God: Valuable Wikipedian, or disruptive editor with a history of sockpuppetry?

This page is originally from Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense and is licensed under GFDL.

Archives

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67u Best picks 1 2 3 4 5 Helpdesk 1 | Unblock 1 Special collections

If you wish to put in new Wikipedia Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, you may do so at 67 Deletion Summer of Love. But PLEASE cite your sources!

This discussion originally appeared at WP:ANI.

God: Valuable Wikipedian, or disruptive editor with a history of sockpuppetry?

Can the bible even be considered a reliable source? Until(1 == 2) 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question. Since it's claimed to be the Word of God, I'd imagine we'd have to treat it as a self-published source. ;-) -- ChrisO 15:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Meaning God would have to be a well-known researcher in a relevant field. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

But should we block God if he edits the article on himself? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

We should certainly block Jesus as a sockpuppet! -- ChrisO 15:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a sockpuppet, just another aspect of the main account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the large number of Sockpuppets and aspects of the main account that are female, and the sons of God and all the various pantheons of gods and goddesses, nymphs, dryads, water sprites and kings who deified themselves, isn't there some way we could avoid the view that God is always personified as a single male deity?

Despite the illustration showing quite a crowd of gods and goddesses and angels roaming around up there in the clouds giving eachother the finger, it seems like the omnipotence is a myth because everything always gets screwed up reverted back to square 1.Rktect 20:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the funniest thing I've ever read. JuJube 21:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the omnipotence thing entail admin powers? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, good point. Maybe that would be the first ruling by the ArbCom to deomnipotence. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm holding out for the devs to add a "smite user" function to my editing panel. -- ChrisO 16:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The omniscience would mean he'd have a problem with verifiability, not truth. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Only if they violate the NPOV policy, on that note, could God declare all of creation CC-SA? That would make all other media a derivative work that falls under the same license. Until(1 == 2) 15:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

God is a terrible editor and should be blocked, I've asked him for sources multiple times but he just keeps saying "but I was there, I saw it!" - he just doesn't get core policy and seem to have no willingness to learn it. He also has a tendency to make personal attacks and threaten to turn me to a pillar of salt the last time I asked him for a source - besides the Jesus meatpuppet, I think he also operates a sock account called theholyghost. --Fredrick day 16:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is all in good fun of course. But I wonder what would happen if we made the same jokes abbout Mohammed. Snakesouls 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

*yawn* Another thread on Jay? Will ^(talk) 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC

Based on this discussion and a thorough review of His contrib history, it seems that God has just about "exhausted the patience of the community". While I'm reluctant to take action against a user with such a long history, I think it's reasonable to consider an indef-block at this time. Doc Tropics 16:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If Jayjg is so biased, why does he have the mop, checkuser, and oversight privileges? And why did Jimbo directly appoint him to the Arbcom? Will ^(talk) 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, Doc was talking about God, not Jayjg. Though I know some people have difficulties in telling them apart... -- ChrisO 16:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd much rather consider action against God than Jay...I know which one is likelier to smite me : ) Doc Tropics 17:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wow Fred, you must know a different god than I do, the one I know is really relaxed, and does not exhibit human failings like wrath. Until(1 == 2) 16:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

since there are more than 3,000 Gods worshipped by humans - I daresay that's the case. --Fredrick day 16:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey now, watch it. Remember, the Biographies of Living Deities policy applies here too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check it out but someone's been pushing to have the Template:Tl tag applied to the Talk:Jesus page. Seriously! - Alison ? 16:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we'd need a reliable source to confirm that he's still alive. Has he written anything lately, has he been on TV? -- ChrisO 16:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

He's been talked about on TV all the time & I know one or two folks who claim to have been in contact. I don't think secondary sources will do here. My only concern is that he or his Father may try to sue the WMF for defamation or something and, given he's apparently got quite a few followers out there, that could be tragic - Alison ? 16:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Alison, I initially thought you were joking there...yeeeeeeesh. Though AMiB's edit summary is about priceless here. [1] Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you guys are already talking about banning God. You all suffer from a severe lack of WP:AGF. Personally, I think he has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, even if his contributions in the short term are hard to appreciate. I vote for a warning as of now, with gradual short 1000 year blocks as necessary. If he doesn't improve in a few more eons, then we can raise this matter at CSN. nadav (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if Rktect has found this response helpful? Until(1 == 2) 16:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My thought would be "no". 'Nuff lulz, people... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

