User talk:Giovanni33/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any comments to the current talk page.

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Welcome to the Wikipedia, Giovanni33! And thanks for fixing the typo over on the Scientology article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
When you have time, you can peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Giovanni33, and have fun! Ombudsman 07:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

violation

Please review WP:SOCK...thanks. KHM03 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please look at WP:CON. Thanks...KHM03 13:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Giovanni33. I'm a little concerned that you seemed to acknowledge here that you are the same as 64.121.40.153 and that he seemed to be denying it here. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with forgetting to log on occasionally, or even deliberately not logging on if you're at a strange computer and in a hurry. But since you are making a lot of reverts, and we have a policy on that, and since Belinda claims on the Christianity talk page that five editors at least agree with your version, it's important to know if you are both accounts or only one. Could you please clarify? (And if you are 64.121.40.153, could you try to log on when posting.) Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 17:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ann. My IP address is [[User:64.121.40.153|. I never denied otherwise. I have always had the same IP address--one and only. Any other IP address would not be me since I've never used a different PC to edit here. I have already agreed to log in (the times my IP address shows instead of my name is due to not being log on).

I do not know why I seem to have been accused of having more than one account. A diversionary tactic, that is a sign of desperation? hehe I looked at your links and I only see that I said the same things Im saying here: that I only have one account and one IP address. Not loggin in does not mean I have two accounts, since its the same IP address, right? KHM03 lumped me together with another user, Belinda. I denied that I was someone else (any IP address other than 64.121.40.153), stating I have only one account. How is this possibly interpreted as a denial that my own IP address is mine? The other user I was being lumped with has a different IP address. Can you clarify what about this needs clarification since I've already stated this? Giovanni33 18:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni33 18:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Giovanni. Thanks for your reply. No, there was no accusation, just a question, and since you've clarified, nothing else needs clarification. The problem was that you were doing a lot of reverts (well, I know I was too!) but you were making some as Giovanni33 and some as 64.121.40.153. As you know, if you revert more than three times in any 24-hour period (and partial reverts count), you can be blocked from editing by an administrator. And the three reverts are considered an absolute limit, not an entitlement. If you split the reverts between your IP address and your username, you can still be blocked. Now, since Belinda was claiming that at least five editors agreed with your version, it seemed important to establish how many of you there are. I never thought it was likely that you were Belinda (though in the case of new editors sharing the same views, we don't generally rule out the possibility); nor do I imply that you're doing anything dishonest in using your username for some edits and your IP address for others. I do ask you to log in as much as possible, though, since it's confusing for people who read the talk page or who check the article history to find out who wanted what. It's natural when a lot of new users and IP addresses suddenly appear, and favour the same versions of the article, that those who've been around longer would wonder. Also, 38.114.145.148 signed on the talk page as Belinda, and shortly afterwards, the new editor BelindaGong appeared. So I wonder if that's one of the "five" who approved your version, or two? Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 18:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I must apologize for asking that question. I have just seen this, which I missed earlier. There have been so many posts to that page today, that I couldn't keep track of all of them. AnnH ^(talk) 21:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the restoration of the historical chart on Christianity; it may have gotten inadvertently deleted at one point...but there is no complaint from me on that one. KHM03 18:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked or not blocked?

It appears I have been blocked from making any further edits. This was right after I made some edits to addressing points in the talk page in goodwill on my part, not to do any reverts (except the Historical Chart, which no one disputs). Yet, looks like I have been blocked as a result anyway. Giovanni33 19:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't block you. Nor did I ask another administrator to do so. I hate blocking newcomers, unless they're vandals. Sorry to hear you can't edit, although 1) if you were blocked, you wouldn't have been able to post to my talk page, and 2) there's no record of your name or your IP on the block logs. (They get filled in automatically, when an administrator blocks someone, so it's not as if someone blocked you and forgot to report it. See here and here for block logs relevant to you. They're both empty. When I got your message I thought perhaps the Christianity article had been protected while I was having dinner, but it wasn't. I suggest you try again shortly. If you like to post here to your talk page (the only page you can edit while blocked, although I stress again that you're not blocked) what makes you think you've been blocked, I'll look into it for you. By the way, I note that you made about ten reverts or partial reverts in the space of 24 hours, so you could have been blocked, even though you weren't. I'll keep an eye on this page in case you respond. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 20:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I note that you haven't edited anything since. There's still absolutely no record of any block, so I think it must be that you're having computer problems. Anyway, I'll be around for a while, and I'll keep an eye on this page, in case you post anything on it. AnnH ^(talk) 21:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You've started contributing again. Everything okay? AnnH ^(talk) 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

When you can, please review the recent changes detailed here before changing/reverting. I've tried to address your concerns & incorporate some of your suggestions. I pray we are getting close to a consensus. KHM03 20:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

On Talk:Christianity#Changes to the article, there is a discussion about proposed changes. I'd like to hear what you think about how we should proceed. Please join the discussion if you have a chance. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll go over and take a look. I've just been focusing my work on the Adolf Hitler talk pages as of late, since no one was responding to any of issues I've raised on the Christianity talk page (instead talking about other less interesting things). But, I'll go back. Giovanni33 21:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Contributions

I also want to say good job and keep it up. Really, thank you for all your hard work and research in the articles you have edited. I do appreciate it and see that you really do work hard for a consensus and compromise depite the difficulties posed by those who contest inclusion of all your well sourced material. BelindaGong 01:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

BC AD

Saw your comment on KS's page - you're right, there is no standard...not even the "first user" standard. It's more of a "don't change without consensus". Guettarda 16:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article, I'm not sure that either is needed, but as it stands now AD is used in the first line and CE later on. The one thing that's not acceptable is a mixed system. Guettarda 16:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me, Giovanni. It looks to me like the original dating system in the Early Christianity article was AD, so I think they'd be justified in keeping the article consistent with that, unless a consensus of editors decides that the other version would be more appropriate. I agree that there is no preferred Wikipedia dating system, but in this case, it looks like they were justified in their change. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding, or if you see any other inappropriate changes. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

Giovanni, you have reverted SIX times on Christianity in the last 24 hours. Please understand — as I've told you before — that partial reverts count. Also, reverts with edit summaries about inserting something according to consensus on talk page also count. AnnH ^(talk) 12:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Another point you should be aware of is when people have a history of violating that rule, some admins actually block them (legally) if they "game the system" by making a fourth revert in, say, twenty-four hour and three minutes. I'm not talking about myself. I haven't ever blocked for 3RR so far, and I wouldn't do it with someone whose reverts are to an article I'm involved in. But I just thought you should be aware. AnnH ^(talk) 13:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV lecturing

Giovanni33, you wrote on Talk:Christianity,

I think that we can all benefit reviewing the Wiki policy on NPOV. I know we all think we know it, but in practice, I think many of us can slip back into non encylopedic mind frames.

And you followed that with what appeared to be a lengthy excerpt from WP:NPOV. (I didn't take the time to do a diff with the actual text, so I'm not completely sure.) Now, I think including yourself among that "we" as in "we all think we know it" is extremely arrogant of you, given that you've been editing Wikipedia for less than a month with this username. (If you've used other registered usernames, I'd be glad to hear it.) In your brief history, you have primarily engaged in edit warring to insert and highlight what you admit is a minority POV, have repeatedly made bigoted statements on related Talk pages. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2001, mostly religion related articles but not certainly not exclusively. While people have disagreed with my edits and I've disagreed with theirs, I don't recall ever violating the 3 revert rule, nor being accused of it. I have successfully collaborated with Jews, atheists, agnostics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics and Protestants, and on rare occasions even with fellow Eastern Orthodox Christians. The people you're insulting and reverting similarly have a history of having collaborated with editors with whom they disagree, and ultimately arriving at a mutually acceptable result. I know, I've argued with several of them myself. I normally do my best to assume good faith, but so far you've done little to make that easy for any of us.

You asked on Talk:Christianity what it took to be accepted as a fellow editor. Begin by not reverting edits out of hand, especially not in violation of the three revert rule. Next, try making some uncontroversial edits somewhere, anywhere. And while you're reading up on Wikipedia's policies, spend a little time with WP:CIVIL. You don't have to toe the party line to be accepted; plain old fashioned civility and collaboration will go a long way. Wesley 17:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This rant is a personal attack from beginning to end. -- 68.6.73.60 03:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are refering to Wesley's comments, above? I have a pretty thick skin and love free speech, esp. if its sincerely help. However, the attacks on me based on socketpuppet allegations that have been proven false, but which continue at an increased frenzy are another thing altogether.Giovanni33 03:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I must beg to differ with you on several accounts, starting with your notion that asking that we all review the great ideals of NPOV is an act of arrogance, esp. when I felt such policies were not being followed. Asking us all to review it, including myself, was a way not to single out anyone, but to focus on working toward a common goal and within a working framework. I felt it did help to foster greater respect and cooperation, if but for a while. I'm surprised you think this is such a negative thing. But, I guess you take insult that a newbie such as myself would dare feel himself to be an editor on par with others as is suggested by using the inclusive word "we." :) Sorry, no offense intended! I guess I'm not part of the club yet. My only defense here is that I'm still learning about the unspoken rules, which take longer to figure out (I read all the written ones).

About my admitting to the fact that I have a minority view. I confess to the crime! hehe Seriously is having a minority point of view a bad thing? I guess, though this will be construed as further "extreme arrogance" esp. when you hear that I've happy with it, and the progress I've made despite the conflict its generated. While I do think some conflict is necessary (the locomotive of all historical progress?), a lot of it was unnecessary too; maybe if I had introduced the NPOV lecture earlier on...? :) The point of view as I've shown is commonly accepted in many related secular academic circles. That is, that Christianity was strongly influenced by the mystery religions of the Greco-Roman world and the Near East in which it developed. I have provided many prominent scholars who are authorities within the relevant fields of study, who argue the stance. Even though I make my arguments aggressively and with passion, I do not think I've ever been uncivil (please give me an example so that I can reflect), and certainly I have never made bigoted statements. Pointing out actual bias is not bigoted if I show it has nothing to do with ones religious POV per se, but with any POV that rejects any other POV except its own. What you get is bias, no matter where the POV stems from. This is basic NPOV stuff. I think that all points of view are valid in their own way, to create the larger pictures of reality that an encylopedia should impart to its reader. This can only happen when all points of view are fairly and accurately characterized. I’d take the same stance no matter the philosophical worldview in question.

But, I know my arguments have generated extreme defensiveness. I can understand how it looks like the research I cite is aimed at attacking at the roots of their faith, but my only motivation is intellectual honesty, historical context, and a NPOV article. I won’t make these arguments here again, or makethe effort to show that since I started to argue and started to win over people to my point of view, and started to make progress, I’ve noticed the distortions of my actual position (straw man fallacies) and other fallacies including false accusations (socket puppetry), not willing to compromise, doing original research, being radical, extreme, etc. have increased. So have attempts at intimidation. Well, I guess that means I'm doing good work!! hehe About the reverts, yes, but its gone both ways, and I've never made changes without making my case on the talk page and only after the arguments went unanswered by opponents, and after I generated some agreement. Ofcourse, any work that I do, no matter how small gets reverted. The really silly part was that my work was being reverted back into an empty stub at Early Christianity, over and over, while my arguments on the talk page went unanswered. Luckily that has changed, finally. I still note that there is a glaring double standard in the burdon of getting consensus only for my changes, while other changes are accepted, even though there is no consensus.

I don't know if I'll ever be accepted as an equal editor at least regardng this article and controverial matter I'm arguing for, and the guardians of the orthodoxy of this article. But, I am glad to hear you admit that it's true I'm not accepted as an editor. I appreciate the honesty. I guess most would simply deny the descrimination. I have always been willing to compromise, but not on principals. I will continue to make my arguments and judge those of others on the merits of the case, using logic, rationality, and sourced material to support claims. I understand the nature of the topics I'm arguing for have polarized people so I get a feedback thats either really good or really critical. But I thank you for your feedback. I hope it was left in good faith because I'd much rather debate the issues than defending myself from attacks I’ll keep my arguments here at a minimum; it’s a waste of time. Besides maybe all these attacks are part of the diversionary tactics indicative of increased desperation at having lost the real arguments? Let me at least refute one claim---that I'm being “extremely arrogant”--because even if you think that my claims are of unwarranted importance, and they certainly do not stem from my own sense of pride. See: ar·ro·gant adj. “1. Making or disposed to make claims of unwarranted importance or consideration out of overbearing pride.” :)Giovanni33 21:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Gio: Also, you may want to look at this and this, regarding Wikipedia policy, NPOV, and minority views. Thanks...KHM03 23:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovani33, I regret that I don't have the leisure at the moment to fully respond to the points you raise. One point I do want to make clear is that it's really not the ideas that you're documenting that bother me. Instead, it's your occasional statements and more common insinuations that any scholarship done by a 'Christian' of any sort is inherently biased, that Christians in general distort or ignore evidence to conform to their dogma. This is where you are repeatedly running afoul of the civility policy. If you would take the time to learn how to work with other editors, perhaps starting on less controversial topics, I think you'll find that we really aren't that hard to work with. And for the record, there's plenty in the previous version of the Christianity article that I wouldn't say if I were writing from my own POV, as well as many other articles. Most of us really aren't nearly as "dogmatic" or inflexible as you seem to think. I just hope I'm not wasting my time here. (and regarding the definition of 'arrogance', I used that because you included yourself among those with a track record of familiarity with WP:NPOV, which at least came across as a "claim of unwarranted importance." Perhaps that wasn't your intent, in which case I apologize.) Wesley 02:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that I've ever run afoul of the civility policy. Saying that quoting only Christian writers represents a bias is perfectly accurate, it’s not in any way "bigoted" because the point is that all ideological schools of though contain their respective bias; recognizing this fact is an important part in avoiding bias. The trick is to have multiple sources from multiple POVs that are all hightly placed, respected sources. The literature of any single professed belief system would emphasis some things and de-emphasis others aspects, even in scholarly work. This is why all the exclusively Christian sources KHM03 provided did not even address the issue of non-Christian influences, and their absesnse of mentioning it does not negate its validity. Pointing out this fact, that referencing only writers with a Christian POV introduces a recognizable bias in what is covered and what is ignored is a valid point and in no way uncivil. Christians, just everyone else, do not become immune from the colorings of their own ideological lens. Giovanni33 23:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You've been blocked for 3RR violations and editwarring. The block will expire in 24 hours, or earlier if you will promise me to stop revert-warring. Take the time to discuss your edits, source your additions etc, and try to respect consensus. If that does not work go ahead and ask for a mediator. Your contribs look intelligently written, and I hope we can keep you as a wikipedian.--Tznkai 23:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tznakai. I think everyone would agree I've spend a huge amount of my time and efforts discussing my edits, sourcing my additions, and working for consensus on the talk page before making my edits (which always get reverted right away by a team that is devoted to supressing these ideas--even if it means reverting it into an empty stub!-where I was followed over to another article for this purpose.

The next logical step, not having been intimated, is to ask for an impartial mediator. I have truth on my side and I'm confident in the power of reason, logic, and my ability to back up my claims by refernce to prominant mainstream academic scholars who can not be discounted. The problem is that I'm im not part of the inner circle that shares the same POV, so it doesn;t matter that I can prove by argumentation the veracity and validity for incusion of my edits, they will be reverted under under various false pretexts that I've refuted (original research, POV, innacurate, extreme, radical, fringe, no consensus); the actual excuses keep revolving. Yet, these claims are not either substanciated or proven to be false, and double stanards are maintained. Luckily Wikipeadia is much larger than only the Christian page, otherwise, I'd think there would be no hope for forcing a compromise. Giovanni33 17:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but I do know you've violated Edit warring doctrine. I have a personal policy of always ignoring conspiracy theories, no matter how plausible. That having been said, I highly suggest you find a mediator, and I will be on hand to enforce policy if need be. Do you agree to find a mediator?---Tznkai 17:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree not to violate the policy, although I note that the policy was only enforced against my side, when the other side was doing the same thing. I will still attempt for consensus and compromise a bit longer before going to the mediator route. I think just knowing I've not given up on the cause would be enough in itself to cause them to see that their stance is not tenable in the long run. Othewise, I do appreciate your offer for assistance. Giovanni33 18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, the other side was not "doing the same thing". I have never in all my time at Wikipedia violated the 3RR rule. In fact, I seldom revert at all. We respected the 3RR rule. You, despite numerous warnings, did not. On one occasion you reverted ELEVEN times within a period of about eighteen and a half hours. Shortly before being blocked, you reverted six times (within 24 hours) at Christianity. A few days before that, you reverted five times at Transubstantiation. I lost count of your Early Christianity reverts, but you were clearly in violation there as well. You were warned again and again and again, and you remained unrepentant. As for your claim that the other side "followed you over" to Early Christianity, KHM03 was there before you, and all the editors who disputed your edits there had a history of involvement with many different articles about Christianity. (We might well wonder how your newly-registered supporters managed to find their way over to Early Christianity and Transubstantiation to support your edits.)

I agree that you spent "a huge amount of [your] time and efforts discussing [your] edits", but you certainly did not "spend a huge amount of [your] time and efforts . . . working for consensus on the talk page before making [your] edits." You kept uploading your version to the article, and seemed to be insisting that it should stay there until the other side had proved to your satisfaction that it wasn't appropriate. You also kept saying in the edit summary that it was a consensus version, even though there was no consensus.

There is no inner circle. Your edits were removed because they were fringe scholarhip, and because, contrary to what you claimed, there was no consensus for them. We tried to go easy on you because you were a newcomer. I cannot recall that it ever happened before that someone who so blatantly and so unrepentantly violated the 3RR rule remained unblocked for so long. We actually didn't want to report you. And in return, all we got was more violations, plus accusations (sometimes from you, sometimes from your friends) of bigotry, sneakiness, POV-pushing, suppressing the truth, etc., and snide remarks about how "Christians don't want to talk about their origins. hehe".

I want to warn you again, that if you continue to revert, but try to game the system by timing it so that your fourth revert falls just outside of the 24-hour period, you could get blocked again. It's also normal that when people continue to edit war, they get longer blocks on subsequent occasions. And finally, they might be forbidden to revert any article more than once a week, and blocked if they went beyond that. I recently saw an ArbCom case where that was one of the rulings.

We're all prepared to work with you and put this behind us. I'm sure I can speak for the others in saying that. But I must ask you to stop reverting, and stop making accusations. Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 18:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AnnH. KHM03 19:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted no less than the other side reverted, the difference only being that your side has more of a tag team network developed. So while it was not technically identical it was the same thing--edit warring. And, they were never given any warning, but actually encouraged, with you playing a leadership role in directing. You say "infact I seldom revert," but on this very talk page in one of your warning you say, quite correctly, "The problem was that you were doing a lot of reverts (well, I know I was too!)..." Yes, you were, too. So were others. The other thing that makes it not the same is that you and your friends (at least three) did not argue their case on the talk board as I did; while my reverts were after gaining some consensus and compromise among some of the more flexible members of the opposition. It was also only after the the opposing view failed to back up their central claims (such as the claim you make here about my views being fringe), and when others others agreed, with up to 9 editors who were all working together by making edits within the context of the new sections I introduced (Mikereichold, MikaM, Fubar Obfusco, Storm Rider, Wesley, Belinda, and myself. Even Str1977 (until he mysteriously reverted back when with no mention of any reason in the edit summar (it left blank), and then you and KH03 came to enforce that reverted old version). See here: [[1]] He followed this reversion by another edit summarized as "m." So, I restored the compromised version which I forged. Then you revert back (taking turns with KH03), and all without an argument and contributions on the talk page--other than I dont have consenus yet. When I asked you to make your case like everyone is supposed to, you only say that you agree "with what he said." (He being KHO3 who went silent earlier after failing to cite sources to back up his central claim). Many others have pointed this out, see summary, characterization Christianity Confict here by others: [2]

You say, "(We might well wonder how your newly-registered supporters managed to find their way over to Early Christianity and Transubstantiation to support your edits.) And, I know you have insinsuated many times that they are socketpuppets, or called them "meatpuppets," (interesting term), but I think you know the answer to your question (I note not everyone who agreed with me was a new user). I found out you were doing--leaving messages in the users talk page--and so I did the same thing. For example your message to your friends warning them, that "the articles in most danger of being filled with fringe scholarship at the moment is the Early Christianity article, precisely because the "origins" section is still only a stub. I read a fair amount of Church history some years ago, before I got interested in linguistics, but I've forgotten most of it now. AnnH (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC) [[3]]

And, : 'POV and fringe scholarship spreading' Hello again. I have a feeling that Early Christianity could benefit from your presence! Ditto for Transubstantiation.It's hard to keep track of all the problems here. Cheers. AnnH (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

And,"Christianity's originsI am sorry, KHM03, that I have to contact you again but there's something brewing on Christianity, as exemplified in this edit: [1]. Currently, I reverted it again, but he will certainly return to reintroduce "fact". So please keep an eye on it. Cheers, Ann. [[4]]

This explained the sudden appearance of these others and why I say I followed me over there. Maybe you are right that they were there a long time ago, but it was just a stub and they were for a long time not active there. When I expaned the section on Early Christianity, and contributed with small reference to some historical origins on the Transubstantiationarticle, they showed up after your calling them into action under the banner 'POV and fringe scholarship spreading' Before then, in the case of teh later article, the other editors were active there already before, did compromise with me and we had worked out an acceptable text which was included. It was only after you called out the troops out so to speak, who agressively defend their turn on the Christianity article, that the edit warning occured. They simply reverted and ignored the prior consensus and you backed them up, claiming there is was consensus. True, not anymore. The Trans article was even intially reverted with the edit summary calling it "vandalism." This is why I say edit warring was objectively encouraged when it came to pusing your own POV, (to suppress my point of view, which to you describe is "fringe.") I think I've proven otherwise referencing prominent mainstream scholars within the discipline. Others have commented to that once its reached a certain level of acceptance it can no longer be called fringe. It might not be mainstream but I've proven its a signifant minory view. If you and others maintain it's not then I only ask that one support this claim. So far no one has; simply saying doenst doen't by itself make it true. :)

I'm glad and I believe its true when you say "We're all prepared to work with you and put this behind us." So am I. But I must ask you to stop reverting, and stop making accusations. Yes, I will but the same goes for both sides, then. :) Giovanni33 20:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the crux of the debate is still the claim of fringe view vs. signifiant minority view, and even though I've provided dozens of reputable scholars to refute this claim while nothing has been produced to support it by the other side, since its being argued here, let me cite again just one or two authors that should suffice to prove my case: Prof. Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University She graduated from Stanford University (B.A. 1964, M.A. 1965) studied for her Ph.D. at Harvard University. At Harvard, she was part of a team studying the Nag Hammadi library scrolls. Upon finishing her Ph.D. from Harvard in 1970, she joined the faculty at Barnard College, where she headed the department of religion from 1974. Her study of the Nag Hammadi scrolls was the basis for The Gnostic Gospels (1979), a bestselling book won both the National Book Critics Circle Award and the National Book Award and was chosen by the Modern Library as one of the 100 best books of the 20th Century. In 1982, Pagels joined Princeton University as a professor of early Christian history. She researched and wrote Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, which examines the creation myth among other things. Another work is her The Origin of Satan. In 1992, after studying the Pauline Epistles and comparing them to Gnosticism and the early church, Pagels wrote the book The Gnostic Paul. This book expounds the theory that Paul of Tarsus was a gnostic whose influence on the direction of the early Christian church was great enough for the creation of forged additions such as the pastoral epistles (those to Timothy and Titus) to make it appear as if Paul supported their interpretation rather than gnosticism. Her New York Times bestseller, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas (2003), focuses on religious claims to possessing the ultimate truth. In addition to the MacArthur award, Professor Pagels is also a recipient of the Guggenheim and Rockefeller fellowships.

I also used for the Transubstanciation article, Professor Barry Powell, one of the scholars of this purported "fringe view;" he holds a PhD from the University of California-Berkeley and is a professor of classics. His research includes include Greek poetry, mythology and Egyptology. He specifically argues that "Christian notions of eating and drinking "the flesh" and "blood" of Jesus in order for individual followers to celebrate the ratification of the new covenant and to commemorate the sacrifice of the cross and His promise of return, was influenced by the cult of Dionysus. Certainly the Dionysus myth contains a great deal of cannibalism, in its links to Ino. Dionysus was also distinct among Greek gods, as a deity commonly felt within individual followers. In a less benign example of influence on Christianity, Dionysus' followers, as well as another god, Pan, are said to have had the most influence on the modern view of Satan as animal-like and horned." I would love to go and meet with Prof. Powell, and ask him if his view is really considered "fringe," "radical," etc. Somehow that doesn't ring true given his textbook from which this is quoted, Classical Myth Third Edition, which is a standard and universally accepted as a university text. If it was so fringe then why would his texts be so accepted in academia? Ofcourse, I followed by dozen of other secular scholars, which proves that within reputable academic circles the views I want inclusion for, even if they are minority views, are not extreme fringe that justify supression.Giovanni33 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ann's reply

Dear Giovanni,

I'll just reply to a few of your points before I go to bed.

When you say, "I reverted no less than the other side reverted", I presume you meant to say that you reverted no more than the other side reverted. If so, I must disagree. Nobody on the "other side" reverted eleven times in eighteen and a half hours. I regularly checked to make sure that I wasn't breaking any rules. I recall a message from KHM03 to Str1977 saying that he (KHM) could not revert again for the day. Guess what? He didn't revert again. I also recall a message from you to Belinda asking her to revert for you, because of 3RR. Then, while still within the 24-hour period, you reverted again, knowingly. You were aware of my reluctance to see anyone blocked. I told you I had never blocked or reported anyone for 3RR. I don't like doing it. And so you just kept going, and you were warned, and you still kept going.

I must take exception to your statement that I played a leadership role in encouraging the others to edit war. It is true that I asked Str1977 to keep an eye on two other articles, but he was aware of those two, even before I sent those messages. He had already edited one of them, and there was another message (not from me) on his talk page about the other. He is an excellent, very balanced editor, and is extremely knowledgeable. I often ask his help in articles, and was doing so long before you appeared at Wikipedia, and in articles where there was no dispute taking place.

You say also that the others were not given any warning. That's because they weren't flouting the rules like you and Belinda. You did eleven reverts in one day on one article, and six on another, and five on another, and about five on another. Why would I warn the others when they weren't doing that? And how can you expect that when new users turn up and revert four, five, six, eleven times a day, the old users will not make use of their three reverts?

Yes, I said that I seldom revert, and I stand over that. I do not have a history of edit warring. Not only have I never been blocked for 3RR violation: I have never committed it either. My average is well under one per day, from the time that I joined Wikipedia. You got away with it several times before you were blocked. Yes, I said in an earlier message that I knew I had made a lot of reverts. By that I meant simply that I had gone well above my average. I did not intend to imply that my scrupulous adherence to 3RR was in any way similar to your blatant and unrepentant violation of it. And I do not accept your implication that I, with my three reverts per day, was behaving like you with your eleven. Nevertheless, it was way above my average.

I make no accusations about sockpuppets. I have stated already that I do not think you and Belinda are the same user. However, on Wikipedia, new users who revert a lot or register when there's something to vote on are automatically considered to be sockpuppets. It's not meant to be an insult: it's a protection against abuse. It would be very easy to create four or five different accounts to help out in 3RR cases, or to gain a few extra votes. For that reason, new users are not considered to be "members of the community" until they have been around for a while, and have a certain number of edits. That sounds very unwelcoming, but it's not intended that way. It's just the way it is on Wikipedia. If MikaM went along to some official Wikipedia page where a vote was going on, and voted, he'd find his vote struck out by another editor, with the comment "User's twelfth edit" (or whatever). When I joined, Wikipedia, I signed something in support of a user who was in trouble, and an administrator posted a thing saying that I had registered two days before and had no history other than in the article which that other user was involved with. I felt rather snubbed, but just ignored what I found to be a rather unfriendly beginning. Later, I came across that administrator again. He had probably forgotten my name at that stage, and was helpful with some queries I had. I have a perfectly good relationship with him now, and I am sure he doesn't even remember the slightly bumpy beginning. Nor do I hold it against him.

So every new user has the same voting rights as an official sockpuppet. That doesn't mean that we accuse new users of sockpuppetry. But if they revert a lot and try to vote, the question will certainly be raised. Meatpuppets are also not allowed — friends who join Wikipedia in order to support someone. When people have enough edits, and when their edit history shows that they are not revert warriors with an axe to grind and an excessive interest in one topic, then they are considered full members. A newly-registered user who reverts four times within a couple of hours, in support of the version of another fairly new user is behaving like a sockpuppet (or a meatpuppet).

I noticed that you left a message for TheShriek, asking him to come to Transubstantiation. You did not ask Belinda, Kecik, or MikaM to come to that article, and none of them has the e-mail this user facility enabled. Yet they all turned up to support you. That is one reason to wonder about whether or not they are all genuine new users who joined Wikipedia for reasons unrelated to this.

Yes, I still say that it was not consensus. Even if some editors were indicating support for some ideas, that did not give you the right to revert back to your article. First of all, you didn't wait for views from everybody. There is no indication that the others agreed with the whole of your revert. And, even when you think there is consensus, you still have to respect 3RR. If it involves a revert, let someone else do it.

I will also tell you that I was given a rather rough time on the talk page of the first article I was involved with — precisely because I took the same side as a troublesome, edit-warring editor who had annoyed a lot of users. One of the editors who was rude to me apologized publicly a few days later, when he realized, through my calmness and my lack of edit warring, that I was, in fact a genuine editor. When I was nomintated to be an administrator, I reveived many votes from people who had disagreed with me about article content, and from people who said that I respected Wikipedia policy and remained calm on the talk pages of controversial articles.

As Wesley said, the people you've been insulting and reverting have a history of having collaborated with editors with whom they disagree. I can include him among them.

I don't condone using the word "vandalism" in an edit summary, and I would not do it myself, though I must point out that Belinda did that when she was reverting me. However, when some rather weird new material is posted, people can react to it as vandalism.

You are mistaken in thinking that I wrote this:

Christianity's origins I am sorry, KHM03, that I have to contact you again but there's something brewing on Christianity, as exemplified in this edit: [1]. Currently, I reverted it again, but he will certainly return to reintroduce "fact". So please keep an eye on it. Cheers.

If you look again, you'll see that it was Str1977, even though you have wrongly included my name in the signature. In any case, I must object to your statement that I "called out the troops" and that the aggressive edit warring occurred as a result of that. I post messages to Str1977 on a fairly regular basis. I frequently suggest articles that he should look at. I didn't tell him to revert. And in any case, it's a bit rich saying that we were the ones edit warring after your eleven and six and five and four, to say nothing of Belinda's numerous violations. The edit wars occurred because we had two new users who were violating — grossly violating — the 3RR rule.

