Talk:Christianity/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Dirty sock issues

Most folks may know this already, but we have a few socks among us. For sure, Giovanni33 and BalindaGong are the same user, both currently blocked. There's a chance that John1839, Kecik, Trollwatcher, and now Freethinker99 are the same person as Gio, being utilized to evade the block. We can assume good faith, but we've done that before and allowed this user to violate rules left and right. Let's just step carefully. KHM03 23:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

PS - The user is using several anonymous identities as well. KHM03 23:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the apparently unlimited number of 'new users' who appear, read the talk page and archives, carefully compare the various edits of the last month, and then revert to Giovanni33's preferred version, I wonder if we should consider some kind of page protection. So this isn't misunderstood as snarky commentary, let me be clear. I think Giovanni33 is using other accounts and sockpuppets to circumvent his latest 3rr block. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be a real shame. What do you suggest? What action can be taken against this user, who now appears to be violating left and right? KHM03 23:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Geez, thanks. It really makes me feel welcome as a new user. I guess no one can agree with the secular humanist point of view (articulated by Giovanni) without being accused of being him and a proposal to block out such a view. I never new this to be a Christians-only club. I think arbitration might be needed in order to get admins here who are not biased with a pro-Christian POV. Freethinker99 23:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr 99, if you are indeed someone else we are all sorry about this happening to you, but you should understand that we had a whole trackload of new users arriving on articles frequented by Giovanni, always agreeing with him, always echoing his thoughts, sometimes falling into the same argumentive patterns (like addressing the supposedly weakest part of an argument while ignoring all the rest and then reverting). These people seem to follow Gio where he goes or surface after he has been blocked to continue his work. Some of these have been proven to be sockpuppets, while others are merely suspected. Now, if you are experiencing false suspicions you can thank Giovanni and his tactics for that. I am willing to assume good faith and hope your behaviour proves me right. However, I must admit that your post above follows the Gio pattern I described. Str1977 23:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I have seen sock puppets used, it has never been an issue for me. Can't admins determine who is using a sock puppet by comparing the address of the user? It does not create a comfortble environment when we accuse others of being a puppet and I hope we all refrain from pointing any further fingers. If we can't prove it, don't point a finger. That being said, the similarities in some of the edits are disturbing with several of the new editors. Sort of saps the joy out of editing. Storm Rider 23:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I asked a question on Giovanni's talk page,[1] and it was answered in wording that suggested Giovanni was replying to me and to KHM03 (who had also asked a question); his answer denied that any of the users (including Freethinker99) was connected with him.[2] Unfortunately, he didn't realize that he was actually logged on as Freethinker, so when he signed with the four tildes, the signature came out as Freethinker's. Then he tried to undo it by logging on as Giovanni, and changing the signature to Giovanni's.[3]. But of course, he couldn't erase it from the edit history.

Giovanni, I think the days of your sockpuppeting, your duplicity, and your edit warring are over. AnnH ^(talk) 00:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is your interpretation of the events, but you're wrong about that. What did happen was that, as I explained, I allowed Giovanni to post a response on his own page with my account. As it was his own text, I thought he should log in and change it to reflect that it was his, and not mine. This does not make me Giovanni. Giovanni denied all the users, refering to the list given by KM03, before he added my name. Obviously I Giovanni knows me, and introduced me to Wikipedia. Is that wrong? Sorry if I violated any rules but I am still very new. If any mistakes were committed, they were mine and not Giovani's. He is respecting his block, although he doesn't agree with it. I know for a fact that BelindaGong is a different person (yes, I know her too). Freethinker99 00:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid after the behaviour we've had from Giovanni/Belinda and numerous new accounts showing up to follow them around Wikipedia and revert to Giovanni's version, and vote to support Giovanni, in some cases appearing on pages that they'd be unlikely, as brand new users, to find by chance, we're all going to find it a little bit difficult to accept that. I can't see any reason why Giovanni would use your account. And in any case, even if it were true, it would still make you a meatpuppet, which means that you are not entitled to revert for him. AnnH ^(talk) 00:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the logic behind using other numerous accounts that support Gio's view being a negative thing or have anything to do with Gio himself other than they support the same view (not his view, its not original). Gio informs me that you did a usercheck and that this proved that all these other users are not his socket-puppets, so I think you should drop that matter. You said you can't understand why he would use my account. I already explained so I don't know why you can't understand that. He is over at my place. He is teaching me how to use Wikipedia. I read the talk pages and let Gio response to your quesiton on his page with my PC (he can't with his own since he is not home. I am not aware what a meatpuppet is. Maybe you can help me out and explain things and try to be nice? Freethinker99 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni-thinker, even if we could believe what you state, that FT allowed Gio to edit from his account on Gio's talk page (given that Gio had no trouble posting wihout being logged-in), you would still be convicted of false statements, as Gio (supposedly only using FT's account) stated "that these users are not in any way associated with me, present or past" [4]. "These users" clearly included FT (and it was included for 50 minutes before you answered). A strange feat to get permission to use the account of someone unknown to oneself, isn't it? Even if you only invited him to the community, which also casts a light on the statements FT made when first appearing here. You (which of you? - I don't care) said it correctly: It was a mistake to sign it as FT - one mistake too many. Only Remington Steele can live under so many identities without tripping at one point. I am afraid to say that all weaseling and dissembling help after this. You cannot be trusted, period. Now that is bad faith if there ever was one. Str1977 00:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Im really suprised at the hostility we have here. I think I explained this confusion already. The persons Gio was refering to that he had no association with were the list originally included by KHM03. My name was added on a second line which after Gio saw he edited his talk to acknowlege this. I'm more interesting in contributing to the substance of the article and deal with all these rather silly accusations whose motivations seem to stem from ideological disagreements about the substance of this article. My one mistake of allowing Gio to contribut with my computer while not logging out first (and I note that I only allowed him to make an edito to his own talk page to answer a question, which is allowed, I understand), is not one mistake too many. Its my first one. Again, can we stick to the real issues? Freethinker99 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You are surprise after what you did, Gio-thinker? This is a real issue!

You are allowed to let anyone post to your talk page but you are not allowed to scok-puppet. It is one mistake too many, Gio-thinker, even if it was your first one under that particular name, it was a crucial, revealing one.