His "problem" was answered in the second post - what more needs to be said? --Fredrick day 16:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, nothing needs to be said, but some things must be said! :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

People, people, really. Unlike the Koran, large chunks of the Bible are categorically not supposed to be the literal word of God, so the Bible is hardly a self-published source: hence, if and when Our Lord edits The Bible, He will not be violating WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Moreschi ^Talk 21:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the Ten Commandments section, or indeed article... (or does that fall under WP:LIST?) LessHeard vanU 22:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry: Template:Vandal, Template:Vandal, and Template:Vandal have already been blocked. I'd watch for socks though, especially considering that a second coming has been threatened for about two thousand years. Antandrus (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be naive. We've already agreed that he's a multiple sockpuppeteer and his meatpuppets have been all over this website. It wouldn't be hard to summon diffs of offline collusion. Durova^Charge! 04:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We ought to be more thorough about blocking these sockpuppets. Jeez...I mean golly... erm... Durova^Charge! 04:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Durova. Don't you hope to keep Me banned. You have no idea how many potential account names I have - these are only the ones I have cared to reveal yet! And don't underestimate the number and force of my meatpuppets either (Dan. 7:10). Moreover, I can easily edit through any number of proxies in all nations of the world. So, before you risk Our displeasure, won't you prefer to compromise with Us? -- That said, I appreciate you guys giving My featured content such a nice prominent placement the other day. Al Quddus 20:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

99 Names? Bah. Once you've dealt with User:JB196, seems like a piker to me.. SirFozzie 20:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Creation of Jimbo

Man, what a pity this all gets archived in a couple of days. This entire thread deserves to be enshrined somewhere. :D Orderinchaos 10:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll archive it in WP:BJAODN... -- ChrisO 11:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Archived? More a case of, "That's your Lot! Salted!"; thus becoming the sixth Pillar of Wikipedia... LessHeard vanU 12:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

God was dead on January 15, 2001. God is Dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we—we still have to vanquish his shadow, too... Thus spoke Zarathustra who is a real RS. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, we do at least have him to thank for something! (See pic on the right...) -- ChrisO 12:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And Zarathustra? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh, not so much. Inspired a nice tune, that's about it... -- ChrisO 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

God's dead?! Dang, he was an important Wikipedian and a useful contributor. I'll put this in as a suggestion for the next Signpost. nadav (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Nadav, you may also add the fact that this is the first time Jimbo is seen nude w/ someone's hand under his butt! Whose hand is that? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the Cabal, ready to insert its collective hand where the sun doesn't shine and make Jimbo its sockpuppet. *evil laugh* -- ChrisO 17:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