It's true that I haven't made many historical or theological arguments on the talk page. I left that to Str1977, and KHM03. In any case, I was busy with a university assignment. Str1977 posted lengthy explanations of his objections to your edits. KHM was also quite thorough. I agreed with them both. You mightn't have been convinced, but you can't say that they didn't give their objections. And not all of your supporters gave profound theological arguments either!

Finally, with regard to the experts you cite, if a scholar is well respected in one discipline, it doesn't make him an authority in another.

Good night. AnnH ^(talk) 03:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Ann. I think we can at this point simply agree to disagree and not waste our times arguing about something that is now moot and probably wont be of signifant historical value (but if it is can be revisited). I've never insulted anyone, though. I'd much rather spend my time writing, and debating the real issues than who acted fairly or not failry to whom, etc. I will follow the rules, which I admit I probably did violate. I do not protest my punishment, and I still commit to working with others civilly in keeping with the rules and spirt of our shared wikiverse. On a side note though, I can look at the contributes of any user and thus see where they are active and what they are doing. I guess that any new editors could have easily have done that wth me and found me at the other sites. This seems a logical and plausable explantion, as well. Giovanni33 03:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Hypocrisy or Accidental 3RR Vio? I assume good faith and accept its an accident

Proof of my claim that you were edit waring and infact also you violated the 3RR rule yourself in doing so.

Hi Ann. I just wanted put you on notice with this warning incase you are not aware it. You blocked me for the violation and claimed you seldom revert yourself, which I disputed. Here I present evidence where, as is usual, you revert back to Str1977's version. I also note that there is no case made for this version while the other side has made a case and has asked that the disagreements be worked outinstead of edit warring. There is no response yet on the talk page for days about this dispute from your side that wants this version. I suggest you stop edit warring, and ask that those who support your side (seems to be only Str1977, who also reverted 4 times),at least make their case instead of blindly reverting, along with you following him, which suggests a possible meat puppet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38385983&oldid=38384074

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38403075&oldid=38400630

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38507904&oldid=38507249

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=38510080&oldid=38510031

Thanks. Giovanni33 21:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni reported my accidental violation (the first ever) to Tznkai, who had blocked him for his deliberate violation. Since he saw fit to devote a section on his own talk page to my "hypocrisy", I'm copying here what I originally wrote to Tznkai.

Hi, Tznkai. I've moved Giovanni's post here: he incorrectly placed it on your user page, where you mightn't have noticed it. It's quite true that I violated 3RR. It was an accident. I looked through the history to count my reverts beforehand, and missed my username when looking lower down on the page. I have now self-reverted my fourth revert,[5] and have also responded to Giovanni's valid accusation (which is mixed with some invalid accusations) here.

I vehemently deny that I "and others pushing POV" had been "doing the same" i.e. violating 3RR. This is my first ever violation, and it happened through an accident. Giovanni, on the other hand, reverted 11 times on one occasion, plus six, five, and four times on other occasions. Each time he was warned when the violation was approaching, rather than afterwards. And each time, he continued. Because of the controversial nature of his edits, he met with huge opposition from others, but unlike him, the others did not blatantly violate the rule. In fact, there was one occasion when KHM03 left a message for Str1977 saying that he (KHM03) could not revert again for the day, but that he was not happy with Giovanni's edit. Then, KHM03 did not revert again. However, Giovanni continued to revert, despite warnings, and I eventually reported him, as the worst edit warrior I had ever encountered.

Regarding the meatpuppet suggestion, Str1977 and I come from different countries, did not originally edit the same articles, and have never met each other. That we both share the same ideas is hardly surprising, since we are both Catholics who follow the official teachings of our Church. The question of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry has come up though, because when Giovanni arrived and his very controversial edits were reverted, four new users showed up, to support him on the talk page, and to revert for him. They have since appeared on every (or nearly every) article where he meets opposition, and have voted for his version. One of them, BelindaGong, also violated 3RR on a few occasions, and was reported and blocked after ignoring repeated warnings.

I originally thought when Giovanni posted to my talk page about my violation that he was giving me an opportunity to undo this violation (which I did). You can see that since Giovanni was the first person I ever reported, I have a preference for giving people a chance to stop, especially if I think the violation might be an accident. (That's why I was so very slow to report him.) I now discover that I was overestimating his generosity, and that he did in fact report me! He also added something about me to his own talk page, with the heading "Hypocrisy?"[6] He seems to think that my first ever violation, which was an accident, on 6 February proves his claim on 26 January that I was reverting to the same extent as he.

Anyway, if you feel you should block me, please go ahead. I promise I'll take it like a man (even though I'm not one)! No hard feelings, and all that! My normal pattern before Giovanni and Belinda arrived was not more than one revert per day, on average. It has, unfortunately gone up since then, as has the pattern of other editors who had a prior history on that page, though there have been no deliberate 3RR violations since Giovanni and Belinda were blocked.

AnnH ^(talk) 06:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Christian mythology

I don't necessarily have a problem with your edits here (it's a bit more "fluid" a topic than some of the others we've worked on together), but you might want to be aware (perhaps you already are) that this article has quite a heated history, particularly around the word "myth", a term which several users find troubling (though it doesn't bother me). Just a "heads up". KHM03 12:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I did actually read through much of the history there and saw the heated exchanges. Giovanni33 17:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Christianity

No harm done. KHM03 20:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi; It's one thing to have an edit summary that is uninformative. It's another to accuse others of "suprresion of NPOV language and content." That's an overt accusation of bad faith, surely not what you intended. The summaries are so short that it's easy to be misunderstood. Please just describe your edit, and discuss your changes on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reported you for 3RR violation on Christianity, supported by results from Checkuser[7]. Tom Harrison ^Talk 05:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting but in error. I'd like to the the evidence for the conection. BelindaGong is quite a distint person from myself. If I could see the methodology that purports to link us, I could investigate it and possibly offer an explanation that vindicates my innocence. Looking at the Christianity article, which you are using to report an alleged 3RR violation, I note that user BelindaGong did not revert to what I had done but addressed an issue on the talk pages, than worked out a change with user Wesley.Giovanni33 05:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

For evidence of the connection between you and BelindaGong, it looks like you would need to take it up with Matthew Brown, the admin and ArbCom member who tracked down the evidence for it. You did (as BelindaGong) revert the main paragraphs in question to your version, but with a little more care to avoid reverting other parts of the article at the same time. Wesley 14:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason why this block is unjust is because even if there were reason to believe that BelindaGong has a connection to my IP address, that is not sufficient to conclude she and I are one in the same, and thus add up our cumulative edits to impose a 3RR violation block. A socket puppet is defined as one editor who assumes another identity. In this case there are two separate editors who it is now claimed are linked in some technical way by virtue of an IP trace. This doesn't prove that there is one editor. The block is thus based on speculation. In effect this means that anyone who has a roommate or spouse, for example, who also edits here and shares a common POV, can be said for practical purposes to lose their own identity, or worse, be blocked--even when they did not violate any rules? Giovanni33 21:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I don't know whether you and Belinda are one editor or two who share an address. It doesn't actually make any difference. This all came up before in the case of User:Hollow Wilerding. If you and Belinda are husband and wife, brother and sister, or boyfriend and girlfriend under one roof, then you cannot revert six times, or vote twice between you. User:Mindspillage and User:Jdavidb are two highly-respected administrators who share a home with a partner/spouse. They both make it clear on their user page. If Jdavidb is reverting or voting, his wife does not; if Mindspillage is reverting or voting, her boyfriend does not. There's no duplicity.

Obviously, housemates of Wikipedians are welcome to join Wikipedia. However, they are not welcome to cast an extra vote or help with reverting. And this has been ruled on before. If that rule were not in place, then anyone could set up three or four accounts and claim to be siblings. Just think of how many reverts I'd be able to make per day, since the Irish have large families. The IP check would then be worthless, since I could claim that the twelve other reverts or the four other votes were from my four siblings. And the elaborate pretence you set up about being completely unconnected to Belinda, combined with your insinuations that Str1977 and KHM03 were sockpuppets, or that I was a meatpuppet for Str1977, make you come out of this rather badly. I'm going to ask you straight out — if you are not one person using two accounts, is BelindaGong someone you know in real life, and whom you knew before she joined Wikipedia? AnnH ^(talk) 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would ask the same question about Trollwatcher, Kecik, and John1838. If any of these are you or someone whom you know, please come clean, so we can move on. KHM03 22:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And User:Freethinker99. KHM03 23:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I will disclose that I to log in from different locations, because I'm not always at home. Some of these locatoins are public ones.Freethinker99 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ann, thanks for the explanation. It does make sense, unless one can prove that we are different people. Is there a mechanism to prove this? Such as a place to voluntarily fax in an ID? Just curious. As to you direct question, before I answer, I just want to know why does the answer matter if it is going to be assumed to be a socket in anycase? The answer would be moot, no? If you tell me how it makes a material difference then I'd be happy to answer. As to KHM03's question, since he has been one of the more moderate Christians, I'll answer him and state for the record that these users are not in any way associated with me, present or past. I missed that you added user Freethinker, who for the record, I do know and invited to join the community. While he agrees with my POV in some matters, we don't always agree on other things. And, no he doesnt live with me but has his own place so he should not count as my socketpuppet. A user check, which no doubt will be done on him, will show that. Giovanni33 00:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ann, since you don't want to answer my question (maybe you think its rhetorical), I'll answer you: yes, I know BelindaGong. She is my wife. I did not want to disclose that before because franky I did not think it was anyone's bussiness. I understand her using the same IP means that it must be assumed she is my socketpuppet, but I'd be happy to prove she is a real separate person who does her own editing on articles that I've never been to. Therefore, she should be counted as a real person and not my socketpuppet, despite living with me since I am willing to prove she is not fictional. Infact her real name is Belinda Gong. So that is why this block for 24 hours is not just since I did not break the 3RR rule. Neither did Belinda. Yet, we both are blocked. Giovanni33 07:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33, aren't you concerned that Freethinker99 will be annoyed at your removing his signature from his comment and replacing it with your own? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Its my comment and should have my name. He is annoyed, though, at how he has been treated by other editors simply because he supports my point of view. And, I believe you are among those who he will probably be annoyed with given that you went out of your way not only to block me but to block him. So, arne't you concered that Freethinker99 will be annoyed at you? Giovanni33 07:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because it's his message that I left for him, in his text. His name should be on it. That was a mistake for me to sign his name. Freethinker99 00:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Freethinker is a friend who I invited to try out Wikipedia. I think he has a lot to contribute. Since I was at his place, I took the time to show him how it works. I also noticed the question on my talk page so I took the liberty to answer it there, with his PC. I forgot to first log out of his account and sign in my own, which I did, afterwards but I know it doenst matter since its the same IP. But, I only used his PC to answer my own talk page, which is within the rules. Unfortunately, the way he was treated has turned him off completely to contributing at Wikipeadia, which is a shame. I should have had him look at a different topic/article than Christianity; its a tough place for a newbie. I hope he reconsiders, but with others would have been nicer to him. Giovanni33 07:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So while you were blocked for reverting and sockpuppeting, you went to Freethinker's house (if he exists) and showed him how to revert three times to the version that you wanted? And by the way, Wikipedians are generally nicer to newcomers who do not start their career by reverting. My first ever non-vandalism revert was about my seventieth edit, and even that was simply a revert of something that violated the Wikipedia Manuel of Style. AnnH ^(talk) 06:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Freethinker went to the talk page and asked Str1977 what his objections where and tried to get an explanation. Then he changed my version to address the objections as best he understood them. It was reverted back. He then went back to the talk page to gain clarification and try to reach conensus. Instead he was attacked, and bad faith was assumed. Also, I just found out something interesting. You imply that I was wrong to introduce a friend because he shares my POV, but were not you yourself introduced to Wikipeadia similiarly? I found this out because, another user who I have never had any interaction with before, Jbetak started to make disparaging comments, so I was curious and assumed connections, a poisioning of the well so to speak, given his negative and biased view of me, calling my contributions as "trolling." I looked on his page and found the logical basis that explains the comments directed against me--his affinity with you. I don't think its co-incidence. You wrote: "Hi, Jdavidb, I'm really here to wish you a happy Christmastide...thank you for bringing me to Wikipedia. I think it was you, wasn't it, who posted something on some blog last April, appealing for people to come to Wikipedia...and I know that to you, at least, I don't have to say "Happy Holidays". A Saviour is born for us. Alleluia! AnnH (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)"

[[8]] These connections explains it all perefectly. Mystery cleared up. Personally I don't think its wrong to invite others who agree with you, as long as they are real people. What is wrong is when others are attacked for their Pov (even if this motivation is hidden) Giovanni33 00:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked for 24 hours for violating the Wikipedia three revert rule. You can edit your talk page and or email an admin to have the block lifted if you feel this block was in error.--MONGO 05:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I've e-mailed you but did not get a response yet. Giovanni33 07:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mongo. Thanks for your e-mail. Despite your recommendation, I did not want to to to another admins to attempt to undo your actions. I respect your rulings even if I think they are in error. Still from your standpoint they are perfectly reasonable, and I'd probably do the same in your position. So, I decided just to wait it out.

There are several things I'd like to respond to in my defense that I see posted elsewhere, but I can't since I'm blocked. It was my understanding that the block would have expired by this evening, however every time I test it out, I see I'm still blocked. I'm sure the additional 48 hours has now elapsed. Could you look into this for me? Could there be some glitch?

About it not being necessary to prove that user Belinda Gong is my wife, and that she therefore is not a socketpuppet, I think that it is necessary in order to give her equal rights to edit under her account without it being assumed to be me, and vise versa. If I were to e-mail you a copy our ID's, which I trust you will keep private, would this be good enough to establish as a fact that we are not socketpuppets, and therefore provided with the same rights as other individual users? It would also go a long way to establishing my credibility and clear my name of suspected duplicity. Thanks. Giovanni33 05:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would, Giovanni. Even if there is a BelindaGong, and if she is your wife, it is quite clear from her contributions that her purpose on Wikipedia is to vote for whatever you vote for, to revert to your version (so that you get six reverts a day between you, except when you take more than six), and to agree with you on the talk page, so that it will appear as if there is consensus. At a time when we were still trying very hard to assume good faith and not to bite newcomers, when we were begging you to stop reverting rather than reporting you, you were carrying out this little comedy of not knowing Belinda. It was explained to you about Sockpuppets and about Meatpuppets. It was explained that we're not supposed to get friends to join in order to vote for something we're pushing for or to help out with extra reverts. And then, on top of that, there's your little mistake in signing something while logged on as Freethinker99 — another newly-registered account which just happened to appear when you were blocked and to revert or partially revert three times on the Christianity article, and support your arguments on the talk page, while behaving as if he had absolutely no connection with you. AnnH ^(talk) 06:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is that because my wife shares my POV she should not count as a separate person--even though she is proven to one, and hence not a socket puppet? That is a very peculiar line of reasoning that I think does not hold. Infact could not your very description fit you and Str1977 just as well: "to vote for whatever you vote for (although it was a poll), to revert to your version (so that you get six reverts a day between you, except when you take more than six), and to agree with you on the talk page, so that it will appear as if there is consensus? Is this not exactly what happens between you and Str1977, with you taking the BelindaGong role? Is this not true? Granted you work on other articles that he does not, but so does Belinda. She did a major overhaul of another article I never touched. The only difference is that we are relatively new. Should Belinda be penalized and denied full editor status simply because she is married to me? Would we have to get a divorce before she becomes a whole, full individual here? Or would just moving out suffice? How about a different internet connection (but could she still admit to being my wife)? You see how silly argumentum ad absurdum gets. I understand how one can justify assuming given a lack of evidence that BelindaGong is not another person--but if when proven otherwise--how can anyone still deny her the equal rights of a full individual, to infact deny her existence as real person, simply because she happens to share my POV in an article? If that is policy I'd like to see how it answers my questions.

You will forgive me if I think you have utterly failed not to bite newcomers. Freethinker was a newcomer, yet as soon as he explained his relation to me he was attacked, blocked, and his page defaced with a socket puppet label. This is the opposite of assume good faith. Now he doesn't want to come back, and I don't blame him. Infact you called him a "meatpuppet" outright, after he explained his connection to me; he was new and wanted to help with the POV disputes. I mentioned before to you that the Wiki policy states, "Do not call these users "meatpuppets"; be civil."

Contrary to what you say, no one explained to me that I should not invite a friend. You may have pointed me to the policy page, which I read, but it does not say anything about not inviting a friend to help. I think the Christianity article's problems, in part, stems from an ideological rigidity kept in tact by a dominance of multiple users sharing the same basic POV. Apparently any new comer doesn’t meet groupthink standards is bullied into conformity, silence, or expulsion. I felt I was. You will recall that user Sophia stated she felt bullied and ganged up on, when she first joined, that it was scary. Others stated similar sentiments. The very fact of the nature of maintaining one POV means that newcomers who do not fit will get the bite experience. Most will probably leave. In this sense the article space acts like just like institution, it’s self-selecting.

You keep bringing up my past 3RR violation to paint me as an aggressive edit warrior, but the truth is otherwise. I extensively used the talk pages to build consensus. I pleaded that no one reverts to undo anyother editors work (except for vandalism) without first at least going to the talk page. My idea to stop edit warring was ignored. Still, I learned that simply winning an argument by providing references while the side failed to and went silent, did not entitle me to edit war in vio of the policy; being right is no excuse. So I stopped. I am reasonable and I have been convinced when wrong. I can be swayed, but with reason, and evidence to back up claims. After my first block, I never violated the 3RR again. But I continued try to find out what the objections were and have them substantiated, using reasoned arguments, and sources. This apparently emboldened other users (my theory) who started to show up, agree with me and help me out--but no different than the tag teaming you have enjoyed with your confidants in pursuing for your POV. (another theory is that they are real sockets created to make it look as if they were my sockets to use as a diversion away from edits work). But, I assume good faith. So, when the threat of possible equality for a secular POV encroached, in part by my winning over the moderate voices, the aggressive attacks of socket puppet accusations started, and expanded so that anyone who agreed with me was automatically suspect; to assume bad faith was made the norm and civility was thrown out. That Belinda proved to be my wife (a fact I felt I had a right to keep private) was seized on as excuse to avoid any pretense of even an ability to work with me or others on the articles contentious points. Now it's locked and you want to keep it locked. Temporarily this might not be bad if it forces others to go to the talk page to address the issue.

The socket puppet allegations objectively serve as a tool keep the status quo by attack users integrity instead of their arguments. I see it as intimidation and disruption with the aim of getting me permanently banned. In my forced wiki-break (although I've been editing in the other wiki languages) I've also had a chance to read a lot of messages so I'm confident I know whats going on, what you have been saying, and others, and can easily see what the motivations and goals are. You want me gone for good. I'm sorry if I'm not going to violate any rules to make that easy. Belinda is not my socketpuppet, and I can prove she is my wife. That should restore my credibility and put to rest this modern day inquisition. I’m willing to forgive and continue assuming good faith as I realize that is not a luxury but a necessity in order to focus on the collaborative effort we are all supposed to be part of. Giovanni33 09:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think its been 24 hours, and yet the block still appears to be in effect? Giovanni33 09:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

02:33, 15 February 2006 MONGO blocked "Giovanni33 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (Using sockpuppet accounts to avoid 3RR) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 09:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That was after you made the mistake of signing this page while logged in as Freethinker99, and then trying to remove the evidence. MONGO unblocked you briefly in order to reblock for a longer period. AnnH ^(talk) 09:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to remove the evidence? That is absurd. The edit history shows everything, how can I try to hide anything? I corrected the fact that Freethinker did not log out before I typed a response to my own talk page to answer your question to me, which is perfectly fine. How is that mistake, corrected, a cause extend my block to a longer period? What rule is that violating? This maltreatment appears to be purely punitive in nature and will not deter me from arguing for a presentation of my point of view, if that is your intention. Giovanni33 09:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the edit history shows everything, which is how you were caught. But nevertheless, if people are away from Wikipedia for several hours, and then come back and look at changes on a talk page, they often don't check every single diff. They check the difference between the last version they had seen and the current version. So if I hadn't seen it as it happened, I might never have spotted it. AnnH ^(talk) 06:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and Freethinker would not have been blocked and might still be around, which is too bad that he isn't becaues he would have been an excellent addition. Still, I did not try to hide, it. That language suggests intention. Rather, as I stated, I corrected it to reflect that I was writing it, and not him (I'm allowed in my own talk page). If I wanted to hide any connection between him and me, why would I write a response that is clearly me answering you, on my talk page, using his computer? I may be many things but unintelligent is not one of them. :) Clearly I had no reason to hide and I felt I did nothing wrong. This constant interpretation in the most negative light possible is what I think is wrong. Giovanni33 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What? So the 24 hour notice was a mistake? And, the block was because when my reverts were added with my wife's reverts (came to 4), but I did not violate the 3RR, or use a socketpuppet to evade the 3RR rule. Still, since it was assumed we were the same, I accepted the 24 hour block, even though I think the motivation is ideological. But, now I see it was for 48 hours, not 24 as originally stated. But, what I don't understand is the date differences in MONGO's block. The date changes suggests that it was changed from 24 to 48 hours. Infact, if the 48 hours starts with the new date time (2/15 2:33), this in effect makes it a block for close to 72 hours! Am I misunderstanding something here, or is there a conspiracy going on to keep silent? I find it very strang, esp. since this was apparently done to me but kept secret until now, and for the same reason, all the while I and my wife have been blocked. Giovanni33 09:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The notice is not what actually blocks you. It's merely to inform you. The block log can be viewed here. Jaco plane 09:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that now. I also see that it justifies this block erroneously: using socket puppets to avoid the 3RR block? How is editing to my own talk page, which I am obviously allowed to do, evading the 3RR block?Giovanni33 09:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article Intro Text

Dear Giovanni33:

Please join the discussion on the Jesus talk page before reverting. This version has taken hours of discussion, sometimes heated, plus countless hours of my research time to establish. I still have many hours of documenting and verifying ahead of me on this issue. It is preventing me from working on other articles and other areas of this article to have to debate with people I agree with.

I have just added a "cut to the chase" section to the Jesus page. Please express your view as to why we should use the very judgement-loaded adjectives and delete one of the minorities major, though flawed, arguments.

My purpose here is to establish a paragraph we can guard and not get grief from an admin. When it's done, we can point to the documentation and set up an archive of the discussion that got us to it, along with the capsule bios of the cited authors. Then we can move on. --CTSWyneken 13:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Back to the real issue of why I'm being blocked and attacked

As I stated in my response e-mail, to Mongo:

I also noticed on my talk page, as explained by others, that you extended by block to a total of 72 hours, apparently because I typed a response to my talk page using a friends account, who I was introducing to Wikipeadia? I really don't understand that since I did not use his account to evade the block in anyway. I only used his account because I happen to be at his house at the time and wanted to reply to my talk page.

I'll think about how to argue without being argumentative. I will say that when I make arguments, I do so in a civil manner. I support all my claims logically and use well sourced references. I ask for the same standards on the other side (which does not happen). I never make personal attacks (but I get attacked). I want to stick to the issue, with the aim of removing the POV tag on the article (while others go off an tangents that distract from the goal). I seek compromise. I assume good faith (while others don't of me). So, I think I do a very good job at argument without being argumentative. That is not the problem. I have been effective in winning people over and getting some changes made. However, any changes that I manage to work out with others, there is always someone who will come in and revert back (picking on one small weak point to wipe out everything), while the others just allow this; then it all starts over again. Oftentimes my changes will last for weeks, but eventually it goes back to square one, and I have to make my case all over again, trying to find out what the objections are so I can address them, while dealing with aggressive, diversionary tactics.

The fact is there is a strong bias that is enforced both passively or aggressively and editors such as myself are weeded out either by attrition or more aggressive tactics like this one (heightened scrutiny for violations, assuming bad faith, violating the rules and holding double standards for rules and references, etc). Anyone who agrees with me gets attacked as my socket puppet or meatpuppet by name. When I brought this to the attention of another admin some time ago he strongly recommended mediation as a solution. Although I thought the existing editors could be worked with, I now i see that the reasonable ones become passive when the hard core defenders attack and remove all the carefully worked out compromises, back to the original version, including grammar mistakes. They then defend that, each taking turns to use up their 3RR. Admittedly I do my share of reverting back, too, but I do so while asking that the issues be worked out in the talk page, and for the most part, they refuse. This is the pattern and its been ongoing for months. Is it time for mediation to make the changes stick? Its silly because we are supposed to be all intelligent adults. Giovanni33 22:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Original Message Follows----

From: Mongo To: Giovanni33 Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 02:24:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0

There were numerous complaints...use one account...there is no way to prove you are different users, and it doesn't matter as these various editors are all working on the essentially the same articles. Use the time to figure out a way to argue constructively without getting argumentative...that's the real trick.

The real issue is not your editing style or your particular POV. In this instance, you have been found to utilize several identities to edit and violating the WP:3RR rule. More importantly (for me - I won't speak for anyone else), it will be very, very difficult to trust your work in the future. It will be difficult to assume good faith because you've already violated a serious trust in the community. Yes, your edits have been controversial for a variety of reasons. But that isn't the issue at hand. Trust is now the main issue. My advice would be to, first of all, come clean. Second, pick an identity (even a new one if you want to leave the others behind you...just let us know who you are). Third, edit on a variety of articles, not only Christian-related, including non-controversial edits. Don't just add material you know that others will find POV and/or inaccurate. In short, work to regain trust and become valued contributor. Anyway, that's my advice. KHM03 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, KM03. But let me take issue with some points. You say I have been found to utilize several identities. That is not true. I only used my own identity. What was found is that BelindaGong is my wife so her IP is shared by mine. I don't use her identity. I simply kept our relationship private since, no doubt, it would be used to undermine our real independence of thought and action. The only other time I used another account was yesterday when I was at a friend's house, to introduce him to Wikipedia (I think getting a more diverse body of pov's is healthy, not bad). And, I used his account only to respond to a question on my talk page. This was all open and disclosed, as well.

So, I don't think the core of my issues is the 3RR rule violation. I do not violate the 3RR rule since I was blocked. We ALL have violated it in the past (although not everone is reported or blocked). I note you were blocked recently on another article for this violation. As you know, it can be easy to violate if one is not careful, and it's not always because one is "the bad user." Your case in point. But, I agree with the policy. I have respected it and not violated any 3RR at all. Others like to keep emphasising my violation of 3RR in the past when I was just new and still learning that just because you are right and have proven your case and that others team up on you, it doesn't follow that right makes a right to revert in violation of the rule. I now never do that, anymore. Infact, I have advocated, along with others, several times that NO ONE revert another editors work unless is obvious vandalism, until they at least first go to the talk page. This at least shows respect to the other editor, and would go a long way to preventing an edit war. I note that the Rv's happen when the talk page is avoided,and editors simply did blind reverts with edit summaries that really needed explanation in the talk page. This practice is part of the real problem. The fact that I'm being singled out, IS because of my POV, which goes against the mainstream and generates a defensive reaction, which causes people to reaction on the basis of emotion rather than reason.

I don't know what you mean by coming clean. All my contentions can be proven and I'm willing to do that if trust is really the issue, although I view that as a smokescreen to evade the real issue, which is ideological, and working out a NPOV text. Based on what I think is going on, I can equally assume bad faith, but if I do this gets us nowhere. I won't use that as an excuse to refuse to work with other editors on principal. Even when we don't trust each other’s motives, our behaviors must in practice be based on the principal of assuming good faith. This policy is not just a nicety, it’s a practical necessity. I can accept that you don't trust me, that’s ok, you don't know me, but for the purpose of working with the substance of the article, it’s not relevant. This is not mounting climbing here. See about how politicians are able to come up with peace agreements and work out solutions? Do they really trust each other? No. But, they have to abide by certain rules and protocol. The same exists here. Otherwise there is unhealthy conflict.

I don't see why I should abandon my own identity, which I'm very proud of it. I think my bold stance without being intimidated is the reason why others have stepped up. It's just a leadership principal. This is why I'm being targeted for elimination, it would seem. I noticed that new users have come forward with new accounts to support me. While I wish they had kept their own accounts so as not to allow my attackers to use that as a basis for speculation (as you do), I understand that they create their own on socketpuppet out of fear they would be picked on otherwise in their main account. That is understandable, and a legitimate use of a socketpuppet. The important thing is that they are not my socketpuppets. I know a usercheck can be done so I don't see the utility of my own socketpuppet on the same article that I'm active on. The userchecks showed only BelindaGong was an account with any technical connection to me, as would be expected. Most users do see me as valued contributor, and I think I've developed kind of fan base. Although, for the record I don't think that creating camps is useful here. I think we should all work together equally, and other opposed schools of thoughts as antagonistic camps. Rather, we should see each other as working towards a common goal. This is possible if we follow the rules, esp. NPOV policy, and use the talk page, respecting editors contributes, etc.

Lastly, I have made edits on a variety of articles, not only Christian-related, including non-controversial edits. I would do more if it were not for the fact that most of my time being used dealing with this issue, which I think is a real problem that needs to be countered. Giovanni33 23:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming that all of the users in question (BelindaGong, Freethinker99, MikaM, Kecik, and possibly John1838, Trollwatcher, and FionaS) just happened to appear while you were in the midst of controversy as new users, edit the same articles you did (Christianity - Jesus - Hitler), all hold your POV, use the same style of language in edit summaries, and edit seemingly only when you were at your 3RR limit? Additionally, all (or most) seem to have your same tactic of posting a message or 2 on a talk page, claiming consensus where none exists, and then changing an article to a version quickly reverted by others who did not agree. That's a heckuva lot of coincidence. Seriously, don't you think that's a lot to take? KHM03 00:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats logical only if all the attributes and factual descriptions you claim in the premise of your question are accurate. I think mostly not. There is truth is that a majority of those users seem to share more of my POV, at least more than the others. Even that point is not clear. I don't know trollwatchers POV, but from what I've seen I did not share it. Did he ever do any edits at all, even? I don't think so. I never called anyone a troll, and see that as a violation of assuming good faith. I do not konw FionaS's point of view, other than she disagrees with how I'm being treated, along with others who have questioned the mainstream POV. Also, that ohters would share my POV is not strange in the least since the POV I'm representing is not my own POV, but represents a real POV in the real world(the same reason it should be reflected in the article). As I said, I think I developed a fan base of sorts. People come out of the woodwork when there is some focal point, so in a sense I created them but not in anyway that I can be faulted for. Nor is this a bad thing IMO.

And, just as the same critics have opposed me in all the other articles, why is it a surprise to find the same folks who agree with me in the as well in these other articles? I have to assume that people read each others talk pages and join in the same articles where they are involved with, or that they were already involved. I know this is true for my critics. So if they can do it, so can those who share more my POV. This seems more logically plausable to me and more in keeping with the policies of assuming good faith. Also, its not true that they all have come at the same time. They have come at different times. At all times I have been involved with some disputes so to say they only came when I was in diputes is meaningless. Wikipeadia has a LOT of people looking and people join in all the time. That is normal. I think your interpretation has colored your undestanding of the facts so as to make it fit into your pre-formulated conception.