The interval between FT being added to the question and your reply was fifty minutes. And again, want to evade one part of the issue by focusing on another (see pattern). FT did answer a question directed at Giovanni, which makes you a sockpuppet. Str1977 01:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am very surprised. I guess this is normal for you but I am new to the Wikipedia community so the sectarian hostility does surprise me. Maybe what I did was more terrible than I realize. Again, Im new. I did not think allowing Gio to respond to a question on his own talk page with my pc (he is visiting), would be such a terrible crime. But, if it is I'm learning. I don't think your assuming bad faith accomplishes anything except furthering the flames of hostility. Freethinker99 01:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Gio - you may get an individual vote in the "real" world but not here - welcome to the world of people with POV's who know the rules. By the way - I'm under the sock puppet cloud too for daring to question consensus - seems the only reason for anyone to disagree with the cozy christian mainstream view is if they're out to fiddle the system. SOPHIA 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, I don't think you have ever been seriously considered to be a sockpuppet of Giovanni. I read that you were supposed to be The Shriek (and whether that was actually sockpuppeting, editing at the same time from two accounts, I don't know), but your behaviour on WP, despite our differences, is miles apart from the stunts Gio has been pulling. Also, you don't usually follow Gio's pattern of argument (which I described above). There's no need to feel sorry for Gio, who fell into his own hole. Not because of anyone's POV but because of his direct breaking and trying to circumvent the Wikirules. And I am not so good in knowing the letter of the law - you don't need to know to avoid what Gio has done. Since I think quite highly of you, Sophia, I expect that you will agree that his actions are unacceptable. Str1977 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to give SOPHIA the benefit of the doubt. Her husband operates from the same address...OK. No problem. If I've upset or offended her (or Mr. SOPHIA, TheShriek), I am sorry. But, as stated above, the Gio/Balinda/Freethinker99/etc. problem is a real one. I'm willing to forgive, forget, and move on...I just kinda want Gio to come clean. I'm really disappointed. KHM03 00:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Gio says (since he can't respond here: "I have come clean. But, I wont admit to things that are not true. My talk page is honest. --Gio" As I said, I can't vouch for Gio that BelindaGong is a different person, and he willing to prove it. Anyone want to take him up on that? Freethinker99 00:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's really big of you all I must say - no hard feeling huh? Maybe I'm not too chuffed to find out that all the while I was editing in good faith there were suspicions about my integrity for the simple reason that I see things differently to you. I'm afraid I have taken this very personally as I've always tried to be moderate and as NPOV as I can - admitting when I've learned lessons and trying to bridge the gap of the more extreme views. Quite frankly I've got better things to do than waste my time with a load of people who can't be upfront and feel the need to check up behind your back if you differ. SOPHIA 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've appreciated your conciliatory attitude and your help on this project, and, again, I apologize if I said or did anything to upset you. KHM03 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be pretty reasonable person, KHM03. I hope you can use your influence to calm down Str1977 and MusicalLinguist who I find to be very hostil, lacking in civility. As you can see in the article, I addressed changes that Str wanted, and I reverted to your version, after you removed a section. I'm fine with that. But, Str1977 just reverted back to his original version. Lets all work together and iron out our differences. To do this we must first all of be civil with each other. Freethinker99 01:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Gio-thinker, you did not address the changes. You incorporated some of the really big blunders you made during your first reverts. I see that it was a mistake to tell you what these were, as you now (according to the pattern) focus on these and claim everything elese is fine and dandy. I wasn't orignally in favour of including Beowulf, which you pushed into the fold, but now it has been included quite in well, in a meaningful way. But to state it again: the real contentious issues lie somewhere else. Having said the word, to iron out our differences we must first need to be able to trust one another. You have broken that. Str1977 01:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Star1977, its not Gio-thinker, it's Freethinker. Just because I agree with Gio is no reason to deface my name. I thought I had addressed your issues. If I missed any, perhaps you can it out, specifically, by citing the text? You are too quick to assume bad faith. I tried in good faith to incorporate the changes but having failed you now say that I have broken your trust and therefore we can not iron out differences? Wow. I think joining Wikipedia was a mistake. Too much drama here. Freethinker99

SOPHIA, you're not under any cloud. I thought I had made that clear on your talk page, but maybe I expressed myself badly. I personally removed the sockpuppet notice from your husband's user page when I got your reply. (It was put there by an uninvolved admin when the results came through, not by one of the Christians on this page.) At no stage did I ever think you were a sockpuppet, and a look at your contributions and TheShriek's shows that, unlike Belinda/Giovanni, you didn't try to cast double votes, or to get six reverts per day. There is no way that your IP would have been checked, if it hadn't been for the fact that your husband was one of those many (and still increasing) new users who showed up at this article to voice support for Giovanni after Giovanni met with resistence.

As for the point that people in the same families get individual votes in the real world, well in the real world, it's possible to know how many people they really are, but it's not possible for an IP checker on Wikipedia to know how many people are behind an IP address. If we didn't have that rule, there'd be nothing to stop all of us (the orthodox Christians as well) from registering ten, or twenty, or fifty usernames, and having as many votes or revets as needed to ensure that we got our way.

You were under absolutely no obligation to tell anyone that you were married to TheShriek. Your name was not mentioned in the request for a sock check. It never occurred to me to ask for a check on you. The reason your name came up was because TheShriek was checked as a possible sockpuppet for Giovanni. And that's not a reflection on your husband, whom we don't know. It's a perfectly normal response to the appearance of multiple new users who came to the Christianity page and supported a particular POV. Your behaviour has been perfectly honourable; Giovanni's has been quite shabby, with his elaborate pretence of having no connection to Belinda, his aggressive reverting (on one occasion 11 reverts in less than nineteen hours), sneering at other editors, referring to them as sneaky, hypocritical, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets etc. None of us has ever associated your behaviour with his. I don't know what more we can say to convince you of that. I'm really sorry that you got mixed up in this. AnnH ^(talk) 01:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet another telltale sign:

freethinker: 18:45, February 14, 2006 Freethinker99 (addressed Str1977 issues per talk page in a new compromised version.)

Giovanni33: 11:35, February 7, 2006 (hist) (diff) Eucharist (rv to Wesley. Lima' pushing POV with overstatment and changing meaning from compromised version by Nrgdoc..) [5]

MikaM: 16:47, January 26, 2006 (hist) (diff) Christianity (rv to sections of compromised version of majority consensus per talk page) [6]

Lately the Gio sockpuppet complex transitioned from declaring his edits the consensus version and/or the NPOV version to declaring them the compromise version. Or, as here, the "compromised version", which is a sylistic oddity and as such points to an individual writer. A.J.A. 02:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, MikaM acknowledged here that the IP address 69.107.7.138 was his/hers. 69.106.243.31 is probably the same person, as it's a very similar address and an edit which MikaM wanted, according to discussion on the talk page. So it's interesting to see the appearance of 69.107.21.3 to support MikaM:

• 23:36 12 February MikaM reverts
• 23:38 12 February MikaM reverts
• 00:17 13 February 69.107.21.3 reverts
• 00:27 13 February 69.107.21.3 reverts
• 01:03 13 February 69.107.21.3 reverts with "Beware 3RR" in edit summary

This shows a strong connection between the three IP addresses.

MikaM, if you're reading this, could you please tell us if those IP edits were from you. As you can see, these things can be checked. We're willing to move on, and we've always been very slow to report 3RR violations at this page, especially when it involves a newcomer, but there's already been too much duplicity at this article, and I think we need to know who if anyone is using sockpuppets or meatpuppets, or alternating between username and IP address to get round 3RR — something which SOPHIA did not do. AnnH ^(talk) 02:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems their is an inquisition here against all non-Christians, or rather those who simply are tolerant enough to want to see this article be more NPOV. I resent this and won't cooperate with this uncivil whitchhunt. I aleady know that I've been userChecked, along with all others who dared to deviate or question the bias here. And, the check came up clean--that I'm no socketpuppet. MikaM 02:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a usercheck can never prove that someone isn't a sockpuppet. I could register another account from my computer at work (which I almost never use) and then revert three times a day from that, go home in the evening, and revert three times from my home computer. A sockcheck would reveal nothing in such a case. There's no proof that anybody (myself, Tom harrison, Str1977, KHM03) isn't a sock. We're assumed not to be becuase we don't behave like sockpuppets — new accounts that keep reverting. You were checked to see if you were editing from the same IP address as any other registered user, more specifically, if you were editing from the same IP address as the other newcomers who kept supporting Giovanni and reverting to his version. The result did not announce what your IP address was. But 69.107.21.3 is very similar to one you acknowledged editing from before. So my question still stands. AnnH ^(talk) 03:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, on the subject of editors dividing their reverts between user name and IP address, we had the following tonight:

• 20:09 14 February, Kecik reverts
• 20:17 14 February, Kecik reverts
• 20:20 Kecik reverts
• 22:34 208.54.15.129 reverts

Kecik, could you please tell us if that fourth revert came from you? There's less evidence than in the case of MikaM above, who is known to have edited previously from a very similar IP address.