God's repeated poor behaviour has clearly exhausted the community's patience. We have to be looking at an indefinite block at this point. --John 17:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've already indef blocked him so I'll suppport a community ban. God is welcome to e-mail me and pledge to enter Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user and I'll reduce that to a three month topic ban on religion-related topics. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have grave concerns, I've read plenty of Diffs on God, and he seems to have a problem with WP:NPA. His newer diffs indicate that he has learned the value of WP:BITE, however. SirFozzie 18:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I just declined an auto-unblock request from user:satan. The autoblock is tied to god's IP and satan is claiming it is just a coincidence. Another of his sock/meatpuppets maybye? I wonder who is the sock master here? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's well documented by theological experts that Satan can only act with God's permission, so in site policy terms that makes Satan a bad hand meatpuppet of God. Good call, Chris. God will have to address this when he e-mails me. I also expect him to do something about his WP:MPOV before I'll lift the ban. He may be in charge of the universe, but until he understands that he doesn't run Wikipedia he isn't welcome here. Durova^Charge! 20:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody considered blocking the underlying IP range of 666.666.xxx.xxx/16 and 777.777.xxx.xxx/16 to prevent socks from using IP's to avoid the ban? I would reccomend a 666.xxx.xxx.xxx/8 and 777.xxx.xxx.xxx/8 but as I understand it mediawiki limits range blocks to the /16 range. Any ideas on the collateral damage for such a large range block ;). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Collateral damage depends on how many angels can dance on the head of a pinSirFozzie 20:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If they're angels then they have serious WP:COI and we ought to discuss possible WP:MEAT. Should we presume they're dancing on the keyboard as a condition of employment for God and are therefore compelled to advance the official company line in violation of WP:NOT and WP:NPOV? Durova^Charge! 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then there would be no technical collateral damage for such a large rangeblock and we should just block the 777.xxx.xxx.xxx/8 and 666.xxx.xxx.xxx/8 to get rid of all the bad eggs?-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just be thankful your trying to deal with the en-Wiki Supreme Being (no, the other one!), and not the Indian Parthenon at In-Wiki :- have you any idea how fast Kali can create sockpuppets? LessHeard vanU 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone remember participating in consensus building for the universe? I'd say that we might have a good case for blanking under WP:VAND. Certainly I have some questions about WP:OWN. Jfwambaugh 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there an RfC open on this at the moment? I am hearing rumours of some Judgement. LessHeard vanU 20:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just be happy if He would provide a decent free-use image for His article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would rather He declared all creation CC-SA, so all derivative works would be too. Until(1 == 2) 20:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman is going to freak when he sees this thread! - Alison ? 20:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, I was just trying to explain this thread to my (non-wiki) partner. You try it. Harder to do than you might think. - Philippe | Talk 20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple really. You can even do Math on it: Monday+Week with a holiday smack dab in the middle+A touch of insanity and religious irreverence (all in good fun)=Complete Craziness! SirFozzie 20:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The Whack-a-Mole Stuffed Tiger Prize goes to sysops who tirelessly block returning sockpuppets at Carnival Wikipedia. I'll award this to whoever indef blocks the most God sockpuppets during the next three days. Durova^Charge! 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, trolling the ban discussion pushes this over the edge.[2] God, or whatever you call yourself today, I withdraw my unblock offer. Durova^Charge! 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the humor of frightened young people trying to convince themselves the ghosts and spirits their ancestors invoked were all silly figments, but who recognize, mostly preconsciously, that they too will one day grow old and sick and near death and will have the comfort of what? The Periodic Table? As someone said on Jimbo's Talk, "I found it [this thread] to be one of wikipedia's more embarassing moments and rather offensive". Blow away that silly, predictable photoshop and let this sad babble sink unremembered to archive. JDG 16:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Each to their own taste. I on the other hand found it to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Incidentally, why do you post inside a table? --John 16:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm offended at the fact that you are offended. JuJube 17:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I first posted inside a table yesterday. It was a long comment on a user's Talk page and I thought the multiple paragraphs looked messy without being unified visually by something else (a colored table cell-- I would rather have used a div colored with a CSS variable, but figuring out how to do that without disrupting monobook.js was beyond my patience at the time). I decided to use the colored cell here because I'm in a minority of like 30:1, and I didn't want the single objection in the whole thread to get lost in the sauce.... As for "Each to their own taste", sorry, but I've always found that sort of statement ("Everything is relative" is another) to be a cop-out and, really, a lie to the self. Mainly, we're not talking about, say, a taste for fish here, or asking "Stones or Beatles?". We're talking about people using other people's most sacred conceptions with contempt, as targets of derisive humor. So it's a matter of respect for others, not a matter of taste. Then there's the matter of what these mocking people may or may not bring to the table on their own-- can they offer us anything spiritually that's even close to these traditions they mock? Can they attempt to answer The Big Questions (Is there a purpose to life?, Is there life after death?, Is there an objective ethics?, etc.,.) with anything close to the power of these traditions they mock. Plainly, no. All they have on tap is rather adolescent, rather predictable sarcasms that try to tear down something they could never have built themselves. And that's about as sad as it gets, to any taste. JDG 17:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The most profound mysteries of life and death often inspire people to crack jokes. I see this in the hospital every day; at home, where Life of Brian is in heavy rotation on the DVD player; and so on. It's a fact of life. You can reasonably choose to call it disrespect, a defense mechanism, or just part of human nature. That's a matter of taste. MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mast, you followin me around to make sure I'm Decorous? And, if not, you declare me a pathogen and do your thing?... Hey, I'm certainly not going to get into "the most profound mysteries of life and death"-- but I will say it's possible to be funny about these things without being offensive. Earlier generations did a fine job at it-- watch a few old Tonight Shows with Johnny Carson and you'll inevitably see priest, minister, rabbi, swami and mullah jokes that are knee-slap funny but manage to have a whole multi-ethnic audience turning to each other and laughing, not growling as the demeaning humor here would. But it's very difficult to blame you kids. I'm 45. I'd bet the median age here is something like 25. You've been bombarded with sick shit like South Park, Austin Powers, Howard Stern, etc,., etc,. from your very cradles. But yeah, my own generation paved the way with people who got off on crossing the line: Monty Python, George Carlin, Richard Pryor etc.,. You can see the difference between decent, upright yet wildly funny people like Bill Cosby and indecent, lowdown and much less funny people like Carlin. For some reason the Carlin/Pryor/Python tradition took hold among you kids instead of the better stuff, so that's how it goes... Python was great in the beginning, but with Life of Brian they crossed over. I can't tell you how much that film depressed me when I saw its original run when I was around 18. I just knew that kind of deep hostile disrespect was going to take deep root in both the UK and US, and so it has. Now our culture, particularly its rabid consumption of porn and its love of hateful humor, instills disgust around the world. Very few things have been as painful to me in the last few years as the moment I realized freakin Bin Laden has a point here... JDG 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I'm 42 and I know how awful it is when we don't find "cutting edge" humour funny any more. South Park is an example of that for me. On the other hand I find the humour of Life of Brian very gentle and well-observed. You can perhaps console yourself slightly that every generation has said the same thing about the younger generation going to the dogs, all the way back to the ancient Greeks at least, yet our society still hasn't collapsed. Maybe it is about our individual age rather than any deep-seated corruption of society. Notwithstanding the wise words of Mr Bin Laden. --John 00:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the Internet. This is not a place where sacred things are beyond reproach. And you have to also understand that they're jokes. You're free to believe that they're not funny, but to judge the ones who do find them funny as "mocking people" and "rather adolescent" is being guilty of the same crime you accuse them of. JuJube 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting reply. On the formatting, it certainly gets one's attention, but can you imagine what talk pages would look like if everybody did that? As far as "using other people's most sacred conceptions with contempt, as targets of derisive humor" goes, you have my sympathy; I feel the same way every time the Scotland team loses, which is quite often. You may find it useful, as I have, to develop a thicker skin, a sense of humour, or both. On the Big Questions, I think I find uncertainty (or ineffability) far more interesting than the pseudo-certainty of dogma, but don't expect you to agree with me there. Sometimes it's nice not to agree. --John 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been a long, long time since anyone referred to me as "young"... LessHeard vanU 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