Most of all, I disagree with your characterization that I post a mesage or 2 on the talk page, claiming consensus where none exists, etc. I stay on the talk pages and make my argument until the other side no longer responds. And, with those that do respond the final product is one of give and take, hence compromise. The changes in the article that I place reflect this. This is not one or two messages, these are many messages, addressing every point, providing my support, my rationale, and making concessession where I am swayed by reason that I'm wrong. I'm not dogmatic. But for the same reason I insist on the same high standards for everyone. If someone just does not respond on the talk page, I assume that they concede the point. Often time this is after a sound refutation of their objection. To simply blind revert back to their version is what I think is the problem. That others join me in reverting back to my version only means they are doing what the other side is doing. Again, it takes two sides for an edit war, and any objective reading of my contributions to the talk page will show I am the one the has heavily relied upon it's use. In short, not only is assuming good faith a requirement per policy just as much as 3RR rule, but its just as plausable and probably more logical than the your conspiracy theories, which I do think is a bit funny when I read how convinced you are here [9] Giovanni33 00:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether you admit it or not, your behavior has done a real disservice to your credibility, at least in my view. Trust is difficult now. KHM03 00:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats nonsense, as I've done absolutely nothing wrong except maybe violate the 3RR rule a long time ago, which I've been careful to avoid ever since. All the accusations of socketpuppets have been false: they are all distinct editors and do not reflect badly on my work. I don't require trust, I just require that we all follow the guidelines on civility and assuming good faith. This pretense not being able to do that is silly at best and its getting old.Giovanni33 03:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitler

Just a personal request: we should all avoid revert wars as much as possible as it tends to work against one's credibility.

Certain highly POV editors will never back up their arguments or cite good sources, and reject scholarly information when it suits them, yet have pretences of being NPOV and scholarly, preferring to dominate over articles through sheer obstinacy, subtle provocation, or the defamation of other editors. To make things worse, better or more experienced editors are likely to support such characters based on the appearance of credibility they project, failing to see the issue at hand. This routine can be observed over the last seven or eight archived Talk pages at Hitler, for example.

Such POV affairs are a fairly common occurence at Wikipedia. However, since (I assume) our common interest is in keeping articles as contextually accurate as possible, we should keep our distance from them so as to better tackle the successive issues that will keep cropping up over a period of time. We have a better chance of stabilising articles for the better this way, rather than letting rule-abiding weasels get away with patent nonsense, thanks to the hypocrisy and community support they exploit. -- Simonides 02:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Giovanni, you are not supposed to edit an article when it is protected. I understand the anxiety you feel in making sure that the protected page reads like what you feel is the correct version, but editing the article yourself is not the way to go about it.

Please take these things slowly, if you respect the proper procedures you may eventually bring people to see your points, but without them, you risk losing all support due to your loss of credibility within the Wikipedia community, regardless of who is correct. (You might also like to read about wrong versions.) It's frustrating that things go this way, but we can't change it much.

I have had several long arguments with many users on several aspects of Wikipedia, not just about certain articles, so I speak with a bit of experience. - Simonides 13:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought that when it was protected we could not edit it, as in locked. This make me think that protection was lifted. I guess I'm still learning. Thanks for the guidance. Giovanni33 13:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Winning on Christianity

If you get yourself some good citations, they can't really revert yours, since they didn't cite their work worth a shit. So I suggest you simply document everything, document as much as you can. After all, that which is uncited is said to be able to be deleted by anyone for any reason.

KV 17:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You will be suprirsed what they can. I will cite numerous sources supporting my claims. They other side will not do the same. Yet, their version remains and mine is suppressed. Just wait and see. Giovanni33 23:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It might work better if you both joined in on the talk page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

blocked for your edits to WP:AN3

I've blocked you for an hour for your edits to WP:AN3. That page is for reporting violations, not for endlessly discussing old ones. William M. Connolley 23:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC).

How is it fair to suppress comments that are a correction of false characterizations being against me on the same page? Do I have no righ to speak in my own defense to clear my name? If other users are going to attack me, its my have a right to refutes these false allegations. To suppress only one side but leave the other intact is indecent and unfair. Your calling it "endless" is false, and your calling it "old ones" is false, given that the allegations I'm responding to were left the very same day! Yet, her comments are not deemed old, but mine are? Is there any clearer way to show your extreme bias in this doublestandard manner than this?Giovanni33 23:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems that a gentle hint was not enough, so I've given you a somewhat less gentle hint. William M. Connolley 10:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

William, perhaps more open communication with me is better than hints, gentle or otherwise. I respond much better to logical and open discourse than to any kind of bullying. Infact, I tend to rebel against things I see as unjust and arbitrary, esp. abuse of power. While I don't approve of your methods, if you do have a valid point about my response not belonging there, then I think that my point is equally valid that the comments directed against me likewise don't belong there. If they do, then my comments do.

If all the references about me are removed, I wouldn't insist on having my say there. I agree it is supposed to be about a 3RR block for Kecik---not about speculative theories meant to undermine my crediblity as an editor (which are all false, and this user has already been user checked to prove that). Also, I esp. don't like all the other things that AnnH decided to include, such as about my wife BelindaGong, my friend Freethinker, my past edit warring history, 3RR vios, etc.--all moot and in the past (I follow the rules now)--but all this negative commentary about me is allowed there under what is supposed to be only about a 3RR vio report of Kecik? If so, then it should go both ways. If not then I should have a right to respond. Fair is fair.

Ideally, I think all that should be also removed, except only the fact of Kecik and his 3RR vio report. However, if it is going to remain, then I will insist that I be given a right to respond since all that is just a one-sided smear on me steming from pov disputes, and its spreading around. I hope you see my point. Im fine if you remove my comment but only if you also remove all that other stuff AnnH left about me, my wife, and my past that also doesnt belong by the same token. The way its characterized is not fair and it's a source of much disruption of my edit work. Thanks. Giovanni33 11:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You've been told to leave the page alone quite clearly. Please just get over this. Its a minor matter. I've archived that report now, anyway. William M. Connolley 11:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

I'm very upset that you've blocked me for a considerable amount of time and I will raise hell over this. I'm going to e-mail every admin and do whatever I can do turn heaven and earth unless and until the block is lifted. Its not a minor matter. I've tried to be nice but if you want war, then I am prepared to fight. I was in the middle of making some important contributions to a number of new articles I found when I discovered you've blocked me again, instead of addressing any of my valid points. Giovanni33 11:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. Sorry to disappoint you in your hell-raising, but since I removed the source of the trouble by archiving that entry, I've unblocked you. Happy editing. William M. Connolley 12:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC).

Really? I'm still blocked as of this time, see no evidence that you have unblocked me. Giovanni33 12:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock kicked in Sceptr e ^(Talk) 12:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You should now be unblocked, I blocked you until "1 second ago". Your IP might still be blocked, I'm not sure. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 12:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Giovanni33 12:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Still blocked. Giovanni33 12:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Found the culprit in Special:Ipblocklist. Unblocked the autoblock Sceptr e ^(Talk) 12:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. It worked. Giovanni33 12:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Enough is enough

I've been trying to find all the many places where these attacks against me continue, and I keep finding you, Ann. Just so you know, I will tirelessly respond anywhere and everywhere to postings that continue to slander my good name. I will vigorously defend myself from such attacks, mischaraterizations, inuendo, half-truths, or any kind of falsehood that is injurious to my reputation. So, I suggest you limit the scope of the spreading of these negative bad faith speculations, if you do, at least correctly characterize the dispute and the facts, as wall as my Pov on the matter, or else I will insists on my right to respond to the bias with my own comments. If I don't see any further attacks, then that would be great since then neither of us need to waste more time on such distracting things, and I could at least instead turn my full attention back to the quality of articles, which is why I'm here. While I don't like having to defend myself, or this kind of stuff, I am more than ready and willing to, as you probably can see. Giovanni33 03:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this has reference to your e-mail to me regarding lifting of the block. I find that the same has been since lifted. I trust that the Project shall continue to get positive contributions from you. Cheers. --Bhadani 07:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It is part of it, yes. It has been lifted, and my comments in my defense to hurtful allegations have been allowed to stand, without any further punitive action taken against me. Thank you for your concern and welcoming words. I will continue to make positive contributions, and take all this in stride. Thank you again. Giovanni33 07:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe it. I'm blocked again, when I was in the middle of working on an edit! Giovanni33 11:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

Giovanni, I've noticed that you are currently receiving the exact same treatment that I was received a few days ago. Specifically William Connelly selectively deleting information. SOPHIA raised an complaint against Connelly based on the previous screw up with regard to Sock Puppets - I didn't support this at the time for obvious reasons. If you want to raise a new objection, I'll support it, and perhaps we can enforce a little less arrogance in the proceedings. Can you provide us with the link to the page with AnnH comments that you attempted to respond to? Regards TheShriek 10:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi TheShriek. Thank you for your concern. I assumed good faith, sent William a nice e-mail explaining my reasoning and I find out I'm being blocked again. Clearly this is abusive and I want to file a complaint. I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure how to proceed. But the place where I responded with my comments to AnnH's comments (which have been popping up repeatedly in many places) is here: [[10]] Thanks. Giovanni33 11:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Think we need to map out a formal approach. I'll have a look around. TheShriek 11:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'd like to know how to make a complaint too. Someone just deleted my contribution to the Christianity discussion page. That can't be within the rules, can it? Otherwise we could all delete stuff we don't happen to like. Any advice gratefully receivedJohn1838 20:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the page on resolving disputes. The mediation cabal does a good job. John1838, if you could let me know the details on your deleted talkpage comment, I'll look into it. If you are talking about this:

Note for prospective and new contributors to the Christianity page. Please be aware that a number of contributors to this page are suspected of being sockpuppets and others of being trolls. For more information on the trolls please take a look at Information on the DEWC Troll Federation (I've left out the red-letter effect)

I'm sure that could be brought up in mediation. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

POV on Wikipedia

This was my first edit, less than one month ago, to the article on Hitler. The article intro makes Hitler sound like some sort of misunderstood, wayward hero who rescued Germany and led it forward, just as the Nazis used to portray him.

There is no mention of Hitler's propaganda, anti-Semitism, Aryan theories and so on. If the article was left alone longer there probably wouldn't even be any mention that Hitler was ever a dictator. It's because I've been returning to this article steadily and have the help of some editors who see my points, that we can prevent the blanking and POV-by-omission that some other editors prefer; I myself got blocked for reverting this article, and on Joseph Stalin, before I decided to take a break.

In every section of Wikipedia there are a bunch of dingbats that form an editing majority. They have one POV and they called it 'NPOV'; they will go out of their way to make sure no other information interferes with their 'NPOV'. When I first tried to edit some Israel-related articles on Wikipedia there were two editors who called everyone who disagreed with them 'Anti-Semitic'; thankfully I had the support of some experienced editors who knew their subject, understood my points, and tried to advise me as I'm advising you now. It was much more unpleasant than what you are experiencing here.

In other parts of WP you will similarly find some strong POV for a certain kind of article and any effort to go against it is accused of being 'unscholarly', etc. Wyss herself keeps talking about scholarship, for instance. However, when I once asked her to back up some phrase she was trying to insert in the article, she produced a google search (not even websites but just the search results page) as 'proof'! On the other hand, although I have repeatedly quoted scholarly sources for some of my own edits they continue to revert them and leave them out.

My point is simple: you're not going to make any progress here by defending yourself constantly, using sockpuppets, making reverts, etc; it's basically a bureaucracy, people here like the rules more than they like facts. If you respect their rules they might listen to the facts. Don't tear your hair out. Don't take every insult personally. Don't try to force your points on others, even if you are right. Also, you have to accept that you can make mistakes sometimes, or your opinion is too specialised for the general public. Sometimes you have to compromise in some areas, so that your overall approach is not rejected completely. If you continue employing the methods you've used so far, it'll be easy to block you for a long time, if not permanently. Don't expend all your energy on trifles like finding 'justice' over some block or two; just move on. If you attract too much attention people will think you're a crackpot and popular opinion will be against you.

Instead, when you can recognise that some editors keep forcing their POV, you can start building a case against them; Wyss herself has betrayed her POV a few times already - she thinks Hitler was a 'brilliant and talented', she thought calling him a dictator is 'POV', and as you may have noticed, she thinks no one after Napoleon was imperialist; if you let her ramble on a little more you can open a Wikipedia:Request for Comment and cite everything that troubles you - please keep in mind that the user's friends will gang together and do the same against you if they want to, so only try this stuff as a last resort and after you have sufficient editing history.

I don't mean to condescend. Even though I don't agree with everything you say, I can sense your frustration, which is why I'm posting this. Remember that these people just LOVE Wikipedia because it allows them to project their marginal, skewed view of the world as the correct one, so using mere reason against them doesn't help much. -- Simonides 13:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman re:materialism/idealism dichotomy and formal logic

You are correct about Idealism, and I should have remembered my Plato. Brights, largely, engage in formal logic. However, Robsteadman refused to enage in formal logic when Slrubenstein asked him to critique the cosmological and the ontological arguments for God. Rather, he simply dismissed the concept. A similar pattern has led to confict on the Talk:Jesus page. Arch O. La 07:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your response. Thanks. I did reply, too. I would disagree with Rodbs with this, as he stated it, but I suspect it's a misunderstanding of what what logical "proofs" are. He might be objecting to the word in the sense of evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true, instead of the other and intended meaning in formal logic about the application of specified rules, as in induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, to sequentially derive conclusions. Atheists would regard those logical proofs of God to be refuted.Giovanni33 07:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Giovanni33 07:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Jesus-Myth

I kept the link you provided to Carrier's credentials, but in looking at the page (albeit quickly), I saw an article about Earl Doherty's theories, not Carrier's creds. Is it the proper link? Where are his credentials? You can respond at the Jesus-Myth article, when you have time. No rush. Thanks...KHM03 11:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I gave a list of Prof. Price's credentials, not Carrier's that I remember. But the link to his review of Doherty's book, does have his credentials on the top. that link is here: [11]Giovanni33 12:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

When Rob is Back

Just a reminder: do not respond to Rob at all if he repeats old arguments or gets abusive. If he changes a consensus paragraph, revert it. Keep track of your reverts and only do it twice. If we can do this, nothing will come of it except frustration for Rob. --CTSWyneken 20:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt know what is an old argument. If I see an argument he makes that I think is valid, to any degree, I think I should be able to comment on it. If anyone gets abusive, I'll point it out and ask that the offending person be civil. I'll agree to defend consensus, if I agree that the consensus is fair, inclusive, and NPOV, hence a real consensus among many POV's. Even then consensus is not static but can change. Lastly, I don't want to cause Rob or anyone frustration. I want to create bridges and work with all editors of diverse POVs. The Wiki policies, if followed, would allow for this to be a reality. Giovanni33 03:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I for one appreciate this greatly. Even old arguments are fine if we get past shouting "I'm right and you're wrong!" at each other. All sides have been guilty of this. Arch O. La 03:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This certainly seems true. Giovanni33 03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, welcome to do as you wish. What I mean by old arguments are ones that are repeated over and over again, sometimes multiple times in the same day. Sometimes they are put in such a way as to provoke emotional reaction from his opponents. So, for example, he insists that all people of faith are hopelessly biased and their viewpoints are not worthy of being represented in wiki articles. He will state this over and over again, provoking people to anger. My advice is aimed at preventing that cycle. If you can engage him and keep your cool, go for it. If not, my advice above. I still would ask that you revert any change to paragraphs one or two that are not first discussed on the talk page and have achieved consensus there.--CTSWyneken 03:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Article Vote

Come and Vote. --CTSWyneken 11:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Talk Vote (again)

I think we're approaching a resolution of the matter. Please come and vote. --CTSWyneken 15:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Hi Giovanni

I have been doing some research for an article on the debate between scientific method v religious dogma and I have just spent a couple of hours following your comments on the Historicity of Jesus page and on this page too. Can I just thank you for the quality of the information you supply. Your points are always well explained and the depth of your explanation and sourcing is much appreciated. In fact, the pages you have been involved in are a perfect example themselves of the debate that I am writing about!!
The attacks on you from certain areas doesn't surprise me at all, (although as you freely admit, you were at fault in your actions at times), and it is a shame that a clear logical scientific view of the world is seen as contentious by many. As an atheist Physics teacher, I regulary come up against the argument that my views are 'contentious' and 'insensitive' and that I should be more understanding of how I can 'offend' others. Yet no one ever accuses people who peddle ancient superstitions about miracles and gods as 'offensive' to me! It is a very one sided argument. Anyway, thanks once again for your very interesting contributions.

Oh, and any critics that claim that I am a 'socketpuppet' or whatever it is, please just go to my website and mail me for confirmation of who I am if you must! Adrian Baker 22:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Vote Runoff

The hopefully last vote on this paragaph is underway. --CTSWyneken 11:30, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your help requested

I was asked to help Christianity with it's discussions on becoming NPOV... there is a debate on Talk:Hermeticism#Reason_for_reverting_Infinitysnake's_changes_2/22/06 on whether it should be stated that some scholars believed Hermes Trismegistus to be a real man. In my arguments I have noted the Christianity article, and I feel that the contributors of it may be able to give some view on how a religion article should be NPOV. I don't know if you will agree with me or not, but your help is requested.

KV 06:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Belinda

If User:BelindaGong is your wife, as you claim, then why does the Friendster profile which you posted on your userpage claim that you are interested in "Relationship Women, Dating Women, Friends, Activity Partners"? Seems odd. KHM03 ^(talk) 18:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Its not odd for me. For this purpose, I don't have to get into more detail. The real issue is if you doubt that BelindaGong is a separate person, who is infact my wife and lives with me, then why not have a neutral admin person act as a verifying agent to put to rest your doubts? I am more than happy to fax over ID's, marriage cert., etc. But, if I do so, I want the socketpuppet accusations about Belinda and I to stop, and for her to be given the full rights of a full person on wikipedia. Are you opposed to this? Giovanni33 18:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm in no position to agree to anything...I'm not an administrator, nor do I ever want to be one. You might take that up with some of the administrators (I guess at WP:AN or similar place). As I recall, it wasn't only Belinda in question, so you may want to revisit events. Having said all that, from a skeptical POV, you might agree that your Friendster posting raises some questions regarding your claims with Belinda. KHM03 ^(talk) 19:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've asked but no one is intersted. I also updated my friendster so it should seem a little less odd now. Giovanni33 04:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Christianity

Incidentally, regarding Talk:Christianity, it's not a personal attack to point out that you had been blocked last month for using sockpuppets to evade WP:3RR. That's a simple statement of fact. I wish you'd retract the claim of "personal attack" on that talk page, but I don't think you're obliged to do so. KHM03 ^(talk) 19:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a statement of fact, and thats the problem--its NOT a fact. Rather, its a falsehood, told as a statment of fact. Using someone in the context of a bad example is an attack. If you disagree, think about me going around and picking on something that you did once (maybe gave a wrong fact, something that makes you look bad), and then kept bringing it up as a negative example of what KHM03 did, explaining in detail all these speculative negative things about YOU when the issue is something that has no connection to you. This is what others are doing with me still despite my protests. Granted you are not the main one doing this, but you did contribute to it, instead of repudiate it as wrong. You may not have been motivated to attack me as others are, I don't know but I will assume good faith. Still, objectively I regard it as an attack on my reputation, as I've argued before.Giovanni33 19:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please point me to the consensus you were able to reach at Talk:Christianity, as you've claimed in your edit summaries. Thanks...KHM03 ^(talk) 20:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, please be aware of WP:3RR before reverting again. KHM03 ^(talk) 20:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who has commented on the dispute, except Str1977 has stated agreement with my use of NPOV language that Str1977 describes as "relativisic mumbo jumbo." Its all on the talk page. Tom harrison made a brief commment against it once, but then went silent on the question after more editors sided with my arguments. So, I only see one, possibly two editors who want to keep what I consider POV, while far more agree with me. Yes, I can no longer revert, thanks for warning me. But, if its reverted back to the contested version this only invites another round of edit warring. I suggest instead of reverting that we take the issues back to the talk page and work them out. Giovanni33 20:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine...start a new thread and try and gain a clear consensus. KHM03 ^(talk) 20:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Odd that User:Kecik turned up again when you maxxed out your reverts. WP:RCU isn't the only method of identifying sockpuppets, Gio. KHM03 ^(talk) 20:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Odd that you turned up after Str1977 maxxed out of his reverts. No, there is nothing odd about it and it has already been established by a usercheck that user Kecik is not my socketpuppet. This is really a different person than myself. This person does support my POV, true--but is that wrong? Not at all. My theory is that it is probably a socket of another well esablished user that wishes not to get on the bad side of the many agressive Chrisitan admins here who can gang up and get scary, as Sophia stated she felt at one time. So, I think that is a legitimate use of a socketpuppet (IF it is one), and this is not against any rules, since its NOT me. Giovanni33 20:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. Kecik has mde NO edits since the last time you seemed in trouble or at your 3RR threshold. Str1977 predates me at Wikipedia, lives on another continent, and edits from a Roman Catholic POV (I'm United Methodist)...we haven't always agreed and at times we've had edit conflicts. Kecik has been thought by some (including me) to be one of your sockpuppets. The timing of his return is odd. If he's not your sockpuppet, he's no friend...he's liable to get you into trouble. KHM03 ^(talk) 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That is my second theory (my enemy creating a socket for me in appearance), but I prefer to assume good faith. Also, I it would not be fair to me to accuse me of anything. The differences between you are Str1977, are real and I do not mean to suggest that you are each other socks. I think you missed the point. The point is that users with the same POV (not exactly the same but close enough to support the same version), do take turns to revert for their preferred version. That is what most of the Christian editors are doing, and that is what all the secular editors, do as well. There is nothing odd about it. I think such edit warring is bad, and this will probably lead to another page lock up while we will go and repeat the same arguments over again.

The difference between Keciks lack of history makes sense if this user doesnt feel comfortable coming out with their main account and is using a sock for the purpose of making a stance against what is percieved as an agressive POV pushing by a cabal. As you've seen several editors have made this argument, valid or not. This would be reason enough to protect their main account. Again, this is not wrong as long as the socket is not used to evade the 3RR. I for one am gald now that at least the usercheck was done and I am in the clear.Giovanni33 20:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

An RCU is not the only way to check for a sockpuppet; it's only one method...some socks have different IPs than their "main" user. At any rate, the article is locked now, and you have an opportunity to gain a consensus. KHM03 ^(talk) 22:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I cant get in trouble since I don't have any connection with these other users, even if they do violate the 3rr rule. I hope they don't.

I already did gain consensus. We've been all through this a few times already. I gain consensus--Str1977 loses, effectively in the debates, some remain silent. Then, I make the changes, it lasts for a week maybe, and then Str1977 reverts back to his version, and then MusicalLinguist, you, and others who are not active here, will revert to his version, and its back to "need to get consensus." This is the pattern. The debates are so fresh that its not been archived yet, as the ones in the past have been. Anyone can see on the talk page that my version has consensus. I've addressed all points, while my only opponent has failed to back up his claims with any supporting reference, while I was able to. But, as we know this is not about truth or winning, this is about politics and pushing for a version for religious reasons, and POV. This is why outside intervention will ultimately be required to address the problems with this article.Giovanni33 22:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know where on the talk page I can find the consensus. I haven't found it. What section is it in? KHM03 ^(talk) 23:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Start at the top and go down. Do you really need me to list the names and comments? Other editors even declared and asked if consensus was reached with my version, stating that they believe it had been. No one disputed that characterization. They were silent. On the other hand, more users came forward saying that they agreed with it as well. Giovanni33 23:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...I don't see it. I see Str1977 objecting to a lot of your ideas, with Wesley, Storm Rider, and myself supporting your intent but asking you to fix the language you propose, which I/they don't agree with entirely. Despite that, you several times claim consensus...not sure why. Occasionally, other folks chime in (SOPHIA, Joshbuddy, etc.), but still no consensus. So, I can't see where any exists (unless you can point to something I'm missing...it's quite possible I'm missing the consensus to which you refer). Either way, you have an opportunity to gain a clear consensus. Start a new thread on the talk page, list your proposals and ask for a discussion (I don't like votes, but you may want to keep that possibility in your back pocket). Gain a clear consensus, and I will agree to abide by the results, and revert to the consensus version if it's removed. KHM03 ^(talk) 02:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will follow your suggestion to see if the level of agreement can be more clear. It's true there are different elements (content/points, and then language issues). In addition to Storm, Wesley, Joshbuddy, you should have seen KV and Mika who have stated agreement in clear terms. Some of the editors only stated agreement some some parts, but were silent on others. I took silence when I and others asked the questions about consensus to mean agreement. And, I noted that the only editor who disagreed with everything (holding the hard line) was Str1977; still when others like StormRider told him that my proposals are reasonable, he seems to give in partly.

Anyway, I'll follow your suggestion. I don't like votes either, but I'll lay out where I think everyone is and what their objections are--map it out, and see if my understanding is correct, and where consensus exists currently. Also, I'd also like to get an agreement from editors that unless they participates in the talk pages expressing their own ideas and viewpoints, they should not revert back to someone else's version. This goes for both sides. I don't like the tendancy I see for those who don't follow the issues to simply jump in to revert for their buddy/friend. I think it promotes factionalism and perceptions of organized networking/cabalism. I'm not sure how you feel about this issue, but its always bothered me.Giovanni33 03:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't interpret my silence as agreement with, or apathy towards, any particular version. It's much more likely that it simply means I'm too busy with Real Life(tm). I agree with something when I say I agree with it, not when I take a short wikibreak from editing. I understand what you mean about seeing people revert who don't appear to be part of the Talk page discussion. However, I don't think it's fair to assume that because someone is posting less often or in fewer words to the Talk page, that they're not following the issues. For instance, I haven't followed things for at least several days, I come back and find that very very little has changed at all. Wesley 17:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Gnosticism

Gio, after you finish your suggestions at Talk: Christianity, you might take a look at the Gnosticism article, which is asking for attention from experts. You seem to know quite a bit about that subject and you may want to look it over. KHM03 ^(talk) 15:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

Hi Giovanni, you'll find the evidence and sources at New anti-Semitism and Talk:New anti-Semitism/reorg. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Eusebius

Ciao Giovanni. I based myself on Wikipedia:External links, where listng "links to normally avoid" is states at point six "Sites that require payment to view the relevant content". And following the link you gave only the incipit is free access. But there would be nothing wrong adding it to a References section. As for the full cached version, I can't find it. Hope this make things a bit clearer. Bye! :-) Aldux 12:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it is available free as a cached on a google search? As I said before, I can't find anything more than than the incipit of the cached version searching in Google. Could you give me the exact link of the google cached version of the page? Aldux 12:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Mythical Hero Archetype

I've just watched The God Who Wasn't There and there is an interview with Earl Doherty. I now understand what you mean when you talk about this concept. I'm going to but some of his books and learn more! Sophia^TalkTCF 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There are some interesting point but of course you can never squeeze as much information into a documentary as you can a book. The interviews are very interesting - especially the one with Doherty as he gives some "smoking gun" links that I'm going to follow up.

It is written slightly sensationally but it does make you chuckle in parts - especially when he interviews christians going into a Billy Graham "show". They all know who Jesus was in quite some detail but his next question is "Do you know how Christianity spread after Jesus died?" As you can imagine it all gets very vague at that point because the churches keeep as far away from that topic as they can. I'm sure you can relate to that! Sophia^TalkTCF 00:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Giovanni - I've decided it's time to put an RfC together about the behaviour of the editors on the Christianity/Historical/Historicity/Jesus-Myth pages. I and I'm suer you have had enough of the "wheel warring" that happens every time the status quo is threatened. We seem to be going down the "my scholars are better than your scholars" route so we need external help.

I've been reading Pagels "The Gnostic Gospels" and she fully supports your view of the beginings of Christianity such as using relativistic terminology with regards to heresy and the lack of a clear othodoxy as the development of orthodoxy was driven by political not spritual needs. Even though she is a well respected authority in this area we have seen that these views stand no chance of being fairly represented here. If you haven't already read this book I strongly recommend it. Sophia^TalkTCF 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sophia for your message. I will support your efforts in this matter. About the Pagel book, I know its highly regarded and it's on my reading list. Thanks for the recommendation and I'm happy to hear that my understanding is supported by such a highly regarded scholar on the subject. I'm always open to being wrong but it's nice to maybe be right, as well. :)

I agree that a fair representation of the real and legitimate perspectives of these minority views should not be ignored or suppressed as they are no longer fringe but have been increasing in popularity among prominent scholars who are very well respected authorities in a field that is directly dealing with this subject matter. Moreover, the other more traditional church directed POV does not refute (or at least I have not seen it) the work or understanding of Pagels and others. I see no valid excuse that such an understanding should not be given its appropriate representation. That this might upset the sensitivities of those who are emotionally committed and ascribe to a religiously motivated and inspired construction of the history of Christianity is to be expected, but to accede to it would be to give-in to POV pushing (even if it's not intentional but well meaning on the part of its advocates). Often times those who are too close to a subject, esp. emotionally attached to a particular mental construction, are unable to see how their own bias is affecting their treatement of the subject. Hence, some confict, and probably outside intervention, is necessary if the status-quo, religiously defended (pun intended here) is to change along with the changes reflected in modern scholarship. Giovanni33 21:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for butting in, but I agree that "a fair representation of the real and legitimate perspectives of these minority views should not be ignored or suppressed." The problem, of course, is that there are strong arguments and weak arguments on both sides, and of course people are talking past each other ;) I wouldn't be opposed to an RfC, but if it all comes down to defining who is and who is not a scholar, than perhaps a peer review would be more appropriate. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

Your name just got dropped on Christianity, so you may want to defend yourself. Alienus 09:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Abortion definition.

I was just looking at your changes to the definition of Abortion and I approve, although I suspect they'll be reverted. I'm not willing to dive into the mess of that article's talk page, but I do want to drop one possible suggestion that came to mind. If you like it, suggest it, taking as much credit as you want. If you don't, forget about it. My suggestion is that abortion can simply be defined as a pregnancy ending unsuccessfully. Think about it. Alienus 03:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Or it can be the successful ending of a pregnancy, depending on what the goal is: birth or no birth? In both cases the pregnancy ends. The difference is that one ends as an expulsion of an embryo/fetus, and the other in a birth of a baby. That is why I expanded the definiton. I'm not sure why this is controversial, as it's pretty straight forward. Giovanni33 03:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My 3RR

Thanks for not reporting me, Giovanni, though as it happens, Bengalski did it straight away, and one report is all it takes to get blocked! I've pleaded guilty (or do Americans say "pled"?) and won't be particularly devastated if I'm blocked. I should have counted more carefully, but there were so many edits in between, that I must have missed one. As you know, I don't report 3RR when there's a possibility of a mistake, and even when there's no possibility, it's not something I'm in the habit of doing. That said, if I'm caught out, another editor has every right to report me. By the way, thanks for this. While I didn't check to see whether or not Alienus's accusation was true (it seemed to be partly about removing and restoring a tag, which some administrators might not count, while others would), I do appreciate a sign that an opponent does not "use" somebody's mistake to get that person put out of action for 24 hours. By the way, I'm hardly in a position right now to do this myself, but how about removing "fully" from this edit? Honestly, in that context, it looks a bit ridiculous. Think of this:

went to College, did not attend lectures, failed to submit assignments, did not sit the final exam, and was therefore not in this way a full graduate.