If MikaM and Kecik are completely innocent, I apologize, but the behaviour of Giovanni and his socks has led to a lot of suspicion here. Also, Kecik's edit history is 100% reverts to Giovanni on articles (plus some talk page posts, where he was agreeing with Giovanni). MikaM's contributions are also almost 100% reverting to Giovanni on articles, plus agreeing with him on talk pages. (By revert to Giovanni, I mean to something that Giovanni was pushing for, even if the two versions are not identical because of unrelated changes made by other users in between.)

There's no wish to upset anyone. This whole unpleasantness is a result of the duplicity of Giovanni, who may be one user operating three or more accounts, or one user who persuades friends and family members to join Wikipedia to support him and then pretends to have no prior connection with them. It's also partly caused by the editing style of new members whose sole contributions are reverts, votes, and backing up Giovanni on talk pages. Most if not all of the editors who disagree with Giovanni and socks have fairly significant amounts of editing on non-controversial topics in their history — without reverting or being reverted. Everybody's revert average seems to have gone up considerably since Giovanni and socks arrived. AnnH ^(talk) 03:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to blame it all on Gio is a nice try but not the reality. The reality is Gio is just the best target since he backs up his additons with a lot of references and argues the point on the talk page more than others. I dont think its fair for his opponents to pick on him, call him names, etc. after you have gotten him blocked again so he can't defend himself. MikaM 04:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree its pretty low to try to blame Giovanni33, or everyone who happens to support his point of view for the edit wars. It takes two sides, and I think Giovanni33 has made things much better--not worse. The Christian view is not the only one that should be deemed legitimate. Whenever a new user tries to introduce a broader persective, to clarify the language or expand on a point that is one-sided, that user is bullied away. That is wrong. It's also unfair that Giovanni gets blocked, while these same POV warriors (Musical Linguist, Str1977, with the help of Tom_Harrison) try to silence him and get him banned for good. If you don't believe me see: [7] and

[8]

They even distort Sophia's complaint about how this process has been unfair by saying, "SOPHIA, thinking she has been lumped in with Giovanni and his socks, is pretty annoyed." The fact is that she does not think she has been lumped in with Giovanni but that she feels because she has expressed a view against the orthodox Christian clique here that she was also also treated unfairly. So were MikaM and others like Kecik. If you think about it anyone who does not follow the groupthink. Just to disclose, I had to create a new account just to express my true feelings here because otherwise, I'd be targeted as well and hounded without mercy. It smells of fascism here so I had to speak up to say stop the repression, stop the bullying, and let other voices have a say without the intimidation, threats and insults. FionaS 05:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is to blame for any user violating wikipedia policies, like the three revert rule, but that user. Let's not shift blame. If you see anyone among the "Christian clique" that has violated the rule, by all means report them on the appropriate page. If you see other policy violations, report them to the relevant 'need admin attention' pages, or request mediation, open a "Request for Comment", etc. Meanwhile, this Talk page should discuss improving this article. Wesley 06:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell that to all those Christian editors above who are more interested in attacking those who don't agree with them. We need editors like Giovanni33 and Freethinker, who hopefully will still come back here to improve this article. The problem is when they try, they are attacked. Just look at what they did to Freethinker's page: [9] And blocking him for 48 hours, a new user becuase he dared to agree with Giovanni33: [10] FionaS 06:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This very page is the only one FionaS has ever edited. A.J.A. 06:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have a different account with lots of contributions. As I already stated above very clearly in my open disclosure, "I had to create a new account just to express my true feelings here because otherwise, I'd be targeted as well and hounded without mercy. It smells of fascism here so I had to speak up to say stop the repression, stop the bullying, and let other voices have a say without the intimidation, threats and insults." So yes, this is the first edit using this account specifically created for this purpose. In this sense I am a real socket puppet, which is not against the rules, esp. if there is a good reason to do so, which I have stated. I'd really like to keep my regular account and not get harassed. FionaS 07:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith. A.J.A. 08:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing on these pages is pointless - the only reason User:TheShriek and I got dragged into all this is bacause at some point he agreed with Giovanni - whatever the "consensus" editors may say - his edit pattern never matched Gio's or anyone else - he got into wiki briefly when I did but has been too busy to edit for a while due to work demands. He reads different books than me and therefore has his own unique perspective which should not have to be blended with mine so as not to "fiddle" the system. Whilst we agree on alot of issues we differ on quite a few - especially our argumentative approach which is why we chose to edit as separate entities. In a modern world I'm not used to being considered as inseparable from my husband.

Since I have spent alot of time chasing the "sock" allegations round the system and since my husbands talk page history will forever carry that accusation I feel my credibility as an editor has been undermined. Users like Gator1 need no new reasons to trash my view or attack my opinons so I can't see the point in carrying on.

Maybe that was the point in all this - to clear what has become crowded ground. Gio may have broken the rules or not but he always referenced his arguments which is all that wiki is supposed to be about. He has moved topics when convinced he's in the wrong place and has tried to work with the other editors. Votes are incidental in wikipedia so violations of this sort are not really significant to the article - just show bad faith editing - if this is what has occurred.

The basic problem seems to be that if you disagree with the consensus then you must be suspect in some way. That does not make for a comfortable editing environment. I shall be taking an extended wiki break - possibly a permanent one as I'm frankly too angry to be able to work constructively with some of the editors on this page. Since POV has no place here - I cannot carry on at present.

If differing views are systematically weeded out then the significance and relevance of these articles will gradually dwindle - like current church attendance. SOPHIA 11:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's lay it all on the table. We believe that User:SOPHIA and User:TheShriek are married and edit from the same address. Good enough. We also know that another user edits from several anonymous usernames and also may be editing as User:Giovanni33, User:BelindaGong, User:Freethinker99, possibly User:MikaM and User:Kecik, maybe User:John1838 and User:Trollwatcher, and now perhaps User:FionaS. That's a lot of potential puppetry...some of helping to violate WP:3RR, some of it helping the user to evade a block. This is just really disappointing for those of us who were hoping that Gio/Belinda/etc. (what do we call him/her?) would become a good contributor here. They've all got the same edits and interests (Jesus, Historicity of Jesus, Christianity, Transubstantiation, Eucharist, Early Christianity, and Adolf Hitler), and tend to show up when one editor "uses up" their daily "revert allowance". If this all sounds like I'm not assuming good faith, then I simply state that given this user's history, it's pretty difficult to do so. What do we as a community do at this point? KHM03 11:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me as though 'Trollwatcher' has anything to do with the other users mentioned, aside from being unhappy that his POV isn't presented more prominently in the article. He seems to be pushing an Eastern Orthodox view regarding the filioque clause, rather than pushing a humanist or atheist view regarding the origins of Christianity. Also, I think either Giovanni33 or BelindaGong has said somewhere that they are also married to one another. John1838 so far appears to be a user account set up for the sole purpose of having a user page to track 'Christian trolls.' So what do we do? We all keep trying our best to follow the relevant policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and of course WP:SOCK. And we try to use this Talk page to discuss improving this article. Wesley 13:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Wesley for pointing out the real differences, indicative of these other users not being my socketpuppets. I appreciate the honesty to see this, contrary to others who wish to lump everyone who has shown disagreement into a diversionary and concerted attack on them instead of their arguments.Giovanni33 00:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should all be trying to follow the policies but that is not what I see people doing here. Instead they are inflating conspiracy theories to try to make a case of a SOCK violation, while at the same time breaking the other policies of Civility and Assuming Good Faith. The effect of this is that any new users get treated harshly, accused, and run out of wiki-town. Looks like this has already happened to Sophia, and Freethinker. Giovanni and Belinda are probably husband and wife. So calling them socket puppets is not helpful. I will assume good faith and give them the benefit of the doubt. But even worse is to scrutinize everyone else simply because they agree with Giovanni's POV, and also calling them possible puppets, or meatpuppets, etc. This is in violation of the very policy of WP:SOCK which says "do not call them meatpuppets. Be Civil." And what about assuming good faith? These policies are not optional. They are requirements. Yet, they are ignored because the perpetrators are not those with Giovanni's POV--they come the other side that is attacking him and all those who share his POV. This is wrong and these serious violations of Wiki Policy are hurting the project. MikaM 04:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mika, where do you get that any new editor is treated harshly? We did assume good faith, albeit skeptically, towards FT when he first appeared until his "signature mistake". It's not us that put up conspiracy theories - rather is is FT/Gio that have resorted to circumstantial explanations why they are not sockpuppets, why they have not lied. That "they have" done at least one of these is the heart of the matter. Whether FT is really running away or whether Gio has decided that this sock has failed his cause I cannot decide. The real victim of Gio's behaviour is Sophia, as she appearently thought herself in one boat with FT-G, while she isn't. Str1977 09:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the majority of contributors to this page are either trolls or sockpuppets - perhaps both at the same time. What a sad bunch.