God belongs to everyone, even those that like to be funny. Until(1 == 2) 19:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Amusing as all this is, is it really necessary to further crowd an already crowded page with what really amounts to off-topic chatter? Exploding Boy 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Bijaowdan this whole section at the least, then get back to work and block deities as they come on, even if they call themselves St. Cuthbert or Zeus. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow, someone else above raised an objection. Now's my turn. ^_^

I'm not religious and hold many sacred things with contempt. The reason I'm objecting is because the other day, I posted a section on here with a short complaint which was hijacked (not extensively) and then I was told, rather rudely, to "take it elsewhere". So maybe it might be best to take this elsewhere? It really doesn't belong here, just like my own complaint didn't.

Do not get me wrong. I actually enjoy this thread. I think its hillarious. But maybe, just maybe, a little less hypocrisy can go a long way. Had anyone else done it, they would have been slapped with a warning. Drumpler 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was here to answer the great theological questions of our time... Until(1 == 2) 00:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. I just think this thread is a terrible example of Wikipedia conduct. Like I said, I have no moral or theological objections. What I do object to is certain admins and editors slapping around rules and then making light and breaking their own rules. Its hypocritical. Drumpler 00:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your complaint about this thread, that is really a content dispute and not an administrator issue, you should try dispute resolution instead of bringing it up here.<hehe> Until(1 == 2) 00:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, isn't the purpose of being an admin in the first place to be an example to Wikipedia? I'm no WikiSaint myself, but there's a certain level of responsibility. Drumpler 00:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what policy is being violated here, looks fine to me. Until(1 == 2) 00:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking WP:FORUM, but upon double checking, apparently that applies to articles. Where I am mainly concerned is how this might become a precedent for discussing various off-topic subjects on this and other pages? Drumpler 00:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the joke seems to have run it's course, can I suggest it be moved to WP:BJAODN? (I'm not saying it's a bad joke, that's what someone else titled the archive). Anynobody 09:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, MediaWiki appears to be a non-believer. [3]: "If in doubt, please verify that "God" exists." On the other hand, clicking on "exists" reveals that there is a user called "God" registered. (Is that a joke?) --NetRolller 3D 15:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hallelujah! — Rickyrab | Talk 18:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)