It looks a bit silly, doesn't it.

And by the way, since you accept that there is such a thing as an accidental fourth revert, how about changing the title of this section of your page? Cheers. AnnH ♫ 13:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Up your alley

Thought you'd enjoy this. KHM03 (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I am restoring a post from KHM03 which was removed from your page when the page was deleted to remove personal information. It's not possible to restore the diff, so it will look as if I made that post, but, as I'm sure you remember, it really was from KHM03 at the time given. Sorry for any inconvenience. AnnH ♫ 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Christian Controversies

I would like to remind you to try to keep the version where there is such a section, since it includes the idea you wish to have in the article. If you havent' used your reverts, it may be of good use. Though WP:V does say that any editor can delete uncited material for any reason, unfortunately it puts no restraint on them deleting cited material. :(

KV 18:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

ISBN

you just reverted one of the ISBN links back to Amazon. I would appreciate if you would undo that. That way I could save myself a revert for later. Agathoclea 09:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll fix that. Giovanni33 09:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[13] made on April 26 2006 (UTC) to Christianity====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 15:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Your mistaken about any violation of 3RR. Those edits are for separate issues.Giovanni33 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're planning to revert a lot (hopefully not) then it would be a good idea to read WP:3RR if you don't want to get blocked William M. Connolley 18:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was under a false understanding. I thought the 3RR rule was specific to the same edits, and did not count another section that was unrelated; that the counts towards 3rr were not cummulative for different section. I now see the 3RR page does say: "Note: There is no requirement for the reverts to be related: any four reverts on the same page count." I never remember reading that before. Giovanni33 07:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise that either. If those are the rules theen I have seen quite a few violations in the past that I didn't realise were over the 3RR as they were unrelated sections. The moral of the story is don't revert! Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 07:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Its always been the policy. But check the page history. William M. Connolley 08:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that Musical Linguist (AnnH), reported my 3RR violation and counted my placing the POV dispute/accuracy tag, as one revert, as well. I simply restored the tag since my edits were reverted instead of edit warring, but even doing that counted against me. Also, Im not sure why the POV/disput tag is removed. When the other side puts up the dispute tag, it's insisted that it must stay until the objections are resolved, and I've always respect that. My impression was that was the rule. But, it seems there is a double-standard at work again.

What is the rule about the dispute tag, anyay? If there is a content disagreement, and one side puts up the dispute tag because the prevailing text is POV and not accurate, is it then ok for the other side to simply remove the dispute tag as well, after they insert their version of the text, making it seem there is no opposition to the bias? I don't know the rules about it, but in practice when the "losing" party puts up the POV Tag, instead of edit warring, its respected, and talked about on the discussion page. At least that is what I do, and its was my impression as the rule. Yet, in this instance, when I put up the POV tag for the same reasons, that counts as a revert against me and the tag is removed. This is why there is talk of a Christian cabal. Practices, if not rules, are not equally abided by; there is a clear double-standard in effect. But, at least now it is ok to remove the dispute tag, when the other party puts it up, if you don't agree that it should be disputed, strange as that may seem. Correct me if I'm missing something here. Giovanni33 10:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that whether or not to use the POV tag sometimes becomes (somewhat ironically) part of the POV dispute itself. If all sides can agree to listen to outside comments, then {{POV-check}} may be appropriate. It's a little less confrontational. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 10:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the tag is a piece of text. 3RR applies to it. That doesn't mean that their aren't other rules - of etiquette - that apply to it William M. Connolley 20:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, you are indeed missing something here. Before you jump to conclusions about double standards and the "Christian cabal", take another look at the edit in which you reinserted the tag. Don't just look at the top of the page, where you see the tag on the right, and no tag on the left. Scroll down to see exactly how much you changed. Far from "simply restoring the tag instead of edit warring", you also reinserted the sentence about mystery religions, which had been taken out by Str1977 and by Sophia in the previous hour, and which you had already reinserted once. In fact, the edit summary says that you're reverting and putting in the tag. Of course, there were already five reverts without that one. Anyway, William is right in saying that 3RR applies to tags. An exception would be made for the reverting of obvious vandalistic use of tags, for example, if someone put a speedy delete tag on the article about Shakespeare or Mozart or Hitler. Insertion or removal of POV tags is part of a content dispute, and so cannot count as "simple vandalism", and may not be reverted by an editor who has already made three reverts. Actually, if it had been just the tag, and if it had been your fourth revert, I wouldn't have reported you, as I don't like reporting violations that might have happened by accident. AnnH ♫ 20:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that your first edit to Christianity after returning from your block was a revert back to the "centred on stories" version,[14] I think I should remind you (as I'm sure I've told you before) that people with a history of edit warring can be blocked on fewer than four reverts. And I'm sure you also know that adding the "personal saviour" bit as well doesn't stop it from being a revert, since partial reverts also count. It looks bad when people resume their edit war straight after their block. We have discussed our objections on the talk page. Christianity is centred on a person, whether that person really existed or not. "Stories" seems designed to introduce doubt. And it is extremely POV to give a statement of what Christianity is based on which Christians themselves would disagree with. AnnH ♫ 08:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a history of edit warring. Besides this one block above, which was a mistake based on not understanding clearly the 3RR rule, I have only been blocked ONE time for the 3RR violation. And that was a very long time ago, when I was brand new and didn't know the policy at all. Also, if I have a history of edit warring, then by the same criteria, you certainly do as well--even though you have not been blocked for it (others have reported you for it, as you know, and even other admins did chastise you saying that you should know better.) Indeed as an admin and here much longer than me that is certainly true. You edit war as much as anyone I've seen. I wont violate the 3RR policy, ofcourse, but I won't be intimated by veiled threats to use your admin powers or connections against me, simply so I will not oppose the blatant POV problems and inaccuracies in the article. NPOV and accuracy are the most important policies, more important than even the 3RR rule (again, I do abide by it). And, I and other editors have discussed and continue to discuss the problems with your version, and so I suggest we continue working on that instead of trying to bury the problems and intimidate and threaten the opposition. You will notice that each time I edit, I change it based on input and objections made on the talk page. That is, I'm not blindly reverting or edit warring in a classic sense. I'm trying to say exactly what you want it to say but do so in an accurate and NPOV manner, by reflecting and characterizing, not assuming a POV as a fact. However, you are blindly reverting to the same disputed version each time, so why are you not edit warring? And should not your own warning apply to yourself, too?Giovanni33 09:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

KHM03 think tank

Either way, when your block is over, we can continue to discuss KHM03. Short answer: if he does come back, it will be quite some time from now, and I don't think we should push him. (I also haven't heard from him since April 18). Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 17:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ofcourse you are right. But, sometimes there is a fine line between pushing, and rational persuation, convincing. Its not ok to push but it is ok to try to make a logical argument. Giovanni33 07:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

test Giovanni33 06:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"brand new and didn't know the policy at all"

Giovanni, you have claimed here that you never broke the rule (apart from this occasion) after you were blocked, which was a long time ago, when you were brand new and didn't know the policy at all. There are some users who report newcomers for 3RR violations without giving them a warning. I am not one of them; nor are Str1977, KHM03, Tom harrison, Wesley, or any of the other people you edit warred with. I am not aware of any administrator who blocks newcomers who have inadvertently broken a rule they were unaware of. However, the facts are very different from your claim.

You arrived at Wikipedia as a registered user on 7 January. You began to edit Christianity on 21 January. You made six edits to that article in close succession, implementing major changes without discussion (forgivable for a newcomer). When they were reverted, you reverted straight back, with an unusual confidence for a newcomer (I had over seventy edits before I ever reverted).

You made ELEVEN reverts or partial reverts to that article between 1:31 and 18:51 UTC on 22 January.

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

The Christians noticed it, informed you of the rule, and asked you to stop, but kindly did not report it as you were a newcomer.

23 January, KHM03 posted to your IP address, which you frequently used for reverting (though I accept that you acknowledged the edits as yours): "You have now reached your maximum reverts allowed before violating WP:3RR; please review the policy before reverting again. Thanks"[26]

23 January, I wrote on your talk page: "As you know, if you revert more than three times in any 24-hour period (and partial reverts count), you can be blocked from editing by an administrator. And the three reverts are considered an absolute limit, not an entitlement."[27]

23 January, you posted on your talk page that you seemed to have been blocked (you hadn't been; it must have been a technical glitch), even though you had not made any reverts (showing that you were aware of the rule)[28]

23 January, I posted on your talk page, telling you that you hadn't been blocked, and adding: "By the way, I note that you made about ten reverts or partial reverts in the space of 24 hours, so you could have been blocked, even though you weren't."[29]

24 January, I posted to the Christianity talk page (which you certainly read), telling you that you had made over ten reverts, that I had never reported anyone for 3RR, but that you were certainly putting yourself at risk, telling you that it sours the atmosphere when blocks are implemented, and asking you not to keep reverting.[30]

25 January, I warned you in an edit summary, saying "Revert to Dominick. No consensus. Giovanni, that was your fifth revert in 24 hours, in addition to over ten at Christianity. Please don't make any more. This is incredible."[31]

25 January, I posted to the Christianity talk page again, saying that you have reverted the same article ten times in a 24-hour period, despite being told about the 3RR rule, and had reverted another article five times, and that the only reason you hadn't been blocked yet was because the "sneaky", "lying", "vandalizing", "POV-pushing" Christians hadn't reported you (quoting adjectives which had come from you and the identical IP account BelindaGong, whom you pretended to have no connection to until the usercheck showed otherwise).[32]

26 January, I warned you again, but didn't report you. At that stage, as shown above, you were FULLY aware of the rule, but were still reverting anyway. My post points out that you had done six reverts. It's possible to make a fourth revert without realizing it, which is why I don't report fourth reverts (except once in the case of someone who did it immediately after being unblocked, and who had also vandalized).[33]

Following that post on 26 January, I gave you more information about the 3RR policy[34]

Then, on 26 January, another administrator told you: "Begin by not reverting edits out of hand, especially not in violation of the three revert rule." He also told you that "The people you're insulting and reverting similarly have a history of having collaborated with editors with whom they disagree, and ultimately arriving at a mutually acceptable result."[35]

It was only after you had continued reverting at Early Christianity that I decided, later that night, to report you. You had been given far more chances that any revert-warring newcomer I have ever come across, and it is totally untrue to say that you were blocked when you were "brand new" and "didn't know the policy at all". None of the Christian editors opposing you at that time you would have reported without ensuring that you knew of the policy. Very few administrators — if any — would block someone without checking that he or she had been aware of the policy. That is why, when I was reporting you, I took care to give links to places where you had been warned before the reported violations took place. You can see a link to the original report, which links to the warnings and to the continued violations here, and which therefore shows that your claim not to have known the policy at all is completely untrue.

So you were blocked for the first time on 26 January, after having been given numerous chances to stop massive edit warring. You were blocked again on 14 February for 3RR violation split between your account and the identical IP account BelindaGong, whom you had actively pretended to have no connection to, despite repeated queries.

You violated 3RR on Georg Elser, on 22 February [36] [37] [38] [39] and Str1977 very kindly did not report you.[40]

You have also made four reverts at Adolf Hitler in the last few hours. [41] [42] [43] [44]. Don't worry, I'm not going to report it. I think it's quite possible that you didn't see the first one as a revert, but it was one, because in the past (though not in the last few days), you have been reverting Str1977's "totalitarian" to "fascist" in that article; you were just restarting an old edit war.

You have, in fact, been treated with a certain amount of generosity. I don't mean just the enormous amount of tolerance you were given at the start, but also after the BelindaGong and Freethinker99 duplicity was exposed, we didn't keep mocking you. (At one stage I thought it would be fun to send a message to Str1977 and sign it with his name, and then put, "oops, sorry, I forgot I was logged on as you", but I didn't because I didn't want to kick someone who was down, and I thought we should move forward at that stage.) Any time your past behaviour is brought up, it's in context of new users reverting to your version, and showing no sign of being at Wikipedia for any other purpose, or in context of your continued edit warring, or your continued accusations of POV pushing from people who have the opposite POV from yours, or your continued rebuking of those who revert your edits. Even your recent long post about Christianity being comparable to the belief that the moon is made of cheese shows a very extreme view, and I'm afraid your contribution history shows that you're here to push that view. My contributions show well under half my edits are connected to articles related to my POV. Str1977's is also well below yours.

Nobody would hold it against you, and I'm sure nobody would bring it up again if you just admitted that you had knowingly edit warred, that you had taken advantage of our leniency, that you had engaged in duplicity with regard to BelindaGong and Freethinker99, and that you had done a lot of sneering ("The only reasons for suppressing this is that Christians don't like to talk about their origins. hehe"), before the atmosphere turned nasty (I can understand that people say things they shouldn't when things get heated), and if you showed signs that you realize that such behaviour is unhelpful and that you intended to avoid it in the future. (Not if you constantly claim that you don't edit war and that you were blocked when you weren't aware of the rules.) Becuase of your determination to get your way, the atmosphere has soured, editors have become suspicious and hostile, and people who had absolutely no history of edit warring (even people who had an average of below one revert per day) have found their revert proportion doubling. Can you even acknowledge that you were not a brand new user who didn't know the policy at all when you continued to revert massively (I'm not talking about an accidental fourth revert, which can happen to anyone) in spite of numerous pleas and warnings, prior to being reported? Can you acknowledge that your behaviour is part of the problem? If you can't that's not a problem, as I have no wish to extract humiliating prisoner-of-war-type confessions. But you will at least have to stop making claims of innocence. AnnH ♫ 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? I have to stop making claims of innocence (you mean like you do when you get accused?). I wonder, what else must I do, or can't I do in terms of expressing my own thought...hmmm Just so I undertand: I if I really think I'm innocent of your charges, and can show that with good argumentation, must my thinking and opposition to your POV and one-sided reporting above, really be silenced? Is that a new rule? If someone thinks they are innocent of the charges as charged--as I do--yet, according to you, they must not make any claims of innocence on their own behalf? Also, I note you say "at least" not make any claims of innocence, but isn't that tantamount to confessing guilt? For if one is not innocent, then are they are guilty, no? So, basically you are saying, "I think you are guilty, and you better think the same way I do!" Well, I value my indepenence of thought, personally speaking, hence, I say proudly: I am innocent of the above charges. Also, since I've spoken in my defense elsewhere where you have pasted the above, at lenght, I see no point in wasting my time repeating myself here. This is not a court, I'm not on trial, and it's not why I come to Wikipedia. I come here to expand knowlege by contributing to building an encylopedia. So, maybe some day when I have nothing better to do...That day is certainly not today or the near future unless you want to argue about the moon being made of cheese--but you avoid substantive issues and istead foucus on the boring, petty things. No thanks. But if you do, I'd like to see what you think is so extreme about stating that if someone says the Moon is made out of cheese, that it should be qualified by stating its a belief that its made out of cheese, not state it as if it were an established fact. Its a matter of a religious belief, based on faith. This is not an extreme at all. What is extreme is your calling my very reasonable mainstream understanding of reality, and my insistence on using NPOV language to qualify statements of belief extreme. You might think that your beliefs that are based on faith, the go contrary to evidence, and reason, are all really true--but that is a religious POV--not accepted fact--anymore than if someone created a religious belief that the moon was made of Cheese. I asked you to explain what is so extreme with my ideas here, and Id still like to know. Giovanni33 09:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I posted was that you said your first block was when you were "brand new and didn't know the policy at all." That's not only false; it's unjust to the people who reported and blocked you. There are Wikipedians who report newcomers who oppose them, perhaps in the hope of having the page free from opposing editors for a twenty-four-hour period. I and Str1977 and KHM03 and Tom harrison and the others are not like that. Also, it would have been quite irresponsible of Tznkai to block a newcomer who hadn't realized he was breaking the rules. What you may not realize is that when you make claims like that, you're not only making claims about yourself (that you haven't broken the rule since your first block, and that you were blocked for reverting when you didn't know that it wasn't allowed); you're making implicit claims that I, who reported you, took ungenerous advantage of newbie ignrorance, and that Tznkai, who blocked you, did not bother to check if you had been warned. Both implicit claims are completely false, and when I originally reported you, I explained that you had been warned, and I gave diffs for the warnings, and I gave diffs for the violations that happened after the warnings. That report was the first one I had ever made, out of many violations I had seen from my "opponents" in more than nine months at Wikipedia, as I would not feel comfortable taking advantage of an honest mistake.

When I said that you would "have to" stop making claims of innocence, I may have expressed myself poorly: I did not mean to imply obligation. Of course, you're free to continue to claim that you never reverted an article eleven times, or five times, or six times; that nobody had informed you of the 3RR rule before you were first reported and blocked; that you haven't violated the rule since then; that your posts suggesting or claiming no connection to BelindaGong before the user check results came out were completely honest, etc. What I really meant was that it won't get you very far. The diffs don't lie.

You constantly make meatpuppet allegations about me and Str1977. Now, if you look through the messages that we have sent to each other's talk pages, you'll see an indication of two users who did not know each other at all, and who gradually became aware of each other through editing the same articles, who shared the same POV, and who became more and more friendly with each other. You'll see posts that suggested we didn't know each other — for example, where he asks me what instrument I play, or where I ask him does he like cucumbers, or where I joke that I wouldn't feel safe if I ever met him, having found out that he likes vampire fiction. Now, if it were suddenly discovered that Str1977 and I had been married to each other all along, would you consider that we were "innocent" in our messages to each other and our reverts to each other's versions?

And to clear up this meatpuppet claim, those messages Str1977 and I sent each other were completely sincere. I was unaware of his existence before I joined Wikipedia, and I had been here for seven months before I knew what his real name was. I frequently vote on pages where he doesn't vote, and I know (since I sometimes look at his contribs to check if he's online) that he has voted on matters that I didn't vote on. If you insert that Galileo was tortured, or that the doctrine of transubsantiation evolved from pagan cannibalism rituals, or that Hitler, who never attended Mass as an adult, was not "IN THIS WAY" a "FULLY" practising Catholic, or that he received the sacraments "devoutly" as a child, or that Christianity is a "self-defined" monotheistic religion, or that it is based on "stories", and I revert, my revert has nothing to do with the fact that it is Str1977's version that I am reverting to; I would revert POV and inaccurate edits even if Str1977 had never joined Wikipedia.

Anyway, I'm not trying to extract any kind of confession. I'd be more than happy to move on. But I do recommend that you stop claiming innocence, since there are diffs to show the numerous times that you were informed of the 3RR policy, and the numerous reverts that you made after being informed, so such claims just make you lose credibility. There are also diffs to show how you were informed of WP:SOCK, which explains the meatpuppet policy as well, so when you claim that you were just showing a friend how to use Wikipedia, and we see that the Freethinker99 account turned up while you were blocked, started off by claiming to be new but to agree with you (before you accidentally signed while logged on as him), and then made a revert to your version, then even if people believe it was a different person, you will not convince them that it wasn't meatpuppetry. Nor will you convince them that two editors from different countries but with a similar POV, who have completely independent editing histories with just some overlap, and who remove controversial edits that go against consensus are meatpuppets. The diffs don't lie. It's unfortunate that you keep this going.

As for your "Christianity-is-like-believing-that-the-moon-is-made-of-cheese" posts, if indeed there is no God, then Christianity is as false as the belief that the moon is made of cheese. But believing one is not to be compared to believing the other. If I said that I had bacon and eggs for breakfast this morning, it would be as false as a claim that the sun fell into the sea yesterday; but but believing one would not be in any way equivalent to believing the other. To believe the latter, one would have to be extremely gullible, ignorant, and misinformed. Now I have absolutely no doubt that that is exactly what you think of Christians; you've made that plain in your numerous insulting posts on talk pages. But Christianity is by no means a minority view; highly educated people, including great scientists, have believed in it. The French geneticist, Professor Jerome Lejeune, who discovered the cause of Down's Syndrome and won some very prestigious awards for his work, was a committed, orthodox, and obedient Catholic. There is some talk about his possible canonization. He presumably had a far greater knowledge of science than you; but his knowledge did not lead him to reject religion as superstitious myths. It's also generally considered poor manners to start telling people that their religious beliefs are superstitious. As a believing Catholic, I obviously believe that Muslims are in error. But if I were to spend most of my wiki-time at Islamic articles, inserting true, false, and exaggerated details of atrocities committed by Muslims, changing articles to say that some nominal Muslims who did bad things were devout, inserting things like "self-defined" and "stories", changing "sacred texts" to "religious texts", etc., it would suggest that I had an agenda. And if I made numerous talk page posts about about how unenlightened Muslims are to believe that Mohammad was a prophet, it would be a serious violation of good manners. It would also be an abuse of talk page policy: we are not meant to use article talk pages to discuss whether or not a particular POV is true, but rather how to report that POV in a way that respects NPOV. AnnH ♫ 07:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying I can still claim I am innocent. I will. I am still learnining the 3RR rule, which I thought I knew, but I was mistaken even just recently. I never violated it intentionally, and even my latest block (only my 2nd ever block for the 3RR), was also not intentional--but you were sure to report me (note I have not reported you). But, all you can validly argue is that by the standards of a reasonable person I should have known better. Maybe that is true, but you can't prove that I did know better and still violated it, knowing I did. Its impossible for you to know, and assuming good faith (something you never do for others (at least me) despite insisting others assume good faith by believing your claims that when violate the 3RR in your own edit warring over Christian and Catholic issues by saying it was accident after others point it out. And when it happens again, it was just another accident on your part. For an experienced admin you sure are accident prone! hehe But, unlike you, I assume good faith. Even though by the standards of a good admin such accidents would not happen....

Now for the intersting part--the Moon is made of Cheese analogy. I'm glad you finally responded. Your response was very interesting as it shows poor your critical thinking skills. But, first, lets place this moon is cheese analogy back into its correct context, that I used for the debate. That is, a claim of the moon is made of cheese, even if it is a sincerely held religious POV, is still a belief only, not a fact. Christianity, like other religions, are based on beliefs, faith, and so claims of Jesus's purproted life and actions--his rising from the dead, being born a virgin and other impossiblities, should not state them as they are facts, but properly attribute them to their source: stories of his life, actions and teachings as recounted in the New Testament. This is simply a matter of being accurate. Its the stories the accounts of him (story doesnt mean true or false), that its based on, not the physical person, who is just a human being--if he really even existed (even that is not established beyond doubt). Clearly, the religion is based on the stories told in its book of faith, that mixes fiction with facts, as does much of mythology. I know you are very defensive about this, but I assure you I do not intend to be rude or have any motivation to insult or have bad manners. Again, assume good faith, please. And, I disagree that telling the truth is bad manners. Do you think it is rude to say that the Sun is NOT Apollo's chariot or that such a belief is mythology? The issue is not me being rude (as I'm never rude), its about others feeling so easily offended and insulted when one simply expressing their thinking on matters they happen to hold personally close to them. But, its not about what they believe, its about the beliefs themselves and how to properly reflect them in Wikipedia. Lets not make this about personal issues. Its not why we are here. The relevance is only that we should be civil and assume good faith because this is a collaborative effort. But, under its a stretch to say that an argument itself, or a legitimate POV expressed, is rude. Infact, calling my argument "extreme" is itself extreme from my POV, or calling me "rude" is itself rude since you are talking about me, my behavior--not the content, the merit and logic of my arguments.

Now to review some basic logical fallacies, which are indicative of your poor thinking. You say there is a difference between my new hypothetical religion which believes that the moon is made of cheese, and your own religiosu beliefs, such as that wine and bread literally and really turn into blood and flesh (not symbolic but actually transform into these things (my religion says that the moon is cheese--it doesnt change into cheese). Both are in the same category, since by observing using scientific methods we can see that, according to scientific methods, these things are not what you believe they are, and the moon is not made of cheese and when we look into a microscope I don't see red blood cells but fermented grape juice. hehe But, as we know, this doesnt matter. Its why its called religion and faith, and not science and fact.

Now, you say that your religious belief is different because many other people believe in it, its not a minority view. This appeal to popularity is your first logical fallacy. It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it, any more than any other claim? Mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", that "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", that "the sun revolves around the earth" --but the validity of these claims have nothing to do with their popularity. Many people believe many things at different times in history that are were not and are not rational. Scientologists have been growing in number and claim some 10 million followers. Does that mean their religious beliefs of the story of Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy make it more valid in your eyes? That we have past lives on other planets, and have implanted memories of being "deceived into a love affair with a robot decked out as a beautiful red-haired girl", being run over by a Martian bishop driving a steamroller, being transformed into an intergalactic walrus that perished after falling out of a flying saucer, and being "a very happy being who strayed to the planet Nostra 23,064,000,000 years ago?" Or what if I believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster and gain a majority following? At some point in its growth does it change its qualitiative nature and cease to be an irrationality? Humans do tend to conform with the views of the majority, so I see how convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it, but its a logical fallacy. This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Common Practice. It's also closely related to the Appeal to Emotion fallacy.

Your other fallacy is when you use a scientist's religious views and say that because he does good science within his scientific work, this lends support in some way to his religious claims. You reason that if he knows science well, how can he be so wrong in his religious views? Again, very poor thinking on a number of counts. First, the argument presumes that it is impossible for a scientist to hold any unscientific beliefs or superstitions. That is not true. While it is much less likely for a scientist to hold such beliefs than a layperson, it is hardly impossible. A scientific education is training, but it is not destiny. Its true the more educated one is, esp. in science, the less likely one is to hold to superstitous beliefs, and less likley for them to be religious. The studies show this. Clearly any such religious beliefs in the scientific community correlate far better to religious fervour than professional aptitude--religion not being involved in their professional accomplishments. More importantly, the success of science is based not upon the infallibility of scientists, but upon the peer review process. Science relies upon scientists looking for holes in each others' reasoning. And, there is nothing in the scientists work you cite which has any relation to his religious beliefs. If he did include them in, he would be instantly discredited through the peer review process since such beliefs are unscientific, not supported by evidence, and contrary to logical principals. that is why with science, the key is not whether an individual scientist believes in something, but whether that idea has passed peer review. This combines the fallacy appeal to authority, the fallacy of relevance, and hasty generalization. So, it doesnt matter if Jerome Lejeune is a Catholic, or how wide spread it is, thanks to its bloody history spreading through the sword, and converting people on pain of death and tourture. Take any idea and with enough political power you can get a sizable following. This is no reason to abandon realizing the nature of the beliefs for what they are, nor reasons to assume the beliefs have anymore legitimate basis to claim itself as true than do my claims that the moon is made of cheese. I do not attack any person, I only attack the irrational beliefs. In the context of editing here, I argue for NPOV and verifiablity---report the facts as they are known and how they are known (ie both soucred and attributed properly). Lastly, I'd say you should not take offense and accuse them of pushing a POV simply becaues it clashes with your own. The fact that you edit on many different articles (as I do), also has no relevance to the issue of your own bias when it does come to presenting your own beliefs and bias. Giovanni33 11:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

category facism

We had a discussion some time back to remove the duplicated cats. It already is in Nazism which in turn is in ... guess where :-) Agathoclea 16:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR

I don't want to be accused of "giving matches to a baby" but.....thought you might approve of this rule! Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 12:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that rule. Its a good rule but it seems the admins don't take it seriously, since they seem very serious about following the letter of the law. But, this is certainly part of my defense--that the principals of NPOV and verifiablity are more important than 3RR, or thata friend with a similar POV to the article (called a meatpuppet, and then blocked) is fine given the dominance of the other side controlling the article and enforcing a bias. The good thing about this cabal, or herd mentality, is that with consistent effort and a willingness to endure a certain amount of abuse, the article can change and other ideas can make their way into it. But, it takes someone who is up to the challenge, not lazy, and very persistent.Giovanni33 02:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I in no way condone rule breaking and have tried to go for the evolution rather than revolution approach to change but with the current state of Jesus-Myth I'm begining to think that at some point, when faced with certain people and situations, you are left no choice if you are to have an accurate NPOV article. I've a horrible feeling I'm going to make a POINT soon which will probably get me banned!--Sophia ^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 07:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV and verifiability being more important than 3RR, it is never permitted to violate 3RR to revert an edit that is POV. It is always permitted in the case of simple vandalism, though people can be blocked for reverting something that they call vandalism, when it's only a content dispute. Simple vandalism is something that everyone would recognize as vandalism — e.g. inserting a pornographic image into the article about Queen Elizabeth, or putting hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh into the article about the Salem witch trials. (Note: if I were reverting without the automatic edit summary that comes from the rollback button, I would probably put "revert test" rather than "revert vandalism" in the edit summary for the second example; but I certainly would not be blocked for reverting it.) However, people do not always agree on what is NPOV, and you can have two editors each sincerely claiming that his (or her) edit is the NPOV one, and that the opposing editor's one is the POV one. Therefore, if you could revert a fourth time, on the grounds that you sincerely believe your version is NPOV, it's only logical that Str1977, Tom harrison, and I could revert your revert a fourth time; the result would be chaos. It used to say on the 3RR page (though I think it's gone now) that if an edit really needs to be reverted, someone else will probably revert it. If nobody does, then there's an indication (not a proof) that you're mistaken in thinking it's POV. Regarding verifiability, people differ on that as well. You (I think it was you, but I haven't checked the diffs, so I apologize if I'm mistaken) inserted that Hitler received the sacraments "devoutly" as a child (with no evidence), but you resist the statement that he wasn't a practising Catholic as an adult, although it's verified that he completely stopped going to Mass and receiving the sacraments. You see, there are diagreements about verifiability, and I certainly will not knowingly take out "devoutly" a fourth time within a 24-hour period, regardless of how unverified (and POV) it is; because the rules do not allow for that.

Encouraging a friend to join Wikipedia is fine. I've told several friends about Wikipedia, though I don't know if any of them joined as a result. Standing beside a newly-registered friend and showing him how to revert to your version (his second edit) while you're blocked is not fine. AnnH ♫ 09:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Other users talk pages

No one "owns" any space in wikipeda but user and talk pages are personal by nature and people can be affronted by others messing with them. Some users leave editied highlights on their talk pages - it's not encouraged but it's not forbidden so you will be regarded as over stepping the mark by reverting Str1977's talk page edit. Personally I don't approve of editing out unfavorable comments but I know this is my POV and not a Wikipedia rule. I suggest you revert it your self to save any more bad feeling. Sophia^Gilraen ^{of Dorthonion} 07:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think you are right upon reflection on the issue. Giovanni33 08:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he was archiving his talk page. The edits that you said he was suppressing went straight into Archive 4 one minute after he removed them from his talk page, and about eighteen hours before you put them back on his talk page.[45] AnnH ♫ 22:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Since this concerns my talk page I may as well comment:

I have no objection to other editors posting heads up, questions, criticism, reply on my talk page. From time to time I archive the talk page, but I don't keep all of it, as many posts are only of temporary value. What I also object to is an excessive commenting (with no informative value) of posts on my talk page. In your case, Gio, I felt that your last posts fit the last category and hence I removed them (the same holds true for your comments over at the vote page but I am not allowed to removed them there) and later did not include them into the archive. However, Gio, I note postiively that you self-reverted and taht you wasn't commenting despite a warning on my part, as another Wikipedian did a few weeks back. Note that this is not about "censoring discussion" or "of editing out unfavorable comments" as it applies only to non-informative posts.