I have been following the principle that if anyone can determine my own personal POV from my edits, then I'm doing something wrong. If everyone followed that principle, we would not have 99% if the idiotic fruitless rancour that we do.

I'd very much appreciate an apology from Wesley since I am not "pushing an Eastern Orthodox view" - just pointing out that it exists and that by any objective standards (see earlier citations) the Eastern position is stronger than the Western one. That observation does not tell you anything at all about my own religion or my personal opinion on the filioque.

I'd very much appreciate an apology too from KHM03 one of the most disruptive elements on this page despite his surface politeness. KHM03, you have not the faintest shadow of a reason to suspect me of sock puppetry and I very much resent the suggestion. Please review WP:CIV and then make your public apology. Thankyou.

Trollwatcher 19:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If I'm incorrect, and you've just been caught up in the unethical behavior of another user who has utilized sockpuppets in an illegal fashion, then I am sorry. What would help your case in proving that you desire to be a legitimate editor at Wikipedia would be to make some edits throughout the project, not simply reverts or accusations or controversial material. Please - by all means - prove me wrong. Also, I don't think User:Wesley owes you a thing...he is Eastern Orthodox, so his observation was, if anything, a compliment. KHM03 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

KHM03 This is a wholly inadequate response. Please review WP:CIV and then try again. Thankyou.

Perhaps you'd also like to add your comments on Wesley's observations (see below) that he has been trying for years to include information on the Orthodox position. Why do you think anyone should have to work for years to have a mainstream position represented on this page ? Trollwatcher 10:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak to what's gone on "for years". I have never had a problem with the Eastern Orthodox perspective; it is quite mainstream, in my opinion the oldest of the Christian traditions, and one which has been a significant influence in my own tradition. I've been editing now for a little over a year, so I really don't know this article's history prior to that. KHM03 17:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Trollwatcher, I apologize for insinuating that your editing behaviour was inappropriate. I certainly subscribe to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed personally, and have been working for years to include the Orthodox POV on this and related pages, in appropriate objective language, to the right degree (based on context and objective importance, etc.), and so forth. Just as you say you are. When I said you were also "pushing" this POV, I chose my words poorly, and without adequate basis. Please forgive me. Wesley 22:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, Thankyou for this graceful response. You are an example to all of us. Trollwatcher 10:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, I have been reviewing your contributions on the question of sockpuppets. I notice references to similar IP addresses. I wonder if you could explain to us less technical types what this means and what significance it has Trollwatcher 10:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, In relation to Sophia, I think you forgot to mention that you did request an investigation of the Shriek Trollwatcher 10:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, I would appreciate your observations on the fact that almost all of the main contributors to this page are accused of being either sockpuppets or trolls, and that any apparently normal people (Sophie is just the latest of many) soon give up and go away. Why do you think that is ? Trollwatcher 10:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, I noted your observations that any user on this page could be a sockpuppet and also the criteria you use to start an investigation. Just wondering if you've ever checked KHM03 and DJ Chapman ? Trollwatcher 10:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Who's DJ Chapman? I've never seen that user around. I've only ever used the KHM03 username and the anonymous username I utilized prior to registering (which I don't think I've ever used since). By all means, Troll, check it out. You'll be disappointed. KHM03 11:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

KHM03 Please see correction below. You seem very sensitive about this. No one has accused you of anything, and the question, not addressed to you, has a simple yes or no answer.Trollwatcher 17:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

KHM03 Just for the sake of clarity and in case you made an accidental error, are you accusing me of being a troll as well as a sockpuppet ? Trollwatcher 17:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I simply used "Troll" as shorthand for "Trollwatcher"...Gio short for Giovanni33, etc. Nothing else was intended. KHM03 17:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

KHM03 Glad you were able to clear that up. I'm sure it didn't occur to you, but anyone reading your comment could easily have made the mistake of thinking that you were calling me a troll. Please address the other outstanding queries and please be more careful in future. Please also review WP:CIV. Thankyou.Trollwatcher 18:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What precisely are you looking for me to address? KHM03 18:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

KHM03. You have accused me of being a sockpuppet of Geovani. You have been challenged on this. You have failed to withdraw the accusation unreservedly or to make a complete apology. Please review sockpuppets on Wikipedia and WP:CIV and then make a proper case for abuse or withdraw the suggestion and make an uncontitional apology. Thankyou for conforming standards you so consistently require of everyone else.Trollwatcher 10:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Trollwatcher: Yes...the fact that Giovanni33 has utilized multiple accounts to bypass Wikipedia rules (and has been blocked for that) has made me suspicious of many editors, and that's too bad. I understand that at some point it's something I'll have to accept and deal with and move on. Yes, I have suspicions about your origins and whether or not you are another sockpuppet utilized by Giovanni33. I am certainly permitted to be concerned given that editor's history. I reiterate what I stated previously: If I'm incorrect, and you've just been caught up in the unethical behavior of another user who has utilized sockpuppets in an illegal fashion, then I am sorry. I also have asked that you become a valued part of the Wikipedia community by making worthwhile, quality edits. To date, it seems to me, you've pretty much stuck to making accusations and, to be honest, causing problems - even your username bears that out (see WP:POINT). Again, I would be thrilled if you prove that I am incorrect. It's difficult to assume good faith right now given that Giovanni33 seems to have operated in bad faith and that your edits to date haven't really produced any positive fruit (or even tried to do so, from I have read). Please show me that I am incorrect...not just here, but elsewhere on Wikipedia. Prove me wrong, and I will not only write a BIG apology here for my doubts, but will also place something on my userpage saying the same thing...that I was wrong. KHM03 19:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

AnnH: Apologies for error. Above Question should have read:AnnH, I noted your observations that any user on this page could be a sockpuppet and also the criteria you use to start an investigation. Just wondering if you've ever checked KHM03 and DJ Clayworth ?

Mr T, let me address some points you have raised:

• Wesley's attempts have, to my knowledge, not been in any way blocked by the editors involved here, certainly not me, certainly not Ann (who arrived almost a year ago), certainly not KHM (with whom I have seen Wesley cooperate constructively quite often, without any such complaints).
• The user-check was done not on established editors with a long history of constructively editing a variety of articles but on a number of editors who recently arrived and all supported controversial views (and behaviour). In this context, The Shriek was "user-checked". His relation to Sophia (marriage) and to Giovanni (none) is now established. Sophia was, to my knowledge, not user-checked and she has behaved quite differently to Gio & Co. It's a pity if she'd be driven away because of the wrongdoings of others.

