behavior are likely sincere. But if allowed to return to Wikipedia, given his habit of editting controversial articles with a bearing on his worldview, it would only a matter of time before he slid back into his old ways of edit-warring along ideological lines and then harrassing his opponents. Also, keeping Eugene blocked will send a message to would-be problem users that we, as a community, simply do not tolerate this sort of behavior--thus preventing future abuses by other individuals."

While superficially appealing, such an argument fails though: I've already indicated that I'd be perfectly willing to submit to a 1RR restriction, thus hobbling my ability to edit war; I've also indicated that I'd accept a civility restriction as well, which would render future harrassment unworkable; and as for making an example of me, most potential problem users simply won't be aware of my situation so it's unlikely that strong penalties applied to me will dissuade others from following in my ill-conceived footsteps.

Now that I've played devil's advocate, care to give it a go yourself? Were you to argue for unblocking me at this point, what would you say? Eugene (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't argue for blocking or unblocking you, so I don't think my opinion is needed. Also, please remember, the community is not in favor of unblocking you at this current moment in time, not a particular individual. It sounds like you are interested in my opinion, so I'll just reiterate what I came here to say: Please remove your silly, attention getting, sympathy generating header, and reflect on this block once again. Pray, meditate, consult with your wife, and do some soul searching. After you've done that, you'll realize that people are in favor of unblocking you after a period of time, but you need to take a breather and think about this incident. One thing I don't understand is your contribution history from 2006-2009. Could you explain why you made so few edits? Were you posting under another account name? Also I just saw your complaint about SlimVirgin's prose. You said it was "overly wooden and stenographic". I cannot recall another editor ever complaining about her prose in any way, so I'm curious why you are still taking digs at her. She has flaws as much as any other editor, but her prose is considered to be of the highest quality. Instead of taking cheap shots at her that have no basis in reality, why not change your tactics and accentuate the positive, and try naming ten things you like about her? If you can't say anything nice... Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, I didn't edit much from 2006-2009 because I was busier then and I hadn't yet found an article which both interested me and which could so obviously benefit from some work. Eugene (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editting by Proxy?

It's nice to see I have an audience [11]. I'm under the impression that one of the reasons that blocked users retain the ability to edit their own talk page is so that they may continue to contribute to on-going discussions, albeit in an attenuated way. I'd also note that while I make my concerns regarding article's known here, I always provide reasons for my concerns and, generally, sources as well. Is that really inappropriate? Am I such a threat to SlimVirgin's editting agenda that she can't even tolerate leaving me with this very limit forum for making my views known? Eugene (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If some admin ultimately decides to remove my ability to edit even my talk page then I suppose there'd be no more point for me to stick around. My last two unblock requests went poorly and I've little hope for a better experience in the future. If I can't even tap out messages on the pipes in my cell, I suppose the retired template should go back up. Eugene (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after reading your link above, I'm going to have to insist on some kind of payment for being your little trained minion (no checks please; only Visa, MC, and EFT). I'm a capitalist so I don't work for nothing (other than work on Wikipedia, of course).

Block: Enacted 6/19/2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I am blocking you because you created an article about another user in the middle of an edit war with that user. This encyclopedia must have a minimum amount of integrity that is based on the creation of articles in good faith on encyclopedic topics - and not to use encyclopedia articles as a form of attack against editors.Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Unblock Request (6/22/2010): Declined

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vanished user 2345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've thought it over a bit and discussed the matter with my wife some and I'd now like to request that I be unblocked.

Before I get to the apology I want to briefly indicate what I'm not conceding, not because I'm trying to be difficult, but because I don't want my statement to be taken as some sort of disingenuous, purely tactical, volte face: I still maintain that the content of the article I wrote concerning SlimVirgin was policy compliant. I further maintain that the article itself would have been a valuable addition to Wikipedia. And I further maintain that I had every intention of going through all the appropriate channels to see the article get into the mainspace, channels that I knew would scrutinize the article quite closely for instances of meanness and other wrong-doing on my part.

But even so, after getting one too many raised eyebrows and knowing looks from my wife in our conversations on this matter, I've come to accept that while the article's content may have been innocent, the act of its creation was not. I allowed my long-standing frustrations with another editor, frustrations brought to a head by recent disagreements over the John Polkinghorne article and the ensuing 3RR report, to partially motivate me. Some small part of me got a giddy little thrill from hitting "save page" on my article, for I suspected that some small part of its subject would be irked by it.

As such, my actions weren't entirely honorable; I recognize that now. I'm sorry and I won't do it again. Eugene (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The ANI discussion is not in favor of unblocking you. Sandstein 04:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Second Unblock Request (7/29/2010): Declined

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vanished user 2345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's been more than a month now and, with the "heat of the moment" fully past, I'd like to once again request that I be unblocked. Creating the page on SlimVirgin was a foolish mistake--both in terms of my timing and motives. I understand the community's response (especially now that I'm more fully aware of the background to this matter) and recognize the wisdom implicit in its decision. I've apologized to SlimVirgin personally and I can honestly say that I bear her no ill-will. I think that I have a lot to offer Wikipedia in terms of content and sourcing in my particular area of expertise and I'd be perfectly comfortable submitting to some sort of probationary civility restriction if need be. Eugene (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The ANI discussion failed to show any substantial support for unblocking . T. Canens (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.