Finally, since you asked: "Die guten ins Töpchen, die schlechten ins Kröpfchen" (The good into the pot, the bad into the throat) is a proverbial quote from the German fairy tale Aschenputtel (= Cinderella), where the pigeons help her picking up peas from the ashes.

So, since you self-reverted indeed: No hard feelings (on this). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

While on the Subject of Other Users' Talk Pages

Have you seen Sophia's vandalism on Trollwatcher's talk page - take a look at the history. Note the reversions of his request to be unblocked and also the removal of perfectly reasonable text.

Here's a copy of the offending text:

The following message is for AnnH aka Musical Linguist, but as her talk page is protected it is impossible to post messages to her. I hope therefore that you will not mind if I post this on your talk page where she is likely to see it.

To Musical Linguist. About a month ago you made serious accusation against a number of Wikipedia editors, accusing them of being implicated in the harassment of another editor. As you know harassment is a criminal offence, and you have no doubt acted accordingly.

Several of the editors have expressed surprise that they have not been contacted by any law enforcement agencies investigating this criminal matter. They say they are as keen as anyone to get to the bottom of this, and are prepared to assist any criminal investigation underway. They have asked me to ask you to indicate which law enforcement agency is carrying out the investigation. Contact details for the officer-in-charge added below this message would be appreciated.

Many thanks for your help in allowing these editors to assist the police in their criminal investigations, clear their names, and possibly track down the real culprit behind this scandal. Intermediary 19:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty scary, uh? Ooh Ah Misses 12:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why Sophia would remove anything but I know Sophia would do so with good intentions. About your quesiton, above regarding law enforcement and harrassement, that is easy to answer. Police don't care about most crimes, unless the victim is influencial, or the crime is important enough. With harassment, its not--unless there is credible evidence of a threat, and it is likely to continue and poses a probable danger. Then they might investiage it. Otherwise, it will be one of the millions of reports (this is not even important enough to be reported), that are just filed. So, even if AnnH believes that anohter editor was really harassed, I doubt she would bother to involve police as she knows they won't do anything given the circumstances. In many cases of genunie harassment, the police will just tell you to get a restraining order.Giovanni33 18:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

the forbidden website

I've been looking at the updates to that website and I noticed that it no longer contains any person info about editors. So, it should be ok to post the website. Perhaps it can be reviewed by an admin to verify that so no one will get in trouble if they post it now. I find the subject and updates it gives intersting, and I agree about the pro-Christian bias, ofcourse---as I've seen it myself (but I've seen other groups with other bias). Still, systematic bias of groups with the same POV dominating an article to push a POV is something that should be talked about, provided its done so in a civil manner and without personal attacks, nor violate any rules or guildlines. Otherwise, if its still suppressed despite it only being about the subject matter, it makes it seem that the real purpose is simply to silence debate of the problem, and bury the issue, ironically giving credence to its main claim. Can someone reivew the site and see if it is ok, now? Giovanni33 06:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would still be wary as the owner of the website has show a disturbing interest in personally identifying the editors he does not agree with. I get the feeling that once the website is posted in multiple places the stuff would reappear. The fact that he's doing this outside of Wikipedia shows that he is trying to get round the rules here. If there are real cabal problems (as opposed to like minded editors herding) then someone please file and RfC so we can get this all out into the open and discuss it sensibly.

I would also appreciate it if you removed the above. It's basically being used to take a cheap shot at Ann who only got involved with all the mess at the very end when I asked for help removing the posts from the history file. Again - the fact that they are focusing on one individual who was not even the driver for the removal (but whole heartedly supported it as many did) of the personal information concerns me. Sophia 07:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful with reverting.

Please be careful with reverting. I assume that you wanted to revert edits by User:Timothy Usher but you included my edits too. Can you unravel it please? Best wishes. bobblewik 11:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that, but all you did was link the dates, and I didnt feel it was an edith worth keeping. If you insist on it, I will not oppose you. I always wondered what the purpose of doing that, btw. I know we can almost link every single word in an article, if we really wanted to--but should we not only link to other articles to help explain or expand on an important idea, concept, that needs further elucidation but can't be given due to space limitation? Why does the meaning of various dates itself such as May 17 need any futher details as it what it means? Maybe there is another reason for linking dates as dates are collected for another page where people can search for all events related to a date? If so, my apologies. Giovanni33 11:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Please look again. I did not link, I unlinked. Regards. bobblewik 12:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason for linking 17 May etc. is that users can set their preferences so that, regardless of what is entered into the editing box, the date will display on the screen as 17 May, May 17, 05-17, etc. I have mine set to display as 17 May, so that is what I actually see when I read Giovanni's post above, even though he wrote it as May 17. AnnH ♫ 22:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know that the reason is so that preferences can work. Incidentally, some people do not realise this and believe falsely that *all* date elements must be linked.

This discussion started because Giovanni33 reverted edits of three words by User:Timothy Usher. But other edits got caught accidently in the crossfire. It isn't a big deal, I was just pointing it out. Regards bobblewik 12:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Your messages

Giovanni, I was in the middle of answering your question when you posted it again. Please do not restore messages another editor has removed or archived from his or her talk page — especially when such messages contain links to websites that reveal personal information about other editors. I now have to delete several versions from the history. If you do that again, I will block you. Your first attempt may have been innocent, though it is hard to believe that you had not looked at the website and didn't know that it contained personal information. I will get back to you when I have finished the extra work that you have caused. AnnH ♫ 07:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I did look at it briefly, and I know [name of website removed by AnnH] is the site that has the discussion of the forbiden website that was used to give personal info at one time, but the topic that it links to seemed to be about something else not related to that issue. I guess it does give your last name out (which I didn't know was protected personal info, since you used to use your real last name on here before).Giovanni33 07:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Said forbidden site has been reduced to a directory listing. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 08:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. It's back. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 01:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Complete paragraph removed by me. See post at bottom of this section. AnnH ♫ 17:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, all is well. If you think about it, I'm sure you'll realize that when an editor registers with his or her full name and then changes to a user name a few months later, the most likely reason is the wish for greater security. Which means that the forbidden website was still giving personal information, since it claimed that I had deleted versions of my userpage against the rules, and linked to a version that gave my name. By the way, any administrator is permitted to delete old versions of his or her user page to remove personal information that was imprudently given, and any user who regrets having given things like date of birth, city of residence, etc., can ask an admin to delete old versions of a user page. Even if personal information is still available in archives and histories, a user can still be blocked for making it easier to stalk and harass another editor. That's not a threat, by the way. I don't for a moment think that your motive in reposting that link four times was to spread personally-idenifiable information about other editors. But when I removed it from my talk page, with the edit summary archive, and then added your post to Archive 14, which did not contain that link, you had no business reposting it a few minutes later (when I was starting to answer). Whether I intended to answer or not — and I did — once I had personally removed it from my talk page, you knew that I had seen it, and it's simply harassment to keep re-adding messages that someone has removed from his talk page. This has come up before at administrators' noticeboards. The only messages that we are not allowed to remove from our talk pages are things like administrators' warnings, especially during a block. Archiving (which I had done in preparation for answering your question) is preferable to removal without archiving, unless the message is vandalism, harassment, or trolling (which yours wasn't). But whether or not you can assume good faith when someone has archived your post and has not responded five minutes later, it is harassment to keep adding it once you know that the person has seen it. You seemed to at least partially recognize that recently, when you reverted yourself on Str1977's talk page after you had restored posts that he had moved to his archive, accusing him of "suppressing" your posts.

Regarding your question about the "forbidden website", which I had not yet had time to respond to, it might seem irrelevant now that it has gone, but the answer is definitely NO. It is not allowed to post links to it, even now after it has gone (as it might be resurrected). I have already pointed out that not all personal information had been removed. You have spoken of that website as if giving that information was just an innocent inadvertent violation of an unknown policy. In fact the editor who was stalked had never given his surname on Wikipedia (although he did on a few occasions give his Christian name), had never posted his photo, and had never linked to his personal website. Also, his personal website had never linked to or mentioned Wikipedia. To have posted that information could not possibly be just an innocent mistake — we "didn't know the rules". It must have taken some fairly determined research by some fairly sinister people. I cannot imagine how you would want to trust them on the grounds that it doesn't contain personal information "now". To me, that seems a bit like a Bishop reassigning a paedophile priest who is "cured". What makes you feel absolutely certain that they wouldn't do it again once they had a lot of websites linking to them? If you're not absolutely certain, do you have the right to decide what risks should be taken when you are not the victim? There was never any indication on the website that they acknowledged that what they had done was wrong, and that they regretted it. They took it down claiming that they didn't want to give Wikipedia any excuse for blacklisting them (although they still gave my personal details). And they claimed that KHM03 had left Wikipedia after his activities had been revealed by them — implying that he had fled because some wrongdoing of his had been exposed, rather than that his wife and family had been threatened, and that his superior had received an extremely inappropriate anonymous message, either from those people or as a direct result of their stalking, and that he did not want a personal hobby to jeopardize his profession and place his family in danger.

The personal information is a reason for blocking anyone who deliberately posts links to it. Obviously some people do so innocently. For example Sparky originally reverted the administrator who had removed that information from his talk page. That's completely different from SimplePilgrim, who joined Wikipedia (under various names) for the purpose of gathering information about other editors and then linking to the website that publicized that information. Sparky, obviously, didn't do anything wrong; it would only become a problem if he kept on posting links after he had been made aware of the problem.

Apart from the personal information, the website contains/contained many innacuracies, which are unlikely to be good-faith errors. That, of course, is not a reason to block people who post links to it, but it is a reason to wonder why you would defend that website. They claim(ed) that they wouldn't publish anything unless the committee unanimously believed it to be true. Yet they claimed that I had blocked Robsteadman, Trollwatcher, HK30, and SimplePilgrim for referring to the site. The block logs would show that that is completely false. I blocked Robsteadman months earlier for a blatant 3RR violation which couldn't possibly have been an accidental fourth revert. (I generally overlook fourth reverts.) I had never encountered him before, and was not involved in editing the article at which he violated the rule. He was never blocked by anyone for referring to that site. I don't believe he was involved in posting links to it. I didn't know anything about the blocking of HK30 or SimplePilgrim until the next day. I had planned to go on a Wikibreak from Good Friday to Easter Sunday. They were blocked by other admins. I blocked Trollwatcher later, as he had been overlooked by the admins who made the decision to block the others, and as there was evidence that he was equally involved. I reported the block to more senior admins (including Jimbo, and a bureaucrat with checkuser privileges), and e-mailed admins who had carried out the original blocks. I later made a full report at an administrators' noticeboard, and the blocks were upheld. There are or were many other false accusations on that website, and no diffs are given. If a genuine Wikipedian (not just one who joined for the purpose of making trouble) believed them to be true, there are appropriate ways of filing complaints, with diffs. As for the claim that I always go on (or pretend to go on) Wikibreak after making controversial blocks, that's just silly. My first Wikibreak was last October, in preparation for exams. I was not an admin then. My second one was in January, while working on assignments. The only blocks I had ever made at that stage were straightforward vandalism blocks. I put a notice on my user and talk pages before the Easter harassment, saying that I was working on assignments. I continued to log on more than I had intended. I was away from home for a week from Easter Monday, after blocking Trollwatcher, but reported the blocks by e-mail to several admins, a bureaucrat, and Jimbo, promising that I would make a full report at the noticeboard in due course, which I did. I have only ever made three blocks that anyone could see as even remotely controversial, and in each case, I reported it at the noticeboard and by private e-mail to senior admins, and was given full support.

Your other question concerns a banned editor who has engaged in real-life stalking of several Wikipedians, posts from various IPs, and is to be blocked and reverted on sight per Jimbo's instructions. That instruction takes precedence over any wish an editor might have to keep his messages on his talk page. See here and here (especially second message). Reverting of his posts is not subject to 3RR. If you want more information, please e-mail me. AnnH ♫ 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm Ann's version of the Easter problems as completely correct and although I have only had minor interactions on the other matter I see no reason to doubt what she says as it makes sense and is backed up by others and what facts I know. You know I am idologically at odds with Ann but I do trust her judgement on this on and anything to do with it. She has been very open, making sure she logged everything and asking for external review - many admins could take a leaf out of her book for how to handle these difficult situations. These banned editors have soured the atmosphere here and added nothing to the encyclopedia. Look at the Christianity article at the moment and see how well the discussions on monotheism have gone - I really cannot accept the univeral accusations of Christian bias. Yes we all suspect we're picked on sometimes and some people do club together but I'm as guilty of that as anyone and rely on my theological opponents to achieve balance in the articles. We all come to this with a POV and can only achieve NPOV by working co-operatively with other views- these banned editors need to grow up and learn how to handle healthy debate. Sophia 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent message, Giovanni. I am aware of that website. A lot of the information has apparently been gathered by searching the web for my name; however I am certainly not the only person of that name living in Ireland, and some of the information has nothing to do with me. Nevertheless, I think it's best just to ignore it, or to deal with it by private e-mail. AnnH ♫ 11:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also prefer that you don't name that website or any similar one. If you tell someone about amazon.com, he can probably figure out how to get there without having been given the http://www part. If you have anything to say about stalking, private e-mail is better than public advertisement. AnnH ♫ 12:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, Giovanni, but I have to remove an entire paragraph from this section, as it places an editor at risk of being harassed in real life. I did not see it at the time that you posted it. Could you please think carefully before you post any references to websites that are contributing towards the stalking problems. For example, if the banned editor Pro-Lick (this is purely hypothetical) has a website www.pro-lick.com where he publicizes FuelWagon's real name and gives information about his phone number, his family, his address, etc. (whether true or false), please do not:

Post links to www.pro-lick.com
Make references to the Pro-Lick dot com website, which will enable people to find it without using a huge amount of intelligence
Announce that Pro-Lick's website has FuelWagon's real name and a lot of other personal information. That means that anyone who googles "Pro-Lick" + "FuelWagon" has a good chance of being able to find it.

Okay, that's purely hypothetical. Pro-Lick, to the best of my knowledge, has not engaged in any kind of harassment. Nevertheless, several editors have been stalked and harassed in real life, as a result of imprudently giving too much information about themselves or of others making very determined efforts to trace their identities. The stalking has included threats of physical violence, sexual harassment, phonecalls and messages to employers, threats to family members, blackmail, letters to newspapers, and more. You are aware of the case of KHM03, but there have been many others, including Linuxbeak, Gator1, Jtdirl, and Katefan0. Some victims left Wikipedia; some are still here. Three things to remember:

If an editor originally posted his real name, and no longer does so, it is not okay to refer to it.
If external websites give personal information about an editor, it is not okay to link to them or to name them, or to announce that they exist and give key words that could be used to search for it.
Most victims of stalking are unlikely to welcome comments or questions posted to their talk pages about their particular case.

I can confirm that in some cases, the information given is inaccurate, as it is simply gathered from the internet by extremely unsavoury individuals who do not have enough background information to know whether a particular "hit" refers to their victim or to someone with the same name. Nevertheless, whether the information is true or false, please do not help to spread it. If ever you want to inform another editor that a website publicizes personal details about him, please use private e-mail.

I'm deleting some versions from your talk page now. Having removed the indiscreet paragraph, I will leave everything else intact. Unfortunately, diffs will be destroyed, as it will seem that I alone (rather than you, I, SOPHIA, King Vegita etc.) added everything since then. Sorry for the inconvenience.

AnnH ♫ 17:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Hitler

I'm in a huge rush so I haven't got time to argue it out but it seems this mono/poly theistic argument mirrors your Hitler was a chatholic one. There they wanted to disregard his baptism and quotes by him because he didn't do what a Catholic was supposed to do - see the analogy? Sophia 09:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Sophia, the squabble is over whether or not Hitler was a "practising" Catholic, when he never went to Mass. No, there's no wish to disregard his baptism. Baptism is not a guarantee that you won't turn into a murderer. Baptism, according to Catholic teaching, places an indelible mark on the soul, which remains, even if you completely abandon your faith. If Hitler had repented of his sins, he would not have needed to be "received into the Church" like an unbaptized person; he would just have needed to go to Confession and perform penance. The problem is that some editors known for their efforts to discredit Christianity are rejecting the standard, traditional, dictionary definition of "practising", and are trying to imply that Hitler, who completely stopped attending Mass and receiving the sacraments, was in some way still a "practising" Catholic, not just a Catholic. Most Protestant religions do not require their members to attend church every Sunday. The Catholic religion does make that requirement — a very serious one, from which you can only be excused through something like illness, distance, the need to look after a sick child, etc. One could argue over what stage you're still a practising Catholic at when you get slightly lax and miss Mass once a month, then miss once a fortnight, then just go when you're at home staying with your parents, then just go at Christmas and Easter. But when you stop going completely (bearing in mind that attendance on Sundays and Holy Days is the first Precept of the Church), only someone with a particular agenda could insist that you're still practising. AnnH ♫ 10:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the analogy works because the argument at the Hitler page was not saying one way or another that he was or was not a practicing Catholic, unless a source actually comes to that conclusion. The argument is to report the facts according the what the sources report, and what is known. What is objected to is to draw a conclusion, interpreting those fact, to assert the statement of fact that "Hitler was therefore not a practicing Catholic." That is original reasearch. And, btw, Hitler did attend mass in his youth when he admired the clergy and had aspirations of being a priest himself.Giovanni33 10:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please show how the drawing of a necessary inference of fact according to the accepted definition of a word qualifies as original research. Thanks.--Shtove 10:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually you just said it for me, except the inferences that are drawn are not "necessary" inferences. They are inferences that are based on a certain understanding of the meaning of the known facts and used to come to a conclusion based on that reasoning. When there is dispute about what the facts mean, when there can be other logical inferneces drawn from an understadning of the meaning of the facts, then its best to leave such inferences up to the readers to decide what the facts mean and just stick to the facts are they are reported by reputable sources.Giovanni33 10:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that he was a practising Catholic when he attended Mass in his youth. The question is whether he was a practising Catholic when he completely stopped attending Mass as an adult. As I said on the Hitler talk page, if we have a source that says that Queen Elizabeth is married to Prince Philip, we can say that he is her husband without having another published source that specifically says that he "is her husband". AnnH ♫ 10:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its fair to say that if a fact states one is married to someone than we can call them husband and wife. This is easy to do because there is no dispute about the meaning of those facts. Infact, its just another way to say the same thing, with no grey areas. Its all or nothing. One is either married or not. One is either pregnant or not. You can't be a little bit pregnant. But, as you yourself acknowelege above, there are degrees with how and what one must do to be a practicing Catholic. You may be right that the degree of Hitlers non practicing Catholicism makes him a non-practicing Catholic in a decisive and absolute manner, but I prefer we do not come to the conclusion on our own unless we have a source that specifically says this. Its much safer to simply state all the facts as we know then, report what the sources say on the quesion and allow readers to decide what it means. We do not need to connect all the dots for them, esp. its not a straight line.Giovanni33 10:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to open a can of worms - I just wanted to show the problems with self definitions. Sophia 00:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Worms should be freed from their cans of imprisonment! hehe I think your insight with both edit conflicts is correct, which explains why the same grouping of editors find themselves on the same opposite sides of the fence on the issue, even though it is not political but understanding of policy.Giovanni33 00:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

[46] You could pretty much get AnnH with WP:CIVIL here. Her comments are "(Rm inappropriate attempt to introduce doubt. BTW, Giovanni, your first edit counts as a revert.) " She decided to bring unrelated issues up on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#King_Vegita_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 so I'm not worried at all if you get her for that. KV 23:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Im too nice, and for sure it will produce a backlash. Besides, as far as her comments go here this is an example of one of her more relatively mild ones. But, thanks for pointing out the noticeboard incident she is reporting against you. I do find that interesting and I do think you are a very good editor so I'll leave my own comments.Giovanni33 00:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

External Links being Suppressed

These two links, below, are being removed from the article God. I bring it to my own talk page to bring attention to this issue as its being removed by AnnH and Timmothy. Ofcourse, I oppose the censoring of this valid POV, which centers on the central philosophical questions involved in an intellectual conception of God---one examines its internally and externally consistency and rationality. This is central to the ideas and debates surrounding the question of conceptions of God, no matter what is ones POV. I feel this is being removed simply because of its non-religious premise and method, i.e. it measures conceptions against standards of science (known laws), and against logic and rationality (many Christian thinkers reject this appraoch). These secular, humanists and philophoical links are particularly effective in demonstrating these POV as it is interactive allowing the user to play over and over, coming up with differnet answers, which also yeild different analysis, according to the above criteria. I note the analysis and feedback is very informative and as well as accessable. It has the effect of allowing the reader a deeper understanding of the philosophical questions involved in the notions of God.

I do abide by the 3RR rule so I can not restore it now, but I urge other editors to oppose the censoring of these links, by restoring them.

Philosophical issues involved in conceptions of God. Test the rational consistency of your thinking.

Giovanni33 01:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The objections are that its not "scholarly," and not "encylopedic." But, in the external links section there is no requirement for only "schoarly soucres that state the points." There is no rule that the POV can not be presented in a novel manner, as long as it does a good job as doing so. This cite is of quality and does that. For an article, yes, in the text it must say "noted philospher so-and-so says...", but not for an external link. I see many links that are not "encylopedic" in that they push a POV. But that is supposed to be fine as long as they are relvant and clear in their purpose, as well as informative adhering to quality standards.

AnnH, said that she opposed it because, "You describe the "create your own God" as "fast, easy, and fun" when linking to that website from your own user page. Hardly something that belongs in a mainspace article." But I say, why not? It is fast, easy and fun (for me),true, but is also informative and relevant to the topic at hand. Most of the same ideas and concepts can be found here, for example, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ however, this just does it in a more novel, interactive way that does make it more interesting, more fun, and more accessable. I don't see why this means it does not belong as an external link.Giovanni33 11:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There are no more response, no further participation on the talk page, however its reverted as soon as I replace it. I bring it there to get others feedback as I think this link is good enough to be allowed to stand for the value it offers in understanding the philosophical issues involved in the conception of God(s0. The plane text version in the encylopedia of philosophy, for examples, does cover the same ideas but I feel more readers will enjoy an interactive presentation. Why is this objected to when its simply the same ideas presented in a more accessable manner? I guess the next step is to go to mediation.Giovanni33 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I opened up a Rfc (request for comment) in the religion and philosphy request page. This should bring more editors interested in the subject, and thus correct the current bias--or convince me that I'm wrong. I want to get other editors involved before MikaM and Kecik and others show up to support me, as they usually do, which only invites the whole socket-puppet accusations all over again, esp. by Timothy. I guess they are taking wiki-breaks now (let the fact that they have not come to my aid be further evidence that they are not my socketpuppets).Giovanni33 07:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I spoke too soon, and as predicted: [47], [48] and [49]Giovanni33 10:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks against you

do you think it is worth taking this a step towards ArbCom? I think it is getting out of hand and makes Wikipedia a more and more unfriendly place. If you do you will have my support. Agathoclea 08:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Agathoclea for your words of support. I am hoping he will stop on his own accord soon. I do agree that its contrary to the kind of welcoming and amicable atmosphere we should be trying to cultivate. Timothy has to realize that no matter how sure and without doubt his personal beliefs are, he has a responsiblity to realize that this personal faith is not enough to allow him to state as facts charges against other editors, and esp. not in a way that is disruptive (on talk pages, and over and over again). If he persists in being uncivil, making more personal attacks, and assuming bad faith, I will be interested in escalating the matter in the interests of maintaining an overall positive wiki-culture. People can always disagree, but we must not cross over the line into unacceptable uncivil behavior; one of the great things about Wikipedia is that this is a line of demarkation that separates it from most of the internet where people disagree among each other. Giovanni33 12:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, if it can stop any other way it is better than having to go official ways. Sometimes ignoring it can help - he can be wound up by certain responses, and that does not help the situation either. Agathoclea 21:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Rather not name in header. Agathoclea 07:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Remove if you wish, but you did request it

		The Exceptional Parrot Award
		I award this cracker to Giovanni33 for being the most exasperating and original parrot at the Adolf Hitler talk page. (See [50] [51] and [52]) AnnH ♫ 12:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's my first award and I will keep it. Thanks.Giovanni33 12:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 3hr

You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at how Timothy did the very thing he is complaining that I did but much worse: He removed from my own comments in my own defense, restoring what he wants to put in my mouth. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2F3RR&diff=56094703&oldid=56094120 This is not the first time, either. Now I have 3 hours to go and read my book.Giovanni33 09:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, you know that's not true. You posted, I responded, and then you changed your original post, so as to leave my response referring to nothing. That's not legit. If you've something to retract, retract it, don't blank it. It's unfair to editors who've already responded.Timothy Usher 09:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is true. Its my own comments that I said I retarcted and gave an explantion for. In its place I added a brand new issue, the issue of me making a self-revert (which you ignored). What you did was not issue a strike and correct what you think I changed in my own words for my own comments you deleted my new point in whole as if to hide this salient point in my defense. That is not legit. Expect me to correct this in 3 hours.Giovanni33 09:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, start an edit war on WP:ANI/3RR immediately upon the expiration of your block. That makes sense.

Why not just post another edit making the points you wish you'd made the first time around, and correcting the perceived mistakes of others? What compels you to alter the existing record? I just don't get it.Timothy Usher 09:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I am correcting what I said, and they are my words. You have no right to delete others comments to in effect hide them. Write your own response, dont delete commments by others. I also notice that Humus told you to restore your text but to also restore my text, i.e. dont delete my text on the God Talk page. But I see you have ignored this request and continued to only present your own text (which is false) as a title, and have not restored my own more accurate title.Giovanni33 09:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

For once I have to argree with Timothy. You would be better of striking comments you wish to retract and then add your further explanition. So anybody without prior knowledge of events can follow the argument. That way you don't open yourself up to - justified or not - attacks. Agathoclea 13:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Im not opposed to sriking comments. Im just not familiar with how to do that and never used it before. So what I did instead was respond to the part he quoted, which I left intact, but I also make a new point that I added to my response. Timothy simply deleted my new comment, which is what I protest. If he wanted to correct it he could have simply striked the line that I retracted but left intact my new comment, and respond to it as well, if he wanted to.Giovanni33 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

True, but your getting things right in the first place gives you the better position to shout at the other parties errors. What I am saying is: get it perfect yourself, so that no-one can attack you on what you do. Agathoclea 14:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Gio, I think Ag is very right. There will always be people who do slimy things, but unless you can defend yourself in advance by doing everything perfectly, you will be in a position where you cannot complain about their actions. I speak from personal experience, as I've been blocked for innocent errors on more than one occasion. Al 15:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree. I'll start using the striking method (except in cases of spelling correction), as soon as I figure out where that tool is located.Giovanni33 15:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Forget tools; it's straight HTML. All you need to do is insert <s> before the text you want stricken, and add </s> after. I escaped this out, but here's an example of ~~stuff stricken out~~. Clear enough? Al 16:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, now I know. ~~Test.~~ Thanks.Giovanni33 19:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Giovanni33. I'd like to reiterateWP:TPG#Behavior that is unacceptable on Wikipedia: Don't misrepresent other people: As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc, please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Certainly don't edit someone's words to change their meaning. If you have question or need help, there is WP:HD, WP:HELP, etc. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Humus. Thanks. However, you have it completely wrong. I don't do what you are suggesting, infact I'm protesting exactly this issue being done to my comments, specifically by Timothy. I have only corrected my own words and comments, not those of others. If I sign my name to something I'd like to reserve the right to alter or fix grammar errors, etc. I now will use the strike feature when making changes to my comments, since I now know how to do that. My objection is that Timothy has have done exactly what you are warning me on my talk page not to do. That is, to remove or change what I wrote, often deleteing my new comments I added to my own comments and thus misrepresents what I said. This is very rude, and uncivil, inkeeping with his other personal attacks against me and other editors. I ask you to please review the facts in this case before accepting Timothy's false characterizations above. Specifcally on the God article you informed Timothy, when he asked, that he could restore to his version (the bad math), but that he should not delete my comments. [53] But that is not what he did. He deleted my comments and restored only his. [54] So, all I did was add a new line back with my correct math, but left his untouched. For this I am supposedly very distruptive? I think not. Giovanni33 09:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, here are just a couple of examples. There are others but I don't want to waste my time searching for them. As you can see below, he moves my comments around to areas where its not clear what I'm responding to. Timothy removes a response to his false argument on the Hitler talk page, where I corrected him. Then, under the guise of 'tabbing for chonological order" he moves my comments way down, totally out of place, that makes it unclear who I am responding to, lumping it together with another comment I made. In another instance, most recently, he changed additions I made to my own comments, not simply to restor what I removed (which he copied and responded to), but he deleted my own comments adding new information, including a link, proving a point. So, your warning to me should be directed at Timothy, not myself. See:[55] [56] [57] [58]Giovanni33 09:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid AFD

You may want to check out a few related afds on Apartheid (disambiguation), Sexual apartheid, Global apartheid and Gender apartheid.Homey 14:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Bhadani has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

--Bhadani 08:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Revolution

If you only objected to the number, you'd take the figure out but leave the last sentance about how most of the democide deaths in China under PRC rule occured during the CR. Why don't you put that back in? John Smith's 22:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont object to the number without doing some study on the topic. I only object to the number being based on a reference from another Wikipedia article. That's not allowed. I want you to get a better source and find the academic consensus for the number among experts in the field, and report that with attribution to the qualified source. I'd do it but I'm a bit busy at the moment.Giovanni33 22:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can get the info linked in later on in the week. It's on his site. John Smith's 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, wiki does not prohibit links to blogs. Rummel has published research on democide before - in proper articles, not just on his site or blog. He's also a real academic, not some political analyst or whatever. The blog link is valid in my opinion because he was using it as a means to notify people that he was updating his figures. Academics don't have the time and money to re-publish all their works when they want to rejig some figures. I did make another edit to start the sentance to say "R.J. Rummel...........", so people won't think it's a widely accepted figure or something. John Smith's 15:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Mao

Please change it to:

"Chang was unable to go to university once the Cultural Revolution had started due to the disruption of the university system by the Red Guards. Instead she spent several years as a barefoot doctor (a part-time peasant doctor), a steelworker and an electrician, though she received no formal training because of Mao's policy, which did not put importance on formal academic education as a prerequisite for such professions."