Str1977 10:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

But, all the other supposed socket-puppets that have been attacked as such also came up negative to any connection to me (technically speaking). So what you say about The Shriek equally applies to all the other new editors equally. And that leaves me without any socketpuppets, except for Belinda who is my wife, and hence not a socketpuppet. There have no no wrong doers here except the assuming bad faith and attacks against users who happen to share my Pov. Giovanni33 00:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Gio, the user-check goes via IPs and thus a negative user-check is not complete proof that there no sock-puppets, just as an identical IP does not automatically mean a sock-puppet (see Sophia & Shriek or you & Belinda), though for voting purposes identical IP means sock-puppet. However, you forget your sock-puppet FT, and you forgot your denial of knowing these other editors, which is evidently wrong in regard to your wife and to FT (if he is another person). Str1977 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 On your first bullet I'm not sure what point you're addressing or why you feel you need to. Happy to respond if you can explain.Trollwatcher 17:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 On your second point. What are the "wrongdoings" in question here? Is it sockpuppetry or is it the hounding anyone who fails to show the required deference to the troll confederation. Who exacly are you trying to pin the blame on here?Trollwatcher 17:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity I'd like to confirm that I still regard all of my questions above(not adressed to Str1977) as still outstandingTrollwatcher 17:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr T,

• Re my first point: it refers to your request above starting "Perhaps you'd also like to add your comments on Wesley's observations (see below) that he has been trying for years ..."

It was addressed at KHM, but I though I could reply as well. KHM has answered above.

• Re my second point: the wrongdoing in question are Gio's behaviour, especially his sockpuppeting (and I think the Gio-FT case to be established). The "troll confederation" can live with a lack of deference, wiki rule can't. Gio's behaviour caused a lot of heat that night and one effect seems to be that Sophia went away. Which is a pity.

Hope I have clarified my reply. Str1977 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977. First Point. OK, many thanks. Here is the para in question addressed to KHM03: "Perhaps you'd also like to add your comments on Wesley's observations (see below) that he has been trying for years to include information on the Orthodox position. Why do you think anyone should have to work for years to have a mainstream position represented on this page ?". I would very much appreciate your answer, and KHM03's to this specific question.Trollwatcher 10:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977. Second Point. I wonder if you could help me reconcile your view with what Sophia herself said. I quote: "That's really big of you all I must say - no hard feeling huh? Maybe I'm not too chuffed to find out that all the while I was editing in good faith there were suspicions about my integrity for the simple reason that I see things differently to you. I'm afraid I have taken this very personally as I've always tried to be moderate and as NPOV as I can - admitting when I've learned lessons and trying to bridge the gap of the more extreme views. Quite frankly I've got better things to do than waste my time with a load of people who can't be upfront and feel the need to check up behind your back if you differ". SOPHIA 01:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC). Are you suggesting that she was referring to Geovani? If not, who was she referring to? who is this "load of people" ?Trollwatcher 10:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr T,

A note on style: you needn't start every paragraph with a vocative.

Re the first point: I don't know about what problems Wesley had here on Wikipedia. You should ask him. I have never opposed him in any way, as far as I can remember, and isn't it our cordial cooperation that has earned us inclusion into a class of alleged "trolls"?

Re the second point: I know very well what Sophia wrote and that she was referring to those doing the user-check, but IMHO she is mistaken about that. I don't know why she solidarizes with Giovanni whose behaviour was wrong and quite in contrast to her own. That she feels this way is the real tragedy in this field. That the culprit Gio has returned after his block expired, while innocent Sophia is pushed away.

Str1977 11:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You should know why Sophia solidarizes with me, because she gave her reasons which are accurate and objective: "Maybe that was the point in all this - to clear what has become crowded ground. Gio may have broken the rules or not but he always referenced his arguments which is all that wiki is supposed to be about. He has moved topics when convinced he's in the wrong place and has tried to work with the other editors." I did not do anything wrong and I do not have any socketpuppets. She was pushed away by this McCarthy like witchhunt against editors who present a POV that questions the orthodox Christian POV dominated in this article. That is the real issue, not alleged socketpuppetry. Giovanni33 12:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, poor little innnocent Gio has done nothing wrong, always cooperated with other editors, did never break a wiki rule and has no sockpuppets whatsover. That might be true in a parallel universe but your records tells different stories. Str1977 12:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Distorting the opponents argument to easier knock it down is a classic logical fallacy. We see here is a straw man. Str1977 distorts the actual possition, which states, "Gio may have broken the rules,"characterizing it as " did never break a wiki rule"--more than a gross distortion. The reality is that my record bears out Sophia's objective non-biased descriptions above. She has no reason to distort the truth, no axe to grind against me, as you have. Your extreme bias and dishonest tactics are showing. These are bad faith slanders and personal attacks and I consider it harassment which is a blockable offense. I suggest you stop before you get yourself in trouble. Giovanni33 22:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Giovanni33 22:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Response to Str1977(Not really sure how best to fit this in with the intervening comments)

I've taken to using vocatives to make it clear who I'd like to hear a response from - there seems to be a bizarre practice of third parties here pitching in to de-rail exchanges.

I take it that you do not wish to answer the question: why do think anyone should have to work for years to have a mainstream position represented on this page ?".

Everyone has a right to be treated in good faith until there is a good reason for them not to be so treated. As for as I can tell there is no reason whatsoever to suspect half the people who have been suspected. And whatever the circumstances, it is a fact that Sophia has gone off blaming you, not Geovani33.Trollwatcher 17:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, use any format you like. It was just a suggestion.

As for your question "Why ...?" I can only answer, I don't know why Wesley has encountered problems. I can only guess that there is a certain Western bias on the English WP (just as there would be a Eastern bias on the Russian) and that there indeed POV pushers of all sorts around. Don't count me in!

Yes, everyone has a right to good faith. You won't see me acting in bad faith against Kecik, Mika M, you or others. However, Gio has indeed actively undermined good faith towards him by his duplicity. And I indeed know that Sophia was not blaming him but me and others, I know that. However, I can't agree with her analysis, as we have only reacted to Gio's duplicity. I don't know why she overlooks his faults and I bemoan her departure. But in the end it is Sophia's (IMO misguided) solidarizing with Gio that made her leave and not my or other's legitimate concerns about Gio & Co. Str1977 22:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlocked?

Let's agree to stop the comstant reverting. Mika, Freethinker, Gio, etc. (whether it's all one person or several)...can you please discuss your ideas here and gain a consensus before reverting or adding what is obviously disputed material? If you can agree, we can get this page unlocked. KHM03 18:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for a checkuser;[11] I would prefer that the page stay locked until we get an answer back on that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but it could take days or weeks. Too, too bad. KHM03 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarifications

Hi all,

I am new here and am trying to follow the discussion in this article. However to do so requires a little clarification. Would someone please tell me: 1.) Who is this Giovanni and what did he do? 2.) What is a sock puppet besides what I use to entertain my nephews? Christian_Historybuff aka Steve Christian Historybuff

Hello, and welcome. Here's the page about sockpuppets on Wikipedia. As to who Giovanni33 is, that's a more difficult question. You can conveniently sign your name with a shortcut, ~~~~. This produces: Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Weclome Steve, contrary to what some might say we don't bite newbies. To answer your questions:

1. Giovanni33 is an editor who appeared at this article a few weeks ago, making some edits to the history section. These turned out to be controversial, but Giovanni persisted in reverting back to his version - a behaviour that eventually got him blocked (after having broken the 3-Revert-Rule more than once).
2. Around the same time, various new editors appeared as well, all supporting Gio's edits and views and reverting back to his versions. These are suspected to be either Sockpuppets (Gio using a different user account) or Meatpuppets (friends of his he has called in to support him), all with the objective of circumventing the 3RR and blocks. Giovanni always denied any connection with these other editors (though now Belinda Gong turned out to be his wife). The latest of these newcomers was Freethinker99. The following edit [12]clearly indicates that he is the same Giovanni or at least knows him (which he denied before). This obvious evidence for Gio's tactics has stirred up quite some tempers (including mine).