"Require" makes it sounds like it was the fault of the employers. The policy said one should just go out and work. I'd do it, but I might break the 3RR rule. Really it sounds better with such a change. John Smith's 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it was the fault of employers (the govt), since it was policy not to require it. They were govt. programs. It was simply the policy, a type of work-study program that Mao launched under his Socialist Education Movement (1962-65), that reformed of the school system, planned to coincide with the Great Leap Forward. It had the dual purpose of providing mass education less expensively than previously and encouraging intellectuals and scholars to accept the need for their own participation in manual labor, as part of the party's rectification campaign, publicized through the mass media as an effort to remove "bourgeois" influences from professional workers--particularly, their tendency to have greater regard for their own specialized fields than for the goals of the revolution, as Mao saw it. The goal of breaking down the division between mental and manual labor, highly pronounced in China, an emphasis of pratical work experience, combatting practice of making absract theory divorced from it, was were at the center of policies, not a 'distain for education." Mao viewed rural development as an introduction of new ideas, techniques, and technologies for the purpose of transforming political, social, and economic life. Rural development, thus, becomes an educational venture. Mao believed that educational programs should be suited to local felt needs and he stressed innovative and experimental approaches. Ofcourse both these possitions are POV's held by China historians, and Wikipedia should not take a side in these debates. It certainly should not state a very simplistic view (Mao hated education) as a fact, which is what the article said when I encoutered it. After my changed you just reverted, instead of improving it.

Also, its true that the Universities were certainly distrupted for a period during the CR, but I also question the fact that due to this Chang was not able to attend the University. I think it just made more sense from an educational and opportunity sense (along with a smart political move) to participate in these country-side movements. Giovanni33 22:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mao: The Unknown Story

First of all people have previously decided the "controverial" statement isn't necessary, as the book's main criticisms is its style. You can say almost anything on Mao, or many polticial topics, is "controversial". People can see that parts of the book are disputed by reading the "debate" section.

Second you rv other edits which are actually quite good. This is very lazy, so please stop doing it. Third it's unnecessary to say there was famine during the GLF, as it's mentioned already. John Smith's 22:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, I disagree and you actually are doing what you accuse me of. You were making blind reverts to my edits instead of fixing or addressing the objections you had. The controversial nature of the book is not only its style. That is hardly even a point of controversy. Rather its the unreliable and unverifiable nature of the sources that the author uses, which other historians have pointed out, and which the article itself mentions. The claims by the author are in the minority, and most historians dispute many of her central claims. Stating the book is controverisal, thus, is entirely appropriate. Also, shoudn't all this discussion take place on the articles talk page?Giovanni33 22:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Sorry about that. I forgot about my edits last night, so I'll give it a rest for now. I hope the edits I made were satisfactory, as were the reasons given a little further up this page. John Smith's 17:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

User talk:SlimVirgin

Hi. It may not be clear to you, but your edits at User talk:SlimVirgin are making you look like someone who is more interested in playing a silly game, or just taunting someone, than any genuine attempt at communication. You've made your point, edit warring over it is only going to convince people that it should be disregarded. Jkelly 17:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think standing up for a valid principal such as being against censorship of others views is a silly game. Its very important to me. And, other editors on the page, including those who are big SV supporters, agree. Also, I am not taunting. When I gave up on answering someone with my own assessment of the situation which was being reverted as I guess it could be interpreted to be presenting a negative assessement of SV's leaving (which I stand by), I then simply wanted to endorse the comment that the talk page is of limited value because of the censoring. But, it was removed! Note that there is no way to even possibly interpret this comment as any kind of taunt. I feel this is blatant and unjust censorship, which I disdain. My message, which is being censored:

"I stated my view, responding to your comment below about when I think for sure SV will be back in full action but it was suppressed and reverted. I asked why but there was no answer, just another revert. This underscores the message of this section in regards to silencing any voices, opinions that state a view with commentary that can be interpreted as negative. I don't have any agenda as im not anti or pro SV, but I do have a view on the incident. Its sad that not all views are tolerated, and does make this talk page of limited value as a result. This comment will probably be removed as well per the pattern. If you support my view, Bhandani, I hope you will restore this if and when its removed. Giovanni33 17:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC) [59]Giovanni33 17:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest, as gently as possible and making no judgements on your actual character, that your insistance that your opinions be rendered at User talk:SlimVirgin can easily be interpreted as kind-of obnoxious. If your goal is to "stand up against censorship", Wikipedia User pages aren't really the right venue for it. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, on the other hand, can always use donations, and I recommend them unreservedly. Jkelly 18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I donated to them, but this is a bit of a red-herring on your part. I disagree with your implication, however, that its not correct to stand up against censorship anywhere at anytime it rears its ugly head. What is unjust is unjust is unjust-- no matter how insignifiant the actual message is, or where it happens to occur. Its a matter of principal and thus should not be compromised. Of all places, Wikipedia should not be a place that tolerates this kind of blatent and unjust censorship. I see you do not give an argument to justifying it, either. Unlike you, I think this very seriously and intend to make a big deal about it. Again, it the principal of the matter.Giovanni33 18:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're trying to point me at the "principal (sic) of the matter", which I suggest is that you feel is that your opinion needs to be rendered anywhere that you can edit, and anyone disagreeing with that is engaging in censorship. You're conflating your software-enabled ability to edit pages here with a citizen's ability to publish or pronounce views without government interference. This is not only a profound confusion about why there is software in place to allow people to edit webpages here, it borders on trivialising the efforts of people who are resisting government suppression of free speech. Jkelly 18:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my opinion. I do not call that censorship. Never have. So you have created a red herring. Infact, I welcome disagreement and think it’s healthy. Censorship is the control of any of a number of forms expression, and communication, of controlling perceptions by excluding ideas--no matter the motive and no matter whoever the agents happen to be doing the suppression and control. Censorship is counted as attempts to suppress points of view, including by relegating open discourse to marginal forums, and by preventing other ideas from obtaining a receptive audience. When my perfectly sensible comments endorsing a POV that is expressed on the page about the subject matter is removed that is blatant censorship. If the other editor disagreed with my comment, then let their voiced be heard, but don't silence those of others.

I agree this has nothing to do with the government but this is another straw man you created, as I never said it did. I'm not the one confused about it; you are the one that pointed me to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization I've volunteered for btw. No, this is a problem for Wikipedia, which is an online community dedicated to building an encyclopedia. I know Wikipedida is not a democracy, but neither it is a dictatorship, where administrators get to pick and choose to censor views they don't agree with. You might that is ok but I find it utterly repulsive and inimical to the goals, spirit and culture of a healthy Wikipedia. If you look at the values of both democracies and dictatorships, Wikipedia shares the values of the former, not the latter. Again, maybe you disagree in which case I intend to fight you about it. Censorship has no place here, including even self-censorship, provided it’s within the guidelines of NPA and Civility. To censor and suppress my comments without just cause is counter to the values and principals of Wikipedia. Again, so far you have failed to come up with a valid argument for your defense of this disturbing practice.Giovanni33 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that what I've failed to do is to communicate, in a way that makes sense to you, that your behaviour has been objectionable, that editing here is a privelege and not a right, that any edit you make here may be undone, and that you are going to continuously be frustrated if you think that your governance analogies are any more applicable here than they are at Enyclopedia Brittanica or CNN.com. Your hand-waving about "repulsiveness", "straw man" and "administrators" are all attempts to transform this conversation into an emotionally-laden debate of no use to anyone. The user whose Talk page you are posting to has removed your message. Don't continue to re-post it. Jkelly 19:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that you have not communicated well, the problem is that you have used logical fallacies to support your arguments, as I pointed out so they fail and should not be accepted by anyone. Now you make more with false analogy, to Encyclopedia Britannica or CNN.com? I don't think I need to point out the differences, but using the analogy I'd hope that a comprable situation of blatant and unjust censorship by these organzations towards its staff would meet with vocal protests, as well. Even if they don't for some reason this is not a logical argument why its right.

You state that my behavior has been objectionable, however you failed provide the reasons for why you object, nor the particular behavior that you object to and support your objection with an argument. The fact that you object is not interesting unless you provide a logical explanation of your rationale. Also, if you object to the fact that I restored my censored comments after they were removed, this is besides the point of the actual (which is why is it being censored), so you are only resorting to yet another red herring. You say that editing here is a privilege not a right. Again, another straw man--have I ever argued this point? Its irrevlevant to the issue. You state that any edits can be undone. Yes, I know that. Another straw-man/red-herring! It’s beside the point! The point is in the particular edit, which is being deleting, in effect censored, and how this is justified in this particular case. Its clear you at least have no argument to make hence your resorting to these non-arguments now just an order. Does might make right? I see this as a very serious problem when we have admins getting together for the sole purpose of censoring a POV without any attempt even at explanation or just cause for this behavior. It’s a very serious problem with admins feel they can do what they want without recourse to the rules, spirit, or guidelines of Wikipedia. Lastly, this is a matter of principal first and foremost and I will pursue this abuse in the appropriate manner.Giovanni33 19:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Non/arguments and user talk pages

Hi. A user talk page is used to communicate with that user. It could also be used as a platform for conspiratorial speculations which paint that user in a negative light and which are phrased in 3rd-person, or whatever. But, if that user is uninterested in having a particular comment displayed, removal of these remains at their discretion. For example, if you were to remove this comment, I would simply refractor it on my own talk page, citing the diffs (although as an admin warning notice, it is at my discretion whether it stays or not, but just as an example of how to normally approach others who may be uninterested in displaying your comments on their talk pages). Please do not misuse user talk pages in a forceful and imposing way. Within reason, you may use your own (uncensored or otherwise) talk page to document these sort of rejections. Thanks. El_C 08:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately, Giovanni, the issue isn't one of censorship, but one of ownership of user space. It crosscuts the traditional censorship paradigm. The most salient example, userboxes. If WP expectations apply to user space, than most userboxes must go, along with a whole lot of other extraneous things. One might say, well, my user page is mostly mine, my talk page must follow the regular protocol, and maybe that's the right solution, but it's still just one solution to an unresolved problem.Timothy Usher 09:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well at least both of you have make a logical argument unlike Jkelly, and resolved this irritating issue to my satifaction. I learn something new everyday with the rules of Wikipedia. Now I know I can delete comments of those I don't like provided they are not Admin warnings. Hmmmm...But no, I think that is dishonet as it paints a false/one-sided picture of issues involving myself, and I have nothing to hide. My view of those that do practice this type of legal censoring is not favorable.Giovanni33 14:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am very much for the application of WP rules to user space - as you know, I do allow all sorts of complaints to be posted on my talk page, and look dimly upon the practice of removing all but the most outrageous posts - essentially, the same things we'd be justified in removing from article talk space. So, you can remove commants if you like, WP policy sadly allows it, but I urge you not to - instead, I invite you to take a stand on principle in the only way, it seems, that you're allowed.Timothy Usher 00:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's talk page

Giovanni, you're not doing any good to your own reputation here by trolling at SlimVirgin's talk page. All decent Wikipedians are revolted by people who engage in stalking and harassment, who try to find out and publicize the private details of other editors, who send threatening messages, engage in blackmail, contact their employers, etc. You don't know the full background of what has been happening to several administrators and a few editors, and I have no intention of giving you details, given the complete disregard you have shown towards victims of harassment so far, defending a website that published the name and photo of someone who had never given those details himself, defending an editor who repeatedly restored the link to that site when told not to, urging that people be allowed to link to that site when it had removed one editor's details even though it still engaged in stalking and gave the real name of anther editor, posting a link to a site that revealed personal details about an editor to my talk page, reverting me when I tried to remove it, posting it on another page when I protected my talk page, posting it back on my talk page when I had finished deleting my talk page and that of the other editor, instead of simply waiting a few minutes to give me time to answer you, then posting the name of the site (without the URL) and the name of the editor whose personal information it gave (enabling curious people to find it through Google), etc. I have had to waste more time deleting and partially restoring pages because of you and your indiscreet behaviour than because of any other editor who escaped blocking.

In addition to that, you have a tendency to troll at people's talk pages, when you know that they don't want your messages. Now there's no reason to be deterred from sending a genuine message just because you know it won't be gladly received. But when you start making a running commentary about something you know nothing about (especially when it involves your flippant remarks about female editors who are being stalked and harassed in real life), or restoring messages that an editor has removed, it crosses the line from mildly irritating to unacceptable. If you know that someone doesn't want your comments at his or her talk page, then just leave that person alone. You'll notice that I don't jump in to your talk page to make a comment about you (such as "he always does that") when you're having a disagreement with another editor. Since I don't count you as one of my "buddies", I use your talk page only when I have something I want to say to you. I recall that you even reverted Str1977's archiving of his own talk page. He moved several comments to Archive4 at 10:04 on 12 May,[60] and you came along at 03:53 on 13 May and put all those posts back into his talk page, accusing him of "suppressing" your edits.[61]

We're supposed to assume good faith, but to believe that you didn't intend any of your recent posts at SlimVirgin's talk page as taunting would require Hanlon's razor, which I think you probably wouldn't find very flattering. You say you weren't taunting. In that case, I'm afraid you were being extremely tactless — [62][63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. In the second last one, you were so determined that your negative running commentary about an editor you don't know, who has been the victim of things you know nothing about must not be suppressed that you even reverted a genuine question that Kim Bruning had for her.

With regard to SlimVirgin's departure, you have admitted on her talk page that you haven't had any interaction with her, and you don't know if the negative remarks are true or false. It seems fairly certain that you know little or nothing of the background of the harassment that she is dealing with or of the enormous help and support that she has given to other editors who were threatened with or enduring real life stalking, but that you nevertheless have an opinion that you want to be allowed to publicize throughout Wikipedia. I do know something of the background, and I also have an opinion. Regardless of which of us is right, how can you think it will possibly help her to have her talk page filled up with stuff about how she doesn't really intend to leave, it's just a publicity stunt, she's just doing it for emotional impact, her edit to her talk page is just a baby step on her way to returning to article edits, she won't admit it but she's coming back, and if you're wrong you'll convert and be a good Christian? Whether she's a spoilt brat looking trying to make an effect, or a victim of worse stalking than that which KHM03 endured, it can only make it more difficult for her to come back when she sees all that gratuitous commentary about how she's only pretending to leave. If you're not doing it on purpose, then you're obviously not capable of judging your own posts, so it's better for you to stay away from her page.

Regarding your censorship claim, that's nonsense. Several of your trolling posts were left in place, and then SlimVirgin decided that enough was enough, and deleted them — well within her rights. Nobody is obliged to keep a running commentary on her secret motives on her talk page. You say that you asked why your post was deleted, and your question was deleted as well. That's not quite true. You reverted her on her own talk page (as you did with Str1977 when he was archiving and as you did with me when I was trying to remove personal information), asking in the edit summary why your post was deleted.[76] If you had posted a genuine question saying that you didn't have any intention of offending or upsetting anyone, and you'd like to know why she deleted it, she probably wouldn't have deleted the question. She may also have seen your posts elsewhere, where you commend someone who, with no prior consultation, invited back two users who continue to abuse her. One of them, less than two days ago, gathered information about her and uploaded it onto another site, and I spent a long time yesterday trying to remove references to it from Wikipedia (along with references to my identity, and the identity of another Wikipedian who left recently and has had blackmailing messages, thanks to stuff which the two banned editors could have removed but didn't).

You're annoying a lot of administrators. Given your history at Wikipedia, it's not a good idea. I had an e-mail from an administrator last night. I'm not saying who it is, but it's not one of my personal buddies, and I doubt if you'd even know the name. It was an e-mail about something else, sent to me and several other admins, and at the end, he just casually referred to "SV's personal troll, Giovanni33", without even knowing of my experience with you.

As to why I removed your post, I did so because you had been posting obnoxious messages for days, giving a running commentary on the secret intentions of someone you don't know and concerning a situation with which you are not familiar, taunting someone who was dealing with utterly despicable abuse outside of Wikipedia (but related to Wikipedia), because SlimVirgin had made it obvious that she did not want them, and because I thought her right not to be taunted and harassed on her own talk page (in addition to the problems she has outside of that) was more important than your right to have a wide audience for your insight into the situation.

Please use talk pages for communication with the editors whose talk pages you are on, not for running commentary on their secret thoughts, or for flippant remarks about stalkers and their victims. I note that you said here that you didn't have time to find a particular source; yet you have found the time to post seven harassing messages to SlimVirgin since then.

AnnH ♫ 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Any time my man.

KV(Talk) 04:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!

Hey, Giovanni33! I noticed the barnstar that you placed on my user page, and I'm going to put it right into my barnstar page :-) Thanks a lot! Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:SV

Hello. This has reference to your message, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bhadani#Censorship_at_SV.27s_talk_page. However, I would not like to comment further to precipate the issue. Regards. Cheers! --Bhadani 14:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's Religious Beliefs Merger

Hi there -- I'm the guy that merged the content from Hitler's Relgious Beliefs. Well, it's not so much that I merged the content, more that I noticed that the content was word for word identical, and as there was no discussion on the talk page, I merged them. If this wasn't the right thing to do, let me know. Otherwise, good look getting it NPOV! Themillofkeytone 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please try and keep a cool head! This is not about what content is the "correct" content. This is merely a discussion about where the content should be located. If we want it as a separate page, then we should summarize and let it be a separate page, and we can discuss and NPOV it there. If not, we should change that page to a redirect and keep the content on the Hitler page. Personally, I think the Hitler article is getting a bit long, so I think we should have the separate article, at least for now. That way, the discussion you two are having can be focused on a talk page specifically designed for it, and other Hitler issues can be discussed on the main talk page. Themillofkeytone 17:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes in policy suggested

After my experience with the case of Dabljuh, where you made a comment I found helpful, I suggested some changes to the policies and asked to enforce those we already have: [77] [78] Socafan 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Wikibofh_(talk) 16:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Upgraded to 1 week for use of sockpuppet User:Professor33. Wikibofh_(talk) 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats nonsense! The Professor is not my socketpuppet. I've NEVER had a socketpuppet--ever. I don't even know the professor. I demand to see know who did the usercheck because whoever makes this claim is liar. I have a good educated guess who is behind these falsehoods. I don't mind if I'm falsely accused (I understand their motivations and getting used to it) but its entirely a different matter for me when innocent people are hurt as a result of falsehoods. It clear that such people are on here are rather dispicable on an ethical level. It's a new low. Unless such "extremely strong" evidence is produced which would establish some possible good faith interpretation for the mistake of what has been done to Professor33, I hereby ban MusicalLinguist from my talk page (the only power that I have on Wikipedia) I do so with regret for I am a firm believer in giving her all the rope she chooses to take, as the truth comes out eventually despite the lies (the sloppy thinking that revealed in defending them). But, when it comes to hurting other innocent users, I have bann you for one year form my talk page unless you apologize and promise to reform yourself. This is largly symoblic, like the many city councils who have passed relolutions supporting the impeachment of George Bush, and declaring the Patriot Act unconstitutional. Its my own symbolic edict: Ban for one year effective today unless evidence showing a real possible good faith mistake is provided. Giovanni33 03:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Concering 3RR, think I only violated this once or twice many months ago, in the very beggining. Everyone knows Im very careful to follow this rule, and I never revert without first explaing myself on the talk page, unlike my opponents. I also note that there is a clear double standard in effect. I make one accidental 4th revert within 24 hours in which I would have gladly reverted myself had I known, and I get blocked. Yet, when my opponents do the same, repeatedly, while claiming it was accidental each time (Musical Linguist/AnnH), and is reported by other editors, she does not get blocked as a result. I have also never reported them for their numerous violations when they revert 4 times within 24 hours, but instead simply issue them a warning and a chance for them to self-revert. I guess that has changed now. So next time I will simply report (not that the 3RR rule is enforced equally anway).Giovanni33 04:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

my e-mail to blocking admins

Hi. I had a long chat on IRC and it was recommended that send an e-mails to the blocking admin. Since I see that you have taken actions against the Professor, and that he may not know about IRC or how to use e-mail, I thought to inform you that the block based on "socketpuppet" is based on a false conclusion.

I will assume that you have made an honest mistake. I admit that I accidently violated the 3RR rule, for which I gladly accept punishment for, however I do not have any socket-puppets and you should know that. Infact I never did despite AnnH's contanstly repeating it everywhere I go adnauseum. It her way to poison the well. Ok, not everywhere I go, just on articles where there is an edit conflict (of religious nature, ofcourse). Everytime she will bring in the story of my past when I first joined and had my wife particpate too. Btw, I offered to prove many times that my wife, is really my wife. That her name BelindaGong is really her real name. Just as my name is really Giovanni. I have nothing to hide and I still will fax a copy of my ID/Drivers license and hers to prove my innocence. Ofcourse this is ignored since its serves her puprose to say I am a liar and she is me, my socketpuppet. I will be willing to prove to you, if you feel this would help to un-poison the well, so to speak. Freethinker is my only friend I ever introduced to Wikipedia. Contrary to what AnnH says, he did not support my version. He had a moderating middle ground but was banned when I openly disclosed our connection. I thought telling the truth was a good thing?

Anycase, the Professor33 is not known to me in real life. I know the 33 on the end makes it look funny but 33 is a common number. Other admins on IRC agreed with this point. I also know MusicalLinguist will make her usual claims, which she has always done about ANYONE and EVRYONE that has ever supported my POV since I've been here. She has been proven wrong before many times and her arguments are full of holes, esp. "extremely strong linguistic evidence!" hehe Infact, i've seen exmples of this and she is no linguist. She is a student and doesnt even have a degree in it yet. Her arguments are laughable. Note I said, "hehe." Well to her that is proof that Im several different users! Infact everyday I'm finding new users who by this logic must be me!

I also agree that the Professor does share my POV and has supported me, but I don't see anyone blocking editors who share her POV and support her. She shows up anytime Str1977 needs support for an edit confict. I mean 100% of the time (whenver there is an edit confict they will both be there to support each other without exception). Heaven forbid if I have develop a friendship in a similar with with an editor who shares my POV. What horror! I write you not so much because I'm blocked a week now, although this is not fair, but because I've seen that the Professor is banned. I should have warned him not to put himself in danger with ML on my back the way she has been for so many months. He would only get hurt. I urge you to give the Professor the benefit of the doubt and consider the circumstancial nature of the evidence, which should not be strong enough to justify a ban. He is a good user and I know for a fact that he is completely innocent. AnnH and her buddies must be very happpy about this, and know he's not me, but I do think your actions are a matter of simply making an honest mistake.

Anyway, if you are a buddy of AnnH, you will celebrate with her as having a victory in getting rid of another good editor who must "hate Christianity" because he is not a believer. She actually looks at this question in terms of editors being her friends or enemies. I guess from a religious POV we are evil and going to hell so it makes sense. I don't share that perspective, ofcourse. But if you are not one of her devout friends then I hope you will consider that Professor33 is posssibly, just possibly innocent here. And if you think its bad to punish a user who is innocent then maybe you will feel bad that you could be wrong. I swear I am a different person. Surely there is a way to prove it. Can we do a user check, or something?

Thanks. Giovanni Giovanni33 06:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio - has a checkuser been done? If not I will log one for you. As you rightly say, just sharing a POV is not a reason to think you are a sock and I do see many checkusers come back negative so people do make mistakes. We should have the facts before bans are put in place. Sophia 07:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Sophia. Yes, I would welcome a user check. My understanding is that none has been done, although if I look here, it looks like a user check was done that clear me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Sockpuppet_block_of_User:Professor33). The admin, Kelly Martin, has user check abilities. She indicated she has also reviewed the other purported evidence and considers it weak. She strongly recommends that an apology be issued and the block be lifted. I could not agree more. I wish to thank for these laudible comments. The block and action was based on secret evidence that MusicalLinguist says she has but won't reveal it publicly. So those who trust her (even though she is in directly edit conflict with me and Professor over Early Christianity where this stems from. The evidence, she claims is liguistic, since she claims to be an authority on the matter and thus knows best. I have not been impressed with her liguistic abliities, and needless to say, any evidence should be make available if it is to be accepted and acted upon with such harsh and finale consequences as banning a good user who never broke a single rule even once. I feel terrible about what happened to Professor33 since I could have warned him but didn't. This makes me partly at fault. I knew he would be targed given his clashing with the usual folks. Note too all editor: Do not support my POV and clash with my opponents until you at least have 2,000 edits under your belt in other articles in which I never edited. Otherwise, you will be targed and run a great risk of very likely being banned, even on "secret" evidence that you will never see. Lets not let this happen again!Giovanni33 07:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

StormRider

p.s. On an unrelated manner I wanted to say that I also fully support StormRider for adminship. I can't edit on your page or his other supporters to comment as I'm banned for a week, but count me in for those who think he'd make a great admin/editor. I have always found him very open minded, and thoughtful, to a degree that is completely uncharacteristic of the other editors whose POV I differ with. So while I don't think he is always correct, StormRider is ok with this and agrees to disagree, acknowlegding the legitimate differences of opinion. The best part is that he is nonetheless very respectful and always looking for constructive moving forward types of actions that help to mend differences in service of the goals and mission of wikipedia team building. I've always known him to be very fair and honest, even in regards to those he doesn't agree with (such as myself), and even when I state POV's that others would would find offensive. He is certainly no reactionary. Feel free to pass on my support for Storm, and those who are considering nominating him.Giovanni33 08:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

back to the false accusations

as is expected my detractors will join forces to make the case that the evidence is without doubt here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Sockpuppet_block_of_User:Professor33

While they will sound so sure, their refual to enterain the possiblity that their wrong, to possibly entrtain any doubt is characteristic dogmatism. However, if this secret evidence is as clear as they say it is, then it's very unfortunate thing that that the evidence is so clear, esp. when I know the conclusions drawn from it are 100% false. This is bad because I know he is innocent yet the evidence, at least according to them, is makes him (and me) look guilty. I suppose that is quite possible, although I find it hightly unlikely given the characters who are making thsese claims, given their past history in making such claims using poor thinking in doing so. So I can only hope that their powers of observation, of critical thinking, and making valid conclusions based on a critical examination of the evidence has remained very poor. This way there will be some hope that others with sharper minds for these kinds of things will come to opposite conclusions. I am happy to note that another admins has done just this already. I hope others join and see the truth of the matter despite the false appearances to the contrary.

As predicted, AnnH is already at work to defend her expertise being used here to punish an innocent. She again states, that there is "extremely strong linguistic evidence, combined with the fact the we know that Giovanni has a record of using puppets," As to the first point I can not asertain that as its kept secret. Secret evidence is not accepted in democratic societies for good reason: its prone to abuse. This is a case in point. She says, "Deskana and some other admins are also aware of it." Yet, Deskana just told me that he is fine if another admin decides to unblock.

AnnH says, "When he first arrived at Wikipedia, he did not know about userchecks. Now that he does know (having been caught out after putting on a pretence of not knowing BelindaGong...he is unlikely to make that particular mistake again." This is interesting becaues as I've stated above, BelindaGong is not a socketpuppet, which I've still offered to prove. All this showed was that I have a significant other who lives with me and shares my IP. Yes, I did not disclose this as I felt it was my right to keep it private. I do not feel this is wrong and I respect others who choose the same. If BelindaGone was my socketpuppet as AnnH claims to believe and if I got caught simply because "I did not know about userchecks" then why is it that all the other editors she believes are my socketpuppets were not also revealed to be socketpuppets at the same time? The userchecks were done at the same time, the time I supposedly did not know about userchecks. So her rational is not logical, unless one accepts the BelindaGong was never my socketpuppet so I felt no need to spoof an IP address, but then if we accept this proposition there is no established socketpuppets at all. She wants it both ways. She wants to say the BG is my puppet and yet by the same token the others who were checked at the same time but showed no connection are as well, and even though a user check vindicated me at this early date, now I know how to evade them--but not before? Its not consistent. Also, if one examines the timing of various edits one will see that I have edited at the same time and at different times from these other users who she brands as my puppets, yet offers no explanation that fits the facts. This is the mess that happens when one relies on negative speculation rather than assuming good faith.Giovanni33 09:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Before you go taking what I said out of context and trying to make it sound like I support you, I don't. The reason I wouldn't reblock if someone unblocked is to prevent Wheel Wars which I see too often nowadays. In addition, usage of meatpuppets is also prohibited, and that's what it seems like here. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 09:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct you dont support your doing the unblock, as you've made clear. But you did say you are fine with someone else doing it. If your reason for being fine with it is because you won't want want to wheel war, then thanks for clarifying your point. I'd hope that it was because you thought it might be a legitimate decision to make, if another admin, were to want to give the Professor the benefit of the doubt given he has done nothing wrong, never broken a single rule, and has made many good edits, which even I have learned from.Giovanni33 09:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

regarding the secret liguistic evidence

This occured to me. The Professor did copy some text from earlier version of edits I made and inserted them into the body of the article. So if AnnH is using this, then keep that in mind: he used my writing and maybe he copied something of mine that makes it look like he wrote it when he didn't. Its things like this that you should factor in, for example. He did this recently to the Early Christianity article, which was something I worked in, but which almost all of my standing edits were gone after some massive changes to a biblical account. He restored much of my text by inserting it into the body of the new version after he revert was opposed. These insertions of text were copied from my own writing. If he has done this before that Im not aware of then it may contain the "evidence" that AnnH is using to prove it me! Just a thought, not having seen the evidence. Then again, if one looks enough between two editors writings and provided they speak the same language, I'm sure anyone can come up with expressions and parts of speech, and other matches to make it seem like they are the same person. I have seen many speeches by Reagan and other conservatives match up exactly to what Hitler said. Does tihs prove Bush/Regan is Hitler, in AnnH's mind? If we look hard enough we will find what we are looking for. It may even appear at flirst glance to be a clear case, but if we try this experiment with anyone else, we can make anyone look like anyone else. This is what is known as pseudo/junk science. Lets not fall for it, esp. when an innocent user is on the line. Language is not repeated over and over by many different people, including expressions, (such as "hehe"), and arguments, POV's, world outlooks, philosphies, etc. It's the reason why we can all communicate. Many people share the same vernacular, share similar or the same tone, as well. The content of what we write is not the same as our handwriting. Our words are not like snowflakes. Analysis is very inconclusive. Its not fingerprints (even partial fingerprints are inconclusive!). That is how 'ghost writers" can write for others without anyone know the better. However, if we read something with the idea of a particular person in mind, then the mind actually starts to "hear" the voice of the person you are thinking of. It connects the dots for you. Try this trick by reading something and thinking of another editor--esp. if you find passages that put them together that are very similar or share some commonalities, or identical words, etc. But its a cheap trick, and given the lack of any real evidence this is being used and swallowed whole by those who either don't know better, or those who want to believe. Giovanni33 09:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio, I've yet to see convincing evidence that this editor or any other is your sock puppet. Al 13:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you read the WP:AN thread (can't remember the exact header), most administrators are agreeing that Professor33 is a sockpuppet. I think there is one (perhaps two) administrators that don't agree. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 22:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Desk, the evidence is not strong, no matter who you ask. It's certainly not enough to ban an apparent newbie. Al 02:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks AI. I'm glad to see that there are several editors, who can see through these loud and confident sounding claims asserted ideological opponents for what they are: lots of hot air but no smoking gun. Therefore it is no coincidence that the most experienced, long-term administrators who have a lot more experience than the new admins, are opposed to this block and are not convinced by the so-called evidence. These admins are wise ones who care more about fairness and justice than wanting to join in a lynching. I commend them. Specifically, I quote:

"I've reviewed checkuser evidence in this matter and I do not believe that there is any sockpuppetry going on. The secondary evidence is also weak. I strongly urge an unblock and an apology. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And, we have another trusted, more senior admin, who is also a buaraucrat with user check priveliges states,after looking into the matter:

"I do not endorse this block. Kelly Martin has performed the checkuser and there is little solid evidence (read: something that you can prove) to that these two are related. Professor33 sent me a polite e-mail last night asking for help in this matter, and I agreed to look in to it. In addition to the checkuser showing negative results, the "linguistic evidence" that was used was sketchy at best. I am not convinced that these two are the same. I am going to look into this further, but I am heavily leaning towards unblocking this user. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 13:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)"

If the evidence and case is so clear then it would be unanimous. It's not because the evidence is not there to justify a clear determination. Therefore, the Professor should get the benefit of the doubt. As a "hung jury" there should be no 'dealth penatly" applied, and the Professor should be freeed. He is innocent. Giovanni33 02:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dekana, don't litter up my talk page by repeating the posts that seen by the link I have posted to the site, above. It just makes it harder to read though all this, here. My page is not meant to duplicate everything. My point is that there are two of the more senior and most trusted admins who DISPUTE this 'clear connection." Obviously its not clear to the admins who have the most experience in these matters. We are clear about your thinking, which is devoid of any possiblity of doubt, even though I know for a fact you are wrong. I have also seen your arguments below which prove all we need to know about your rather extreme bias against me, in allowing these totally unjustied attacks to continue with impunity, while you threaten me with further blocks. I also saw you you threatened the professor and blocked his page so he could not speak in his own defense on his page, after you reverted his own posting on his page, and re-inserted those comments of MusicalLinguist. Its clear to me who you work for.Giovanni33 09:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Timothy posting socketpuppet notices on many users pages unfairly

I ask for someone to correct this as I can't. It appears that Timonty is going around and posting the SocketPuppet label to many different users talk pages alleging a connection to me. This is being done on his own initiative, it appears--not by an admin. This includes banned editors who engaged in actions I would never even consider, so not only is this inacurrate its a personal attack on me. Since I can not correct this I ask that others do so. For instance, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HK30 This user was user checked, and it showed a socketpuppet by the name of Mercury77. I was not connected. This user only edited on two article, Christianity and Pro-Life. I have never edited on pro-life. So it comes down to ONE article that this user edited on, which I did. And yet this is given as "evidence"?!?!?! What will be used next? More "Strong Linguistic evidence" that this user is also me because of the use of word "stories" as describing the NT?! LOL! I can't wait! With this new line of 'evidence" there is unlimited potencial of abuse in making anyone we want into anyone else. Clearly it's making personal attacks. I see he has rudely posted this insulting message to several other editors who have been cleared of any connection to me, as well. I ask that he, or somoene else please undo these uncivil and unwelcome posting to the various editors talk pages. Giovanni33 06:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because a CheckUser proves you don't edit from the same IP range doesn't mean there isn't a connection involved. I can think of at least one easy way and one harder way to evade CheckUser, which I won't discuss due to WP:BEANS, obviously. The point is, they likely are sockpuppets. So no. I find the fact that you're continuing to argue rather than moving on a bit puzzling. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 07:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but are you now saying these OTHER editors are my socketpuppets TOO? May I ask on what basis you make this claim? The banned editor was banned for following Sophia around undoing her removal of a banned site. The editor ONLY edited on ONE site that I edited on. Are you now making the argument that anyone who edits on the Christianity page and agrees with a POV similar to mine deserves to be labled as my socketpuppet? Its rather amazing that I even have to seriously ask this question but it does show your extreme bias against me for some reason. Is it ok that I go around and post socketpuppet messages on banned editors talk pages linking them to you? How would you like that? That I even have to argue with you about this (that you are defending it!) is really amazing.Giovanni33 07:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The same linguistic evidence that makes people believe User:Professor33 is tied to you, makes people believe User:HK30 is tied to you. I think I'll let other people respond to you now, I think. I'm getting sick of constantly justifying peoples actions to you. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 07:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the context and summaries of Mercury2001's only edits clearly show him to be you. Mercury2001 was confirmed to propagate from the same IP as HK30.Timothy Usher 07:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I knew it. This "linguistic evidence" again! This is the height of absurdities. But two can play this game. Since you feel this is perfectly a good thing to do, I hope you will support me going to all the banned users and putting labels saying that they are YOUR socket-puppets based on "secret linguistic evidence." Infact, I'll find the evidence. Ofcourse its completely NONSENSE but you seem to accept this nonsense so lets see how much you like it when its given right back in your face. It really disturbs me that you are actually buying this line of reasoning which is complete crap. I seriously can't fathom how you honestly accept tihs so I have to conclude that you have a dishonet agenda. I'm sorry but I give your intelligence too much credit to assume you would really buy the argument you are making here.Giovanni33 07:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I also note that now Timothy is edit warring with Kecik over Kecik's own talk page and this label, violating yet another rule about not putting back things on other users talk pages after they removed it. Didnt you lecture me about this before? Hypocrite?Giovanni33 07:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

If you do that, I will be more than happy to give you a nice big block for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 07:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I see, its not disruption when others do it, only when I do it? I see how it works. Thanks for making your clear double standard and bias perfectly clear to the whole world. I'm glad you openly state how happy you would be to give me a big block. Its good to know what makes you happy. Giovanni33 07:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The HK30 link must be clearly established before sockpuppet notices go up as I have had problems with this editor that I would never have expected to have with Gio. If Gio is a sock of HK30 who is perm banned does this mean Gio will also be perm banned?

I have also seen the linguistic evidence and it certainly is significant but I can't help wondering if some of the similarities are caused by dealing with users who's first language is not english? I'm not sure why (probably the name) but I have always assumed Gio was Italian. If all the editors concerned spoke the same first language is it possible the similarities could be due to this? This could then suggest meatpuppetry but Italy (if that is where he is from) is a big place so there is a good chance others from that country would find their way to these very popular articles. If Gio was sockpuppeting from internet cafe IP's then I've certainly seen checkuser come back with this sort of info. I have also seen checkuser say whether IP's are in the same reigon so it should be possible to tell if Gio does have time to drive home to become Prof33.

I must also agree with Gio that there is some woolly thinking going on with the original sockpuppet allegations - if he had known how to avoid checkuser orginally he would not have made the "mistake" with the Belinda account - which leads to the conclusion that Keick and MikaM are not sockpuppets. If he didn't know about checkuser he would have had no reason to use unconnected IP's to operate his puppets. In an international project it's possible that people from different regions have similar ideas on subjects due to what is taught at school, what books are availible, the type of TV programs that are shown etc. I have had interactions with Southern US state editors who have no idea there are any books at all propounding the Jesus Myth theory.

At then end of the day where is all this going? Gio has a minority view that challenges and offends some editors. I have seen him work hard to reference his edits and it can be messy sometimes (and tough going) but the resulting additions to some articles do flesh out the subjects and stop them being as unbalanced as they certainly were when I first arrived. Life would be considerably easier without him for some but I personally think that having users who keep you on your toes is so good for making you work hard at making good verifiable edits (I think we all miss KHM03 for that).

So bottom line - are we trying to get rid of Gio? Sophia 08:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I started an informal mediation with Timothy on an IRC channel. While I was in the middle of this, Kecik reverted Timothy's repeated message to Kecks talk page. This was while I was chatting--at the same time. I have witnesses. This is while I was blocked. And out of all the many alleged "socketpuppets" that Timothy is claiming--why is only Kecik reverting his message? If its me doing it then why not all the others too? Given that I have witnesses now in these circumstances, I think have good evidence to prove this is another user, not me. Timothy's explanation is that Im near by a StarBuck's with two laptops. hehe! So, I offered to turn on my webcam which shows me in my room! This is constent with the arguments I've made showing that these other alleged puppets edited at all times, including the exact same time I was editing (I even had an edit conflict once), which shows I'm not going from work to home, as was suggested. When I point out these facts, they are ignored. Now they have come up with the "linguistic evidence," which from what I've seen is not very strong but very weak. Language is not repeated over and over by many different people, including expressions, (hehe), or arguments, POV's, world outlooks, philosphies, etc. Its the reason why can all communicate. Many people share vernacular, share similar tone, as well. The content of what we write is not the same as our handwriting. Analysis is very inconclusive. That is how 'ghost writers" can write for others. However, if you read something with the idea of the person in mind, then the mind actually starts to "hear" the voice of the person you are thinking of. It connects the dots for you. Try this trick by reading something and thinking of another editor--esp. if you find passages that put them together that are very similar or share some commonalities, or identical words, etc. But its a cheap trick. To cruify me based on this is an injustice.Giovanni33 08:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What disturbs me the most is labeling me with a user that was stalking Sophia and reverting all her edits. I would NEVER even consider doing such a thing. This is very bad behavior. With the professor33, yes, they are wrong, but at least this is a good editor. Calling me a socketpuppet of a good editor is bad enough since its untrue, however calling me a socketpuppet of a bad editor who is banned for some pretty bad behavior, is totally intolerable as the most severe personal attack against me that can possibly be made. Yet its done so with virtually NO evidence.Giovanni33 09:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can attest to the fact that Giovanni33 has not been trying to evade his block. He seems more intent on preserving his name as a good contributor who edits difficult articles than on pushing his POV. After talking to him on IRC, I'd be disinclined to believe he is any of these socks. It can be argued that his autoblock was lifted by the time Kecik edited, but Giovanni was not aware of this. After becoming aware, to the best of my knowledge, he took our advice and didn't edit, even though he could. As much as my opinion is worth (not much), I don't think Giovanni33 is a problem user or troll or destructive to the project. He may cause friction, and he may get himself blocked for 3RR often, but I don't think he's trying to disrupt. As such, I don't think he deserves this amount of flak for what he does. Just my two cents. --Keitei (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Keitei. It's more editors like yourself, who display impartiality, and openness to look at the facts without predjudice that should be among the admins making decisions about these matters. Thank for your genuine and impartial opinion, which means a lot more than those who have a long history of being POV warriors against me in various related edit conflicts.Giovanni33 09:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This has happenend before

This comment below concerning the Professor33 by another respected Administator shows that this is not the first time that an innocent person was fasely banned under the same pretext:

My dear Professor,

I have full sympathy with you.

I have at least one example of an indefinite block which I know that was wrong. I knew persoanlly the person who was blocked indefintely by an administrator under the presumption that he was a sock-puppet of a user. As the user concerned got highly disgusted with this, he/she told me that he/she would never access wikipedia. I was also requested to keep his blocked identity to heart.

Having said this and having experienced this first hand, I know that your psotion may be similar. However, I am not able to comment on this except that on a long-term basis wikipedia shall be losing a number of good editors. I know that editing wikipedia is a privilege and I am thankful to the Wikipedia Foundation for giving me this opportunity to edit. But, there may be several editors including adminsitrators who may hold the opinion that they are doing great service to wikipedia by editing or/ and doing admin services. Actually, the position is reverse.

I am posting this letter on your talk page so that other wikipedians may see the same.

I trust that the community shall evolve a better system to deal with such issues and the sysop shall be made more accountable. With regards, and all the best!

Yours Bhadani

--Bhadani 17:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 18:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

How did you get this email? Where was it posted originally, I mean. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 18:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It can be found on the admin's own talk page and on the Professor's talk page. Again it is not a coincidence that the more elder admins, esp. those who are really disinterested parties, which represent a neutral, and opened-minded assessment of the "evidence" are those who prove to have no reason to be prejudiced. Hence, they tend to find the evidence not so convincing unlike the res who do have a bias based on past actions they have taken against me directly or based on other factors that can easily be asertained, which would make them prejudiced, or suspected of being so. I note that out of the admins who have supported this block only one has not been involved in a conflict with me or fit into this category, and therefore whose opinion can be seriously counted in this matter as certainly valid (I note that one admin is ok if another admins unblocks). That means One against Three--in my favor. This is fair since if this were a trial jury such admins would also not be allowed to be on the jury, whereas the other ones would be, so far a total of 4.Giovanni33 23:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardly one against three in your favour. Read the WP:AN thread. A lot of admins are agreeing with me and saying Professor33 is your sockpuppet. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 18:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I seems you didn't read my argument above, or understood them. It’s Three VS One when we filter out for only those who should be legitimately counted do to present or past involvement that would indicate a prejudiced mind-set against me. But, lets look at what they say, shall we? Their logic is embarrassingly bad. It would be funny if if were not so sad. For example, one admin rests his argument on the "fact that Giovanni33 has used sock puppet accounts in the past as in the case of User:BelindaGong, User:Freethinker99, User:HK30, User:Mercury2001 and User:MikaM." Huh? That is circular logic. These are NOT facts. They have NOT been established as puppets, with evidence even weaker than is being used to make the case of the Professor, but along the same premise, i.e. "secret linguistic evidence." Think about it. Professor is my socket because of this "secret linguistic evidence,' and these others are now thought to be mine on the same account, but even with much less edits, a weaker case. However, no doubt the Professor is my puppet because of these other accounts? It does not logically follow. In order to establish an argument that the Professor must be my puppet, we see it essentially using its own premise for its conclusion. This is circular reasoning typical of the religious mindset, i.e.: "it’s true because it says so in the Bible. But what makes what the Bible says true? The Bible does!!" Are these admins serious? This says a lot about the quality (the smarts) that we have for some admins here, obviously indicative of the sorry state of education in the US.

Then someone makes a second argument one of the "authority' of those who are "familiar with the patterns of the article.' In other words, those who are directly involved in the edit conflict and defending a POV, and therefore more prejudiced against their opponents. They are the ones we should listen to?! He says, "Those most familiar with editing patterns of articles are certainly able to be the best judge of similarity of edits in terms of word choices, POV and sudden appearances in the "nick of time" to avoid a three revert rule violation." Are they? Hardly. We need neutral people to look at the facts without the prejudice of those involved in the article disputes, who more often than not distort things through their colored lens. Notice that these things he says are verifiable but he prefers to leave it up to the testimony of those who have a vested interest in getting rid of their opponents. A case of laziness? The "nick in time" is a bad argument because that is what EVERYONE does. When there are a group of editors who share a POV they share their reverts in between them so as not to violate the 3RR. Both sides have always done that. This no more proves anything other than a shared POV, which is the real crime here. It’s a systematic attempt to get rid of editors who share a similar POV so that the article can be kept in conformity with such a biased POV. If you can't win the arguments you attack the people winning the arguments and get rid of them.Giovanni33 02:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm not neutral? I think I'm equipped to judge whether or not you're using sockpuppets. It certainly seems you've been evading your block using sockpuppets. But you won't accept what I say, of course. --Lord Deskana (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If you already know the answer then why ask? It's like the skunk asking if others can smelll him. Maybe you really can't smell yourself but the scent goes for miles. As for what you think and say, I do go by the merits of your arguments, not by your associates. That you've clearly been "friends and associates" of the worst violators of POV pushers and those that engage in the most dishonet lynching attempts of the best editors, and while you are close to them and all, this is not as important for me as I do not based my judgments on associations or conspiracy theories. I based it on the strengh and logic of an argument. If you want me to listen to you then make a strong case that is logical and solid. Evaluating you on this basis leaves much to be desired hence my clear judgment about either your abilities or your agenda. For example, you say, 'it certainly seems you've been evading your block using socketpuppets," yet you fail to provide any evidence for this false claim, nor an argument.Giovanni33 06:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Gio,

hopefully You are using your block for some extra-wikipedian activity. I know WP can soak up to much of one's time, even if one doesn't have to operate various accounts.

Now, Professor33 repeatedly asked for his block to be lifted and I replied to various questions he raised.

I don't see his block being lifted anytime, as the evidence is quite clear that the two of you are one and the same.

Now, as I was posting on his talk page, trying to explain what he saw as a contradiction between Deskana and Ann, I noticed something Ann said: "there are indications that Giovanni has edited outside his own talk page since being blocked, and that's completely unacceptable". :I myself haven't spotted where this might have occured but I don't think that Ann would say such a thing without a reason, without having clear evidence for these allegations, especially given her prowess in the field of linguistic. Being not just a historian but also having a bit of insight into the English language, I can assure you that, she knows what she's talking about.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That is logical. If AnnH believes that I have literally close to a dozen puppet sockets then there is no reason why they would not be able to edit when I'm blocked BECAUSE they are NOT my socketpuppets. I have no connection with them! And, she may know what she is talking about but in this case her conclusions are tragically mistaken. This is why I say there is a huge problem with one thinking they are 100% correct. No one is 100% sure of anything. We are not even 100% sure the sun will come up the next day. Hume taught us this, and it even applies for very strong scientific laws of nature. But, it must be a nice feeling to be so sure of oneself and have no doubt at all. I, on the other hand, am comfortable with saying I'm not sure, I don't know, and to only draw conclusions as the evidence proves--not more, not less.Giovanni33 20:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Giovanni, your response to Ann's allegation that you've "edited outside [your] own talk page since being blocked" was not as direct as it might have been. So, a direct yes/no question: have you?Timothy Usher 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Since im blocked and I'm not supposed to edit any articles, I have not. Not even a single article, even when I've run into several mistakes on a few of them. I've also not editing under any other usernames, have not edited any talk pages except my own, despite what you think. It that clear enough? Since I claim not to have any socketpuppets, then how can I use socketpuppets to evade the block as is being claimed? Giovanni33 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep this simple: have you, since being blocked, editted any pages besides your own talk page? A simple yes or no will do just fine.Timothy Usher 23:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse, im a proflific writer. I edit papers for students, I edit in blogs, I edit inother wiki's, etc. So I have to answer "Yes!." But, I don't see how that answer is relevant. My previous answer should more than suffice for puproses here.Giovanni33 23:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It dooesn't suffice, because Wikipedia consists of more than articles and talk pages. So again, have you, since blocked, editted anything on Wikipedia besides your own talk page? Yes or no?Timothy Usher 23:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You already had more multiple chances to get your question right that you wanted answered. You can't just keep asking new questions each time, after i answered you. You wanted a Yes or No to the last question and I gave it to you. No more questions because Im tired of repeating myself. If you can't find the answer above, then tough. But here is a question for you. Since you don't believe what i say anyway, what is the point of asking me a questions?Giovanni33 00:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I might believe you if you gave a simple yes or a no to a question that has not changed: Have you editted anything on Wikipedia besides your own talk page since being blocked?Timothy Usher 03:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is the last time I'm going to answer the new variation of your question. The answer is YES, I have. Infact, I just finished some substancial edits on the Italian and Spanish Wikipedia sites.Giovanni33 03:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's trivial, for you are not blocked from those sites. As you knew, I meant the English wikipedia. It's a perfectly straightforward question, and your refusal to answer it with a simple "yes" or "no" suggests to me that Ann is probably right.Timothy Usher 03:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I already have answered your question with a yes or no, and added addition information. I've done that many times. Each time you change your question a bit and I still answer it. YOu didnt answer my question, though: Since you dont believe what I say anyway, what is the point of having me answer your question? Your going to believe what you want to believe anway.Giovanni33 04:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I might very well believe a simple and unqualified yes or no. Without one, I'm inclined to believe you when you say that you've not editted articles or other talk pages, but also believe Ann that you have evaded your block to edit the English Wikipedia outside your own talk page, as you're willing to deny the one but not the other.Timothy Usher 04:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that you now credit me with such honesty. So by this logic when I clearly deny using any socketpuppets then you are inclinded to believe me? If not then how is my denial of something relevant to your belief? You don't believe me period. The claim as I see it, is not from AnnH but form Deskana who says he thinks I evaded by block by using socketpuppets. I guess he is refering to Kecik. But I have a witness that I was on mIRC in mediation with you while Kecik edited. A user check will show its not my IP. However, instead of seeing this as proof that Kecik (and others) are not my socketpuppet, instead we have the stubborn and bad faith interpretation that is must have been me evading my block. This has become an article of faith so no amount of evidence or logic will able to shake it from true believers.Giovanni33 04:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing about Kecik. I'll ask one last time: since being blocked, have you editted English Wikipedia besides your talk page? Yes or no?Timothy Usher 04:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I dont believe you are asking only one last time. Each time I answer you you ask a new variation of the question. Its annoying. I've already answered your questions enough. If you want more answers to more questions then at least answer my question which you have never answered and which is directly relevant to why I should answer you.Giovanni33 05:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I can understand why Gio is being so cagey as there is so much bad faith being shown him. If he had answered "no" to your original question Timothy - what would you have said when you found out he was editing on the Italian and Spanish wikis? I can't help feeling judging by the above that he would have been accused of lying. Deskana is young and from personal experience I would not trust his judgement in these areas. Ann carries much more weight but has not yet explained whether these similarities could bve caused by different linguistic backgrounds. Sophia 06:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish and Italian wikipedia are irrelevant to us here, not in the least because he's not blocked there. I'd been asking a simple and straightforward question (has he editted English Wikipedia, other than his own talk page, since being blocked?) to which he's consistently declined to give a simple and straightforward answer.Timothy Usher 07:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I see a frustrated editor who feels no one believes what he says. If he has operated sockpuppets and lied about that according to some editors - why should anything he says be believed anyway? Why should he play the "truth or dare"game with people he feels are just out to trap him? As it happens from reading the above I do agree with Gio he has answered your question. Read it again from the beginning please and see what you think. Sophia 07:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, the clearest Gio had gotten is: "Since im blocked and I'm not supposed to edit any articles, I have not. Not even a single article, even when I've run into several mistakes on a few of them. I've also not editing under any other usernames, have not edited any talk pages except my own, despite what you think."

Not true. You asked again, after that. It was a new question. And my answer was clearly, and I quote: "Ok, this is the last time I'm going to answer the new variation of your question. The answer is YES, I have."Giovanni33 05:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Taking his statements at face value, he’s not editted any articles or talk pages besides his own. Has he editted project space? Noticeboards? Policy/guideline pages? Other editors' user pages? Uploaded media? Commented on deletions or deletion reviews? Etc., etc. That’s why I asked him if he’d editted English Wikipedia, other than his talk page, since being blocked, and I'm increasingly inclined to believe that's why he won't answer this question, which seeks only a simple yes or no.Timothy Usher 07:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, please understand that everyone here started with the assumption of good faith and is, at least as far as I can tell, bending over backwards, to retain that assumotion. But the thing is that Gio is evading a question that is quite clear to anyone applying common sense, by mentioning Spanish and Italian WPs.

Timothy's question, as I understood it, is simple: Gio is blocked from editing on the English WP with the exception of his userpage and Timothy likes to know whether Gio has edited anything else on the English WP (except his user page). Quite simple. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he refuses to explicitly deny that he has not edited outside his talk page while blocked says a lot. --Lord Deskana (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not say a lot but it does say I'm honest. I guess that is a lot for some people. To me its just part of my daily ethical conduct. I'm glad you approve. But, to borrow a Latin phrase, libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.Giovanni33 01:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Block reset

It is apparent that you evaded your block with this edit: 08:04, July 3, 2006. Therefore I'm resetting your block to approximately one week after that. Please do not use sockpuppets or IPs to evade user blocks. -Will Beback 09:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A week block for posting one comment on the incident board? How strange, but why am I not surprised? I object and contest this block on some important grounds, which no fair-minded administrator should take lightly.

First of all the initial 7 day block was wrong. But no matter, I've withheld from editing, even though this doesn't serve the interests of Wikipedia. It can wait. I'm willing to indulge a certain degree of error and the typical machinations from those with political and religious agendas. It comes with the territory. I do note there is a concerted effort to drive away editors who upset the POV pushers. I see they have managed to succeed at getting rid of the best editors already (from those I’ve known)-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SOPHIA being the latest victim. So while I’m honored to be among those being target, for it shows I have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between me and then but that I’ve been effective in my goals, I’d hope that the balance of forces is such that justice can prevail.

Therefore, I object on the grounds that what I did was not wrong, but in keeping with necessity and in accordance with more important rules and principals for which all the rules here are meant to service. My defense of necessity is equally one of justice and raises important questions about the role of power in Wikipedia. You will say you have a right to block me. I refer to a legal maxim: Ex iniuria ius non oritur: “right can not grow out of injustice.” My comment to the incident board was necessitated given its time sensitive nature. It aided in an understanding of an important issue that may have affected the outcome differently had I waited. While I did not flaunt my single edit, I did not deny it either, stressing the relevant and important facts that I did not edit in any of the articles, for which one would think there would be some relevance given the purpose of this block (3RR—or the false charge of socketpuppety). If I had evaded the block to revert again, etc, then you’d have a point. But, an important comment to an incident board that was useful and does not harm, done in a respectful manner to this block?

This begs the question: What harm does it do? Does “Ignore all the rules” have any meaning at all, if it does not for this situation? When it is applicable if not now? Or are we to violate this best of all rules from which every other rule emanates in principal and is meant to serve, i.e. what is best for Wikipedia? Which is the bigger violation? Violating a technicality by adding an important comment to an incident board while abiding by the sprit of the block to not edit in any article, and which was in no way disruptive or related to the reasons for the block in the first place--or the heavy handed week block for doing so, violating the larger point and principals behind the rules in the first place, motivated by those who have an agenda to get rid of editors who clash with their POV pushing?

My adding a single comment served a need and added value to something that was time sensitive: my long term interaction with the editor in question in a number of articles makes my insight about the editor and incident important. Yet for this tiny technical & non-relevant violation, which in no was is a disruption of Wikipedia, and which was left anonymously, I am blocked for another week—all under the pretext of a strict interpretation of the block, that stems from a simple and accidental 3RR and extended to a week based on a false charge in the first place? This is injustice. Indeed, the injustice is computed by the curious fact that you have found it necessary to both investigate and determine that this single edit was committed by myself, which does not violate the spirit of the rules, and then to block me for another week. I ask, what is more disruptive: my adding a useful comment to the incident board anonymously after almost waiting a week and not editing anywhere else, or your heavy handed persecution, no doubt, promoted by those POV pushers who have a major axe to grind and who wish to keep me from interfering with their POV (part of their agenda to rid Wikipedia of critical editors)? That you may not be motivated yourself by this injustice does not take away from the fact that you do their dirty work. The action serves its same objective role and purpose. If I were to gamble, I’d bet money that MusicalLinguist (AnnH), is directly behind your action. So, again, what is more wrong given a larger picture considering the goals and interests of Wikipedia and those of justice? What I did, or what your doing now? This does not help Wikipedia but furthers in injustice, it furthers domination, and arbitrary authority and little else except keeping certain articles white-washed for another week. I ask that admins consider another legal principal in effect: “Ex aequo et bono” This means a judgment based on considerations of fairness, not on considerations of actual existing law. Its means judgments rendered "beside" or "against the law" (praeter legem or contra legem), not within the law (infra legem or intra legem). This principal is has precedence in real law. For example, see article 38(2) of the I.C.J. Statute which permits the Court to render a judgment on these grounds. Therefore, I object to this block and ask that it be rescinded in the interests of justice. I also ask that my appeal is not acted on by an admin who I’ve previously identified as biased, and who would no doubt not bother consider the merits of the above argument, but simply summarily deny any request out of hand. Such would be to make a mockery of my request, and only add further insult as they spit upon principals of justice itself.Giovanni33 06:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Good admins

I wish to thank the admin who unblocked me. The fact that we still have impartial, fair-minded admins here who are willing to act in the name of justice is reassuring and proves that it's worth the effort to struggle for justice, instead of giving up hope. I have great faith that people do rise to the occasion and do the right thing when given the choice and knowledge. So, I thank you.Giovanni33 09:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reinstated the remainder of the block, which as a chronically disruptive editor you more than deserved and obviously need to spend some time considering based on your comments here and elsewhere. FeloniousMonk 17:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I call on good admins to step up against this injustice of perpetually blocking me for it serves no justifiable end or puprose under any criteria that is acceptable within norms of either justice or what is best for Wikipedia from a pratical standpoint. The objective purpose here only serves suppress critical editors from having a voice, causes more rebellion, and it hurts the project in the end. Ironically, it is also highly distruptive as it takes the focus off of the articles. As an admin I ask that you reevaluate your basic methodology in terms of carrying out your service.Giovanni33 02:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And, I once again thank the good admins for doing the right thing and removing my unjust block, again. It is clear you have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and for your service to the probject, I wish to show my appreciation. Its always reassuring to know that when I speak up against abuses, low-level bullying, and other things that hurt the probject, that it is not in vain but good pepole will hear and also act.Giovanni33 02:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Gio, you are chronically disruptive in part because you are in the minority, thus you must push a little harder to have your views heard, and to challenge those POVs that "everybody knows" to be true. This invariably makes you a pain. Those who find a home in the comfy temperate zones of the majority clearly don't understand the implications of a bell curve. ^^James^^ 19:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you are ever in need of an outside opinion, drop me a line. I've been around for long enough that I doubt I'll be accused of being your sockpuppet. And if you are indeed resorting to sockpuppetry, perhaps with a sympathetic perspective chiming in you wouldn't feel the need. ^^James^^ 21:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi James. Thanks for your thoughts. I do not feel I am disruptive in the least, at least not for Wikipedia. I guess you can stay I do disrupt some of the attempts to bully good editors that has the effect of driving them out of Wikipedia. I lend my voice against all abusive practices, against fellow editors and against attempts to bias articles in one direction. So, yes, I do disrupt these kinds of attempts. I firmly believe in the NPOV policies of Wikipedia. But if this is "disruption" it is certainly of a good type, in the interests and service of Wikipedia. It is ironic that the real disruption is caused those whose very distruptive practices are done in the name of stopping a 'disruptive editor." It's like if someone were to go around killing people in the name of fighting the death penalty! Or marching into a police state under the banner of "freedom" (a typical American political phenomenon). It's classic Orwellian double-speak.