Str1977 16:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Why do you not simply delete Giovanni33's Revisions so that nobody can ever revert back to them again? Christian_Historybuff aka Steve Christian Historybuff

That's technically possible, but we don't do that except in extreme cases where there might otherwise be legal problems. It wouldn't be appropriate in this case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting parts of the article history (which only administrators can do) is generally thought of as a fairly extreme measure. The article history is a record of contributors, and we do want to make sure that everyone is properly credited; even editors whose editing behaviour is... challenging... should still credit for their contributions. We make exceptions, but, all told, it is a lot simpler to revert a revert than it is to eliminate every instance of the version being reverted to. We have deliberately chosen to always err on the side of assuming good faith, and there are many, many ways in which this philosophy leads us to dealing with annoyances in a less than perfectly efficient way. Hope that answers your question. Jkelly 21:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Baptists Not Protestant

I would like to find out how to enter a change in the text of church history that indicates baptists are Protestants. This is a misrepresentation and one whose correction extends back to at least 1947 when LIFE magazine printed the same error.

How do I submit a change? Every time I edit the section to correct the error the correction gets dumped. Granttc 20:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that it keeps getting changed because Baptists are Protestants. KHM03 20:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Baptists are not Protestants they existed in doctrine and practice long before the Protestant Reformation began. Baptists were, in fact persecuted extensively, by Zwingli, Calvin, Luther and their adherents.

Who decides what is removed and edited. As near as I can tell there is no historic or scholarly support for their inclusion on the page as Protestant. Is it necessary to include references to move Baptists out of Protestantism since there is no reference outlined to support their inclusion? Granttc 17:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Trust me: Baptists are Protestants. If you want to give me YOUR evidence that they are not, I will be happy to refute it. --Midnite Critic 17:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See Landmarkism. Presumably that is what this is about. Jkelly 17:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

There are quite a few churches in the US that regard themselves as nothing more than Christian. They maintain that they are "not protesting anything," but are merely worshiping as Christians the way the New Testament teaches. They eschew the idea of 'denomination' and are usually congregational. I don't know if the Baptists take this line of reasoning. As JKelly's link suggests, it probably depends on which Baptists we are talking about exactly. I think there is more than one group. I suppose it also depends on how 'protestant' is defined.

Anyway, this is all 'original research;' I have no citations to offer, though I'm sure some could be found; but I do not think we should get into this level of detail in the general survey article on Christianity. Most people would just say Baptists are protestants. We should say that too, and leave further elaboration to a more specific article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Granttc: What makes you believe that Baptists aren't Protestant? Yes, the Anabaptists were persecuted by the leading Reformers, no question. But why do you believe the Baptists pre-date the 16th century? KHM03 20:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We have the same issue at Church of Christ. The solution is to fairly represent both sides: "A minority of Baptists reject the name 'Protestant,' asserting that the Baptist faith existed throughout history and before even the Catholic Church, which they consider to be a corruption of the primitive church as a result of the Great Apostasy. The majority of Baptists and religious scholars, however, categorize Baptists as Protestant." Simple. And informative; it is a fact that some people believe this, and it's interesting to know. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That's really why? I'd like to get Granttc's take, since he brought it up. KHM03 20:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

We have the same issue with a number of Restorationist groups (mostly very small), all of whom claim that they are not part of Protestantism, either because of a heritage they claim to trace back before the reformation or because they claim that they were founded expressly by divine command and are therefore the true church. To list them all would pad the intro out to way too long, and the basic premise would still stand; that by and large Christianity is divided into the three groups mentioned. DJ Clayworth 22:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Anabaptists trace their heritage back to the first century by claiming any and all believers in Believer's Baptism. A book called the Martyr's Mirror, published in the 17th or 18th century in Holland and later translated and published in the U.S., attempts to document such cases through the centuries and tie them together, and of course it especially details their struggles and persecutions during the Reformation. Wesley 23:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Any group that adheres to "Sola Scriptura" (and hence including these non-denominational but excluding various Restorianist groups) is Protestant by definition, even if they were persecuted by other Protestants. And yes, the Baptists have their origin in the Reformation. There were no Baptists until the 16th century. Str1977 00:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have been a Baptist my entire life, and furthermore a member of several different Baptist churches of various varities. I have never heard any of them object to being labeled "protestant". Effectively at this point in history, protestant no longer has to do with protesting anything. It simply is a label for the branch of Christianity which is not Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Baptists clearly fit in that category. This is a simple fact, regardless of if some Baptist ideas may predate the reformation. Vonspringer 19:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Any reason why I can't lift protection on this article?--MONGO 01:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

See here. KHM03 01:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason. The blocks placed on Giovanni33, BelindaGong, and Freethinker99 exire in about one hour from now, so that means that Giovanni gets another nine reverts in the next twenty-four hours. An excellent reason not to unprotect. AnnH ^(talk) 01:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Really, so are you admitting here that it is permissable that myself, Belinda, and Freethinker, all are allowed up to 3 reverts each? Wow, thanks for the change in policy. I'm sure Belinda (not sure if I can convince Freethinker to join again), will be happy to hear that. Thanks. Giovanni33 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I am definitely not saying that you and Belinda (if you really are two people) are allowed to have three reverts each. I was saying that given your track record, it was quite likely that you'd take three (or more) reverts each. I was referring merely to the technical possibility of doing so once the your blocks had been lifted and the page unprotected. AnnH ^(talk) 23:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I see, a technical possibility is what you meant (although you did say "that means that Giovanni gets another nine reverts.). As a linguist I'm sure you can see what is being communicated is not true: No, I don't get another 9 reverts. Sure, anyone can violate the policy and get blocked but that is true for everyone so its not a logical point. Don't we all have the technical ability to revert as much as we want from our own IP address (of course we will be blocked as a consequence)? The fact is, as you well know, that Belinda, Freethinker, and myself, are all counted as one person, so if any one of us has a cumulative total of over 3 reverts we all get blocked. Therefore how does the clarification of point above make any sense? Its not logical. Giovanni33 23:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem...I protected it without anyone asking me to do so, or a request to do so to my knowledge. I'm not a big fan of page protection, but just wanted to make it clear that I wanted everyone to not feel as though I had acted unilaterally by protecting the page. I am also the blocking admin of the "editors" in question, so I also wanted to ensure all my bases are covered.--MONGO 01:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line: The article has become a royal mess and needs trimming and care. We need to arrive at some kind of understanding. KHM03 03:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser

According to CheckUser [13], MikaM and Kecik are not the same user, and neither one is Giovanni33. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Jus so everyone knows...all the checkuser proves is that they are different IP's. Checkuser is not needed if other evidence of sockpuppetry are apparent.--MONGO 02:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33's edits

I really don't see a problem with him having editted it.... it doesn't seem that anything is cited at all for either side, and he seemed to simply be more expansive and without seeing sources, it seems his text is comparatively neutral. Before putting all these protections on the page, why not actually cite some of your information, and ask him to do the same?

P.S. editting because I'm having some problems at the moment..... says I'm logged in but not giving the correct signiature

User:King_Vegita 05:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi King_Vegita, and welcome. I'm glad to see a new user who has a longer history here, for obvious reasons. I have cited extensively for my side, but its been archived now. I don't mind doing so again. When sources where objected to, I found new sources. This article has changed a lot since I started to work on it, but it’s been a real uphill battle. Basically my POV is to seek is for a historical context for the emergence of Christianity, including the fact that there was no one Christianity, that it's in part a hybridization and development of various older religions. I wanted the influences, noted by scholars, included which all serve to contextually the religion in its time and thus give understanding to its emergence and nature in continuity and relation to other belief systems. Specifically, that means a Jewish context, ofcourse (no need to get into the various groups, Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes), but also the Pagan context, which is largely marked by syncretism, but also with clear distinct threads-- prominent ones being the cults of the Roman State, the mystery religions, and the schools of Geek philosophy. For me to have this presented is important as it gives balance and accuracy reflecting the modern understandings of the development of Christianity.

With regard to the language, this article was using the Wikepeaia narrative voice to speak from the perspective of the Church, or rather a one true Christianity, which I have endeavored to change in keeping with NPOV policy. For example, see a clear remnant of the old version with this POV coloring that is in the current article: "Christianity also had to deal with internal heresies, especially Gnosticism..." This is problematic because there "heresies" also contained Christians, like the Gnostic Christians. They are only heretics from the POV of some Christians, sometimes being only a matter of one vote determining who would be branded as not being "true." Wikipedia should not take sides, but report objectively. Compare with my NPOV language: "The church dealt with other versions of Christianity by defining these beliefs as heresies." The fact is that there were different strains of Christians and the one version, a particularly intolerant one (which should be also noted for historical accuracy in this connection--another point in disput here), merged with state power and tried to exterminate its rivals, sometimes killing thousands. I have plenty of mainstream sources to support all my claims.Giovanni33 22:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that even though this article is locked no one wants to use the talk pages to work out these differences from the other side. Instead is used for distracting and counter productive socketpuppety allegations, which are all false, btw. You cant keep up all this smoke forever...Giovanni33 13:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

A Simple Question (1)

Just a question about the users on this page. Is there a single atheist, agnostic, freethinker or secular academic who habitually contributes to the Christianity page ?

If there is, would you mind answering a second question: Do you feel that you are treated well by the half dozen or so contributors who have previously been identified as the “clique”, “cabal”, “DEWCs” or “Troll Confederation” of unusually devout believers?Trollwatcher 10:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you question is meant to be rhetorical, but it should be obvious that the editors who don't ideologically conform are not treated well in the final analysis, despite pretense to the contrary. It's one thing for everyone to recognize their bias and work collaborately with ohters of different Pov's to produce a NPOV article, but its another when there is abuse of power, bullying, and double stanards, and accusation attacking the user instead of the substance of their arguments.Giovanni33 22:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any user of any faith or lack of faith who has followed Wikipedia policy and been badly treated by the "devout believers". AnnH ^(talk) 23:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse not, since you are not on the receiving end of the bad treatment. From your Pov you don't see or think anyone is being treated badly but those who feel they are victims would feel differently, and see it from their Pov. As an example, cases of work place harassment, as policy, its usually the feelings of the victim which determin if it exists or not, not what the perpetrator thinks, or doens't see. Giovanni33 23:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC

Giovanni, perhaps I should have put the words who has followed Wikipedia policy in italics and bold, but I thought it might seem a bit sarcastic, and that it was sufficiently obvious without the emphasis. Whether someone who breaks policy, is begged to stop for a long time before finally being reported, and is uncovered in an act of duplicity is treated badly when he's reported and blocked may be a POV. But my post didn't comment on whether or not you, Belinda, and Freethinker (whether that's one person or two or three) had been treated badly. My post was saying that to the best of my knowledge, no innocent users had been treated badly by devout Christians. Could we move on now? This page is meant to be kept for discussing possible improvements to the article. AnnH ^(talk) 23:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you meant. No clarification was needed. Repeating yourself doesn't change my response, above. Ofcourse, you don’t feel that way. But that is your Pov. I would bet that every other poster who was not a devout believer (even those who you would be generous enough to term "innocent") would also feel they were not treated fairly. Case in point is Sophia, who you admit did nothing wrong, yet, she stated she felt ganged up on, bullied, and has now left in protest over what she feels has been an unfair attack against everyone who doesn’t conform to a Christian Pov. I know you don't agree, and I don't expect you to, but that does not change the validity of how the other side feels--"innocent" or not. Although I think it's interesting that you implicitly admit that those who are found to violate a rule are not treated well or fairly. Giovanni33 23:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't admit any such thing, implicitly or explicitly. For the record, I do not think that anyone who broke the rules was treated unfairly. But could you please let go and move on. You behaved badly. You knowingly broke rules. You tried to deceive other editors. You were given a great deal of tolerance with your massive 3RR violations, simply because we didn't want to bite newcomers. You were blocked. You're now unblocked. You need to work on regaining our trust, instead of behaving as if you are the victim. AnnH ^(talk) 23:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you didn't mean what you said (again). The question was clearly if any user was treated badly or unfairly. Your response, tellingly, was: I'm not aware of any user...who has followed Wikipedia policy and been badly treated by the "devout believers"."This logically implies that you are aware of users who have not followed policy that were treated badly or unfairly. Maybe its not what you intended to say (I don't think anyone would admit to that openly if they were the perpetrator), but it does slip which can be seen my using logical semantical analysis. As a linguist, I'm sure you can agree that what is implicitly said is there, even though you may not have meant to say that (I assume good faith). Back to the point, I don't think I have ever acted badly (except at the very beggining when I did violate the 3RR rule but never again after my first block for it), and since then I have followed policy. But, I do see myself as a victims of attacks motivated by Pov differences. And, so do others, who did not break any rules. Giovanni33 01:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I meant exactly what I said. I intended to make a statement about innocent users. I intended to say nothing about those guilty of wrongdoing, such as yourself, simply because I didn't want to get into a long discussion. However, since you seem to want further clarifications, I'll state that I think your blocks have been absolutely justified. You violated 3RR long past the "very beginning", but weren't reported for it. (Have you ever wondered why?) You were aware of the policy on meatpuppetry, as it was often discussed here, and as it's in WP:SOCK, which you were asked to read. You even suggested that I was a meatpuppet, while all the time the Belinda account was reverting to your version. And that doesn't even take into account the Freethinker story. Even if your account is true, it means that while you were blocked from editing, you were showing a friend how to edit Wikipedia, and he reverted (or partially reverted) three times to something you favoured. So I don't think you have been treated badly or unfairly, but I do think your behaviour has led to quite a lot of unpleasantness for you and for others. The three people who have opposed you the most have a long history of collaborating well with people with different POVs — people who follow the rules and behave with integrity. Now, could we move on, please? AnnH ^(talk) 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Another simple question: Do you really think that this rain shower of personal attacks is in any way helpful to the article?

Re your first question: I don't think we segregate according to ideology and I have no problem with atheists, agnostics or freethinkers (whether academic or not) constructively contributing to this article. There's no point in asking about "Secular" as they either don't exist (unless you are talking about a the kind of Catholic clergy that goes by that name) or all are secular. Str1977 11:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself secular, a secular humanist. I guess I don't exist. Most of academia, by its very nature adhering to the principals of the scientific method (even with social sciences such as history) is likewise secular in its presuppositions and its methodology (hence stories of miracles are not interpreted as true when more logical explainations in keeping with material explanations are readily available).Giovanni33 22:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

By secular academic, I'm pretty sure that he means objective and believing that religion should be taken objectively in describing it, so that they would write NPOV, not from a Christian POV. And they do exist, btw.