It is true that in many cases I may not hold the dominant view, and therefore I am held to a higher standard of proof. I don't mind this. A good argument should be made strongly as needed provided it is a sound argument. Does this entail a degree of necessary conflict? To be sure. But it’s a healthy conflict with ample use of the talk page, references, and the end result is a much better article. But the means is as important as the ends (civility, assuming good faith, and intellectual honesty). Again, those who prefer not to play fair and take the easy way out, by attacking the editor instead of their argument are the ones whose behavior needs to be curtailed. Sadly, this is not always the case. I can see those with agendas that are different from mine, which does correspond to the interests of Wikipdia, will find me a formidable obstacle. Its logical, thus, that I'm attacked. I can only hope that truth, reason, and justice prevails and I have a lot of faith in the goodness of others to step in and stand with what is right. Most editors would probably prefer to avoid conflict and deal with less stress, but it is essential that others like myself take up this task. If we don't, who will? If this is being disruptive it is of the good type, and much more is needed while those who are the real disruptors, and who abuse policy and procedure are allowed to continue their bullying tactics.Giovanni33 02:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have written that you are perceived as chronically disruptive. ^^James^^ 02:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No apologies needed, James. I knew what you meant but just wanted to be precise in responding to the issue. Lets hope there are not any more distruptions of the bad kind for some time, now, so I can go on with the real reason I'm here in the first place. But, thanks for your moral support.Giovanni33 02:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey no prob. I've enjoyed reading your contributions for some time now. Just haven't had the energy to get too involved. ^^James^^ 05:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"disruptive" editor accusation?

I take issue with your labeling me distruptive. I do not feel I am disruptive in the least, at least not for Wikipedia. I guess you can stay I do disrupt some of the attempts to bully good editors that has the effect of driving them out of Wikipedia. I lend my voice against all abusive practices, against fellow editors and against attempts to bias articles in one direction. So, yes, I do disrupt these kinds of attempts. I firmly believe in the NPOV policies of Wikipedia. But if this is "disruption" it is certainly of a good type, in the interests and service of Wikipedia. It is ironic that the real disruption is caused those whose very distruptive practices are done in the name of stopping a 'disruptive editor." It's like if someone were to go around killing people in the name of fighting the death penalty! Or marching into a police state under the banner of "freedom" (a typical American political phenomenon). It's classic Orwellian double-speak.

It is true that in many cases I may not hold the dominant view, and therefore I am held to a higher standard of proof. I don't mind this. A good argument should be made strongly as needed provided it is a sound argument. Does this entail a degree of necessary conflict? To be sure. But it’s a healthy conflict with ample use of the talk page, references, and the end result is a much better article. But the means is as important as the ends (civility, assuming good faith, and intellectual honesty). Again, those who prefer not to play fair and take the easy way out, by attacking the editor instead of their argument are the ones whose behavior needs to be curtailed. Sadly, this is not always the case. I can see those with agendas that are different from mine, which does correspond to the interests of Wikipdia, will find me a formidable obstacle. Its logical, thus, that I'm attacked. I can only hope that truth, reason, and justice prevails and I have a lot of faith in the goodness of others to step in and stand with what is right. Most editors would probably prefer to avoid conflict and deal with less stress, but it is essential there are editors like myself who take up this task. If we don't, who will? If this is being disruptive it is of the good type, and much more is needed while those who are the real disruptors, and who abuse policy and procedure are allowed to continue their bullying tactics.Giovanni33 02:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your contribution history and block log (which are all I have to go on) speak for themselves. All the long-winded, mind-numbing tendentious rants arguing the contrary cannot explain them away.

Under my give them enough rope... policy, I'm inclined to let your recent unblocking stand. Enjoy your restored privileges and use them wisely, because every subsequent incident will only hurt your position. FeloniousMonk 02:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And knock off the sockpuppetry, too. FeloniousMonk 02:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am always wise, and I'm not intimiated by your rope analogy. It is fitting given the much talk of "lynching" going on, which has sadly driven out some good editors. I'm talking with them via e-mail and I hope they come back, which they will provided the climate here improves first. One person told me they would only come back after I was made an admin! hehe

My contributions and history, btw, is something im quite proud of, overall. Its true I made some mistakes when I was very knew and others jumped on me for it, to exploit it to their greatest advantage, but that was in the distant past way over 6 months ago. The rest are just unfounded and unprincipaled attacks. I brush those aside and keep my eyes on the prize: building an encylopedia. Lastly, I stand by the truth: I never had and never will have a socketpuppet. I don't need them. My leadership encourages others to also stand up strongly. When you have truth on your side, others join you. So, I challenge anyone to prove to me otherwise and ask that we all assume good faith. Everything should be based on the evidence, not bad faith suspicions.Giovanni33 02:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of the disruption you've cause after being unblocked, and having discussed this Rebecca, I've reinstated the remaining 2.5 days of your original block and given you an 2.5 days for the new disruption. Please use the time reflect on how to contribute to the project in a constructive, positive manner. FeloniousMonk 15:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest unjust block by FM's wheel warring

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rebecca#Unblocking_of_Giovanni33

I tried to respond on her userpage with the below response but, ofcourse, FM, blocked me before I could even post it. It seems in his zeal he could not wait for this respected admin, a former member of the ArbCom to make a determination on his false claims. He had to find any excuse block me again and do so himself talking about "revenge." Obviously this is just another baseless and unjust block. I ask that it he be overturned again.

My message:

Hi Rebecca. I'm sorry that your helping me means you have to deal with this nonsense. Maybe I should have given you some warning that this kind of thing might happen. Please know that this is yet another false accusation against me without a single shred of evidence being offered. Zilch. Yet according to FeloniousMonk who wants to block me its 'obvious." Really? Then pretell, provide the evidence. I ask the the evidence be provided to support the charge that Deuteronomy2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is in ANYWAY connected to me. If FM violated the 3RR rule, and if I wanted to report him, I'd proudly have reported him. Why the need for a puppet to do so? FeloniousMonk is grasping at straws to fuel his obvious desire to block me again, having his unjust block reversed. He is also repeating other false accusations that lack any merit as well. For the record, I don't believe in revenge. It seems he is projecting his own mindset onto me.Giovanni33 15:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again for unblocking me

To the admin who stood up for justice agian and overtuned the unjust block, I wish to thank you. I think I will now refuse to give into attempts to bait me into defending myself, which is just another form of preventing me from editing on article content, almost as effective as a block itself. Again, I am reassured that we have good admins here who are intersted in building an encylopedia, instead of bullying. I support a program to educate and train admins. who, for lack of better words, lack experience. It would go a long way to making this a better place. Giovanni33 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop it

Please walk away from this.Geni 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. You're right. I guess its a matter of subjective feelings that are legitimate for some people, and thus they can state, "Giovanni33...is unpleasantness personified," no matter if it is not very civil. Giovanni33 18:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Pay them no mind, Gio. You have as many friends here as you do "enemies,"...even if they call us your puppets. lol! Just don't let the trolls get you down. Just walk away like Geni says. Remember, if you wrestle with the pigs you will dirty, too. If need be, take a much deserved wiki-break like I have! Stay cool and don't let them drive you away for good either.MikaM 19:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, why don't you archive your talk page. Its very long!MikaM

Thanks, Mika for your kind words, and welcome back. Please tread lightly yourself. The natives are restless, so to speak. hehe

I didn't archive my talk page because I have found archiving (or deleting) to be used by as a way to hide negative or critical comments and thus supress thought. I believe in full transparency and open expression of all views, provided I can respond to them (with the exception of vandalism) :) I know its a lot to read now so I might do some archiving sometime soon.Giovanni33 19:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

24 hours for 3RR

Come on, you know better. The sockpuppet tags aren't in bad faith and certainly are not simple vandalism.

Let other people defend their own talk pages. This is your 5th block for 3RR. There is no reason to revert more than three times. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Even Ann agreed that there is no evidence to link Gio to Deuteronomy2000, so it is clear harrasment on Timothy's part. Also 3rr block is to be preventative and not punitive and there was quite some time since the last revert. Agathoclea 15:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

- - I'd have a lot more symapthy if this wasn't the 5th block. I didn't claim whether or not the sockpuppet tags were correct, I pointed out that they were not simple vandalism the only exception to the 3RR policy. You'll notice I looked at the first of these and did not block, but what is the excuse for the second? 3RR is an electric fence, you should not be running into it. Wikibofh_(talk) 15:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    - This is no editwar about contents - these are personal attacks on a user. Personal attacks on a user can be removed. It would be another matter, if there was any evidence. Personally I would prefer this matter to go to ArbCom to establish a final say on wether Timothy is within his rights to put those tags on or not. Possibly Gio has been holding back from going down that road, as his actions were not perfect as well - but as I see it leaving this matter unresolved is doing Wikipedia most harm, especially as this fuels all this talk about the catholic-cabal. Agathoclea 17:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      - Tags are not personal attacks. I think Arbcom is the correct route, regardless as to who initiates it. Wikibofh_(talk) 17:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you for only giving me a 24 hour block instead of the week upon week block that others seem to want, clearly as punishment. That would have been an abuse of the block feature, while a 24 hours block is more in keeping with its purpose--although I would have self-reverted the accidental 4th revert if had not Mika already reverted his reversion of my revert. I just want it to be clear that my 4th revert in this case was accidental and not intentionally done to violate the 3rr rule, which I respect. Edit warring is distruptive and shold be replaced by discussion and building of agreement about the merit of any particular edit in dispute, using dispute resolution skills.

Still, I personally think it's not valid in this circumstance, as this is a special case. Its not content dispute but is a personal attack. Tags like this can be used as personal attacks when the person doing it is only doing it as a means of harassment, not in good faith. This is established by the complete lack of evidence for making the baseless charge, the fact that I have brought him into informal mediation on the topic where he refused to provide an answer as to why he persists in doing this, and the fact that he personally knows that at least one user's talk page was being reverted by that user at the same time I was chatting with him and the mediator on IRC--while I was blocked. One would think this proves two different users. But, this evidence, like all others, is ignored. It doesn’t fit. When the shoe doesn’t fit, the toes are cut off. He ignores all the evidence and continues the attack. In regard to the latest allegation, admin Rebecca looked into this with a user check, also. She wrote me:

"I've done a CheckUser, and unless you're very good, it seems pretty unlikely that Deuteronomy2000 is you. That said, please, if you want to stay unblocked, cool down. Sometimes one really does have to know when to drop things and move on. Rebecca"

Moreover, this is a special case and proves bad faith due to its contradictory nature. Consider that on the one hand Timothy alleges that I am this person. If so, then it would make it my user page per his argument. Therefore, I would have the right, under his argument, to revert my own user page as many times as I wanted. That is legal. Yet, he reports me for 3RR under the pretext that it is not my user page and thus I do not have the right. But if this is true, then this invalidates his edit warring action putting the socket puppet label on the user's page in the first place, and proves bad faith (harassment). He can't have it both ways. There is a legal principal in the law that disallows this type of practice, whose name at the moment escapes me, but essentially his actions contradict each other, one renders the other invalid. For this reason, also it should be thrown out given his lack of standing in the matter in not being able to consistently uphold both kinds of actions, and then using one to enact the other. The fact that he does shows the real purpose of the action and also serves as a basis to throw out report/case.

As Agathoclea says, even AnnH who with an eagle eye and fine-tooth comb is always searching for any evidence, herself does not see the evidence linking me in anyway--yet this has no effect in deterring Timothy from launching into a full edit war to push these charges against me. This is because it appears not a question of truth of conviction, but a case of bullying, harassment, of politics. The same goes for Str1977. While I happen to suspect that this user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aminz is Timothy’s socket puppet, I would and never have mentioned it for I feel it would be uncivil.Real puppets follow certain conventions and should not be so transparent (unless the person is really not bright). Despite what AnnH's premise requires, I'm not stupid. If I were to create a puppet I'd not follow myself around in such a blatant manner. Instead, I'd for sure follow the common sense guidelines found here, for example, http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Sockpuppets, which does match and is consistent for an intelligent suspicion of puppetry between Tim and Aminz. But it is just suspicions and should not be made into attack. I use this only as an example and my apologies to both users for any offense they may take at this, should they be real, different people.

Also of import is the fact that is no coincidence, despite the truth of certain mistakes I have made in the past, (and fully disclosed), this campaign against me is a direct result of an organized effort to go after editors, such as myself, who have countered POV pushing on Christian related articles, fueling the disruptive (however possibly true) talk of a "Christian Cabal" here and off Wikipedia. I don't mind if there is a Christian cabal for the record, just as there are other organized "interest groups," but I do mind the POV motivated attacks to silence their opposition, a much needed opposition to put a check on systematic bias and POV pushing for article quality sake.

If my defense of bias motivating the attacks against me and thus undermining their credibility is questioned there is ample evidence. Too much for me to post here. However, one only need to look at even the latest and most generous comments offered by AnnH, referred to above, in which she says that there is no evidence to connect me to the user Timothy is using to attack me with. Specifically, examine the failure to assume good faith that reveals prejudiced, when she adds these bad faith assumptions: "However, I would say the revert of my removal of the invalid report from a sock puppet was disruptive, and was motivated either by the fact that the report was about someone who had blocked him or that it was removed by someone who had originally discovered his sock puppetry. I note that Giovanni, since returning, has claimed here and here that the IP edits only happen when he gets "unintentionally" logged off. I don't think this [79], made while his user name was blocked, was due to an unintentional logging off. Indeed, it's obvious from this [80] that he intended to log off. Anyway, in my view, there are so many obvious puppets, that we don't need to accuse him of doubtful ones. AnnH ♫ 15:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)"

While the problems with the biased nature of her assumptions should be clear, lets just take a little time to examine it as typical example of the negative, bad faith assumptions characterizing the thinking above, it yields wrong conclusions, as incorrect as the other 'evidence,' and arguments used against me (even though its always started off by giving good evidence of true allegations in the distant pass when I first started).

Claim #1 is that my revert of her removal of an "invalid" 3RR report was disruptive (AnnH claims to have removed it due to a "cultural dislike." )Yet, if we look at the comments by another administrator, this was not an invalid report, that a 3RR did occur ,and in anycase its removal is "obviously not correct." By implication, then my reverting of this removal is correct. So to do the right thing is wrong because it’s "disruptive"? See:[81] Specifically this: [82]and this [83]
Claim #2 is that my reverting of her removal of this 3RR report was motivated by some kind of ulterior motive on my part, other than taking what I saw as a correct action, motivated by good intentions. But, no, because it was me who was doing it, she says, "and was motivated either by the fact that the report was about someone who had blocked him or that it was removed by someone who had originally discovered his sockpuppetry." Ofouurse, it is not possible that I, like the other admin, just possibly thinks that a 3RR report that looks valid should not be suppressed and deleted so as to allow others to determine its merits? That I'm against double standards? That I'm motivated by fairness? Again, a classic example of not following WP:AGF when it comes to me. In truth I was not motivated, nor have I ever been motivated by any notions of revenge or malice. I feel there is no place for that kind of thinking in any decent community or society. Yet, for this action, I was given a block for another week by the admin who the report was on, since he thought I reported him for "revenge."?!
Claim #3 is off-topic and not about this but AnnH never fails to find something to try to paint me as lying and being honest. Therefore, she points to my claim that I used my IP instead of my user is left when I accidentally get logged out, unintionally, that I don’t edit on purpose logged out. AnnH points to a few sections to make her case (see above). However, even though one could argue that this example is an exception to the rule and therefore my statement is true overall, infact, infact even this is not the case. The truth is that the one example was an edit I made while I did not know I was logged off. Let me explain. When I’m blocked, as was the case during that time, I sometimes check if the block expired by trying to make an edit. This is how I check. To my surprised I was able to edit, so I thought the block was expired. Afterwards, I saw I was logged out. Then, I had realized what had happened. Still, I felt that since this was not an article and given the nature of my comment it was better to leave it there and defend it, then remove it. I have explained this before, yet for AnnH these facts are interpreted in a way to conclude falsely that, “Indeed, it's obvious from this [84] that he intended to log off.” So all this is an example of the kind of faulty reasoning and prejudice that characterizes the thinking when it comes to POV opponents, such as myself, when examining the facts. This is just an example of a more generous comment by AnnH, but is the norm with virtually every post designed on this subject directed to undermine me as a legitimate wikipedian in good standing. The same arguments are then repeated by her network of buddies who share the same POV and regard me as "anti-Christian."

In addition to the disagreement about the reasoning process, AnnH's and I have a different point of view even on the notion of what is justice and fair. For example, she states her view that I deserve to be punished even I may be innocent! She she writes to Str1977, discussing how I may be innocent, however: "If a little boy steals apples from his neighbour's garden, and then his mother, not knowing that, punishes him for stealing biscuits from the pantry, when it was his sister who took the biscuits, he has still deserved the punishment..."This is really the first time I've seen anyone argue along these lines. It's a fringe view, I guess. :)

All I ask for is good faith assumptions, where assumptions need to be made. If anyone needs help to assume good faith in my case and resists the temptation to join in an a “herd mentality” by this “poisoning of the well, I am fully willing and able to prove my innocence or offer explanations where I was not so innocent. I ask you not to form conclusions with haste. I know it may be difficult given my past mistakes when I first joined. For the benefit of others, let me disclose these again clearly: I kept my wife a secret, and she was supporting me in an article. That was a mistake. Then I asked a friend to join (Freethinker), and showed him my edit conflicts on the Christianity article when I was blocked. This made him my meatpuppet, ofcourse (as I learned). Both are now banned. These mistakes, from over 6 months ago when I first joined form the basis for which to poison the well against me today and make almost any related charge stick --no matter how untrue other charges may be, and no matter all the good work I've done for Wikipedia. It may not be fair but I guess that is the reality, esp. as things would be a lot easier for POV pushers if I were not around to act as a check for article quality. I've been able to win consensus on a number rather substantial changes which I'm proud to say are now part of the accepted content of the articles, much to the distain of those editors who would rather it not be mentioned at all. This and with my tendency to speak my mind freely and honestly earns me the reality you now see.

I’ve never been uncivil, I have assumed good faith, I use the talk pages and support my claims, I do not get defensive or emotional but I do stand up for truth and justice. I know this is not easy for many people. Infact take a look at this interesting scientific study on the question of "confirmation bias." [85]. I do fight for NPOV and the other good guidelines that are a necessity for quality articles, esp. in controverial articles that need them. I know it is too much to hope that I'm allowed to edit in peace given the controversial and content disputes that are part of the course, but I will try to avoid provocations, and try to jump over the banana peels dropped in my way. And to end it with “hehe” which curiously I found to be used by a number of other editors. But, this is “extremely strong” linguistic evidence that they must be me! Please lets all try to assume good faith. Where there is doubt, lets give the benefit of the doubt. And unless there is solid proof, lets keep some room for healthy doubt as official policy, and keep our own personal doubts to ourselves until there is such proof.Giovanni33 23:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I will also add that I should never be held responsible for other users whose who support my POV on articles I am in conflicts with. They may be suspected of being my puppets but this is not something that is used against me, unless it proven we are one in the same. Going only by evidence that they follow me around and support me is not enough, since I have no control over the actions of others. While I welcome their support, and protest false allegations, to hold me accountable for any action that anyone who supports me in some way is, needless to say, a grave injustice. Otherwise, all that it would take, for example, is for one of my ideological opponents to create an impersonator account to make it look like its my puppet, then do something bad, followed by a report against their puppet, and me at the same time by virtue of "linguistic evidence." This line of reasoning should be rejected, ofcourse. Real, hard evidence must be presented to link me to any other user's account before I am to be held reasonably responsible for their conduct. Sadly, such has not been the case: someone else does something and then I get blocked for a week--even when there is is not even any "linguistic evidence' to support the case. What method is used then to come to such a sure conclusion? Mind-reading? And, do the admin who did this kind of things, violating 3RR, civility, AGF, edit warring, blocking someone you are in a dispute with, deleting valid reports, etc-- get in trouble? No, but the person who opposes them get a week block.

One last thing. While I may be critical of the behavior, thinking, and actions of various admins, and others mentioned above, I do not hold anything against them personally. I am not, nor ever have been, motivated by any feelings of ill-will. As well, I don't take anything personally that they may say against me in terms of disagreement. We may disagree but I defend your right to disagree. Still, there is right and wrong and what is right and wrong should be settled both in content and form (form being the method used, i.e. with logic, reason-- not emotional defensiveness, bad arguments, lack of evidence, false reasonsing). Indeed, it's only through an openess of disagreements that progress and truth has a way to flourish and bring greater understanding. It may not always work, and there is never a gaurantee, but it's the best method we have. Giovanni33 00:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

longer block? Why?

I do not understand why my 24 hour block for the above, was changed to another week long block?! I agreed to stay away from the Christianity articles for a period of time, and edit elsewhere. I've done that. I've stepped away from defending myself on the incident board, as well, when asked to. I never considered fixing users talk pages by restoring them from vandal attacks, including those of my own page (ip address) by the likes of Timothy's user page attacks, to be part of any agreement on my part. For accidently going over a 3rr in this case I was blocked for 24 hours, which some feel is not right, either. But, to extend that a week? Why? I've had no article content disputes. My aid in stopping these false labels spreading to others user talk pages, and helping these other editors in restoring the talk pages according to their wishes is not something I undertood needs to be avoided. If so, it was a misunderstanding. Therefore, I respectfully ask that I be unblocked after the 24 hour block, and not have to wait another week.Giovanni33 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You should be unblocked... --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 17:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

AN/I

see here ^^James^^ 23:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, James. I think I should decline to comment on that board for the reason that basically, anything I say is ignored. Notice how Agathacleo brings up the question about the validity of their premise in the first place, i.e. the charges of socket-puppets, but this is ignored. This is because it’s not a question of reason or truth. It’s a question of punishment, and the establishment of power, authority, of domination. We are like the inmates and inmates have to be kept “inline.” It is no accident that what is adopted is the classic inquisition's demand. Indeed, the totalitarian state requires submission and confession of guilt--or else. For this purpose it doesn’t matter if I'm really guilty or not. That is but a minor technicality is brushed aside as an unimportant detail best ignored.

It is rather striking that I do not speak with hyperbole: "The main issue I see is that he has not admitted his sockpuppeting; without this admission of wrongdoing...he be blocked until he admits all of his sockpuppets, including User:Professor33..."Ofcourse, I've already on several occasions, including just recently above, admitted to my wrong doing and violations of SOCK (though what is known as a "meatpuppets.") I’ve clearly laid out my own wrongdoing. This was over half a year ago. But, others wish to continue to accuse, and attack using evidence of this past as a launching platform to make personal attacks with unfounded and fabricated accusations based on the very weakest of evidence, or even none at all! This is what is wrong, and this why I correctly protest. That I protest in frank terms is the real crime here. It’s the crime of free speech, free thought, and free association. That is the real reason others seek to add their own whips to lashing out against me. If one is innocent, to proclaim it is to say that the accusing admin is wrong. To so that is an insult upon their feelings of superiority. It is to call into question their glaring incompetence. Therefore, this is ‘disruption!” Time for more punishment! Yes, this is clearly a question of submission: confess that we rulers (admins) are right, and you are wrong. Confess your crimes, confess your guilt--or else! (In fairness this does not characterize all admins, obviously. There are good and bad.)

It does not matter that I've done nothing but edit constructively in non-controversial articles avoiding all content disputes (which is what really motivates the attacks against me any character). Having gotten rid of other good editors, such as Al and Sophia, they seem emboldened to wipe the slate clean of any opposition. I am to lie about things I did not do so I can continue to edit here? It raises an interesting ethical dilemma. As a utilitarian I considered it but must decline because, to borrow one good ethical principal found within Christianity, "do not bear false witness against thy neighbor." To lie about others by saying they are my puppets, when they are not, is akin to such an ethical violation. In short, it would be very unfair to them.

These self-proclaimed defenders of Wikipedia are in actually its worst enemies. For every good editor they run out of Wikipedia with their imperious arrogance and injustice, with their bullying and other abuses, while it serves their own sense of self-aggrandizement and issues with power, it will further relegate to transform this project into a type of political shell that is characterisitic of an authoritarian cult, administered in a manner that is inconsistent with its purported lofty goals, or even its policies and guidelines. It will be its own undoing. If the goals are real and sincere then this intolerable situation must be corrected if it is ever to succeed. One thing is clear, if they ban me they do not have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, and therefore they only prove they should themeselves be removed from their possitions of doing the project further harm. But if they admit their being wrong, I'll forgive and forget, and retract every negative thought I've expressed here. People are people and they will make mistakes. I believe in allowing those who have erred to move forward, having been wiser for making the mistake.Giovanni33 03:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edits and need for edit summary

On the "Teach the Conttroversy" article you marked this edit as minor, [86]. It most certainly was not minor as your edits changed the gist pf the section. Also, you need to use edit summaries. Jim62sch 10:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

True. It is sometimes hard for me to explain it all in a short edit summary so I posted my explantion on the talk page, instead. But, I agree with you about my edit summary. I do explain when I intentionally correct for accuracy or meaning, but tend not to explain when it's simply for clarity in language, and grammar stuff. In this case, though, there is some potencial in meaning being affected, which needs to be worked out. See here for my pretty standars preference for the use of the talk page to explain and iron out my intended edits:[87]Ciao.Giovanni33 11:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Think twice...

Hello Giovanni33 : - ) A suggestion. You might think twice about which articles you edit. Out of the 1,253,693 articles in Wikipedia en, you choose the one that FeloniousMonk last edited. [88] A wise choice? Some administrators are trying to help you. Help them to help you, okay? Take care, FloNight ^talk 11:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flo. Thanks for stopping by. To answer your question, yes, I think it is a wise choice--or rather not necessarily an unwise choice. Correct me if I'm wrong but my reasoning is thus: I've never edited on an article before with FM, or had an edit conflict over its content with him. Yet, the results of our interaction over admin issues have been less than ideal. If I stay away and avoid working with him on articles, does this not just maintain a less than desired status-quo? Therefore, it could be a positive change to take a break from my old ideological opponents on the Christianity articles (as tempting as it is to jump back in, esp. now), and switch to editing other articles of equal interest, even with editors with whom I've had some conflicts with recently. Given that my conflicts with FM centered on purely administrative issues involving judgments based on not knowing me at all--and not any content disputes with articles, I see this change as potencially helpful. Moreover, looking at FM's actual article contributions, they do look good content wise, from my perspective. Therefore, I have no reason to believe that my working with him to improve articles of mutual interest would have any effect but positive, even if there are disagreements. I'm sure FM is, despite being human like all of us, not a bad guy, but intelligent, and mature, as as we all are who choose to contribute to WP. Therefore, I found no logical reason for me to "hide out" and avoid working on articles with editors like FM, esp. if I assume good faith. If you have any advice for me that counters my thinking, I'd be happy to consider it. Thanks for caring. :)Giovanni33 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I'm here to reiterate what FloNight has said. If you start to stalk FeloniousMonk in any way, you're likely to be blocked from editing, and I doubt very much that anyone will defend you. If you want to edit Wikipedia, please try to find your own area of interest. It's not a question of "hiding out," as you put it, but of using your common sense. You appear to be very much in the last-chance saloon as far as WP goes, so I hope you'll take the chance to rehabilitate yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Why would I want to "stalk" him or anyone else? That makes no sense, and its insulting. I have no interests in doing such a thing. You ask me to find my "own area of interest" if I want to edit in Wikipedia? I object to your premise. It is one of my areas of interest and Wikipedia is not, nor should be, divided into "areas of interest" (spheres of interest?) among certain editors or groups of editors, who have some kind of ownership claim to the subjects, and where others must find their 'own' area to lay claim to? These ideas all seem like some strange from of bourgeois nationalism projected onto Wikipedia. Can point me to any guideline that advises this? I believe that articles benefit from the free interplay of various editors, placing checks on each other’s biases, and producing a better overall product as a result of the interaction of many minds. In contrast, there are major POV problems when editors do claim a type of 'ownership" over articles or subjects, and in which others are to be warned to go find their 'own area," and bullied away. This is how POV articles stay in their shape.

I know about wiki-stalking, in which an editor follows another one around and harasses them, etc. because I'm a victim of it. But, this idea of finding my own area of interest, implying that 1. this is not my area of interest, and 2. that this area is already owned and and off-limit to others, is completely another matter.

As those who know me will say, I happen to be very interested in the interplay between religion, politics, and science, in particular as found around the debates over the theory of evolution. I've not done much on this myself here because I glanced at these articles some time ago, and they seemed in decent shape. The Christianity articles were another matter so I focused my attention on them.

If you show me where how my thinking, as expressed above, is mistaken then I'd be glad to reevaluate. I have many interests--Animal Rights, comparative philosophy, history, constitutional law, languages, mythology, astronomy, theoretical physics, political science, and more. I've worked on all these subjects without making it a focus. If you feel I must focus another area instead so as not to be "blocked' then I'd consider it. However, I'd like to know why, and do things for the right reason. I see no harm from editing in the new area I've started editing in; I see no reason for any conflict with FM. As I've said, it appears we share a similar POV on the article content. How would my involvement in the article with him produce anything of a negative nature?

I think it’s completely unfair that I'm still threatened with being banned and blocked, and warned for things I've never even done. I'd much appreciate positive motivations than threats and bad faith assumptions. As far as my own record and needing to be "rehabilitated," I reject that premise as well because I'm very proud of my own record and conduct in Wikipedia, despite some early mistakes. When I'm wrong I admit to it and move on. I wish others would be able to do the same. We'd all benefit if there were more editors like myself!Giovanni33 03:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I thank you for your kind smile. In India, it is getting "night-er" and I am getting light-er after seeing your smiles. Your smile was nice. Thanks. --Bhadani 17:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

Oh, sorry about that. I think your edit must have been made seconds before I did the vandalism revert. I've gone back into the article and re-done your edit. Thanks for letting me know. --MichaelMaggs 20:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

violation

Blocked or not blocked?

Contributions

Further reading

BC AD

3RR violation

NPOV lecturing

Blocked

Ann's reply

Hypocrisy or Accidental 3RR Vio? I assume good faith and accept its an accident

Re: Christian mythology

Re: Christianity

Blocked

Jesus Article Intro Text

Back to the real issue of why I'm being blocked and attacked

Hitler

Protection

Winning on Christianity

blocked for your edits to WP:AN3

Enough is enough

William M. Connolley

POV on Wikipedia

Robsteadman re:materialism/idealism dichotomy and formal logic

Re: Jesus-Myth

When Rob is Back

Jesus Article Vote

Jesus Talk Vote (again)

Historicity of Jesus

Jesus Vote Runoff

Your help requested

Belinda

Re: Gnosticism

Eusebius

Mythical Hero Archetype

Abortion definition.

My 3RR

More for your reading list

Up your alley

Christian Controversies

ISBN

User notice: temporary 3RR block

KHM03 think tank

"brand new and didn't know the policy at all"

category facism

Other users talk pages

While on the Subject of Other Users' Talk Pages

the forbidden website

Please be careful with reverting.

Your messages

Christianity and Hitler

WP:CIVIL

External Links being Suppressed

Personal attacks against you

Remove if you wish, but you did request it

Blocked for 3hr

Apartheid AFD

Hello

Cultural Revolution

Mao

Mao: The Unknown Story

3RR

Non/arguments and user talk pages

SlimVirgin's talk page

Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar!

Re:SV

Hitler's Religious Beliefs Merger

Changes in policy suggested

my e-mail to blocking admins

StormRider

back to the false accusations

regarding the secret liguistic evidence

Timothy posting socketpuppet notices on many users pages unfairly

This has happenend before

Block reset

Good admins

"disruptive" editor accusation?

Latest unjust block by FM's wheel warring

Thank you again for unblocking me