KV 18:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a defintion: sec·u·lar·ism ( sµk“y…-l…-r¹z”…m) n. 1. Religious skepticism or indifference. 2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.The definition that Star1977 accepts is another meaning, a minor one, not the main one. I think he knows that. :) Giovanni33 01:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Trollwatcher: Please define "freethinker". Also, are you implying that a person of faith cannot make objective edits? Additionally, regarding your labelling of "the clique", "cabal", "DEWCs" or "Troll Confederation of unusually devout believers", please review WP:CIV, WP:EQ and WP:NPA (regarding religious intolerance as well as your username). KHM03 19:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

KHM03, if you get any dictionary you will see "freethinker" is defined. When I open the American Heritage Dictionary I find this, :free·think·er ( fr¶“th¹ng“k…r) n. 1. One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. free “think“ing adj. n. About persons of faith and objectivity, I think the point that should be acknowleged is that (which I made before only to be called a bigot for doing so), all ideological schools of thought 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 (or authors who are adherents to the same belief system), would tend to emphasis some things and de-emphasis others aspects, even in scholarly work, in accordence with their interests, with is a reflection of their POV. Sometimes is subtle other times it's not. Good scholarly work minimizes this with a variety of techniques (footnotes, using the real and best arguments of the other side, etc). This is rarely done, and a poor substitute for looking at other authors of anohter Pov who can speak for themselves. This is why all the exclusively Christian sources you provided KHM03 did not even address the issue of non-Christian influences; 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 I think it not an attack on Christians. I have an POV and bias, and so do you. We should all realize that and work towards incorporating each others perspectives with NPOV language. Christians, just everyone else, do not become immune from the colorings of their own ideological lens. Objectivity is utopian. Giovanni33 22:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless I have missed something, I have not heard that all sources should be limited to Christian sources. There has been talk about have reputable sources or experts in a respective field. This is a legitimate goal. Yes, it can be abused and we all need to be aware of this. No side should be the sole judge of defining the legitimacy of a source. If you have one, propose it; if there is disagreement make the case strongly...once. Let's than cooperatively decide these issues. If necessary, we can vote on it. There is also a need that minority views are kept to a minority position in the article. They should be mentioned, but not repeated or to a degree that they outway or equal the majority opinion. Censoring here is unacceptable. Further, I have heard quite enough of private conversations on this page. If the conversation does not deal specifically with the article and how to make it better, please take the conversation to your personal discussion pages. On behalf of everyone, I collectively off apologies from everyone else. Let this be water under the bridge and let's assume good faith of everyone else. Lastly, if anyone is caught using a sock again, I would vote they be forever banned from WIKI. I find it a repugnant practice. I don't like accusations and don't want to hear more about it. If there is an issue take it up on their private page and let admin's deal with it. Enough said; let's move forward on making the article better. Storm Rider 00:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the motion put forward by StormRider, wit the proviso that given that I can prove BelindaGong and Freethinker are separate individuals, they should not be considered my socketpuppets. Its perfectly ok to invite others here who have the same POV. Despite the fact that Ann has told me this is not allowed, I note that AnnH herself joined Wikipedia in the same way: "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)"

[[14]] We should be welcoming of new users, even if they agree with a secular Pov, and even if, heaven forbid (no pun intended) they know me. Giovanni33 01:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, I joined Wikipedia after I saw something written by someone with whom I had no prior contact, and whose name I didn't even know. I have never met him outside of Wikipedia, and have had little interaction with him on Wikipedia, though I like what I've seen. I only discovered later, looking back, that it was he who had written that appeal. We have never really been involved with the same articles at the same time. I don't know how you can think that bears any resemblance to your wife (if she is your wife) arriving to revert to your version on every article where you met resistence, to vote for whatever you wanted, and to agree with you on the talk pages, while you both carried on a pretence of not knowing each other. Do you think Jimbo would think the two situations were similar. And please, that's a rhetorical question. I don't want an answer. You're just clogging up the talk page with your grievance. This is meant to be for discussing improvements to the article. If you want to jump to conclusions and make false accusations, do it on your own talk page (which I see you've already done), not here. Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 01:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

All that is besides the point. I think its ok to invite a friend with who shares a similar POV. You don't think that is correct, from what you said on my talk page. But, I note that is how you found this place. An invitation on a religious blog. Is it really worse if I personally invite someone I know is of good quality, an expert in many fields, compared to posting an open invitation to Atheist and Secular blogs and other sites? The particularities are not important, the general principal is. Its not wrong to invite someone of your own POV. It doen't interest me what connections you have with other users who share your POV as long as they are really different users. For good faith, I assume they are (even when you assume the exact pattern you noted between Belinda and myself). Also, I dont think making a pretense of knowing or not knowing someone personally is relevant in anyway. They each speak for themselves. I have not made false accusations, but you have. Belinda is not a sockepuppet, neither is Freethinker, and neither are any of the new users who have been likewise attacked. I suggest we stick to improving the article instead of all this sockepuppetry accusations. Let the userchecks speeak for themselves and lets have that kind of stuff done on other pages, not talk pages to articles I'm trying to improve (which is has happened by introducing these speculative based attacks on this page and other article pages where I've I'm working). Giovanni33 02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni, first you make a false accusation, in public, that I did something which I said was not allowed. Then, when I show that that is not the case, you say that it's beside the point. Of course, it's beside the point. This whole topic is off the point, and should never have been brought here in the first place. Reading about Wikipedia on a blog — and by the way, it wasn't a religious blog — coming here as a result, having an entirely separate editing pattern from the person who wrote on that blog, and discovering later that it was that person is not by the wildest stretch of the imagination meatpuppetry. Having your wife join, while pretending not to know her, and having her follow you around to revert to your version whenever you met with opposition is by definition meatpuppetry. For the record, in all the time I have been at Wikipedia, I have never ever reverted any page to Jdavidb's version.

I'm going to bed now. I'll be thrilled if I find tomorrow that someone has archived this page, including Giovanni's accusations. AnnH ^(talk) 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would but I have to say this much:

Gio, you are allowed to invite a friend to WP, regardless whether he shares your POV, but you are not allowed to use him to circumvent 3RR or a block. And you certainly not allowed to lie to your fellow Wikipedians about your connection to that friend. (Assuming that you two are indeed two different people). Str1977 11:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Its good to hear I can invite a friend here. I thought the idea that I couldn't, couldn't be right. I didn't use my friends account to revert or get around the block, only to edit on my own talk page. If he wants to rv or make changes, I think he is allowed, or should be allowed. Lastly, the the 3rd time, I did not lie about him. Infact my actions, and then words, suggest I was quite open about not even trying to hide his connection to me. Need we go over these points again? Giovanni33 12:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Lying about that connection for 23 minutes and answering only after you were found out is not what I would consider "quite open". Your invitees might edit as they wish, but who tells us that you weren't at his house then also, that you didn't point him to something (and given you share one POV the result was predictable wasn't it). FT also appeared claiming to have read through all the discussions (not mentioning your "help"), but for that "he" is to blam not "you". And that's all still assuming (against my own conviction) that you are not one and the same. Str1977 12:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you are spreading you lies against me by making the false accusations that I lied, even though you took this back on another article you spread it here, again. This shows bad faith, and that your using this to attack me. You make the lie here by spinning it in this manner. As you very well know my comment was a reference to a list of users asked of me by KH03, which did not include Freethinker. When I saw that Freethinker was later added, in a second line, I edited that to stated honesty that I did know Freethinker. The addition of freethinker in another edit was made by KH03 before I initially responded but I did not see it until after I composed my response to his initial list. I have already explained this before and for you to bring it up proves that you are also using this as bad faith attacks. Shouldn't this page should be about discussing edits to the article? Giovanni33 22:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)